# Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists



## teuchter (May 8, 2019)

About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood



> Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood aims to realise the great potential Brixton has for walking and cycling while improving air quality, reducing congestion, supporting local businesses and providing for the growth in jobs and homes planned for the area.
> 
> We successfully bid for funding from Transport for London (TfL) to deliver these aims. At the heart of our proposal is transforming Atlantic Road in the town centre, but the ambition goes well beyond this, with proposals to create ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’ in adjacent residential areas that link communities together and ‘healthy routes’ for walking and cycling. Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood is the cornerstone of Lambeth’s Draft Transport Strategy, which seeks to allow people to live healthier lives and create better places for everyone to enjoy.



In principle this is all good, and very welcome - I support the aims and hope it gets somewhere.

The first question raised for me, looking at the website, and thinking of making comments as requested, is: who am I talking to? 

"Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood" isn't an arm of, or proposal from, TfL or Lambeth; it seems to be an independent thing.

I'd like to understand who's behind it and a bit more about exactly how it interacts with TfL and Lambeth's policies. 

I'm not asking because I feel there's anything sinister, but because I think other people will want to know, and it's not entirely spelt out on the website.


----------



## Winot (May 8, 2019)

Looks like it's actually Lambeth Council. Slightly odd that they have not made that clear on the website - perhaps they feel their brand is sullied?

Love Lambeth


----------



## Winot (May 8, 2019)

Also, a bit embarrassing that they have labelled Hill Mead Primary School on the pdf map as "Mill Head".


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2019)

I've heard its TFL idea. With Brixton being chosen as one of the "liveable neighbourhoods".

Its top down idea.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2019)

Liveable Neighbourhoods


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2019)

List here of the different schemes across London,

New projects to receive £50 million to create healthy streets across London


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2019)

I agree who is the "we" in the project website? Very odd this isn't made clear.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I agree who is the "we" in the project website? Very odd this isn't made clear.


It does seem that the "we" is Lambeth. 
This is sort of  buried in the pdf project summary linked to from the website. 


> Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood aims to realise the great potential Brixton has for walking and
> cycling, making a significant contribution to the Mayor’s ambitious objectives for sustainable, healthy
> streets, which the council shares. It aims to tackle the town centre’s air quality and traffic congestion
> issues and support the growth in jobs and homes planned for the area. The transformation of Atlantic
> ...



One of the reasons is wierd to have the whole thing totally debranded is that it asks for details if you want to comment. But you really are given no idea who you are giving those details to.


----------



## snowy_again (May 9, 2019)

Southwark seems to be the same:

Dulwich Traffic Study

From Our Healthy Streets: Dulwich


----------



## thebackrow (May 9, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I've heard its TFL idea. With Brixton being chosen as one of the "liveable neighbourhoods".
> 
> Its top down idea.



That's a particularly negative interpretation of it.  Much of Lambeth Council's budget for transport and streets comes from TfL.  Lambeth need to bid for the funding with proposals that meet the mayors Strategy Objectives. 

Lambeth has its own Transport Strategy - Have your say on Lambeth's Draft Transport Strategy | Lambeth Council and measures to improve conditions for walking and cycling  and public transport above the minority in private motor vehicles seems to be the heart of it.  It doesn't really matter what 'brand' it has if it makes things better does it?

"I agree who is the "we" in the project website? Very odd this isn't made clear."
Its a scheme on public streets in Lambeth, I think it's fairly safe to assume that its Lambeth Council. It literally can't be anyone else.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> "I agree who is the "we" in the project website? Very odd this isn't made clear."
> Its a scheme on public streets in Lambeth, I think it's fairly safe to assume that its Lambeth Council. It literally can't be anyone else.



It's now become quite common for things to be initiated by community groups, etc, even if the actual implementation is done by the council. Or there are blurry lines between who is actually organising stuff. Locally there was the Loughborough Junction Masterplan, described at various points as being 'co-produced' by the council and a local action group. There was also the whole Brixton Green thing. There is the LJ works project where the application for funding was put in, as I half-understand it, with 'support from' Lambeth rather than 'by' Lambeth.


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2019)

We've discussed this, and pedestrianising CHL, many times on here.  No-one has yet come up with a sensible plan that doesn't simply shift the traffic to increase pressure somewhere else. 

Just doing AR will most likely mean traffic trying to get to/from Brixton Road using CHL and the main drag.  That will add 6,000 to the 25,000 vehicles per day already using that stretch. They'll probably go round St Matthews, with more slow moving, stop-start pollution, so some drivers may choose Gresham Rd or Loughborough Rd, which are residential.

That said, it will gentrify the market a bit, and a planner will win an award.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

newbie said:


> View attachment 170341
> We've discussed this, and pedestrianising CHL, many times on here.  No-one has yet come up with a sensible plan that doesn't simply shift the traffic to increase pressure somewhere else.
> 
> Just doing AR will most likely mean traffic trying to get to/from Brixton Road using CHL and the main drag.  That will add 6,000 to the 25,000 vehicles per day already using that stretch. They'll probably go round St Matthews, with more slow moving, stop-start pollution, so some drivers may choose Gresham Rd or Loughborough Rd, which are residential.
> ...



These are just the usual old arguments. By this logic we can't try and reduce traffic elsewhere. To reduce traffic in london you have to make it less convenient to drive. If closing AR makes certain journeys less convenient then fewer people will drive. Traffic does not simply get displaced on a 1:1 basis. This is well studied, basic stuff.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

Basically the argument says, congested road traffic causes pollution. Therefore we need to relieve the congestion at the expense of pedestrians, instead of getting rid of the the things that cause the congestion and pollution. It's bonkers.


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2019)

teuchter said:


> These are just the usual old arguments. By this logic we can't try and reduce traffic elsewhere. To reduce traffic in london you have to make it less convenient to drive.


Sure, if the schemes are sensible.  But to make a difference on the sort of scale required needs a bit more than piecemeal.  Rationing, say, or odd/even number plate days, or no entry to London from the M25 before 10am.  



> If closing AR makes certain journeys less convenient then fewer people will drive. Traffic does not simply get displaced on a 1:1 basis. This is well studied, basic stuff.


Adding a few seconds or tiny number of minutes to a journey isn't going to make much odds.  How many do you think were deterred from driving because the section outside Herne Hill station was pedestrianised?  

Anyway, far more pedestrians will be affected by extra traffic past the main bus stops and tube than use Atlantic Road, so in its own terms this has never been well thought out- which was the point I made.


----------



## thebackrow (May 9, 2019)

Isn’t that the point?  This isnt just a piecemeal scheme - it isnt “just” closing Atlantic Road.  In theory it covers pretty much everywhere within a 10 minute or so walk from central Brixton. 

Enough private car trips within London are less than a couple of miles long that adding a few minutes might be enough that someone thinks it’s no longer worth it and decides to walk instead.  A lot more people might be able to get to the bus stops and tube through streets that are truly quiet where the air quality is better than now.

You mention Herne Hill - at the time everyone said that was going to be a disaster but I dont think anyone is fighting to return it to through traffic.  It’s a much better environment around the station now.


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Isn’t that the point?  This isnt just a piecemeal scheme - it isnt “just” closing Atlantic Road.  In theory it covers pretty much everywhere within a 10 minute or so walk from central Brixton.



what theory?  That's not what the proposal says, it's specific to AR.

But if I've misread and the proposal is to close all of central Brixton to traffic then please tell me more, I'm all ears.



> You mention Herne Hill - at the time everyone said that was going to be a disaster but I dont think anyone is fighting to return it to through traffic.  It’s a much better environment around the station now.


Is there any evidence that it reduced traffic rather than displaced it?


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

http://www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2019)

teuchter said:


> http://www.onestreet.org/images/stories/Disappearing_traffic.pdf




It's the detail I'm asking about.


This proposal has been discussed for years: where are the facts to support it?


Indeed.


The potential side-effects of this specific proposal are what I'm trying to discuss, not the general case you seem to keep returning to.


----------



## thebackrow (May 9, 2019)

newbie said:


> Is there any evidence that it reduced traffic rather than displaced it?



Without having access to any specific data i’d say the lack of a campaign to reopen it means the overall impact is felt positive at Herne Hill.  It certainly feels it to me and the other roads dont feel noticeably worse. 

Assuming Atlantic Road is to close what other measures do you think are needed to minimise the impacts on other roads? Add them to the consultation? Atlantic Road is a shit for all users at the moment - it’s horrid to walk down, dangerous on a bike, and frustrating in a car (and buses get held up).  Do you really think the status quo is the best for Brixton?


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

newbie said:


> View attachment 170369
> It's the detail I'm asking about.
> 
> View attachment 170370
> ...



That's fair enough, of course the details are important and the Loughborough Junction road closures were an example of a scheme which failed not because the basic idea was bad but because of the way it was implemented.

I am yet to read up on the proposals for this scheme so can't answer the specific questions right now; however, I post the facts backing up the general point that the effects of displacement are usually over-egged because I know that this is very commonly an initial objection. Anyone coming to this thread, who has worries about the effects of displaced traffic, can read that general commentary alongside looking at the particulars of this scheme. People are of course free to put their worries about negative effects into the comments on the map, and I'd hope that the people designing the scheme will make the effort to counter those properly, and/or adjust the proposals to take any valid concerns into account.


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Do you really think the status quo is the best for Brixton?



Simply saying that improving that poor environment for that group of users without considering the noise, air quality and dangers along the main road isn't sufficient to make the case.

Personally I prefer evidence based proposals to generic wishful thinking, so I'd like to see some sort of environmental impact study to understand what's actually at stake, and who will be the winners and who the losers.  I'd like to see results of a traffic survey showing where the claimed 6,000 vehicles a day come from and go to.  Then I'd like to see all the affected junction layouts and so on.  Without that sort of information I don't see how anyone can decide if they're in favour or not.

 For instance, I'm sure a few people live on AR, but not many, and nothing like as many as on the high street. Not as many use it either.  So cleaning up for them while increasing the impact on the people living on Brixton Road (E2A and CHL) needs to be justified.  For years TfL and the boroughs have been pushing traffic onto main roads, but now the mother of a little girl who died from asthma is making waves and it's becoming apparent that there are losers from this policy.


----------



## Rushy (May 9, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Without having access to any specific data i’d say the lack of a campaign to reopen it means the overall impact is felt positive at Herne Hill.  It certainly feels it to me and the other roads dont feel noticeably worse.



I've only heard positive comments. It is a lovely space and will be better once the shops reopen. The original road is still open to goods vehicles right up to the junction with Dulwich Road (no mention of for loading or access). I wonder what effect it had on Rymer Street, which will have gained the displaced traffic.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

newbie said:


> now the mother of a little girl who died from asthma is making waves and it's becoming apparent that there are losers from this policy.



This is just backwards thinking again though. You are saying that excluding motor traffic from residential streets not designed for through traffic is resulting in children dying from asthma. I say the excessive traffic in London is resulting in children dying from asthma. The solution is not to spread the pollution back into the residential streets - it's to get rid of the polluting vehicles, and you do that with an overall transport strategy that encourages people to walk, cycle and use PT instead of cars. In order to do that, you have to make space. Liveable neighbourhoods is part of an overall TfL policy of encouraging more walking and cycling, a policy that attempts to reduce the pollution that is causing children to die from asthma.


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2019)

teuchter said:


> This is just backwards thinking again though. You are saying that excluding motor traffic from residential streets not designed for through traffic is resulting in children dying from asthma. I say the excessive traffic in London is resulting in children dying from asthma. The solution is not to spread the pollution back into the residential streets - it's to get rid of the polluting vehicles, and you do that with an overall transport strategy that encourages people to walk, cycle and use PT instead of cars. In order to do that, you have to make space. Liveable neighbourhoods is part of an overall TfL policy of encouraging more walking and cycling, a policy that attempts to reduce the pollution that is causing children to die from asthma.


Again, you're generalising the specific.  I tried to illustrate that shifting the impact away from people actually living on Atlantic Rd onto those living on Brixton Road potentially had consequences, not to argue that every residential street should be filled with cars.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 9, 2019)

This is something which I know quite a lot about having put together the bid for a successful Liveable Neighbourhood proposal recently (not the Brixton one).  I know all about the modelling of traffic impacts as well.  Life (and human behaviour) is too complicated for it to be an exact science.


----------



## newbie (May 9, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> This is something which I know quite a lot about having put together the bid for a successful Liveable Neighbourhood proposal recently (not the Brixton one).  I know all about the modelling of traffic impacts as well.  Life (and human behaviour) is too complicated for it to be an exact science.


Presumably your bid somehow bridged the gulf between exact science and general commentary with data, impact assessment and detailed proposals?  Was it successful?


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> That's a particularly negative interpretation of it.  Much of Lambeth Council's budget for transport and streets comes from TfL.  Lambeth need to bid for the funding with proposals that meet the mayors Strategy Objectives.
> 
> Lambeth has its own Transport Strategy - Have your say on Lambeth's Draft Transport Strategy | Lambeth Council and measures to improve conditions for walking and cycling  and public transport above the minority in private motor vehicles seems to be the heart of it.  It doesn't really matter what 'brand' it has if it makes things better does it?
> 
> ...



I was simply stating what I understand are the facts.

In the end TFL decided who was to get the money. No locals were consulted if they wanted this as far as I know. 

Why do you say that's a negative interpretation? When Im just stating what in the best of my knowledge is correct.

And its not safe to assume the website is Lambeth Councils. If it has been set up by Lambeth Council it should be clearly stated who set it up. I'm actually s bit wary of the website.


----------



## Gramsci (May 9, 2019)

newbie said:


> For instance, I'm sure a few people live on AR, but not many, and nothing like as many as on the high street. Not as many use it either.  So cleaning up for them while increasing the impact on the people living on Brixton Road (E2A and CHL) needs to be justified.  For years TfL and the boroughs have been pushing traffic onto main roads, but now the mother of a little girl who died from asthma is making waves and it's becoming apparent that there are losers from this policy.



I agree. Making one small area "livable" whilst displacing traffic to other roads doesn't solve the problem. 

If Sadiq and TFL really wanted to do something about air quality they could have made the ULEZ London wide.


----------



## Winot (May 10, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> If Sadiq and TFL really wanted to do something about air quality they could have made the ULEZ London wide.



The plan is to extend the ULEZ zone to the North and South Circulars by October 2021. I imagine they did the congestion zone first because that’s already set up with the ANPR technology.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 10, 2019)

newbie said:


> Presumably your bid somehow bridged the gulf between exact science and general commentary with data, impact assessment and detailed proposals?  Was it successful?



It was successful without containing any impact assessment or traffic modelling. The first phase of the project has been all about consultation and engagement and at the same time to do traffic modelling on different potential scenarios. There is a tension between being open to taking on board the views of residents to form/modify a proposal and the need to devise a proposal detailed enough do modelling on.  The whole thing is also highly political as you can imagine.

Modelling also takes a L----o----n----g time.


----------



## newbie (May 10, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I agree. Making one small area "livable" whilst displacing traffic to other roads doesn't solve the problem.
> 
> If Sadiq and TFL really wanted to do something about air quality they could have made the ULEZ London wide.


Yes, and reaching much further out than the South Circular. IMO all those ancient diesels (in particular) really do need to be cleared off the roads, which will impact poorer Londoners disproportionately, so some form of trade in/buy back scheme is necessary.  However, while that might improve air quality a little, the noise, congestion and danger will remain because most of the commuters can afford modern vehicles.  It's no more than a sticking plaster.


----------



## newbie (May 10, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> It was successful without containing any impact assessment or traffic modelling. The first phase of the project has been all about consultation and engagement and at the same time to do traffic modelling on different potential scenarios. There is a tension between being open to taking on board the views of residents to form/modify a proposal and the need to devise a proposal detailed enough do modelling on.  The whole thing is also highly political as you can imagine.
> 
> Modelling also takes a L----o----n----g time.



Successful in the sense that a fairly busy road has been closed with the traffic re-routed elsewhere?  

I can certainly see the tensions and politics you mention, and the timescales.  Perhaps they're why the wishy washy proposal under discussion has been left so vague?


----------



## alex_ (May 10, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> If Sadiq and TFL really wanted to do something about air quality they could have made the ULEZ London wide.



I’m sure this is the plan, but the further this goes from central London the bigger the impact upon people who have to scrap their older cars which disproportionately impacts the less well off. The longer they make this take the lower the impact, as compliant cars will be cheaper and more people will have compliant cars already.

Alex


----------



## thebackrow (May 10, 2019)

newbie said:


> However, while that might improve air quality a little, the noise, congestion and danger will remain because most of the commuters can afford modern vehicles.  It's no more than a sticking plaster.



Yes, agree with that.  It *will* improve air quality by taking the worst vehicles off the road but to address noise congestion and danger need to move people out of cars for more of their trips.  Subsidising people to buy a new car isn't going to help. 

TfL have lots of evidence on travel.  http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-11.pdf 
P45 onwards is the relevant bit on 'potentially switchable trips' and it seems to show that it's not commuters who are the main problem.  25% of rush hour traffic in London is school run - in Netherlands next to none of that would be driven. 

"The analysis uses criteria, based on knowledge of trips currently made by sustainable modes, to determine whether trips recorded in LTDS could feasibly be made by a more sustainable alternative. These include: • Distance – is the trip too far to be walked or cycled? • Encumbrance – is the person travelling with heavy or bulky items or with children or elderly people? • Journey time - how does the alternative mode journey time compare to the current journey time? • Related journeys - is the person making any other journeys (as part of a ‘tour’) that couldn’t be switched?"
"27 per cent of switchable private vehicle trips per day are leisure trips, 27 per cent are for shopping or personal business reasons, and about one-sixth are related to work (either commuting or other work-related travel)."
"Some 71 per cent of private vehicle trips could feasibly be made by an alternative mode"


----------



## newbie (May 10, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Subsidising people to buy a new car isn't going to help.


Sure, but forcing the poorer drivers off the road, leaving it clear for the better off isn't acceptable.  Whatever measures are introduced- and I'm in favour of getting serious about this- can't be done by purely pricing the poor off the roads.  That's what the Congestion Charge does: most of my mates avoid the zone while one or two just shrug and pay it because they can.   





> 25% of rush hour traffic in London is school run - in Netherlands next to none of that would be driven.



That's a very comprehensive report- far too much to take in at once. It does focus on trips, so a 1 mile school run has the same weight as a commute from outside the M25 to Zone 1: in terms of congestion that's perfectly reasonable, less so for pollution and so on. 

Moving from the specifics of Atlantic Road to London wide problems, how do school runners get persuaded out of their vehicles?  Many are rich enough to buy huge engine 4wd's specifically for the wider wheels which go over little humps more comfortably, they're not going to be deterred by road pricing or much else. Nor, apparently, by nudges that their little darlings are even more obese because they never walk anywhere.  They ignore the signs and yellow lines when they double park outside schools and sit there with their engines running while they wait, seemingly oblivious to exhaust fumes in kids faces.  Find a solution for that knotty problem and you'll make a real difference.


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2019)

newbie said:


> Sure, but forcing the poorer drivers off the road, leaving it clear for the better off isn't acceptable.  Whatever measures are introduced- and I'm in favour of getting serious about this- can't be done by purely pricing the poor off the roads.  That's what the Congestion Charge does: most of my mates avoid the zone while one or two just shrug and pay it because they can.



If you care about poor people you will support anything which reduces the number of cars on city roads. Fewer than half the households in Lambeth have a car and yet they are forced to put up with the almost total domination of public space and transport policy by the car-owning minority, who are joined by outsiders who simply drive through the area polluting, killing and ruining the amenity value of our local streets.

Poor people also are disproportionately likely to live on busy roads that get the worst pollution and to have their children killed or maimed by cars.

There's a small middle group who can just afford a car who will suffer but they overwhelmingly aren't "poor" in any meaningful sense. The obvious and fair solution is to make non-car ownership the default and to structure public space policy around that. Cars take ridiculous amounts of space and are ecologically indefensible.

Also your "displacement of traffic" is just plain wrong, it's been disproved time after time. It belongs in the bin with all the other supporting myths of Predict and Provide. It's never worked. Generally speaking, people will drive if it's quicker, cheaper, more convenient - or all three as it so often is nowadays. So every time you reduce those benefits, a few less journeys are made. 



newbie said:


> Moving from the specifics of Atlantic Road to London wide problems, how do school runners get persuaded out of their vehicles?  Many are rich enough to buy huge engine 4wd's specifically for the wider wheels which go over little humps more comfortably, they're not going to be deterred by road pricing or much else. Nor, apparently, by nudges that their little darlings are even more obese because they never walk anywhere.  They ignore the signs and yellow lines when they double park outside schools and sit there with their engines running while they wait, seemingly oblivious to exhaust fumes in kids faces.  Find a solution for that knotty problem and you'll make a real difference.



You make the whole of Lambeth subject to filtered permeability - let pedestrians and cyclists get anywhere they need without having to use main trunk roads but make back streets dead ends for cars. They can be used for access and parking only. People tend to drive better (ie less anti-socially) in their own streets so this also tends to improve that.

It's only when it's genuinely safe for people to cycle their children to school - or even let them go on their own - that people will do it. Faffing around with a few metres of cycle lane here or there is a distraction. Huge numbers of Lambeth children say they want to be able to cycle to school - back in 2010 I remember seeing some school travel plan where over 30% of local children said their preferred method of travel to school was bike, but only about 2% did. Why? Because parents thought it was too dangerous - and of course they're right. Meanwhile we waste billions in the NHS on tackling obesity and spend a fortune "trying to get children to take exercise" when the reality is we're banning it.


----------



## thebackrow (May 10, 2019)

newbie said:


> It does focus on trips, so a 1 mile school run has the same weight as a commute from outside the M25 to Zone 1: in terms of congestion that's perfectly reasonable, less so for pollution and so on."



It does focus on trips but 70% of London trips are sub 5miles and the factors considered in terms of 'is it necessary' are the same for both long and short.  Few people are arguing for a complete ban on cars - there are trips where they are the best answer but it's a lot fewer than now




newbie said:


> Sure, but forcing the poorer drivers off the road, leaving it clear for the better off isn't acceptable.  Whatever measures are introduced- and I'm in favour of getting serious about this- can't be done by purely pricing the poor off the roads.  That's what the Congestion Charge does: most of my mates avoid the zone while one or two just shrug and pay it because they can.


So what do you suggest?  There aren't many levers to pull.  I figure you need to make something other than driving the best choice - the quickest, cheapest, easiest, most fun. Cycling is already usually the quickest way to get around for pretty much any trip inside zone 2 and 3 (sometimes public transport) but it doesn't feel safe or comfortable. So, better conditions for cycling.  Secure parking in more places (bike theft is a problem).
Driving needs to be made more expensive and difficult. We need to make the cost of a single extra car journey real (it isnt at the moment - car is paid for, tank is full - it feels "free" compared to getting your card out to pay for a bus or tube ride).  So per mile charge for driving - a modern congestion charge.  Then stop the rat runs through back streets - make it so it's only worth getting in a car for a longer journey. Cut back on parking spaces and make it more expensive.

The rich will always find a way around charges for sure - a full time taxi if it comes to it. The answers not pricing the poor off the roads, it's making it so that they dont need or want to drive (and anyway, a car by any measure is a luxury in London. Almost no-one *needs* one and the true poor definitely dont own them - there's a very strong correlation between income and car ownership.


----------



## thebackrow (May 10, 2019)

newbie said:


> how do school runners get persuaded out of their vehicles?  Many are rich enough to buy huge engine 4wd's specifically for the wider wheels which go over little humps more comfortably......  Find a solution for that knotty problem and you'll make a real difference.



School streets.  Close the street outside the school to motor traffic at drop off and pick up. Ban all parking in the vicinity and enforce it.  Make it so the little darlings have to walk far enough that it's not worth getting the car out for it.  Even most driven school commutes are short.  It seems to be working pretty well where it has been done so far.


----------



## newbie (May 10, 2019)

co-op said:


> If you care about poor people you will support anything which reduces the number of cars on city roads. Fewer than half the households in Lambeth have a car and yet they are forced to put up with the almost total domination of public space and transport policy by the car-owning minority, who are joined by outsiders who simply drive through the area polluting, killing and ruining the amenity value of our local streets.
> 
> Poor people also are disproportionately likely to live on busy roads that get the worst pollution and to have their children killed or maimed by cars.
> 
> There's a small middle group who can just afford a car who will suffer but they overwhelmingly aren't "poor" in any meaningful sense. The obvious and fair solution is to make non-car ownership the default and to structure public space policy around that. Cars take ridiculous amounts of space and are ecologically indefensible.


I said 'poorer' not 'poor'.  I accept what you say, but while everyone benefits from improved air quality the only people the ULEZ would actually deter from driving are those that can't afford a newer vehicle or the daily charge.  There are no serious downsides for those without a vehicle, or those with a newer one.  I don't like to see one relatively poorer economic group targetted like that.



> Also your "displacement of traffic" is just plain wrong, it's been disproved time after time. It belongs in the bin with all the other supporting myths of Predict and Provide. It's never worked. Generally speaking, people will drive if it's quicker, cheaper, more convenient - or all three as it so often is nowadays. So every time you reduce those benefits, a few less journeys are made.



This is a single, piecemeal, rather vague proposal in isolation.  Tell me where the claimed 6,000 daily journeys along Atlantic Road per day are actually going to go.  Are you really saying they will all just vanish without trace?  



> You make the whole of Lambeth subject to filtered permeability - let pedestrians and cyclists get anywhere they need without having to use main trunk roads but make back streets dead ends for cars. They can be used for access and parking only. People tend to drive better (ie less anti-socially) in their own streets so this also tends to improve that.


Again, this is general rather than specific, but go for it, I'm in favour of that, subject to impact statements on those who live and work on the main routes.  Massive reductions in vehicle movements and emissions are required, and while nudging or forcing people into electric vehicles may improve air quality it won't necessarily impact road safety or, as you say, get kids walking or cycling to school. I think I'd like to see the Mini Holland experiments on a bigger scale and with greater ambition.  Let's have a Lambeth wide proposal for a properly thought through scheme to massively reduce vehicle movements.

As I keep trying to say, my concern remains that closing just that stretch of Atlantic Road will have a negative overall health and wellbeing effect.  No-one has yet addressed that.


----------



## newbie (May 10, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> School streets.  Close the street outside the school to motor traffic at drop off and pick up. Ban all parking in the vicinity and enforce it.  Make it so the little darlings have to walk far enough that it's not worth getting the car out for it.  Even most driven school commutes are short.  It seems to be working pretty well where it has been done so far.


I'm being drawn into a debate about the general case, somewhat against my will.

If you want to propose banning all parking in the vicinity of every primary school then go for it. I'll vote for it, but I don't live near to one. I doubt the people who do will be impressed.

Can I just point out that it's all very well proposing to '_stop the rat runs through back streets_' but Jubilee primary school, amongst others, is on a main road and they'll breathe in the displacement.


----------



## newbie (May 10, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> So what do you suggest?  There aren't many levers to pull.



I already did, admittedly without much in the way of supporting evidence or detailed planning. 


newbie said:


> Rationing, say, or odd/even number plate days, or no entry to London from the M25 before 10am.



Technology backed road rationing is probably the outcome would have the greatest effect, subject to effort from the likes of TfL to flesh it out.  x number of hours per year per person of private vehicle usage, including taxi, anywhere within the M25, factored according to the number of people in the vehicle. Disabled & age exemptions, or greater limits, apply; hours can be traded, like carbon; sharply escalating fines by the hour for those who exceed their limit.  Sadly it implies an even greater surveillance society than Oyster, which probably isn't such a great idea, so it's about as likely as banning all traffic near schools.


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2019)

newbie said:


> I said 'poorer' not 'poor'.  I accept what you say, but while everyone benefits from improved air quality the only people the ULEZ would actually deter from driving are those that can't afford a newer vehicle or the daily charge.  There are no serious downsides for those without a vehicle, or those with a newer one.  I don't like to see one relatively poorer economic group targetted like that.



TBH I think this is splitting hairs. Everyone is "poorer" than someone so what does this mean? Broadly speaking cars are for rich people, and they are a huge series of imposed burdens on poor people (and many others too of course). My point is that if we bring income or social status
into this, then anyone interested in social justice has to come down against cars. 



newbie said:


> This is a single, piecemeal, rather vague proposal in isolation. * Tell me where the claimed 6,000 daily journeys along Atlantic Road per day are actually going to go.  Are you really saying they will all just vanish without trace? *



No because as you say piecemeal measures that affect one part of a journey can be bypassed but equally, the more constriction that is placed on car journeys the fewer there are. But in a highly complex urban environment shot through with rat runs it's pretty hard to measure the effect.

But the idea that all journeys are simply displaced is wrong. It's a legacy of Predict and Provide which said that if you work out what journeys are 'necessary' and then provide that road space then you've solved the capacity problem. Except that as soon as you increase capacity, you also increase the numbers of cars as drivers take advantage of the quicker journey-times. Broadly the reverse is also true; cut capacity and you cut journey numbers. People drive to a rough estimate of the journey time - the worse that is, the less they'll drive. 





newbie said:


> Again, this is general rather than specific, but go for it, I'm in favour of that, subject to impact statements on those who live and work on the main routes.  Massive reductions in vehicle movements and emissions are required, and while nudging or forcing people into electric vehicles may improve air quality it won't necessarily impact road safety or, as you say, get kids walking or cycling to school. I think I'd like to see the Mini Holland experiments on a bigger scale and with greater ambition.  Let's have a Lambeth wide proposal for a properly thought through scheme to massively reduce vehicle movements.



Basically agree with this - although it's highly specific not general. Filtered permeability means you choose the network of trunk roads through the city which will be for car journeys and all other roads are localised by making them closed to through traffic. That way cars can still be used but healthier, cheaper, less anti-social, environmentally better modes of transport can also be used by the majority who want to do this. It should be London wide, not Lambeth wide.





newbie said:


> As I keep trying to say, my concern remains that closing just that stretch of Atlantic Road will have a negative overall health and wellbeing effect.  No-one has yet addressed that.



As you said, it's piecemeal and therefore not going to make the big change that we need. And this is the way with transport in cities, everyone is cowering in front of King Car and so everything is done in little cowardly creeping changes instead of grasping the nettle and actually sorting this problem out. It can be done - it's the case all over the Netherlands.

But I completely disagree that it'll have a negative well-being effect, it'll make AR vastly nicer while making everywhere else more-or-less the same. And AR is a pretty key road for the centre of Brixton. 

It's also one miserable, trembling little step in the right direction.


----------



## newbie (May 10, 2019)

co-op said:


> It's also one miserable, trembling little step in the right direction.


Fine. I've run out of steam.  When this proposal turns to something substantial we can look at whether it'll add 25% extra traffic to the main drag.


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2019)

co-op said:


> If you care about poor people you will support anything which reduces the number of cars on city roads. Fewer than half the households in Lambeth have a car and yet they are forced to put up with the almost total domination of public space and transport policy by the car-owning minority, who are joined by outsiders who simply drive through the area polluting, killing and ruining the amenity value of our local streets.
> 
> Poor people also are disproportionately likely to live on busy roads that get the worst pollution and to have their children killed or maimed by cars.
> 
> ...



So can you explain to me why in my area Loughborough Junction poor people overwhelmingly resented and opposed a similar scheme to that being proposed in Brixton?

I sat at meetings where residents from the Council estate were shouting at Cllrs over the imposition of road closures. People I knew on estate , who can't afford a car, also opposed it.

If you care about poor people would you still impose a scheme like this this even its opposed by the people you say you care about?


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2019)

newbie said:


> Sure, but forcing the poorer drivers off the road, leaving it clear for the better off isn't acceptable.  Whatever measures are introduced- and I'm in favour of getting serious about this- can't be done by purely pricing the poor off the roads.  That's what the Congestion Charge does: most of my mates avoid the zone while one or two just shrug and pay it because they can.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I regularly see this in Chelsea. Where the rich pick up Tarquin from his private school.

As some posters here have widened this to London wide issue how about concentrating on wealthy areas first.

And whilst we are at it banning the rich scum who now infest London from owning high end SUVs.

Its one reason why it was resented in Loughborough Junction. That changes in transport use were being tested on them a poor community. Rather than well off areas.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> So can you explain to me why in my area Loughborough Junction poor people overwhelmingly resented and opposed a similar scheme to that being proposed in Brixton?
> 
> I sat at meetings where residents from the Council estate were shouting at Cllrs over the imposition of road closures. People I knew on estate , who can't afford a car, also opposed it.
> 
> If you care about poor people would you still impose a scheme like this this even its opposed by the people you say you care about?



Sometimes its difficult for people to imagine positive change.  The opening of the Mini Holland in Walthamstow was greeted by opposition including the parading of a coffin representing the death of the street.  Three years later its not even controversial.

Google Image Result for https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/resources/images/4220193/


----------



## Mr Retro (May 11, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> Sometimes its difficult for people to imagine positive change.  The opening of the Mini Holland in Walthamstow was greeted by opposition including the parading of a coffin representing the death of the street.  Three years later its not even controversial.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/resources/images/4220193/


Mini Holland here is great, really support it. Anecdotally I don’t notice less cars and more cyclists. Just horrific traffic on the main roads.


----------



## newbie (May 11, 2019)

Mr Retro said:


> Mini Holland here is great, really support it. Anecdotally I don’t notice less cars and more cyclists. Just horrific traffic on the main roads.


All sorts of effort goes into making the case for planning changes, with glossy brochures, carefully chosen stats and defined ambitions.  Maybe it's just that they're not so well publicised, but there seldom seems to be a subsequent assessment of outcomes judged against objectives.  

For instance, the Herne Hill project mentioned earlier led to this FoI request to determine if it "_delivered on the aims of the regeneration project_".  The reply was that Lambeth don't have that information.


----------



## co-op (May 11, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> So can you explain to me why in my area Loughborough Junction poor people overwhelmingly resented and opposed a similar scheme to that being proposed in Brixton?
> 
> I sat at meetings where residents from the Council estate were shouting at Cllrs over the imposition of road closures. People I knew on estate , who can't afford a car, also opposed it.
> 
> If you care about poor people would you still impose a scheme like this this even its opposed by the people you say you care about?



I'm a bit rolleyes about this kind of post.

Of course I couldn't explain it without knowing what road closures were being proposed. There's a hundred reasons why people oppose a particular scheme, some of them good, some stupid. It's obvious that being poor doesn't automatically make you au fait with every bit of data about how cars fuck most poor people up and some poor people wouldn't give a shit even if they knew, just like some middle-income people, some rich people etc etc. Top down, imposed schemes routinely trigger massive opposition from a multitude of groups for a multitude of reasons - anyone who's been involved with traffic schemes knows that most "consultations" are thoroughly bogus, I have taken part in some from Lambeth which are literally full of obvious lies. People aren't stupid about this. I've opposed "bicycle schemes" and "eco transport projects" because they've been designed by traffic engineers who clearly haven't got a fucking clue what it is like to live in my area and to cycle or walk there. Remember those fucking "niblets" on Milkwood Rd that forced cyclists out into the traffic flow to slow cars down? Effectively using cyclists as speed bumps. I do. I also had several rucks with cars who tried to kill me when I was going round them. Utterly predictable; they were dangerous, stupid, anti-bicycle and also annoying for drivers.  

It's also often the case that tiny piecemeal schemes cause a lot of aggro for little benefit. Will these road closures actually allow anyone to send their child to school safely on a bike? Almost certainly not. Hence the need for systemic change.

My point was that pleading "concern for the poor" in urban transport policy as a basis for supporting cars and car-use is just utterly wrong and ridiculous. Car-based transport policies favour the rich. Please don't try and put any other words in my mouth.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> Sometimes its difficult for people to imagine positive change.  The opening of the Mini Holland in Walthamstow was greeted by opposition including the parading of a coffin representing the death of the street.  Three years later its not even controversial.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/resources/images/4220193/



Somebody who came to recent LJ Neighborhood planning forum went up to Walthamstow recently and talked to small business. Some said it had an adverse affect.

In schemes like this there will be winners and losers.

As newbie points out follow up impact assessments arent always done.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 11, 2019)

There has been a follow up study.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417314866

'Mini-Holland' schemes have proved their worth in outer London boroughs | Peter Walker


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2019)

co-op said:


> I'm a bit rolleyes about this kind of post.
> 
> My point was that pleading "concern for the poor" in urban transport policy as a basis for supporting cars and car-use is just utterly wrong and ridiculous. Car-based transport policies favour the rich. Please don't try and put any other words in my mouth.



What I asked was this:


If you care about poor people would you still impose a scheme like this this even its opposed by the people you say you care about?

What I was taking issue with was when you said:



> If you care about poor people you will support anything which reduces the number of cars on city roads.



You've qualified this by saying if you don't agree with the traffic planners ideas for a particular for a street you would oppose them.

And if I get you right are saying piecemeal changes won't work. A systemic wide change of road use is required. Stopping traffic using side streets. Making them keep to main roads.

My question was would you impose these changes on an poor area (such as north side of LJ) even it that area opposed it. I think the answer is yes.

As its for the greater good and all studies show the benefits of it.

Imposing things top down on citizens as the authorities decide its good for them is one way to do things. It also works. It reminds me of XR rebellion. They (at least the main theoreticians behind it) seek top down state of emergency to deal with climate change. Using civil disobedience to bring government to a standstill to be replaced by state of emergency with elected politicians largely replaced by unelected people's assembly. Its feasible. But its not democracy.

In the case of Lambeth this administration says its a Coop Council. That it wants to involve the community more. Co-production is one of its buzzwords.

If this is to be ditched in favour of top down change the Council should say so.


----------



## newbie (May 11, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> There has been a follow up study.
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417314866
> 
> 'Mini-Holland' schemes have proved their worth in outer London boroughs | Peter Walker


thanks.  Interesting report which seems to agree with Mr Retro.


----------



## Mr Retro (May 12, 2019)

Have a look at this for a vision of utopia. If this is what Walthamstow was aiming at they have come nowhere near it


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2019)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417314866

'Mini-Holland' schemes have proved their worth in outer London boroughs | Peter Walker

I did look up these before to see if any impact assessment had been done. These studies are about affects on cycling and whether people , are in the awful jargon, more "active". 

I haven't found anything that looks at effects local business or what local people think now. 

The study does say the representative sample is small. Cost meant face to face interviews weren't possible for example.


----------



## Gramsci (May 12, 2019)

Just to make it clear I cycle every day and swim on weekends. Because I like exercise.

I just don't want the authorities nudging or coercing me to be more " active"

As posters here know I'm involved in trying to save the local adventure playground and have done my bit to try to keep Brixton Rec.

At times against the authorities.

The adventure playground the Council deemed there was " no demand for". There words.

Yet when it suits them they want to impose plans on Joe public.


----------



## newbie (May 13, 2019)

Mr Retro said:


> Have a look at this for a vision of utopia. If this is what Walthamstow was aiming at they have come nowhere near it



The thing that strikes me- apart from the city planning stuff- is that in the parts of that I've watched not a single young man has been clad in lycra or riding a space age machine.  I've been cycling in London most days for decades, I can cope with the traffic and deal with the tourists but other cyclists terrify me.   I avoid the packs so far as possible, but don't enjoy being bullied off the road by someone on mission to maintain his cadence while he's fantasising about being in Team Sky.

From my old, slow and never-lycra perspective the impulse is exactly the same as the worst of the petrol heads.  I don't know why young (ish) men (mostly) here behave the way they do, which is so different from the more relaxed and far less macho intimidating approach in the film, just a short distance away?  But I do think that while that is the prevailing impression of cycling it's never going to become as popular as in the Netherlands.


----------



## thebackrow (May 13, 2019)

newbie said:


> I already did, admittedly without much in the way of supporting evidence or detailed planning.
> 
> 
> Technology backed road rationing is probably the outcome would have the greatest effect, subject to effort from the likes of TfL to flesh it out.  x number of hours per year per person of private vehicle usage, including taxi, anywhere within the M25, factored according to the number of people in the vehicle. Disabled & age exemptions, or greater limits, apply; hours can be traded, like carbon; sharply escalating fines by the hour for those who exceed their limit.  Sadly it implies an even greater surveillance society than Oyster, which probably isn't such a great idea, so it's about as likely as banning all traffic near schools.



That seems a hugely complex approach.  The rich can get around it - they can buy up the miles, or pay the fines. The costs of administering it would be huge - it's a whole new layer on the benefits system that every Londoner needs to be registered for.  

Surely much simpler to move to GPS based road pricing potentially with different charges at different times of day/different roads. Singapore are building a system like that now - its almost certainly technically possible now (shit, this stuff should be *easy* compared to self driving cars which Tesla are claiming will be on the roads in a few years though that is pretty contentious).   The profits of the system are spent on subsidising/improving public transport and walking and cycling facilities. You don't need to give people cash.


----------



## newbie (May 13, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> That seems a hugely complex approach.  The rich can get around it - they can buy up the miles, or pay the fines. The costs of administering it would be huge - it's a whole new layer on the benefits system that every Londoner needs to be registered for.
> 
> Surely much simpler to move to GPS based road pricing potentially with different charges at different times of day/different roads. Singapore are building a system like that now - its almost certainly technically possible now (shit, this stuff should be *easy* compared to self driving cars which Tesla are claiming will be on the roads in a few years though that is pretty contentious).   The profits of the system are spent on subsidising/improving public transport and walking and cycling facilities. You don't need to give people cash.


I fully accept that the idea isn't going to fly because no-one wants to be tracked. I'd like the future to be fair, though.

The trouble with simple road pricing is that it pushes the poorer off the road and, as with parking charges, just ignores those who don't have a car.  Rationing and trading rewards not having a car and incentivises reductions in use. Basing road pricing on the vehicle may be simple to administer but takes no account of occupancy and, as with the CC or ULEZ, will result in the exclusion of the poorer.

But something sure has to happen, so if you want to propose road pricing go for it.  You could start with every vehicle that crosses either or both of the M25 and the South Circular before say 10am.  Tax commuters every day until they stop driving and move onto public transport. 

Problem is there's no way that's going to win any elections, any more than proposing taxing the school run would.  And it clearly favours the better off.


----------



## thebackrow (May 13, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I haven't found anything that looks at effects local business or what local people think now.



I'm sure there are some businesses that will claim it's the reason they went bust and I'm sure you can find some people who will tell you they hate it.  But Orford Road looks a hell of a lot more inviting to visit now and it looks like there's a lot of business opportunity. I don't know - maybe this is just gentrification and they're the wrong sort of businesses. 















newbie said:


> From my old, slow and never-lycra perspective the impulse is exactly the same as the worst of the petrol heads.  I don't know why young (ish) men (mostly) here behave the way they do, which is so different from the more relaxed and far less macho intimidating approach in the film, just a short distance away? .



Probably because, although there are short sections of safe, comfortable, cycle infrastructure the majority of anyone's trip is still on busy roads where people on bikes are expected to behave like cars and motorists bully you out of the way if they perceive that they might be held up.  If you're trying to cycle along with 30mph traffic you're probably going to equip yourself a bit more like a racer.  The Dutch have a complete network so you will either be riding on protected tracks or very quiet roads.

There is fast, lycra clad cycling in the Netherlands as well (probably more than here) but they're swamped by utility cyclists in normal clothes because it feels safe for all to ride.


----------



## thebackrow (May 13, 2019)

newbie said:


> I'd like the future to be fair, though....the trouble with simple road pricing is that it pushes the poorer off the road and, as with parking charges, just ignores those who don't have a car.  Rationing and trading rewards not having a car and incentivises reductions in use.



I'm not sure your system is really any fairer - we know 50% of households don't have a car, and lets assume for a minute that everyone who does drives the same amount of miles.  Everyone who drives now is only going to have half the permits they need, so your 'poorer' people (who are still rich enough to run a car) are still going to have to buy half the miles they need.  The scheme also has to be administered - you've got to collect the money to pay for that somehow and it shouldn't come out of general taxation (as that means it has a cost to all those who don't own cars).

Also, you're still treating car ownership and driving as something 'that should be accessible to everyone'.  I don't think thats the desireable outcome - we need to get to a situation which incentivizes the appropriate method of travel for a particular journey. Having a load of mileage permits might perversely encourage people to drive more to use them up...

It's complex, but good cheap public transport, and safe comfortable walking and cycling (with access to taxi or car share) seems like it's going to do the most to improve the lives of poorer people rather than trying to engineer some scheme to ensure that the "not that poor but not rich" can still have their own car parked on the street.


----------



## newbie (May 13, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I'm not sure your system is really any fairer - we know 50% of households don't have a car, and lets assume for a minute that everyone who does drives the same amount of miles.  Everyone who drives now is only going to have half the permits they need, so your 'poorer' people (who are still rich enough to run a car) are still going to have to buy half the miles they need.  The scheme also has to be administered - you've got to collect the money to pay for that somehow and it shouldn't come out of general taxation (as that means it has a cost to all those who don't own cars).


I didn't say anything about mileage, I said hours.

Let's propose that Londoners get 25 hours per year, that's half an hour per week each. Plenty long enough for off-peak trips to the shops or hospital or whatever, or to head out of town occasionally for leisure, particularly if they share cars.

Then let's say there are fines for exceeding the limit starting at £100 per hour and rising with every hour.  Draconian, for sure, but it'll get people off the roads.  How else are you going to do it?



> Also, you're still treating car ownership and driving as something 'that should be accessible to everyone'.



Well i do think that personal transportation is a massive benefit of living now as opposed to a century or more ago. We can all see that unlimited access has produced toxic bathwater, but that doesn't mean the baby should be thrown away. Or does it? 


> I don't think thats the desireable outcome - we need to get to a situation which incentivizes the appropriate method of travel for a particular journey.


The last time I used our car, about 3 weeks ago, was to take my brother, limited mobility with arthritis, 60m or so to see my parents and take him and my mother- in her 90s and with a walking range measured in yards- out for lunch.  She has rather old fashioned views that taxis are only for the posh, my brother, on sickness benefit, knows he can't afford them.

Is that appropriate or simply selfish?  I honestly don't know.


> It's complex, but good cheap public transport, and safe comfortable walking and cycling (with access to taxi or car share) seems like it's going to do the most to improve the lives of poorer people rather than trying to engineer some scheme to ensure that the "not that poor but not rich" can still have their own car parked on the street.


Again, I've said nothing about 'their own car'.  But i have said that any proposal needs to win elections, and forcing people out of their cars will meet huge resistance.  How will you achieve that?


----------



## Winot (May 13, 2019)

newbie said:


> The trouble with simple road pricing is that it pushes the poorer off the road and, as with parking charges, just ignores those who don't have a car.  Rationing and trading rewards not having a car and incentivises reductions in use. Basing road pricing on the vehicle may be simple to administer but takes no account of occupancy and, as with the CC or ULEZ, will result in the exclusion of the poorer.



Anything that has a fixed (non-means-tested) cost hits the poor more than it hits the rich - utility bills; food bills; VAT. The way in which society has (imperfectly) tried to redress the balance is by having a tax and benefits system that seeks to adjust for income.

I see no reason why behaviour which is bad for the environment should be treated more favourably than essentials like food, water and electricity which are not means-tested.


----------



## newbie (May 13, 2019)

Winot said:


> Anything that has a fixed (non-means-tested) cost hits the poor more than it hits the rich - utility bills; food bills; VAT. The way in which society has (imperfectly) tried to redress the balance is by having a tax and benefits system that seeks to adjust for income.
> 
> I see no reason why behaviour which is bad for the environment should be treated more favourably than essentials like food, water and electricity which are not means-tested.


Ok, if institutionalising relative wealth is the way forward.

 We've strayed a long way from Atlantic Road- i was asked what i proposed and answered, knowing that there were more holes than a Swiss cheese, but also that it's is on a scale that would actually make a difference, rather than simply scratch the surface or displace existing traffic.  I'm open to anyone else proposing ways to actually reduce traffic, congestion, pollution and carbon footprint, rather than just displace it E2A and gain public consent.


----------



## thebackrow (May 13, 2019)

newbie said:


> Ok, if institutionalising relative wealth is the way forward.
> 
> We've strayed a long way from Atlantic Road- ... on a scale that would actually make a difference, rather than simply .... displace existing traffic.



I know this place swings fairly hard to the left, and I fully support that, but I'm not clear how taxing an undesirable activity is "institutionalising relative wealth".  Surely the opposite-  significantly increasing the cost of car ownership and use (which we know is concentrated amongst the wealthy) and using the proceeds to improve public transport, walking and cycling seems like a highly redistributive measure.  

This scheme is significantly wider than Atantic Road - if you think that tiny change is going to impact on other roads then ask for stuff to be done to them as well.  There's no way to change the whole of London overnight in one go so you have to start somewhere. Demand more, don't fight any change at all.


----------



## newbie (May 13, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I know this place swings fairly hard to the left, and I fully support that, but I'm not clear how taxing an undesirable activity is "institutionalising relative wealth".


I've written far too much general stuff on this thread, when all I wanted to do was get a handle on how other people see the traffic being routed if Atlantic Road is closed.  Now it's tax and benefits policy. Ho hum.

Substantially reduced pollution, oil usage, congestion, road danger and noise are required, for the benefit of all. As with any change benefits won't accrue evenly, but there should be general quality of life improvements across all economic groups.  If applied fairly across London/the country there shouldn't be huge differential effects on main patterns of employment, income or house prices, but there are bound to be losers as well as winners. Who will win, will lose and will be largely ignored is at the heart of public consent.  Importing social policy from Singapore (of all places!) is not likely to be a recipe for fairness.

Few people reliant on benefits, including state pension, are likely to be able to afford a car, so making car use more expensive by taxation will only have indirect effects on them.  Working Tax Credits & Housing benefit are subsidies to encourage employers to pay less than most people can live on, so those who receive them are necessarily not well off and any that have cars will likely be deterred from using them. Same for everyone else of lowish incomes- the bulk of the population- any policy that substantially reduces traffic must force them off the roads. Leaving the roads clear for those on higher incomes, who can afford to pay the tax more often. So simple road pricing together with fiddling with tax & benefits will simply ensure the poorest can't often access the roads. That's (further) institutionalising inequality, isn't it, reinforcing and intensifying divisions that already exist. What I suggested was an attempt to rectify that by rewarding those who don't have cars and incentivising others to get rid of theirs, and only punishing the greedy.



> This scheme is significantly wider than Atantic Road - if you think that tiny change is going to impact on other roads then ask for stuff to be done to them as well.  There's no way to change the whole of London overnight in one go so you have to start somewhere. Demand more, don't fight any change at all.


'_This scheme is significantly wider than Atantic Road_'.  Well, sort of, in a vague way.  The consultation area is wider but AR is at the heart of the scheme as the only actual spelt out proposal.

"_There's no way to change the whole of London overnight in one go so you have to start somewhere._" Why the hell not?  The GLC managed it all those years ago with the introduction of Fares Fair. There is urgency, you know.  Either you're actually trying to combat climate change and premature deaths and all the rest or you're mucking about on the margins.

As for '_Demand more, don't fight any change at all._' that's terribly snappy but has nothing to do with what I've said, although I have demanded a lot more, with at least an attempt to ensure somewhat more social justice and public consent than simply _price everyone except the rich off the road_.

Back  on topic no-one has been prepared to actually engage on the 6,000 vehicles per day that will be routed along the top of Coldharbour Lane and then added to the 25,000 that already use the main stretch of Brixton Road, with some at least going round St Matthews.  Nor on the little girl who died from asthma, or the residential occupancy of the different routes, or any of the rest of it.  It's just change for the sake of.... well, I'm a cynic.....


----------



## toblerone3 (May 13, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417314866
> 
> 'Mini-Holland' schemes have proved their worth in outer London boroughs | Peter Walker
> 
> ...



Here are some links to studies that have been done on the effects on business of walking and cycling schemes.
Economic benefits of walking and cycling
I'm pretty sure that most schemes will have similar studies built into the monitoring programme that was a condition of the grants being issued in the first place. The Liveable Neighbourhood bid that I put together did.  In fact I'm just about to begin a baseline study of the 'before' situation for effect on businesses.


----------



## newbie (May 14, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> Here are some links to studies that have been done on the effects on business of walking and cycling schemes.
> Economic benefits of walking and cycling
> I'm pretty sure that most schemes will have similar studies built into the monitoring programme that was a condition of the grants being issued in the first place. The Liveable Neighbourhood bid that I put together did.  In fact I'm just about to begin a baseline study of the 'before' situation for effect on businesses.







I'm sure Lambeth, as well as the businesses being charged so much to rent the arches, are in favour of pedestrianising AR, and over time the houseware and phone case shops will be able to morph into something more profitable, bubble tea perhaps, or hand crafted biscuits.  I guess businesses elsewhere will notice reduced footfall as spending patterns change, but a more tourist friendly market will probably help draw in more visitors.

Meanwhile the lead author of the Business View report highlighted on that page is also the lead in the Mini Holland report mentioned above, the one that showed that despite all the promise, there was "_No evidence either way of change in car use associated with interventions_".  She has also done a recent paper about a scheme in Hounslow.  Her interest is health economic benefits and the paper concentrates on a small survey to demonstrate that closing a short road delivers for users and cyclists.  However she adds a note of caution


> 6.1. Other Impacts of the scheme
> 
> While this paper focuses on the impacts on walking and cycling in Church Street, Hounslow Council monitored wider scheme impacts. Some displacement of motor traffic took place, largely onto Twickenham Road, with a traffic increase of 19% (+120 vehicles from 2014) in the weekday pm peak hour. Overall average bus journey times (the Council suggests this is also a proxy for broader changes in motorised journey times) showed little change across four routes, with small reductions or increases in journey time depending on the route (Frost, 2017, SDG, 2017). Disaggregated by time of day, direction, and route, some changes became more significant. The largest was bus 267 Southbound during the afternoon PM peak, which saw an increase in journey time of 162 seconds, or 27%: in other words, mean journey time for those passengers increased from 10 minutes to 12 minutes 42 seconds. Air pollution monitoring showed, perhaps surprisingly (and counter to public perceptions) a reduction in NO2 levels on Twickenham Road larger than the borough average (Frost, 2017).



That's a tiny scheme involving displacing only a peak 120 vehicles, but contrary to all the general assurances above, it's caused a 19% additional burden on the local main road, together with significantly increased bus transit times for some passengers.  If the AR plan was on that scale it would be a drop in the ocean for Brixton Road, but there are (apparently) 6,000 vehicles per day to be added to the existing 25,000 per day, so a 19% increase is not farfetched.

So the scheme would be expected to produce benefits for AR businesses and ought to deliver health benefits for AR residents and workers and make it more pleasant for users and encourage them towards more active travel as well as more spending. That's all good, everyone seems to be agreed (maybe except those who want cheap houseware, but they're not really relevant, are they).	  

But I'm apparently the only one concerned- or even prepared to discuss- that those rewards come at significant risk to a much larger group, the residents, workers and users of the High Street and the tube, including those held captive during the never ending games of musical buses.


----------



## thebackrow (May 14, 2019)

newbie said:


> Importing social policy from Singapore (of all places!) is not likely to be a recipe for fairness.


Of course not, we couldn't learn anything from a city that's actually tried an advanced congestion charging scheme.	
http://www.environmentportal.in/files/ERP-Singapore-Lessons.pdf



newbie said:


> Few people reliant on benefits, including state pension, are likely to be able to afford a car, so making car use more expensive by taxation will only have indirect effects on them.
> ..... simply _price everyone except the rich off the road_.


You're still not looking beyond current road space allocation.  Reducing the amount of public highway given over to the rich in their cars and making with wider pavements and comfortable cyling seems a pretty direct effect to me on those who don't own or use cars to me.  Why are you so worried about the financial cost of using an inefficient and polluting form of transport that has significant negative external impacts to the lower middle classes? 



newbie said:


> Back  on topic no-one has been prepared to actually engage on the 6,000 vehicles per day that will be routed along the top of Coldharbour Lane and then added to the 25,000 that already use the main stretch of Brixton Road, with some at least going round St Matthews...
> But I'm apparently the only one concerned- or even prepared to discuss- that those rewards come at significant risk to a much larger group, the residents, workers and users of the High Street and the tube, including those held captive during the never ending games of musical buses.



Again, you've been pointed at evidence on Traffic Evaporation but you still seem to consider that current motor traffic levels are a fixed thing that can't be changed. That we must tolerate current levels of pollution and congestion.  Given that 70% of car trips in London are under 5 miles and 40% under 2 miles that simply isn't the case.


----------



## newbie (May 14, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Of course not, we couldn't learn anything from a city that's actually tried an advanced congestion charging scheme.
> http://www.environmentportal.in/files/ERP-Singapore-Lessons.pdf


yes, but it would be nice if you read what I wrote and what you quoted.  I specifically said "_social policy_" and "_fairness_" not "_road pricing_" for a reason.  Try looking at what Human Rights Watch and Amnesty or even Wiki have to say.


> You're still not looking beyond current road space allocation.  Reducing the amount of public highway given over to the rich in their cars and making with wider pavements and comfortable cyling seems a pretty direct effect to me on those who don't own or use cars to me.


selective quoting ftw.  Well done, you completely ignore the paragraph which started "_Substantially reduced pollution, oil usage, congestion, road danger and noise are required, for the benefit of all_" and then berate me for not addressing the point.



> Why are you so worried about the financial cost of using an inefficient and polluting form of transport that has significant negative external impacts to the lower middle classes?


I've done my best to explain to you that there's more to this than cars.  You can ignore all that and insist on a badly thought through proposal to close one road if you want. I'll continue to think that addressing wider issues of fairness, social exclusion and public approval are essential for meaningful change on the scale required to combat climate change and improve urban air quality.




> Again, you've been pointed at evidence on Traffic Evaporation but you still seem to consider that current motor traffic levels are a fixed thing that can't be changed.


I've said nothing of the sort, don't be absurd. I've proposed to you twice now ways of massively reducing the traffic in London.  I've even mentioned to you a past example of making a real difference. You ignore that just as you ignore the various quoted reports which show the exact opposite of traffic evaporating. I have yet to hear anything from you except jibes and platitudes.




> That we must tolerate current levels of pollution and congestion.  Given that 70% of car trips in London are under 5 miles and 40% under 2 miles that simply isn't the case.


And your solution to that is mileage based road pricing?  How much are you proposing to charge for a 2 mile trip?


----------



## thebackrow (May 14, 2019)

newbie said:


> I specifically said "_social policy_" and "_fairness_" not "_road pricing_" for a reason



I  was talking about a successful technological implementation of road pricing but for some reason you felt the need to bring up Singapore's poor record on human rights (of which I don't approve but is totally irrelevant- another jibe from you).

You can keep on insisting that a this is a 'badly thought out proposal to close one road' while ignoring that it's clearly shown by the published map as being a scheme that covers a much wider area. You could even engage with the consultation and suggest some positive changes for the area but that would mean you'd not be able to claim this was some top down scheme that had been imposed on you from above.





newbie said:


> I've said nothing of the sort, don't be absurd.'


That's exactly what you've said, repeatedly - "no-one has been prepared to actually engage on the 6,000 vehicles per day that will be routed along the top of Coldharbour Lane"
It won't be 6000 vehicles because some trips will no longer be made by car.  It won't all be down Coldharbour Lane because that wont be the quickest route for all and satnavs will send people in other directions.  The project summary (on the about page of teh consultation site) talks about reducing traffic on Railton Road.

The main roads can take that extra load without a material impact on air quality (its Diesel buses that remain the worst problem on Brixton Road)



newbie said:


> And your solution to that is mileage based road pricing?
> _(edited to make clear this was two separate points)_


Road pricing is one of the solutions - it's a fairer and more effective solution than the current, blunt, daily charge for driving in Zone 1(ish).  I'm not an expert to determine how the details of it would work but there tech to do it is now there.


newbie said:


> _(edited to make clear this was two separate points)
> Substantially reduced pollution, oil usage, congestion, road danger and noise are required, for the benefit of all_"


I completely agree with you about all those other issues but your concerns about 'pricing the not particularly poor off the road' is hard to reconcile with that.

Lambeth can't implement London wide road pricing (though they can lobby the mayor to do so) but they can make conditions better for walking and cycling locally, and deprioritize driving.  The best way to stop short trips is to make them more difficult by car and easier by other modes.  It's early days but  Waltham Forest scheme seems to be successfully doing this - they're claiming walking and cycling are up, there has been much less than 100% shift of trips to main roads.  Air quality is better on the streets they've removed through traffic from and not worse on the main roads.   Having been up to visit even if some of those stats can be challenged it's a much nicer place to be than it was before.


----------



## thebackrow (May 14, 2019)

Theres a project summary linked off the 'About' page of the consultation thing  if you haven’t noticed it. 
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-files/brixtonlnmap/Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood Project Summary.pdf


----------



## newbie (May 14, 2019)

please don't run separate bits of my posts together to create an artificial quote, it's rather misleading.


thebackrow said:


> The main roads can take that extra load without a material impact on air quality


ok, well that's nice to know.  Everybody else thinks it's one of the most polluted stretches of road in the country.


> Road pricing is one of the solutions - it's a fairer and more effective solution than the current, blunt, daily charge for driving in Zone 1(ish).  I'm not an expert to determine how the details of it would work but there tech to do it is now there.


Come on, you can give some idea how much you think a 2 mile journey should be priced at.


----------



## cuppa tee (May 14, 2019)

Tfl seem to be labouring under the assumption that gentrification is just about the cost of residential property......saying schemes such as this one have.....



but they appear to think increasing retail rents are a big positive.....



Not great news for traders in Atlantic road


----------



## Gramsci (May 15, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> You can keep on insisting that a this is a 'badly thought out proposal to close one road' while ignoring that it's clearly shown by the published map as being a scheme that covers a much wider area. You could even engage with the consultation and suggest some positive changes for the area but that would mean you'd not be able to claim this was some top down scheme that had been imposed on you from above.
> 
> 
> re.



I was at recent meeting in LJ. To our surprise we found that section of LJ was in the boundary of the scheme.

I don't remember being asked if I wanted to be in the boundary.

Which leads to my question.

When you say put forward suggestions I'm not clear what suggestions one can make. 

What has already been decided ( the top down side of it) and what are the parameters for suggestions?


----------



## toblerone3 (May 15, 2019)

Utimately there are no parameters for suggestions, if Lambeth get too much grief off the residents and they cannot satisfactorily mitigate or amend the scheme they will give the money back to TfL and another area of London will benefit from the money.

It pisses me off so much that the car lobby is able to get traction on manipulating the fears of people about change and sometimes disingenuously weaponising their concerns with short term and minor traffic displacement arguments weaponised by air quality impacts.  We all know that road space reallocation can result in substantial traffic evaporation. I do accept though that there may be a limit to this and we cannot have Liveable Neighbourhoods without serious traffic reduction in London if we want to avoid simply moving traffic around from street to street like squeezing toothpaste from one part of the tube to another.

Ultimately, I believe, we do need road user charging in London but in the meantime Liveable Neighbourhoods can result in real benefits and when people see this with their own eyes and their own experiences, it can help build momentum for further positive local environmental change.

Gentrification is, however, a whole different dimension to the argument. But would you want to continue to breathe in pollution (in terms of poor air quality and the constant fear of being killed or seriously injured by cars or lorries) just so that you can enjoy a slightly cheaper rent? We need more radical measures to tackle the fucked up property market in London, but the meantime why shouldn't we have some local environmental improvements.  I mean (as an analogy) if you are living in a bad flat in a bad situation, giving the flat a fresh coat of paint doesn't do any harm and might even encourage you to begin to improve your situation in deeper ways.


----------



## thebackrow (May 15, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> Not great news for traders in Atlantic road


Good news for the traders if it means more customers, spending more money


----------



## newbie (May 15, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> It pisses me off so much that the car lobby is able to get traction on manipulating the fears of people about change and sometimes disingenuously weaponising their concerns with short term and minor traffic displacement arguments weaponised by air quality impacts.



Are you really accusing me of being in the car lobby?  What on earth have I said, in the midst of all the other stuff, to make you think that?  I know my posts are too wordy, but that they can be misread like that is shocking.

I've tried throughout this thread to concentrate on Atlantic Road and been countered with general waffle that any intervention to impede cars is good and displaced traffic will simply evaporate. Evidence to the contrary has been entirely ignored.  When pushed to generalise I've proposed draconian rationing to force the vast bulk of vehicle usage off the road, and been told it's too much and too expensive. I thought I've made clear I'm opposed to crude mileage based road pricing on social grounds and because it won't have the desired effect, not in order to keep cars moving.  I've repeatedly tried to discuss risk and reward and the increased burden on those who live on, work on or use on the main road, tube and buses just as I've highlighted the campaign of the mother of little girl who died of asthma, and been either ignored or patted on the head and told that doesn't matter. In fact thebackrow  seems to think none of it matters so long as the traders on AR can do more business. And now you're insinuating I'm part of the car lobby!

But that said, thankyou, you have at least acknowledged this is about gentrification.  I've tried that, too, and that's been ignored as well.  Nobody except Gramsci has said anything about the undercurrents at play.  Has anyone looked at the 250 or so comments on the proposal? There are loads wanting to stop the rat run down, or near, their home street, obviously for the benefit of all and with no eye on house prices. Others want change for the benefit of businesses, as the post just above makes clear.  There are plenty of good, gentrification-neutral proposals for ASLs and rephased pedestrian lights and stuff, but all of it needs to be read through the prism that is the underlying elephant sitting on the sofa. As I've tried to discuss. 

This debate, such as it is, is about social exclusion and public acceptance and accountability, cars are just a part of it. Not everyone who lives round here is pro-gentrification and many, many of us can spot the signs and direction of travel, especially when seeded by Lambeth and picked up enthusiastically by the new demographic. 

Without a Singapore style authoritarian regime any far-reaching* proposal must be intended to make a positive, direct quality of life improvement for more people than it harms, and must convince people that is the case. Otherwise it will founder at the ballot box. 

Simply pretending this is all about cars and nothing else, and that any wider considerations are just distraction from the car lobby, is facile.

* ie something that will significantly reduce the overall number of vehicle on the roads, by a lot more than 50% say, not tiny, piecemeal, badly thought through schemes like this proposal.


----------



## cuppa tee (May 15, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Good news for the traders if it means more customers, spending more money


That's a fairly glib assessment of the situation on Atlantic Road, which of the long standing traders do you see see thriving if they are faced with 7.5% _additional_ rent rise per annum considering Hondo are currently monetising the neighbouring covered markets like fuck and with sports direct's colonisation of popes road just round the corner ?


----------



## thebackrow (May 15, 2019)

There's a whole load of ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation going on here now which don't really help the discussion.  How long does one have to live here before they stop being part of the 'new demographic'?


- rent is just a tax on profits.  if landlords try to take too much businesses go under, the property is empty and the landlord loses out. That's how the market works. Look at the pictures of WF above. Surely on a street that is more pleasant for people to visit and spend time on there are more opportunities for business owners to make money.  Maybe some businesses will have to 'evolve' but some of this is an opportunity.  Retail is tough - shops are closing in most high streets across the UK.  Doing nothing doesn't guarantee current business owners a futre either.

- the mention of the car lobby is about how successful it has been in framing all these arguments to be about private car use.  It shouldn't be contentious to talk about removing through traffic from a crowded shopping street with narrow pavements.  It shouldn't be contentious to have an issue with rat running traffic speeding past your front door. Some of us have lived in the area a long while and have seen the impact of satnavs and uber meaning roads that used to be quiet are now busy at all times of day. Do we just allow them to keep getting worse?

If wanting less traffic on a road is gentrification then logically more traffic is anti-gentrification. Get on that consultation site and demand that all the traffic is routed down your road so that the house prices and rents fall? I suppose that's sort of what happened in Loughborough Junction.

To try and frame it as being about house prices suggests people only have a desire to cash in and leave the area rather than make their lives here.  I'd like the area i live in to be cleaner, quieter and safer - i'd like to be able to walk or cycle into Brixton without drivers trying to run me down as they rat run down side roads. One of the notable things about many of Brixton's estates is that they were built to limit through traffic - Blenheim Gardens residents parking is on the very edge of the estate with the centre completely car free.  Angel Town and the Southwyck estate don't have rat runs through them either.

There is definitely a social justice aspect around access to transport and use of public space but using a phrase like 'priced off the road' is straight out of the gammon/car lobby/"war on the motorist" playbook. It ignores the poor, it ignores the old, it ignores those too young to drive.  Social justice is about access to 'mobility' (to use the current catchphrase), not about having a car and being able to drive everywhere (which is how the car lobby would like to frame it),  and the best way to improve that is to reduce the public space given to private cars in favor of public transport and enabling efficient ways of getting around - whether on foot, by cycle or electric scooter or on public transport.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 16, 2019)

newbie said:


> Are you really accusing me of being in the car lobby?  What on earth have I said, in the midst of all the other stuff, to make you think that?  I know my posts are too wordy, but that they can be misread like that is shocking.



I wasn't actually accusing you of being part of the car lobby. I think you have made some valid points which I might be able to respond to.  I was actually thinking of allegations around the leader of a protest movement against a road closure in a different part of London.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 16, 2019)

Just going to drop this in here for an indication of where the arguments about the next generation of road user charging are heading at the moment.

Green Light: Next generation road user charging for a healthier, move liveable, London


----------



## newbie (May 16, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> There's a whole load of ad hominem attacks and misrepresentation going on here now which don't really help the discussion.  How long does one have to live here before they stop being part of the 'new demographic'?


Gosh, are you really offended or just posturing? I wasn't trying to be rude to anyone, is there a more neutral collective description?



> -Surely on a street that is more pleasant for people to visit and spend time on there are more opportunities for business owners to make money. Maybe some businesses will have to 'evolve' but some of this is an opportunity.


I think this is the key difference between our perspectives.  As I said before, to you the people who want to buy cheap housewares aren't really relevant, are they? Your posts make clear that this is all about improvements for you and opportunities for business owners to make money. Everyone else is collateral.



> - the mention of the car lobby is about how successful it has been in framing all these arguments to be about private car use.  It shouldn't be contentious to talk about removing through traffic from a crowded shopping street with narrow pavements.


why not, if that places an additional pollution/noise/congestion/danger burden on a greater number of other people?  You've previously made clear that you're happy to do that.



> It shouldn't be contentious to have an issue with rat running traffic speeding past your front door. Some of us have lived in the area a long while and have seen the impact of satnavs and uber meaning roads that used to be quiet are now busy at all times of day. Do we just allow them to keep getting worse


Your complaint is that other people use your street?  wow!



> If wanting less traffic on a road is gentrification then logically more traffic is anti-gentrification. Get on that consultation site and demand that all the traffic is routed down your road so that the house prices and rents fall?


Well done, impeccable logic 



> To try and frame it as being about house prices suggests people only have a desire to cash in and leave the area rather than make their lives here.


That is the clear pattern and has been for a long time 



> I'd like the area i live in to be cleaner, quieter and safer - i'd like to be able to walk or cycle into Brixton without drivers trying to run me down as they rat run down side roads.


yes, you said you want to force all traffic onto the main roads without concern for those that live or work on them or use them. 



> There is definitely a social justice aspect around access to transport and use of public space but using a phrase like 'priced off the road' is straight out of the gammon/car lobby/"war on the motorist" playbook. It ignores the poor, it ignores the old, it ignores those too young to drive.  Social justice is about access to 'mobility' (to use the current catchphrase), not about having a car and being able to drive everywhere (which is how the car lobby would like to frame it),  and the best way to improve that is to reduce the public space given to private cars in favor of public transport and enabling efficient ways of getting around - whether on foot, by cycle or electric scooter or on public transport.


Approaching half of Greater London households have access to a car, presumably because that's what they want. They're grown adults, just like you. Your disdain is clear, but it's not up to you to make decisions on their behalf, especially when all you can propose is to price the lower incomes off the road (even though you've still failed to give an outline of how much you propose a 2 mile journey should cost).  All you're doing is demand that everyone bows to your grand vision. 

Now I suspect we might agree on the main objectives: reduce climate change, reduce pollution, improve the environment...  and funnily enough I reckon a substantial majority of Greater London adults will agree with that too.  You've failed to convince me about this specific scheme because you haven't thought it through properly.  So how do you think you'll convince them all to give up their cars? Answer, you don't, you want to force them, because you know best.


----------



## newbie (May 16, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> I wasn't actually accusing you of being part of the car lobby. I think you have made some valid points which I might be able to respond to.  I was actually thinking of allegations around the leader of a protest movement against a road closure in a different part of London.


ah, I misunderstood then, thanks for the clarification


----------



## toblerone3 (May 16, 2019)

Good environment or nice communal atmosphere among neighbours.  Why cant we have both?


----------



## newbie (May 17, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> Just going to drop this in here for an indication of where the arguments about the next generation of road user charging are heading at the moment.
> 
> Green Light: Next generation road user charging for a healthier, move liveable, London


Fascinating. I asked earlier for someone to flesh out the options, and this does pretty much that. It doesn't reach quite the same conclusions I'd muddled my way towards, but it's reasonably persuasive in what it says. Their concept of Mobility Credits isn't so far from rationing, and while it needs tweaking for universality (not just 'registered drivers') they propose integrating it with Oyster and use of roadspace for parking, so it's a solid attempt to build something fair and intended to gain widespread support.

It's a good report, well worth reading in full.  

My reservation is that it's a shame they don't say why they reject time based, as opposed to distance based, charging.  It's also a bit odd that their user profile examples don't include the school run.  It may be that charging based on distance and a time of day/destination/alternative algorithm will provide a substantial deterrent, but that's not made clear.

I hope this gains sufficient political traction for a full public debate leading to early implementation of a popular scheme.  They mention that a previous plan drew 1.8 million signatures to an opposition petition.  I hope this is rounded enough to be far less controversial.


----------



## thebackrow (May 20, 2019)

newbie said:


> As I said before, to you the people who want to buy cheap housewares aren't really relevant, are they? Your posts make clear that this is all about improvements for you and opportunities for business owners to make money



And your misrepresentation continues. The shops that sell cheap housewares presumably have owners who'd like to make a profit - they might do better on a nicer street - or can they only be profitable if the road remains as it is now? or are the current shops part of some communist collective? I'm confused.



newbie said:


> presumably because that's what they want. They're grown adults, just like you. Your disdain is clear, but it's not up to you to make decisions on their behalf



Again you're misrepresenting me - i've not said anyone has to be 'forced' to give up their car or make decisions on their behalf. I support making driving more difficult and expensive and the alternatives cheaper easier and more pleasant.  You can't have the latter without the former.

I'll continue to support political parties that claim to want to do something about the climate emergency and air quality - and that means people will have to drive less.  Individuals would make lots of choices with negative impacts on others without rules, taxes and incentives to do otherwise.


----------



## co-op (May 20, 2019)

newbie said:


> *Approaching half of Greater London households have access to a car,* presumably because that's what they want. They're grown adults, just like you. Your disdain is clear, but it's not up to you to make decisions on their behalf, especially when all you can propose is to price the lower incomes off the road (even though you've still failed to give an outline of how much you propose a 2 mile journey should cost).  All you're doing is demand that everyone bows to your grand vision..



Why are you weaselling about like this? "Approaching half" very clearly means "less than half". And that's before we get down to the details; eg what does "have access to a car" mean? (eg you live in a shared house - as thousands of Londoners do - and one person in that house has a car, you are considered to have access to it, which is obviously bullshit). eg you're talking about the figures for Greater London which includes great chunks of the home counties arbitrarily lumped into the GLC 50 years ago in order to gerrymander/'create democratic' elections (because otherwise it was going to be Labour for ever), etc etc.

When you get down to Lambeth car owners who actually have access to a car and want one are a small minority (for many of them it is absolutely "not what they want", it's what they have little alternative but to have if they work shifts, if their work journey is not catered for by pt, if their work requires them to have or use a car). 

The question is why is this small minority of dedicated car-wanters - who you are trying to paint as the normal, majority (and - for extra absurdity - "poor" or "low income") people - prioritised above the majority? 

It's just nonsense. If you are personally in love with your car and cannot imagine life without it, fine, why not just admit it and stop this rubbish about standing up for the little guy or whatever you think you're doing. If you don't love your car or whatever, I cannot actually work out what the fuck you're on about, it's either low-grade trolling or you're a straight up idiot.


----------



## newbie (May 20, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> And your misrepresentation continues. The shops that sell cheap housewares presumably have owners who'd like to make a profit - they might do better on a nicer street - or can they only be profitable if the road remains as it is now? or are the current shops part of some communist collective? I'm confused.


No misrepresentation.  Once again you frame this in terms of what's good for the business owners.  | quoted you above about them '_making money_', now it's about their profit. No doubt making AR a 'nicer street' is in their interests, whether they personally gentrify their shops to sell bubble tea or vintage suitcases, or they sell the lease to someone else to do it. But this is still, despite all the changes, predominantly a poor area and this badly constructed scheme will further marginalise local people who need to buy from the dwindling number of cheap shops selling everyday stuff.  Do they matter at all?



> Again you're misrepresenting me - i've not said anyone has to be 'forced' to give up their car or make decisions on their behalf. I support making driving more difficult and expensive and the alternatives cheaper easier and more pleasant.  You can't have the latter without the former.


and again I'm not.  The force involved is pure economic power, to price the relatively worse off out of their cars, inevitably leaving the roads clearer for the relatively better off.  
I've said I (and I reckon most but by no means all Londoners) agree that reducing car usage will make life more pleasant.  That's not the point at issue, it's how this happens, and who (which economic and social groups, and which individuals) reaps the benefit and who gets shafted.  Cost/benefit, risk/reward, call it what you want, has got to be considered.  Which means every scheme, big or small, needs to be looked at carefully with that in mind.  You've said that the "_main roads can take that extra load_" while ignoring evidence of greatly increased pressure and you've shown absolutely no concern for the individuals who live and work on the high street, for bus users or, well, anybody who loses out. 

What's proposed for Atlantic Road takes no account of negative consequences for far more people than will directly benefit.



> I'll continue to support political parties that claim to want to do something about the climate emergency and air quality - and that means people will have to drive less.


Fine.  They all claim that. Combating climate change has been the claimed policy for 20 years. 

Have you read the report mentioned above?


----------



## newbie (May 20, 2019)

co-op said:


> Why are you weaselling about like this? "Approaching half" very clearly means "less than half". And that's before we get down to the details; eg what does "have access to a car" mean? (eg you live in a shared house - as thousands of Londoners do - and one person in that house has a car, you are considered to have access to it, which is obviously bullshit). eg you're talking about the figures for Greater London which includes great chunks of the home counties arbitrarily lumped into the GLC 50 years ago in order to gerrymander/'create democratic' elections (because otherwise it was going to be Labour for ever), etc etc.


I said "Approaching half" because I couldn't be bothered to look it up.  It's actually 54%, with households including a child 1/3 more likely.



> When you get down to Lambeth car owners who actually have access to a car and want one are a small minority (for many of them it is absolutely "not what they want", it's what they have little alternative but to have if they work shifts, if their work journey is not catered for by pt, if their work requires them to have or use a car).


There are all sorts of reasons people use cars, whether or not they own them.  Commuting and the school run have already been discussed, and there's plenty use car clubs and an awful lot seem to use cabs or Uber.  Or delivery vans, come to that, most of us order online these days I think (I haven't looked that up either).



> The question is why is this small minority of dedicated car-wanters - who you are trying to paint as the normal, majority (and - for extra absurdity - "poor" or "low income") people - prioritised above the majority?


Do you have any actual proposals, other than forcing some extra thousands of vehicles onto the high street every day while hoping some evaporate?



> It's just nonsense. If you are personally in love with your car and cannot imagine life without it, fine, why not just admit it and stop this rubbish about standing up for the little guy or whatever you think you're doing. If you don't love your car or whatever, I cannot actually work out what the fuck you're on about, it's either low-grade trolling or you're a straight up idiot.


I'm challenging a badly thought out proposal that I think will do more harm than good.

Who do you think you're standing up for?


----------



## Gramsci (May 20, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> And your misrepresentation continues. The shops that sell cheap housewares presumably have owners who'd like to make a profit - they might do better on a nicer street - or can they only be profitable if the road remains as it is now? or are the current shops part of some communist collective? I'm confused.



Back in your post 81 you said:



> . Maybe some businesses will have to 'evolve' but some of this is an opportunity.



So you do see this road closure as leading to changes in shops. "Evolve" is another word for gentrification.

I do find your comment that shops for the less well off can be dismissed as communist shows lack of understanding of the importance and need for these shops by a significant amount of local people.


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> So can you explain to me why in my area Loughborough Junction poor people overwhelmingly resented and opposed a similar scheme to that being proposed in Brixton?
> 
> I sat at meetings where residents from the Council estate were shouting at Cllrs over the imposition of road closures. People I knew on estate , who can't afford a car, also opposed it.
> 
> If you care about poor people would you still impose a scheme like this this even its opposed by the people you say you care about?



I'm catching up on this thread and wanted to respond to this.

The reasons for the resistance to the LJ closures were quite complex I think.

Firstly: there was a fear about changes that are seen as leading to or enabling gentrification. To some extent I see this as a legitimate fear, and I think it's one that anyone involved in promoting such schemes needs to get to grips with and acknowledge. The fact is, making places more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists, and reducing traffic, makes those places 'nicer' (that's kind of the whole point after all) and it's true that this can lead to changes relating from a consequent increase in value of property. This is a tricky issue to deal with. One option of course is to resist the change on a 'keeping [area] crap' basis. In that case, the logic is that the people living in the area accept that they continue with air and noise pollution, road injuries and so on, in exchange for their area remaining affordable. This logic is discussed in the 'keeping Brixton Crap' thread. 

Aside from the above though, there were a load of things circulating that I did not see as legitimate fears or concerns. For example, when I went to one of the crowded and tense meetings, a big issue was a fear that increased traffic on Coldharbour Lane was going to stop emergency vehicles getting to Kings Hospital on time. It's true that when the closures were put in place, there was increased traffic in various locations including Coldharbour Lane. But there were also roadworks going on in central Brixton, and it's well known that when road access is changed there will be a period of disruption but after a while people's travel habits adjust, and most of that disruption fades away. The road closure 'experiment' was shut down early, so it was not possible for this to become apparent to people.

It's worth emphasising that those closures were supposed to be experimental - they were supposed to be in place for a set period of time, after which it would be reviewed which of them were successful, and the scheme adjusted accordingly. But the experiment was never completed - it was shut down early by Lambeth buckling in the face of apparent popular opposition.

In that case I'm firmly of the opinion that at least a portion of the opposition was whipped up by people with an interest in maintaining the through routes. (It's all in the thread from the time). Going through the petition comments revealed a large number of people from Dulwich and other areas who like being able to drive through Loughborough Junction to get into town. I received various flyers through the letter box that were keen to scaremonger about stuff like emergency vehicle access. Were these flyers funded and produced by the largely non-car owning residents of the Loughborough Estate? I don't think so. There's other stuff I've heard about people in positions of power on that estate being very much pro-car and using their influence to stir up fears.

So - while I do think that people's concerns about gentrification effects have to be listened to seriously, I think it's very important to try and get an accurate measure of the full reasons people might oppose a scheme, including those which are based on misinformation, and do everything possible to convince them that certain fears are unfounded, as well as emphasising the many benefits that can be brought to them. This is what failed to happen with the LJ closures.


----------



## thebackrow (May 21, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I do find your comment that shops for the less well off can be dismissed as communist shows lack of understanding of the importance and need for these shops by a significant amount of local people.


You can't take a joke can you?

It's somewhat amusing that a scheme like this gets attacked for everything.

Cutting out through traffic is terrible, the businesses won't be able to survive. Making the street more pleasant for pedestrians will bring in more customers who'll spend more money but that's a bad thing too.  Evolve - yes, maybe some of those shopkeepers who've struggled for years will be able to make more money. Sod that, lets keep them on the breadline

Lowering traffic volumes and making somewhere nicer is gentrification (bad!) but increasing traffic on a street (allowing the erroneous assumption that it will all just displace and ignoring evidence that traffic reduces across the whole area) is bad too - think about the pollution!

In another thread was claimed that the Loughborough Junction scheme was bad because it was rich people from outside wanting to experiment with reducing traffic somewhere else only to immediately be claimed that this project was bad because it was rich people wanting to get the traffic out of their own area and inflicting it on the poor souls of LJ who love traffic at current levels but not a single car more.


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2019)

On the 'making nicer' = gentrification thing -

I always note that this argument is frequently used against road schemes, but not other things.

Would there be opposition to better funding to a local park, because it would make the area more desirable?

Is there opposition to better funding to local schools?

Is there opposition to better train services from, say LJ station, or to the reopening of Brixton East?

The inconsistency suggests that a significant proportion of opposition is down to those with a self interest. Making a public park better doesn't inconvenience anyone. Reducing motor traffic does inconvenience certain people: car owners. Both things could be seen as making an area more attractive and thus prone to gentrification though.


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Lowering traffic volumes and making somewhere nicer is gentrification (bad!) but increasing traffic on a street (allowing the erroneous assumption that it will all just displace and ignoring evidence that traffic reduces across the whole area) is bad too - think about the pollution!


If you're so certain that concern about displacement is erroneous, perhaps you could attempt to quantify what proportion of the 6,000 vehicles per day that currently use Atlantic Road will :
a) use Coldharbour Lane
b) use the St Matthews gyratory
c) join the 25,000 per day on the section of Brixton Road between the CHL junction and the AR turn
d) use Gresham Road
e) use some other route to achieve their objective
f) evaporate


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> If you're so certain that concern about displacement is erroneous, perhaps you could attempt to quantify what proportion of the 6,000 vehicles per day that currently use Atlantic Road will :
> a) use Coldharbour Lane
> b) use the St Matthews gyratory
> c) join the 25,000 per day on the section of Brixton Road between the CHL junction and the AR turn
> ...


Can you quantify any of this?

Or provide any reasons why this particular situation is unlikely to follow the general pattern observed in such schemes?


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I always note that this argument is frequently used against road schemes, but not other things.


 'In whose interests' is considered in all sorts of contexts, from HS2 to new developments (like the thing on Station Road), chain store takeovers, estate or arch regeneration and the market, Pop and so on.  It's not just roads, whatever you may selectively note.  Anywhere there are clear winners and clear losers, particularly where property or business ownership can mean substantial windfall gains.  When it comes to public service investment it's sometimes called 'pork barrel' politics or 'the DUP'.


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Can you quantify any of this?
> 
> Or provide any reasons why this particular situation is unlikely to follow the general pattern observed in such schemes?


Which 'such schemes'?  Ones like Herne Hill where there's apparently no follow-up to show what happened to the traffic, ones like Hounslow with a measured 19% increase on the main road, or like the Mini-Hollands where there was an insignificant impact on car usage?  Or 'general pattern' ones with vague but strident assertions that traffic will simply evaporate?

It's up to those proposing this scheme to do some detailed research on traffic usage patterns for both the road itself and the impacted wider area and then come up with an informed estimate.  Failing that, those proponents on this thread could make some sort of guess, based on their knowledge of the roads, railways and junctions, and whatever they propose about whether the buses are to be rerouted, what arrangements are made for delivery & emergency vehicles and so on.


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> 'In whose interests' is considered in all sorts of contexts, from HS2 to new developments (like the thing on Station Road), chain store takeovers, estate or arch regeneration and the market, Pop and so on.  It's not just roads, whatever you may selectively note.  Anywhere there are clear winners and clear losers, particularly where property or business ownership can mean substantial windfall gains.  When it comes to public service investment it's sometimes called 'pork barrel' politics or 'the DUP'.


I'm talking about a (perhaps hazily defined) category of things where it's fairly uncontroversial to say that they benefit most people regardless of income, property ownership status and so on. Things like parks, libraries, air quality, pedestrian access, road safety I'd put in this category. 

I would not put pop brixton or arch regeneration in that category. It's not uncontroversial to claim these benefit all, as demonstrated by many threads here.


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> ones like Hounslow with a measured 19% increase on the main road,



I've just had a look at the report you linked to earlier.

The road that closed - prior to closure - had 469 vehicles using it in the pm peak. The closure reduced this by 90% so a reduction of 422 vehicles achieved.

The parallel main road - after the closure - saw an increase of 120 vehicles using it in the pm peak. So 29% of the traffic appears to have been displaced to that road, with something else happening to the remaining 71%.

If 6000 vehicles/day use Atlantic Road, and a similar pattern was observed, it would mean 1740 vehicles being displaced to parallel routes. Added to the 25,000 figure you give for Brixton Road, that means an increase in the region of 7%. Not 19%.

What happened to the other 71% of vehicles that were removed by the Hounslow scheme though? Did they all 'evaporate'? Probably not, but it seems perfectly plausible that many of them did.

In that scheme, yes, another road took the hit of an increase, but the added burden on that road was much smaller than the burden removed from the closed road. The net effect for the immediate area therefore, appears to have been significant benefit.

That conforms, as far as I know, with the general pattern observed in such schemes. 

And yes, I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic, which in the longer term should see traffic everywhere including Brixton Road falling. And this proposal is part of that wider scheme.


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I'm talking about a (perhaps hazily defined) category of things where it's fairly uncontroversial to say that they benefit most people regardless of income, property ownership status and so on. Things like parks, libraries, air quality, pedestrian access, road safety I'd put in this category.
> 
> I would not put pop brixton or arch regeneration in that category. It's not uncontroversial to claim these benefit all, as demonstrated by many threads here.


Have you read this thread? Closing Atlantic Road to traffic is not uncontroversial, at least sfaiac, because until detailed informed plans and estimates demonstrate otherwise I think it'll negatively impact more identifiable people than are positively affected.


----------



## Winot (May 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> Have you read this thread? Closing Atlantic Road to traffic is not uncontroversial, at least sfaiac, because until detailed informed plans and estimates demonstrate otherwise I think it'll negatively impact more identifiable people than are positively affected.



Did you read Teuchter’s last post? I doubt it is possible to convince you however because there will always be another piece of data you will demand to see. It’s called ‘sea lioning’ and it’s a tactic you have used before on threads about traffic reduction.


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I've just had a look at the report you linked to earlier.
> 
> The road that closed - prior to closure - had 469 vehicles using it in the pm peak. The closure reduced this by 90% so a reduction of 422 vehicles achieved.
> 
> ...


I don't know enough (anything) about Hounslow to comment, but your numbers, come on, ignoring the 71% you can't account for in order to prove your 'general pattern' is not convincing.  Some small percentage of journeys will evaporate, for sure, most won't they'll displace somewhere else.  That's pretty much it, isn't it?  

I know a bit more about local conditions.  There is no 'parallel route', if there was we might not be discussing this. I mean, let's be honest, the traffic in Brixton centre has been intractable for a very long time, if there was a simple solution it would have been implemented.  The complementary scheme, to close the top of CHL and route all the traffic along AR has been proposed in the past, as has this closure.  There are only so many possible alternative routes, none of them attractive- that's why no-one on this thread has actually said what they expect to happen in any detail.



> And yes, I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic, which in the longer term should see traffic everywhere including Brixton Road falling. And this proposal is part of that wider scheme.


So this scheme has suddenly become contingent on a previously unmentioned (in this context) London-wide policy?  That's because it doesn't stand up on its own.  So lets do the London wide traffic reduction and then, and only then, start wondering if the improved conditions in Brixton need further attention.

I've already said I think the Green Light report makes sense.  It needs more discussion in its own right but from my perspective it's a reasonable starting point and could, if tweaked a bit, significantly reduce traffic across Greater London to widespread benefit and with, I'd hope, not too much negative social impact.  Obviously it's a far reaching proposal and public debate will include all sorts of the people you demonise, so it may prove to be politically unattainable. 

If everyone on this thread who's so keen on increasing the burden on Brixton Road was to concentrate on that we could all move in something approaching the same direction.  Until then I'll keep reminding them of the little girl who lived on a main road and died of asthma.  I don't really get why you're so sanguine about negative impacts on so many people to suit your own agenda.  A 27% increase in the time a bus takes doesn't sound important if its not you sitting on that bus twice a day.


----------



## newbie (May 21, 2019)

Winot said:


> Did you read Teuchter’s last post? I doubt it is possible to convince you however because there will always be another piece of data you will demand to see. It’s called ‘sea lioning’ and it’s a tactic you have used before on threads about traffic reduction.


I've just replied to it.  Nobody has said anything about this specific proposal that makes me think there's a good case for closing Atlantic Road.


----------



## teuchter (May 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> So this scheme has suddenly become contingent on a *previously unmentioned (in this context) London-wide policy*?  That's because it doesn't stand up on its own.  So lets do the London wide traffic reduction and then, and only then, start wondering if the improved conditions in Brixton need further attention.



??

This is part of the London wide Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme, enacted by TfL as part of its Londonwide transport strategy.

Liveable Neighbourhoods


I'll have to come back to other points later.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I'm catching up on this thread and wanted to respond to this.
> 
> The reasons for the resistance to the LJ closures were quite complex I think.
> 
> ...



I think you make fair points.

I didn't really want to get into all the ins and outs of the LJ debacle.

My question in original post was whether a scheme like this should be imposed from above if majority oppose it.

In LJ I would say the road closure scheme wasn't popular.

The argument for it was lost. This is democracy.

So my unanswered question still stands. Should this be imposed on people from above because it's a good thing for environment?

Example is  Oxford Street. Mayor wanted to pedestrianise it.

This had a lot of opposition from locals. In council elections they put up own candidates. They did so well it meant Westminster council withdrew backing from scheme.

( To add. Oxford Street area is combination of expensive housing and social housing)

Enter XR Rebellion. They effectively closed down Oxford Street using direct action.

As a cyclist I have thought it was great.

XR want to use direct civil disobedience to force democracy to standstill. To be replaced by state of emergency to move to zero carbon by 2025.

"Beyond politics" as XR posters said. Argument is the planet hasn't time for years of democratic persuasion. That elected officials are liable to be swayed by public opinion.

I think there is a debate to be had whether messy democracy, which can be swayed by non rational feelings, is better than a hard headed top down imposition from above of environment friendly policies which are scientifically proven (XR leaders view). Which in long run will help to save the planet and eventually ordinary people will see benefit from.


There is an argument for pressing on with road closures anyway without local support.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2019)

A few comments.

My irritation with this scheme is that it appears no on who actually lives or works in the proposed liveable neighborhood was asked about it.

Its like I said at recent meeting why  not alterative plans to choose from?

When CHL was closed from Dogstar to Ritzy due to crane for several weeks people I know who worked/ lived there liked it.

If idea is to make Brixton liveable neighborhood how about options?

Such as close off top end of CHL?

This makes more sense than closing Atlantic road.

More of housing is in this part. Vining street,  Rushcroft road and Clifton mansions.

It liveable neighborhood is the aim makes more sense.

Railton road is a rat run now. Cars use it to bypass the St Matthews junction. I've heard complaints from those who live near it. Stopping cars going by Brockwell park and turning into Railton road is easy to do. They turn into Railton road, speed, go down Atlantic road then turn right onto Brixton road.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> Which 'such schemes'?  Ones like Herne Hill where there's apparently no follow-up to show what happened to the traffic, ones like Hounslow with a measured 19% increase on the main road, or like the Mini-Hollands where there was an insignificant impact on car usage?  Or 'general pattern' ones with vague but strident assertions that traffic will simply evaporate?
> 
> It's up to those proposing this scheme to do some detailed research on traffic usage patterns for both the road itself and the impacted wider area and then come up with an informed estimate.  Failing that, those proponents on this thread could make some sort of guess, based on their knowledge of the roads, railways and junctions, and whatever they propose about whether the buses are to be rerouted, what arrangements are made for delivery & emergency vehicles and so on.



There is always going to be follow up monitoring its a condition of the money being released for the scheme. Informed estimates on likely impacts that will be done when the scheme is designed.  That is what modelling is. At the moment the scheme can be very substantially changed from resident feedback.  If there any areas where there are negative impacts, TfL will insist that there are mitigation measures.  Delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles this is all part of the scheme delivery.  If you fear traffic displacement on a particular route you can make sure that that particular road is included in the scheme modelling and that mitigations are considered at an early stage for that road.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2019)

teuchter said:


> On the 'making nicer' = gentrification thing -
> 
> I always note that this argument is frequently used against road schemes, but not other things.
> 
> ...



As part of the Loughborough Junction road closures the Council organised an event to turn the that area into park/ playspace.

Such was the opposition to the road closures by people on Loughborough estate no one turned up.

I saw this.

 More recently at a local meeting in Loughborough Junction after the tragic murder of a local youth , a packed meeting of people on the estate, they were clear what they wanted.

The following:

Community policing ( answer by top cop at meeting cuts made this impossible).

They wanted funding for youth services that had been cut re instated ( Answer by MP Helen Hayes and leader of Council Hopkins - government "austerity" cuts made this very difficult.)

They wanted proper employment/ training opportunities for local youth.

They wanted an end to school exclusions. Which disproportionately affected black and working class children.

These are same people opposing what they saw as middle class road closures to make LJ a destination for , in their view, the middle class.

In a solidly working class area like north side of LJ they have plenty of alternative ideas to improve the area they live in.

Its that , unless a murder happens, they aren't asked for their opinion. Instead they get told tarting the area up with road closures is what the area needs.

No wonder they reject it.


----------



## Gramsci (May 21, 2019)

toblerone3 said:


> There is always going to be follow up monitoring its a condition of the money being released for the scheme. Informed estimates on likely impacts that will be done when the scheme is designed.  That is what modelling is. At the moment the scheme can be very substantially changed from resident feedback.  If there any areas where there are negative impacts, TfL will insist that there are mitigation measures.  Delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles this is all part of the scheme delivery.  If you fear traffic displacement on a particular route you can make sure that that particular road is included in the scheme modelling and that mitigations are considered at an early stage for that road.



The scheme can be substantially altered by residents feedback?

When I mentioned in a meeting why not give people alternatives like close off part of Brixton bit of CHL,As previous post of mine said, it was almost like no one had thought of idea of giving Brixtonites alternative options to look at.

I'm really surprised that project that is , supposedly, rooted in involving the community ( see the livable neighborhood pdf) does not give people different options.

Through local press business and locals like me have been told Atlantic road is being closed. 

Nothing about being able to substantially alter this project. That's news to me.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The scheme can be substantially altered by residents feedback?
> 
> When I mentioned in a meeting why not give people alternatives like close off part of Brixton bit of CHL,As previous post of mine said, it was almost like no one had thought of idea of giving Brixtonites alternative options to look at.
> 
> ...



You are free to block the project, you are free to substantially alter it. Any alterations you make will naturally be subject to a degree of scrutiny about their likely effects. The reason you have not been given option A, option B, Option C etc is probably that quite a lot of thought has already been given to these options and their likely drawbacks, but you are still able to propose them and, if well argued, they might be accepted. If you don't offer any good alternatives and just block the project the money will simply be reallocated to a different part of London and Brixton will (in my opinion) lose out yet again.


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Such as close off top end of CHL?
> 
> This makes more sense than closing Atlantic road.
> 
> ...



Aye, and there's more evidence that closing that section of CHL will deliver benefit than closing AR, which is not so polluted as well as less residential.



That's showing nitrogen dioxide pollution, but other indicators are similar.  Closing CHL doesn't, however, neatly link the active travel routes they're proposing, so isn't so clear on the map.  But there's no real reason why walkers and cyclists on the Railton to Ferndale route shouldn't be directed along CHL and via the high street, after all adding to existing congestion there is unproblematic (or so I've been told) and they'll go wherever they please anyway. 

I'm feeling a bit cynical this morning, but following the logic of people on this thread, it appears that road closures are always good, and that the traffic that clogs more minor through routes like AR or CHL will simply evaporate, so why not close both?  That would make central Brixton much nicer!


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> ??
> 
> This is part of the London wide Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme, enacted by TfL as part of its Londonwide transport strategy.
> 
> ...


The specific scheme to transform Atlantic Road is at the heart of the Brixton scheme, which the ambition for low traffic neighbourhoods is reliant on.  Not the other way round.  There's no mention that this project depends on other schemes, it's presented as standalone, although you implied dependence when you said "_I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic_".

That's what I meant, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> The specific scheme to transform Atlantic Road is at the heart of the Brixton scheme, which the ambition for low traffic neighbourhoods is reliant on.  Not the other way round.  There's no mention that this project depends on other schemes, it's presented as standalone, although you implied dependence when you said "_I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic_".
> 
> That's what I meant, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear.



It's still not clear what you mean.

It's not standalone. It's part of the Londonwide _Liveable Neighbourhoods_ scheme. That's why it's called "Brixton _Liveable Neighbourhood_". That's why it's funded by TfL, the London-wide body responsible for implementing the Mayor's transport strategy. That's what the L in TfL stands for.

This is a summary of the Mayor's Transport Strategy:



> *About the strategy*
> Transport has the potential to shape London, from the streets Londoners live, work and spend time on, to the Tube, rail and bus services they use every day.
> 
> By using the Healthy Streets Approach to prioritise human health and experience in planning the city, the Mayor wants to change London’s transport mix so the city works better for everyone.
> ...



If more and more neighbourhoods throughout London implement these small scale changes, then more and more benefit is seen Londonwide. Because London as a whole becomes somewhere where it's less attractive to get around by driving, and where using other modes becomes more attractive.


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> It's still not clear what you mean.
> 
> It's not standalone. It's part of the Londonwide _Liveable Neighbourhoods_ scheme. That's why it's called "Brixton _Liveable Neighbourhood_". That's why it's funded by TfL, the London-wide body responsible for implementing the Mayor's transport strategy. That's what the L in TfL stands for.
> 
> ...



It's standalone in the sense that the overall strategy does not specifically depend on it. Also in the sense that there's no suggestion that this scheme depends on another elsewhere, Camberwell say, or Kennington, Streatham, wherever.	We're warned that the funding can be withdrawn and used elsewhere, so it's obviously standalone.

The consequences of the overall strategy will become apparent as it's rolled out. I hope your assumption of pure benefit with no hint of downside proves correct.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> It's standalone in the sense that the overall strategy does not specifically depend on it. Also in the sense that there's no suggestion that this scheme depends on another elsewhere, Camberwell say, or Kennington, Streatham, wherever.	We're warned that the funding can be withdrawn and used elsewhere, so it's obviously standalone.
> 
> The consequences of the overall strategy will become apparent as it's rolled out. I hope your assumption of pure benefit with no hint of downside proves correct.


The overall strategy absolutely depends on these schemes being implemented throughout London. It's like saying that a nationwide vaccination scheme doesn't specifically depend on your doctor implementing it so why should they bother. Except that this scheme brings local benefits as well as greater-good benefits. 

At no point have I talked about 'pure benefits' or 'no downside'. I've mentioned 'net benefit'.


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> this scheme brings local benefits as well as greater-good benefits.
> 
> At no point have I talked about 'pure benefits' or 'no downside'. I've mentioned 'net benefit'.


What you said, in the post I quoted and replied to, was "_If more and more neighbourhoods throughout London implement these small scale changes, then more and more benefit is seen Londonwide._"  No mention of downside there, or in this latest post where you say "_this scheme brings local benefits as well as greater-good benefits_" with absolutely zero recognition that there could be any possible negative consequences.

You and others appear to me to be arguing that any and all proposals to close roads are a good thing that will automatically and without question produce benefit.  If that is not your position then you need to nuance your posts better, honestly acknowledge and examine potential problems, and seek to work out ways to ameliorate them. If it is, then I can only assume you'll pick up and run with my proposal to close both Atlantic Road and Coldharbour Lane, because that must produce twice the benefit, no?


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> The overall strategy absolutely depends on these schemes being implemented throughout London. It's like saying that a nationwide vaccination scheme doesn't specifically depend on your doctor implementing it so why should they bother.



If the money is withdrawn from Brixton and spent in, say, Streatham the overall strategy will continue substantially unaffected.  Your analogy doesn't work.


----------



## thebackrow (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> or like the Mini-Hollands where there was an insignificant impact on car usage



“Insignificant”.  The figures from the first scheme in Walthamstow - the Village - saw a 50% reduction in traffic in the Village itself and a 15% reduction across the wider area.  Some main roads went up slightly but the following year was seeing them falling back down.  They’re continuing to expand the area and address areas where new issues have emerged.



Gramsci said:


> My irritation with this scheme is that it appears no on who actually lives or works in the proposed liveable neighborhood was asked about it.


There’s a consultation now. You’re being asked now.  There was no funding before. There have been loads of central brixton consultations before (which included closing AR - for which there was support as I understood at the time) which were unfunded.  As someone who participated in those, being asked what we wanted only for it to  go nowhere was pretty demotivating.  This scheme has proper funding.  It’s incredibly common for those who fight against  schemes to complain  that they haven’t been consulted (*while they are being consulted*). For New Park Road people were complaining the council hadn’t told them about the scheme when there had been a mail shot to all houses - “oh, but I didn’t read that -  I throw away anything that’s from the council”.



newbie said:


> following the logic of people on this thread, it appears that road closures are always good, and that the traffic that clogs more minor through routes like AR or CHL will simply evaporate, so why not close both?  That would make central Brixton much nicer!



Pretty much.  If you want to reduce traffic london-wide you need to reduce capacity and make the city less porous to motor vehicles.  I’d go with closing both if it could be made to work.  I’d not be surprised if CHL is closed at some point in the future.   Cardiff City centre has a very large pedestrianised area now as an example that works really well.  I’m sure it didn’t all happen at once and I’m sure it was massively controversial at the time it was done. It’s one of the nicest city shopping areas i know of now. Not much parking in town.  Lots of park and ride. 



newbie said:


> It's standalone in the sense that the overall strategy does not specifically depend on it. Also in the sense that there's no suggestion that this scheme depends on another elsewhere


Making everything contingent on something else guarantees no change as nothing can happen first, everything has to stop if one part of a scheme runs into trouble.  That’s how Westminster were able to kill the CS11 cycle scheme north of regent street.


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> “Insignificant”.  The figures from the first scheme in Walthamstow - the Village - saw a 50% reduction in traffic in the Village itself and a 15% reduction across the wider area.  Some main roads went up slightly but the following year was seeing them falling back down.  They’re continuing to expand the area and address areas where new issues have emerged.


Can you stand that up please.  

I was referring to this evaluation of all the mini Holland schemes, published May 2019


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Pretty much.  If you want to reduce traffic london-wide you need to reduce capacity and make the city less porous to motor vehicles.


By forcing them on to main roads without consideration of consequences.  ok.


> I’d go with closing both if it could be made to work.  I’d not be surprised if CHL is closed at some point in the future.


why shouldn't it work?  According to this thread the traffic will evaporate and there won't be any negative consequences. e2a did you look at the pollution map?

I applaud your ambition to use Cardiff as a template, so let's close Brixton Road between the police station and new Town Hall as well.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> What you said, in the post I quoted and replied to, was "_If more and more neighbourhoods throughout London implement these small scale changes, then more and more benefit is seen Londonwide._"  No mention of downside there, or in this latest post where you say "_this scheme brings local benefits as well as greater-good benefits_" with absolutely zero recognition that there could be any possible negative consequences.



I've said (as you yourself quoted):

_I do think an extra 7% on Brixton Road would be a price worth paying, viewed in the context of a London-wide policy to reduce motor traffic
_
If you choose to interpret any statement mentioning benefits as meaning there are no downsides, despite those downsides having been explicitly mentioned previously, there's not much I can do about that.

Would you like it stated explicitly again? Here we go: closing any road, including one like Atlantic Road, has downsides, which can include increased traffic and pollution elsewhere and certain essential journeys taking a bit longer.  



newbie said:


> You and others appear to me to be arguing that any and all proposals to close roads are a good thing that will automatically and without question produce benefit.  If that is not your position then you need to nuance your posts better, honestly acknowledge and examine potential problems, and seek to work out ways to ameliorate them. If it is, then I can only assume you'll pick up and run with my proposal to close both Atlantic Road and Coldharbour Lane, because that must produce twice the benefit, no?



It's not possible to close all roads in a city, because there are certain journeys that need to be made by motorised road vehicles. So, no it is automatically the case that closing any road will produce net benefit. Would Brixton town centre be nicer with Coldharbour Lane, Altlantic Road and Brixton Road all completely closed? Absolutely it would, but it's unlikely that would ever be feasible, because fairly significant north-south and east-west routes pass through Brixton.

However, I would hope there's a future where there is much less traffic passing through Brixton. While it might never be possible to close all those roads completely in my opinion it is entirely realistic to reach a point where we have much less motor traffic in general in London, which might allow, for example, the number of lanes on Brixton Road to be reduced, giving more pavement space, maybe Coldharbour Lane being closed at certain times of day or maybe even completely except for buses, if general traffic levels can be reduced enough that east-west traffic could all go via, say, Gresham Road.

I think trying to close Atlantic Rd and Coldharbour Lane at the same time probably would not work, but closing Altlantic Rd could well be the first step in an incremental process that ends up with us also being able to close or mostly-close Coldharbour Lane to motor traffic.

To say that people are trying to argue that _all proposals to close roads are a good thing that will automatically and without question produce benefit_ just seems like willful misunderstanding to me.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> If the money is withdrawn from Brixton and spent in, say, Streatham the overall strategy will continue substantially unaffected.  Your analogy doesn't work.


In the short term perhaps but if the longer term aim is to make all London neighbourhoods 'liveable' then these changes need to happen at some point.

In any case, if you want to look at it from a selfish Brixton point of view, then if Brixton continues as a relatively traffic-porous area amidst surrounding neighbourhoods which are becoming increasingly traffic non-porous, then it is just going to suffer from that displaced traffic that you are worried about. And yes I do accept that some traffic is displaced but the overall amount of traffic in south London/London would still be decreasing.


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> “Insignificant”.  The figures from the first scheme in Walthamstow - the Village - saw a 50% reduction in traffic in the Village itself and a 15% reduction across the wider area.  Some main roads went up slightly but the following year was seeing them falling back down.  They’re continuing to expand the area and address areas where new issues have emerged.
> 
> 
> There’s a consultation now. You’re being asked now.  There was no funding before. There have been loads of central brixton consultations before (which included closing AR - for which there was support as I understood at the time) which were unfunded.  As someone who participated in those, being asked what we wanted only for it to  go nowhere was pretty demotivating.  This scheme has proper funding.  It’s incredibly common for those who fight against  schemes to complain  that they haven’t been consulted (*while they are being consulted*). For New Park Road people were complaining the council hadn’t told them about the scheme when there had been a mail shot to all houses - “oh, but I didn’t read that -  I throw away anything that’s from the council”.
> ...



Ive checked the Lambeth website and I can't see a consultation about this.

Where is it?

Consultations | Lambeth Council


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Ive checked the Lambeth website and I can't see a consultation about this.
> 
> Where is it?
> 
> Consultations | Lambeth Council


https://brixtonlnmap.commonplace.is/comment


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> “Insignificant”.  The figures from the first scheme in Walthamstow - the Village - saw a 50% reduction in traffic in the Village itself and a 15% reduction across the wider area.  Some main roads went up slightly but the following year was seeing them falling back down.  They’re continuing to expand the area and address areas where new issues have emerged.
> 
> 
> There’s a consultation now. You’re being asked now.  There was no funding before. There have been loads of central brixton consultations before (which included closing AR - for which there was support as I understood at the time) which were unfunded.  As someone who participated in those, being asked what we wanted only for it to  go nowhere was pretty demotivating.  This scheme has proper funding.  It’s incredibly common for those who fight against  schemes to complain  that they haven’t been consulted (*while they are being consulted*). For New Park Road people were complaining the council hadn’t told them about the scheme when there had been a mail shot to all houses - “oh, but I didn’t read that -  I throw away anything that’s from the council”.
> ...



On consultation.

Your missing my point.

If the idea is to create a liveable neighbourhood then people should be asked before being presented with , what look to me like finished plans.

As the boundary comes to my bit of Loughborough junction and according to the proposal young people are important part of this project I will make a couple of suggestions. 

Housing. An important part of a liveable neighbourhood imo. 

Make developers put 40% affordable. 

Guarantee that the land the Grove adventure playground is on will not be built on. I and other locals have been arguing with the council about this for a couple of years.

If the council want people to be more active they should listen to residents and protect adventure playgrounds.

In LJ a developer is trying to put just 17 per cent affordable in recent planning application. 

Including issues like this in liveable neighbourhood idea would imo get it more support.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> Can you stand that up please.
> 
> I was referring to this evaluation of all the mini Holland schemes, published May 2019
> View attachment 171750



Firstly let's be clear that there are two different issues: one is the change in travel habits of people living within an area, the other is the amount of road traffic in that area, not all of which is generated by its residents.

That study is looking at the former.

It's a study that is looking for effects whilst the schemes are still in the process of implementation.

You've picked out one thing where they did not find evidence of a significant effect - likelihood that someone's used a car in the past week.

On the other hand they *have* found evidence that people are walking and cycling more - although, like with most of these things, the level of effect is variable and complicated.

If you're going to pick out one part of a report, how about the summary?

 

You imply that the basic finding of this report was that there is no significant evidence of the benefits of completed interventions - but in reality, it's a report that finds there are some signs of positive effects even before the interventions have been fully implemented. It's a 'watch this space' report with fairly positive initial indications.

People can read the full report for themselves. Here is another part of the conclusions though:



> *5.3. Meaning of the study and implications for policy and future research*
> 
> The consistent results build confidence in the findings; where statistical significance is not reached the effect is generally in the expected direction. Similarly, the larger effects (in terms of travel behaviour change, and views about the cycling environment) in high-dose mini-Holland areas than in low-dose mini-Holland areas indicates that in places where borough stakeholders expected change to happen based on intervention timescales, there was indeed stronger evidence of change. This ‘dose response’ effect adds confidence to our ability to attribute a causal role to the mini-Holland intervention. The exception is the change in attitudes towards cycling spending in the mini-Holland boroughs, seen just as strongly in the low-dose areas as in the high-dose areas. In other words, the benefits of the intervention were specific to people living near to new infrastructure, whereas the controversy around the schemes was observed across a wider area.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> https://brixtonlnmap.commonplace.is/comment



All I see is a map. Is this Council consultation?  Who set this up?


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> To say that people are trying to argue that _all proposals to close roads are a good thing that will automatically and without question produce benefit_ just seems like willful misunderstanding to me.


Why?  A while back you eventually accepted that there would be increased traffic on BR, because I pushed you to do so.  Apart from that no-one has really agreed there could be any negative consequences for anyone, and since then, as I've quoted, your posts reverted to simply highlighting benefits.

Anyway, that's history, perhaps we're moving away from evangelising pure benefit to trying to look properly at cost/benefit, or risk/reward, which is where we could have been pages ago.

So what are the factors on each side of the equation, which identifiable individuals will be directly affected, how will it bear on which social or demographic groups and so on?

Trouble is we have inadequate information to properly engage with this consultation.  Although they don't tell us, there must be figures for, eg, the number of residents living within 25m of AR to contrast with those near the most affected sections of CHL & BR; or estimates of footfall, bus passengers, retail staff; perhaps there's research on the source and destination of the 6,000 vehicles per day that apparently use AR, or modelling of how traffic will percolate or pollution concentrate or disperse.  They may have used studies from elsewhere to estimate how much extra active travel they anticipate, and have modeled the class and racial components of the winning and losing demographics. Who knows what information they used, we're not told, just as we're not told how the traffic will actually work.  Instead of that there's a set of tags to preload the consultation.


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> You've picked out one thing where they did not find evidence of a significant effect - likelihood that someone's used a car in the past week.


You told me about the general pattern, I queried using the work 'insignificant' which thebackrow picked up and I substantiated.  It may be only one part of a bigger report, but it does cast doubt on your 'general pattern' assertion, which underpins the only-benefit-no-cost narrative.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> Why?  A while back you eventually accepted that there would be increased traffic on BR, because I pushed you to do so.  Apart from that no-one has really agreed there could be any negative consequences for anyone, and since then, as I've quoted, your posts reverted to simply highlighting benefits.



This is just nonsense.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> it does cast doubt on your 'general pattern' assertion,



No it doesn't.



newbie said:


> which underpins the only-benefit-no-cost narrative.



No such narrative is being presented.

I think it's a waste of time discussing this with you.


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> This is just nonsense.


Can you show where anyone other than me has highlighted negatives of closing Atlantic Road.


----------



## thebackrow (May 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> On consultation.
> If the idea is to create a liveable neighbourhood then people should be asked before being presented with , what look to me like finished plans.
> As the boundary comes to my bit of Loughborough junction and according to the proposal young people are important part of this project I will make a couple of suggestions.



You are wilfully misunderstanding this process aren’t you?  The first post on this conversation is linked to the first engagement/consultation of the Liveable Neighbourhood.  You must have missed the link, as the page linked to says-

“Engagement with the people who live, work and visit Brixton is critical to this project. There’s no point building new public places and changing the way our streets work if this isn’t planned with the people of Brixton for the people of Brixton. While our bid to TfL contains plenty of bold ideas, the only thing that is fixed at this stage is our ambition and determination to make Brixton and the surrounding area a better, healthier place with cleaner air, safer more accessible streets and support for the unique mix of local businesses and attractions in the area.”

There are no detailed plans to comment on at this stage — there are broad ideas.  TfL have released a small amount of funding to consult and start to flesh these out.  Then they’ll release more money for detailed designs to be produced, which will be consulted on.  

The council/project team arent likely to be monitoring this thread, so if you’ve got suggestions (that are within the scope of the Liveable Neighbourhood project - you can read up on the TfL site what types of things this money can fund) the consultation site, which the first post in this thread linked to, would be the place to do it.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> This is just nonsense.



To illustrate this, here are numerous times throughout this thread where I've acknowledged potential downsides of road closure schemes.



teuchter said:


> These are just the usual old arguments. By this logic we can't try and reduce traffic elsewhere. To reduce traffic in london you have to make it *less convenient to drive*. If *closing AR makes certain journeys less convenient* then fewer people will drive. Traffic does not simply get displaced on a 1:1 basis. This is well studied, basic stuff.





teuchter said:


> *That's fair enough, of course the details are important* and the Loughborough Junction road closures were an example of a scheme which failed not because the basic idea was bad but because of the way it was implemented.
> 
> I am yet to read up on the proposals for this scheme so can't answer the specific questions right now; however, I post the facts backing up the general point that *the effects of displacement* are usually over-egged because I know that this is very commonly an initial objection. Anyone coming to this thread, who has *worries about the effects of displaced traffic*, can read that general commentary alongside looking at the particulars of this scheme. People are of course free to put their *worries about negative effects* into the comments on the map, and I'd hope that the people designing the scheme will make the effort to counter those properly, and/or *adjust the proposals to take any valid concerns into account*.





teuchter said:


> Firstly: there was a fear about changes that are seen as leading to or enabling gentrification. *To some extent I see this as a legitimate fear*, and I think it's one that anyone involved in promoting such schemes needs to get to grips with and acknowledge. The fact is, making places more accessible for pedestrians and cyclists, and reducing traffic, makes those places 'nicer' (that's kind of the whole point after all) and it's true that this can lead to changes relating from a consequent increase in value of property. This is a tricky issue to deal with. One option of course is to resist the change on a 'keeping [area] crap' basis. In that case, the logic is that the people living in the area accept that they continue with air and noise pollution, road injuries and so on, in exchange for their area remaining affordable. This logic is discussed in the 'keeping Brixton Crap' thread.






teuchter said:


> So - while *I do think that people's concerns about gentrification effects have to be listened to seriously*, I think it's very important to try and get an accurate measure of the full reasons people might oppose a scheme, including those which are based on misinformation, and do everything possible to convince them that certain fears are unfounded, as well as emphasising the many benefits that can be brought to them. This is what failed to happen with the LJ closures.





teuchter said:


> The inconsistency suggests that a significant proportion of opposition is down to those with a self interest. Making a public park better doesn't inconvenience anyone. *Reducing motor traffic does inconvenience certain people: car owners*. Both things could be seen as making an area more attractive and thus prone to gentrification though.





teuchter said:


> I've just had a look at the report you linked to earlier.
> 
> The road that closed - prior to closure - had 469 vehicles using it in the pm peak. The closure reduced this by 90% so a reduction of 422 vehicles achieved.
> 
> ...





teuchter said:


> Would you like it stated explicitly again? Here we go: *closing any road, including one like Atlantic Road, has downsides, which can include increased traffic and pollution elsewhere and certain essential journeys taking a bit longer.  *
> 
> *It's not possible to close all roads in a city, because there are certain journeys that need to be made by motorised road vehicles. So, no it is automatically the case that closing any road will produce net benefit. *Would Brixton town centre be nicer with Coldharbour Lane, Altlantic Road and Brixton Road all completely closed? Absolutely it would, but it's unlikely that would ever be feasible, because fairly significant north-south and east-west routes pass through Brixton.
> 
> ...


----------



## thebackrow (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> By forcing them on to main roads without consideration of consequences. ..
> ... so let's close Brixton Road between the police station and new Town Hall as well.



Of course, Brixton Road is due for changes (and presumably capacity reduction) as well.  TfL have been talking about the A23 as being one of the highest priority cycling corridors since before the current mayor arrived. 

It’s now described by TfL as “Cycle Future Route 15”. There are some plans for protected cycle lanes on the Streatham section that appeared in draft last year and are due for consultation soon (Streatham Green News: TfL shares two ideas for changes to the A23 in Streatham Hill and i think other stuff later in the year). 

The Lambeth Transport Strategy (consulted on at the end of last year and now approved) mentions it (as potentially being built by 2022)  
Will Norman (mayors walking and cycling czar) has mentioned plans for a “major Streatham to Oval cycle route” are at design stage


----------



## newbie (May 22, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Of course, Brixton Road is due for changes (and presumably capacity reduction) as well.  TfL have been talking about the A23 as being one of the highest priority cycling corridors since before the current mayor arrived.
> 
> It’s now described by TfL as “Cycle Future Route 15”. There are some plans for protected cycle lanes on the Streatham section that appeared in draft last year and are due for consultation soon (Streatham Green News: TfL shares two ideas for changes to the A23 in Streatham Hill and i think other stuff later in the year).
> 
> ...



I've got to go out but that's the map associated with this proposal.  I presumed you'd seen it.  It's in this pdf.


----------



## thebackrow (May 22, 2019)

Put all these things together and you might start to think it was part of an overall strategy to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport over use of private cars London wide

It’s the sort of thing you’d expect a democratically elected mayor with resposnibility for transport to develop.  You’d expect it to be consulted on and published. 

The Mayor's Transport Strategy


----------



## thebackrow (May 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> I've got to go out but that's the map associated with this proposal.  I presumed you'd seen it.  It's in this pdf.



Bottom of the second tweet in that series.

“Plus@TfL’s plans for a major Oval to Streatham cycle route have just begun the design stage. Can’t wait to share them! 2/2”

Not the first mention of it, in case you think that one isnt clear.


----------



## Winot (May 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I think you make fair points.
> 
> I didn't really want to get into all the ins and outs of the LJ debacle.
> 
> ...



There are some interesting points raised here which are tricky to resolve. I don’t have time right now to respond properly, but it does strike me that what we mean by ‘democracy’ isn’t always clear. 

For example, in London a key issue for transport schemes is whether TfL or a LA holds the power. So Livingstone had power to introduce the CC and Khan the ULEZ. But when it came to Khan’s Oxford St plans, Westminster was able to block it because of their local power. 

Is this democracy? It’s true that Westminster Council were elected and so had a local mandate. But should a local mandate block a scheme that - I would argue - actually benefits the whole of London. 

As I say, these are tricky issues and there are no easy answers.


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> You are wilfully misunderstanding this process aren’t you?  The first post on this conversation is linked to the first engagement/consultation of the Liveable Neighbourhood.  You must have missed the link, as the page linked to says-
> 
> “Engagement with the people who live, work and visit Brixton is critical to this project. There’s no point building new public places and changing the way our streets work if this isn’t planned with the people of Brixton for the people of Brixton. While our bid to TfL contains plenty of bold ideas, the only thing that is fixed at this stage is our ambition and determination to make Brixton and the surrounding area a better, healthier place with cleaner air, safer more accessible streets and support for the unique mix of local businesses and attractions in the area.”
> 
> ...



I cant find anything on that website to say its a council consultation. Or who the "we" are. 

Its not on the Council consultation page of the Council website.

Nor am I being wilful.

If the idea is to make liveable neighbourhoods I have my own ideas for that.

The couple of examples I put forward fit imo to the idea of a liveable neighbourhood. 

Particularly keeping the adventure playground.


----------



## teuchter (May 22, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I cant find anything on that website to say its a council consultation. Or who the "we" are.
> 
> Its not on the Council consultation page of the Council website.
> 
> ...



Why not continue to support/do/suggest the stuff you mention, and also support the principle of reducing traffic and making things more pedestrian/cycle friendly, when there's an opportunity for funding from the TfL transport specific budget to be used on transport-specific improvements locally? Why is it a choice between that and the other things you put forward as important?


----------



## Gramsci (May 22, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Why not continue to support/do/suggest the stuff you mention, and also support the principle of reducing traffic and making things more pedestrian/cycle friendly, when there's an opportunity for funding from the TfL transport specific budget to be used on transport-specific improvements locally? Why is it a choice between that and the other things you put forward as important?



As I said at recent meeting if this was about reducing traffic I would continue to support/ offer suggestions.

I've put a few suggestions here. Stop the Railton road rat run by stopping vehicles turning into Railton road when they come by Bockwell park and looking at making CHL from Dogstsar to Ritzy pedestrian / cycle only zone instead.

What I can't deal with is the "liveable neighborhood" wind up.

I'm guessing the website is written by Council officers. It reads like it was written by them.

I've spent last few years having arguments with officers over Rec and Grove adventure playground. This "liveable neighborhood" is for me total wind up.

I've spent last few years trying to keep this a "liveable neighborhood" working largely against officers plans. Keeping Rec as community asset and stopping Grove APG being sold off and built on as part of Regen "regeneration" project.

The thing is the Council has no money and little real power now. Planning is example.

One thing it can do is bid for grants from TFL and Mayor. This is what officers in Regen/ jobs and growth spend their time doing.

They have this TFL liveable neighborhood money, Good Growth Fund, Creative Enterprise Zone. All from TFL/ Sadiq.

If its free money they apply for it. Keeps them in work and justifies Council existing.

Often bids are put in, which should have had more local residents input, officers say they would have liked to do this. But lack of time meant they didn't. Then get told its money Brixton desperately needs so please support it. And we ask for your input at some other time.

Had this recently at meeting. Council are deciding a policy on an issue. One official let slip this was happening. I asked when local residents groups will be invited and asked their opinion. Told recent meeting was not for local community groups. I know why. They argue. The local state manages population through the senior officers, senior managers of Council services ( outsourced or not) , senior managers in social housing/ social work Sector, senior police officers.

Definitely not local residents groups. We are last in line.

I don't think ordinary people realise a lot goes on in Council which even more active individuals like me aren't privy to.

Policy / plans get decided then filtered down through more junior officers. Then in reality minimal consultation takes place. I recently had to urge local group I'm involved in to refuse meeting officers until we had a proper written response to our queries to Cllrs.

I get on with officers and Cllrs but I know they see me as potentially a member of the awkward squad. Which I don't see myself as. I just want the Council to listen and support residents who show willing to contribute to local society.

Its why Cllr Rachel was driven out. She saw this.


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> As I said at recent meeting if this was about reducing traffic I would continue to support/ offer suggestions.
> 
> I've put a few suggestions here. Stop the Railton road rat run by stopping vehicles turning into Railton road when they come by Bockwell park and looking at making CHL from Dogstsar to Ritzy pedestrian / cycle only zone instead.
> 
> ...


Yup I'm aware that this is how a lot of stuff happens and I don't really like it either. 

The way I see it though, is that the current TfL/mayor transport policies are largely quite good. This is amidst a load of policy on various issues at whatever level that I can't feel very positive about. Including a lot of the stuff you mention. So in principle I want to support these efforts to reduce car dominance and make london better for getting around on foot and bike and to tackle air pollution and congestion. Supporting this stuff might mean that it has to be accepted that it goes through the wheels of ropey Lambeth consultation and implementation. Otherwise it doesn't happen at all, or it only happens in other parts of town. There's enough resistance to these kinds of changes already - in many parts of the UK it would be almost impossible to get this kind of strategy enacted as it would be seen as wildly radical - without them getting scuppered by folk rejecting them because Lambeth are involved or because they don't like the name of the project or to make a point about other issues that *don't* have policy ready to go and with funding behind them.


----------



## newbie (May 23, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Put all these things together and you might start to think it was part of an overall strategy to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport over use of private cars London wide
> 
> It’s the sort of thing you’d expect a democratically elected mayor with resposnibility for transport to develop.  You’d expect it to be consulted on and published.
> 
> The Mayor's Transport Strategy


Of course there's a strategy, and of course the available funding should be sought and used locally in pursuit of that strategy.  That's not at issue.  

In this case I think I've made clear my reservations about closing one specific street.  Others appear to take the view that this proposal is automatically good and doesn't require much scrutiny.  We'll have to hope you're all right, won't we, or more little girls living close to main roads will die.

The road pricing proposal nobody wants to discuss is much more likely to produce the sort of reduction in overall vehicle use required.


----------



## thebackrow (May 23, 2019)

newbie said:


> The road pricing proposal nobody wants to discuss is much more likely to produce the sort of reduction in overall vehicle use required.



That's a classic bit of 'fake news'.  I've already said I support road pricing and I put that as feedback to both the mayors Transport Strategy and to the Lambeth Transport Strategy (that they should lobby the Mayor to introduce it - a policy the City of London and other boroughs have in their strategies too.)  The more LAs lobbying for it the more likely it is to happen.  Overton windows and all that.

However, road pricing can't practically be implemented at a borough level.  It would be hugely expensive to set up even if it was (with budget that Lambeth don't have) and Lambeth couldn't implement it on TfL roads without their assent.  Liveable Neighbourhood schemes aren't incompatible with road pricing - need both.  Stop the rat running, charge on the main roads.  

That means it seems a pretty abstract discussion to be having on a thread about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood - maybe start a separate thread where I'd happily delve into options. It's an inevitable future but I far enough into the future that I don't have a strong view on the finer details yet so would be a good exercise.

What *is* on offer is a scheme that could reduce through traffic on residential streets over a large area around Brixton and remove it completely from a busy shopping street. If successful (as Waltham Forest was) it would likely lead to more funding and spread to a wider area.

You don't like the idea of closing Atlantic Road.  Which roads would you close to through traffic or do you think we should maximise porosity for driving remove any restrictions that have been put in in the past and make every street busy and polluted?


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2019)

I too support road pricing in principle. 

I actually would favour cranking up parking charges substantially in lieu of it, as a technologically less complex option.

I am open to either Coldharbour Lane or Atlantic Rd being pedestrianised, and would be interested to see the reasoning behind any choice once the scheme reaches a more detailed design stage.

Of course, either way, at least one little girl probably dies somewhere, but naturally I don't care about that, and don't think the plans should be scrutinised at all, just like everyone else who thinks this might be a good thing to get behind.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> That's a classic bit of 'fake news'.  I've already said I support road pricing and I put that as feedback to both the mayors Transport Strategy and to the Lambeth Transport Strategy (that they should lobby the Mayor to introduce it - a policy the City of London and other boroughs have in their strategies too.)  The more LAs lobbying for it the more likely it is to happen.  Overton windows and all that.
> 
> However, road pricing can't practically be implemented at a borough level.  It would be hugely expensive to set up even if it was (with budget that Lambeth don't have) and Lambeth couldn't implement it on TfL roads without their assent.  Liveable Neighbourhood schemes aren't incompatible with road pricing - need both.  Stop the rat running, charge on the main roads.
> 
> ...



I think Newbie has raised good points. If I get him right he wants to ensure social equity.

The argument that keeps getting put forward is that this is happening. Alternatives are all very well but that is for separate discussion.

Its the kind of argument I regularly get from Council officers on other issues.

It looks to me that TFL / Mayor / Councils have decided that the way to reduce car use is a London wide "Liveable neighborhood" scheme.

This is going to be introduced to communities from above.

Its going to be a take it or leave it argument.

If like Newbie you want a different London wide policy you are being told you aren't being realistic.

That opposing this livable neighborhood policy because you want different form of traffic reduction means you are playing into the hands of the car lobby.

Its an issue I have with consultation. Parameters are set. If you go outside them or question them you're categorised as just being difficult.The awkward squad.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2019)

I've been looking at the comments on the website. Noticed several like this:

Interesting comment on Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood

Saying that this is about making an area a "Liveable neighborhood" means that people will bring up issues that aren't directly about car use.

Like drug dealing on their estate. Not a new problem.

Extending the definition of liveable neighborhood from narrow one to one that is more meaningful.

This isn't wilfull.

Its quite understandable. Its what I have been indicating here.

If people are to be got on side to change transport use using concepts like liveable neighborhood then their concerns/ input for overall liveability of neighborhood need addressing.

Otherwise, and this is the lesson from Loughborough Junction, it will be rejected or accepted with resentment if imposed from above.

I've also noticed comments on people complaining of cars using their estates as rat runs. Mopeds being driven at speed in estates.

These aren't new problems.

To much emphasis in this project is about central Brixton. Not the people included in the boundary in imo superficial way. The boundary is quite large.


----------



## teuchter (May 23, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> That opposing this livable neighborhood policy because you want different form of traffic reduction means you are playing into the hands of the car lobby.



Yes, you are.

What process exactly do you want? You want more consultation but you don't like the way consultations work. You want issues that are totally outside the scope of this funding to be addressed as a condition of accepting the scheme that has funding. How does this all come about, in pragmatic terms?


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Yes, you are.
> 
> What process exactly do you want? You want more consultation but you don't like the way consultations work. You want issues that are totally outside the scope of this funding to be addressed as a condition of accepting the scheme that has funding. How does this all come about, in pragmatic terms?



Look at the comments on the website.

Its not just me.

Btw the scope is quite broad:

Key aims for our engagement are:



> *Promoting social inclusion and community safety by bringing communities together*
> Working with businesses to allow them to thrive with a better environment for everyone
> Focusing on improving access to our estates including outreach work with young people
> Working closely with schools, faith and neighbourhood groups in the area
> ...



If I read this and lived on estate with serious drug problems I would think commenting on that in line with this project.


----------



## Gramsci (May 23, 2019)

I've already said I think Railton road has become a rat run and measures to stop that are needed.

Its not my idea to dress this up as Liveable neighborhood bringing communities together,  considering the needs of the whole community, promote social inclusion and community safety.

This is TFL/ Lambeth council.

Its them bringing in wider issues not me.


----------



## newbie (May 24, 2019)

I'm afraid I've written another overlong post in a final attempt to get people to reconsider how air quality should be approached in the short term- ie this local funding round.



thebackrow said:


> Which roads would you close to through traffic


It's hard to say without more detailed proposals.  There are three routes suggested for active travel with no or low vehicle use:
Barrington Rd, which I don't really use enough to have a view about.
Ferndale Rd, which is the only cross route through a big block, and is already one way at BR. It never seems that busy to me tbh, but I guess displaced traffic will end up on Clapham Rd or Acre Lane. Or on Landor Road, which is already pretty clogged and could be another candidate for active travel.
Railton Rd, which has a parallel route, along Effra & Dulwich Roads though that includes the Morval/Water Lane oneway system, which will be an obvious pinch point.  Other drivers might prefer Shakespeare or Milkwood Roads and Loughborough Rd, with a pinch point at LJ and possibly more queuing at Herne Hill.

Between them closing those routes will push quite a lot of through traffic onto main roads and probably produce worsened congestion/pollution hotspots. Most of those main roads are conveniently outside the project area.

In terms of winners and losers, well a lot of properties on newly quieter streets will get a windfall equity boost based on their improved quality of life. A few people will be encouraged towards additional active travel journeys.  People who live on Dulwich, Effra and other affected main roads will see their quality of life and air deteriorate.  Those who live, work or spend time at the hotspots and on the main roads will bear the brunt. Pretty much all displaced traffic will end up on the main stretch of Brixton Road or perhaps at Loughborough Junction. Some small percentage of vehicle journeys won't be made.

But there are so many if's involved it's hard to guess what this will actually amount to. I'm not convinced that simply closing off Railton is a great plan- it may be, but without more detail it's too hard to guess.



> or do you think we should maximise porosity for driving remove any restrictions that have been put in in the past and make every street busy and polluted?


You think it's all so simple, don't you? Force everyone out of their cars, get them to walk or cycle and we'll all live a happily ever after.  No downsides, only positives.

Earlier you were moaning that the use of satnav meant other people were using your street, which didn't used to happen.  With realtime routing round obstructions software finds the quickest route, so when it sends cars down your street it's because the main roads are choked.  I understand you don't much like that, you presumably chose to live on a quiet residential street to avoid it.  The people who live on busy main roads, particularly those in flats above shops, don't tend to have that choice, they're where they are because the properties are not so desirable, which means they're cheap(er).

I fully understand you're campaigning to reduce car use, and seek every incremental gain, but in the here and now, do you really feel comfortable about pushing the whole burden onto those who live on the main roads, in order that your street is quiet?  It's not only those who live there, of course, it's also those who work there, in retail or offices, who have to sit in stationary buses, who just use the busy pavements and so on.

All sorts of initiatives have been tried over years or decades: the traffic hasn't evaporated.  I know I keep going on, I'd intended to stop but you asked and I really will quit after this, but in this crowded, realworld city of the here and now if you improve your own quality of life by reducing the traffic in your street you will necessarily inflict a lower quality of life on someone else.

We all want cleaner air for ourselves and any children we have. To be direct but not intentionally personal as I have no idea about your circumstances, every home owner who is pushing for their street to be made traffic free, or non porous, needs to have a long, hard look at their motivation. No-one will admit to calculating the improved equity, but that doesn't mean they're not doing it.

Like I've said a few times, a little girl with asthma lived beside the S Circular, and over a period of years her hospital admissions coincided with peaks in pollution. Eventually her asthma killed her.

The effect of non-porous neighbourhoods is to push yet more traffic onto main routes.




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> A south London housing development has been approved in an area where air pollution is so high that residents will be advised to keep their windows closed.
> 
> Nitrogen dioxide exceeds legal limits on the busy road where the development is planned, next to the A2 in Lewisham. An air quality assessment carried out on behalf of the developers found levels of 56.3 micrograms per cubic metre in the area – far above the legal limit of 40µg/m3.


here 

The Brixton Road air monitor has recorded 62µg/m3 as the current annual mean for 2019.  So as an average that's 50% higher than the legal limit, with peaks higher still.

We can all throw statistics around, and these are not of the highest quality (because that monitor has been out of action a lot) but please would you recognise that I'm trying to highlight something serious here. When you push all the burden onto a few people you are likely to cause them harm, and pointing to longer term gains for a wider population doesn't change that.

One comment from the consultation, as food for thought.


You also complained about Uber using your street.  Well that's just your neighbours calling a car from point A to drive to their home to take them to point B and then drive back empty to somewhere near A, where the driver bases themselves. It's a grossly inefficient way to transport individuals, yet for lone women travelling at night or people with mobility issues or shopping or kids to carry the availability of cheap cabs is a good thing, not a bad one.  I don't know how many of the millions and millions of Uber/minicab journeys those or similar justifications apply to, nor what proportion are just adults who can't be bothered to walk, cycle or get a bus.  The mini-Holland type schemes encourage active travel but at a scale that merely scratches the surface of the huge uptake of private hire journeys over the past few years. That's is likely to continue, even in Livable Neighbourhoods, until there's a major change in attitudes. (A couple of weeks ago I overheard a 20-something whinging that his Uber was late, I don't know anything about his mobility but he seemed to want to go from Josephine Avenue to the tube; JA is in a previously traffic calmed area.)

There's also the massive increase in online shopping with delivery vans servicing most of us. Cutting out the rat runs forces all of them onto the main roads. Consider the logistics of a van with a few drops in the streets between Dulwich and Railton Roads: making them non-porous will not change the requirement, but will increase the complexity and the number of turns into and from Dulwich Road.

I've yet to see anyone come up with serious ideas about how to incentivise, nudge, persuade or prevent people using cabs or home deliveries within these non-porous areas.

So I'm afraid I don't see any of this as being simple, and I don't see Livable Neighbourhoods as proposed as being unquestionably good for everyone.  That's just in terms of transportation- without mentioning the wider issues Gramsci has raised.

London has to change, everybody knows there has to be a reduction in traffic & pollution.  Starting (IMO) by getting diesels off the road asap and quickly expanding the ULEZ, with scrappage incentives for drivers to change to electric vehicles; with disincentives for, in particular, commuters and the school run; with integration between Oyster, road pricing (based on occupancy and impact) and parking charges that doesn't simply ignore those who choose to not have a car but somehow rewards them; that incentivises active travel and public transport journeys; that reverses the trend for those that can afford it to take cabs everywhere and encourages parcel collection rather than home delivery; and with nuanced polluters pays road pricing which recognises that simply enabling the richest to rush about more quickly in electric cars while no-one else can afford to use the roads is not the solution.

That's me done, I've bleated the same things too many times now.


----------



## thebackrow (May 25, 2019)

edit to delete


----------



## thebackrow (May 25, 2019)

Thanks - this is a really thoughtful post.  I'm still going to tackle a few of the things you've said but there's a lot of sense here.



newbie said:


> It's hard to say without more detailed proposals.
> Between them closing those routes will push quite a lot of through traffic onto main roads and probably produce worsened congestion/pollution hotspots. Most of those main roads are conveniently outside the project area.



Maybe produce some hotspots. There is research on this - the minor roads don't take much traffic in reality and because they're narrow quickly get congested.  Theres often this idea that they act as a 'safety valve' for the main roads when there are roadworks or a closure.  It's not true - they very quickly become blocked themselves. When there was a nasty collision at the top of Brixton Hill the other year the roads in the ward became horribly  congested and driver behaviour was terrible - during the few hours of closure of Brixton Hill there was a hit and run on a child on New Park Road....

People do make rational decisions about their journies.  If they get too long they don't make them, if they get easy/shorter they make more.  Every bypass or motorway expansion scheme to 'reduce congestion' or 'remove a bottleneck" fails - within a year or so more people make more trips locally, they move a bit further from their job to a cheaper house because the commute just go shorter.  Local people drive to the other side of town by nipping round the bypass and it all chokes again.



newbie said:


> Some small percentage of vehicle journeys won't be made.
> Force everyone out of their cars, get them to walk or cycle and we'll all live a happily ever after.  No downsides, only positives.


It's not a small percentage. 15% less traffic across the area in Waltham Forest zone 1 after a year.  Trend seems to be continuing. 70% of London car trips under 5 miles.  40% under 2.  25% of morning traffic is school run
Most of those trips really can come out of cars.  It's not about banning all car trips, or all car trips for poor people - the target is stopping the really antisocial, un-necessary, trips in the first instance and that would make a huge difference.



newbie said:


> To be direct but not intentionally personal as I have no idea about your circumstances, every home owner who is pushing for their street to be made traffic free, or non porous, needs to have a long, hard look at their motivation. No-one will admit to calculating the improved equity, but that doesn't mean they're not doing it.


to be direct, you can just fuck right off with this line of attack. I've lived in Brixton for pretty much all my adult life and have lived or worked in every one of the wards in the zone.  If my house price went up i could sell and...what? buy a house in a shittier street and then campaign to improve that? I'm beyond the boundary of the scheme as it's drawn but almost any trip i make would go through part of it -  the stuff being proposed will benefit me every time I commute to work, go to the park, go to the shops in the centre, visit friends.  Some of it might well make traffic on my street worse and I'll be campaigning in future to have build on this scheme and get the benefits over a wider area.	



newbie said:


> Like I've said a few times, a little girl with asthma lived beside the S Circular, and over a period of years her hospital admissions coincided with peaks in pollution.


For sure.  I'm pretty sure I"m developing asthma myself - on high pollution days i get a tight chest and wheezy when i'm out on the bike.  But that's off the main roads - the pollution isn't that localised.  We need to reduce trips by car.  Simple as that. Benefits city wide

The effect of non-porous neighbourhoods is to push yet more traffic onto main routes.



newbie said:


> You also complained about Uber using your street.  Well that's just your neighbours calling a car from point A to drive to their home to take them to point B and then drive back empty to somewhere near A, where the driver bases themselves. It's a grossly inefficient way to transport individuals, yet for lone women travelling at night or people with mobility issues or shopping or kids to carry the availability of cheap cabs is a good thing, not a bad one.  ... (A couple of weeks ago I overheard a 20-something whinging that his Uber was late, I don't know anything about his mobility but he seemed to want to go from Josephine Avenue to the tube; JA is in a previously traffic calmed area.)
> 
> There's also the massive increase in online shopping with delivery vans servicing most of us. Cutting out the rat runs forces all of them onto the main roads. Consider the logistics of a van with a few drops in the streets between Dulwich and Railton Roads: making them non-porous will not change the requirement, but will increase the complexity and the number of turns into and from Dulwich Road.
> I've yet to see anyone come up with serious ideas about how to incentivise, nudge, persuade or prevent people using cabs or home deliveries within these non-porous areas.


Uber is an aberation at the moment.  It's running at a loss, subsidised by VC funding and can't continue.  It needs to be taxed (somehow) to raise the trip cost. However, as I understand it they don't base themselves anywhere - their next trip is picked up fairly close to where they are so, much as I think they are a problem, in many ways the trip allocation system is preferable to  either black cabs (also circling the streets, well over half  the time empty?) or trad office based minicabs whose return trip was always empty.

For Uber making the area less porous makes short trips longer, more expensive, and less advantageous.  That seems to work
Home deliveries - I tracked a package of mine recently and was amazed to see just how small the delivery drivers area was - all his deliveries for the day were basically in the same ward.  He wasn't rat runnning through the area so won't necessarily make a difference all to his distance travelled. (more work needed here).  Also, these things really do seem a primary target for electric vans or even large electric cargo bikes doing the local distribution - they all drive 'transit' sized vans but theyre rarely even part full as their limiting factor is numberof drops not amount they can carry.



newbie said:


> with scrappage incentives for drivers to change to electric vehicles; with disincentives for, in particular, commuters and the school run; with integration between Oyster, road pricing (based on occupancy and impact) and parking charges that doesn't simply ignore those who choose to not have a car but somehow rewards them; that incentivises active travel and public transport journeys; that reverses the trend for those that can afford it to take cabs everywhere and encourages parcel collection rather than home delivery; and with nuanced polluters pays road pricing which recognises that simply enabling the richest to rush about more quickly in electric cars while no-one else can afford to use the roads is not the solution.


we can shake hands on that except "scrappage incentives for drivers to change to electric vehicles".  Fewer cars is the answer, not different cars.  50% of particulate pollution is brakes and tyres - just as much of a problem with electric cars.  They still spend 90+% of the time parked taking up (usually) public space on the street.  They still cause congestion.  The bizarre current incentives (free parking in some boroughs, low cost parking permit - it's cheaper to park an e-car on street in Lambeth than to have 1/6th of a car parking space in a bike hanger, no congestion charge, 'free' fuel) create more trips.  I have a neighbour with one who now drives into central London as he can do so for free - the marginal cost of travel drops so he drives *more*

How about scrappage incentives to get rid of a car and not replace it - eg give up your right to an on street parking permit? buy an electric cargo bike?  have the space outside your house replaced with a bike hanger...


----------



## newbie (May 26, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> to be direct, you can just fuck right off with this line of attack. I've lived in Brixton for pretty much all my adult life and have lived or worked in every one of the wards in the zone.  If my house price went up i could sell and...what? buy a house in a shittier street and then campaign to improve that?


It's not all about you personally, as I made clear.

Anyway that's not statistically what happens.  When the time comes the sale will most likely lead to leaving this area (and probably London), not moving around within it.
Equity based self-interest if a key factor in all neighbourhood improvement schemes. It has to be identified and called out.



> For sure.  I'm pretty sure I"m developing asthma myself - on high pollution days i get a tight chest and wheezy when i'm out on the bike.  *But that's off the main roads - the pollution isn't that localised.*



I'm sad to hear you're developing breathing difficulties, you're by no means alone, and many of us are likely to have reduced life expectancy as a result.

But no, I'm not having that.  I've already posted this once, but here it is again, this time with the scale.  Most of central Brixton is yellow, NO2 in the 40s; the main road is darkest red, in the 90s at least.  Look it up, if your street is pleasingly blue I'd ask you to consider how much time you spend there and how much worse your breathing might be if that time was spent living somewhere dark red.




> we can shake hands on that except "scrappage incentives for drivers to change to electric vehicles".  Fewer cars is the answer, not different cars.


As I've said far too many times now, this should be about social & economic justice and political acceptability as much as cars.  People who are driving ancient diesel cars are doing so because they can't afford better, not because they insist on poisoning people. For whatever reason they value their car to the extent they quite possibly (IME) spend a greater proportion of their income on their car than do those with more modern (= expensive), less polluting, ones. Simply forcing them off the road while allowing those who are better off to continue is not acceptable. That's why targetted scrappage schemes are required.



> The bizarre current incentives (free parking in some boroughs, low cost parking permit - it's cheaper to park an e-car on street in Lambeth than to have 1/6th of a car parking space in a bike hanger,



I agree that the current system is a mess, but to be clear no-one has a right to on street parking as such, there's just an incoherent mishmash of public provision, some regulated and paid for and some not. Those who don't have a car are ignored.  Remember my suggestion for a road use ration of half an hour a week per person, to be tradeable?  A similar system could apply to kerb space- fairly regulated & charged for those who want it, while those who don't get some sort of compensatory Oyster credit or something.  Personally I don't really think anyone should have unregulated off-street parking either but tbh I can't see that argument gaining much traction in the burbs. 




> no congestion charge, 'free' fuel) create more trips.  I have a neighbour with one who now drives into central London as he can do so for free - the marginal cost of travel drops so he drives *more*



Government policy is to incentivise electric vehicles but (I just looked it up) the RRP on a new Nissan Leaf is north of thirty grand.  So if a relatively modest lack of disincentive, compared to the capital cost of the car, is sufficient to modify his behaviour that's an indicator of how much people value personal mobility (well, and status symbols). Deterrents are needed which outweigh his obvious wealth, but just as pricing the old diesel drivers off the road to make them clearer for him is unreasonable, so is simply pricing him out of his car so someone even richer can get about more easily. 

I'd say you're right to highlight the obvious anomolies and campaign against them- they're pretty ridiculous- but I recognise that congestion per se is a lesser evil than pollution.  Reducing (prior to eliminating) exhaust emitted gases and particulates (through regulation as well as e-vehicles) has to be the priority.  Electric vehicles have regenerative braking, so PM10 brake lining emission per vehicle will be reduced as well.


----------



## teuchter (May 26, 2019)

newbie said:


> All sorts of initiatives have been tried over years or decades: the traffic hasn't evaporated.  I know I keep going on, I'd intended to stop but you asked and I really will quit after this, but in this crowded, realworld city of the here and now if you improve your own quality of life by reducing the traffic in your street you will necessarily inflict a lower quality of life on someone else.



A lot of this argument appears to circle around the fact that you simply don't accept the principle of traffic evaporation. Is that correct?

The principle is, as far as I am aware, pretty well studied and widely accepted. You are keen to ask for figures on how the traffic would be redistributed following the closure of Atlantic Road; I don't have access to that information and can only say that I trust it to be something that will be investigated if and when the scheme reaches a detailed design stage.

But as you seem to be challenging what is a fairly well accepted principle of transport design, isn't it up to you to show where schemes implemented in London, which include an assumption that evaporation will take place, have failed to show that effect? You have posted a couple of links to studies but on close examination, neither of them actually show what you claim.


----------



## newbie (May 27, 2019)

teuchter said:


> A lot of this argument appears to circle around the fact that you simply don't accept the principle of traffic evaporation. Is that correct?
> 
> The principle is, as far as I am aware, pretty well studied and widely accepted. You are keen to ask for figures on how the traffic would be redistributed following the closure of Atlantic Road; I don't have access to that information and can only say that I trust it to be something that will be investigated if and when the scheme reaches a detailed design stage.
> 
> But as you seem to be challenging what is a fairly well accepted principle of transport design, isn't it up to you to show where schemes implemented in London, which include an assumption that evaporation will take place, have failed to show that effect? You have posted a couple of links to studies but on close examination, neither of them actually show what you claim.


No, in a word. 

In the course of this thread I've been pointed, by yourself, at a single report that deals with the general claim that evaporation will take place.  It's dated 2002 and relies on, among other things, the M4 bus lane, since abandoned, Vauxhall Cross, changed over and again since because gridlock, and a then recent closure of Hammersmith Bridge, which they say wasn't comprehensively monitored and which can be contrasted with the current problems in Putney & Chiswick. Other than that one report, there have been plenty of assertions that traffic will just evaporate, but no actual substance to demonstrate the general case.

Where I've claimed something I've shown the source and quoted it or provided a screenshot.  Mostly it's been ignored or simply dismissed but not actually addressed.  

Obviously I accept there will be some reduction in the number of journeys measured.  Unless the measurements take in all potential routes they will necessarily be partial.  So,eg, measuring traffic on CHL and BR before and after closing Railton would show one set of results but taking into account Shakespeare, Milkwood and so on will say something else. So there's a question of selectivity in any results as well as confirmation bias in the project teams choices of measurements. But given that no before/afetr study was done for the Herne Hill closure it's probably unrealistic to expect anything at all, let alone full detail.

That said, no doubt some journeys will not be made if the hassle is too great.  How many?  well, one stat in that report purports to shows that a closure of Tower Bridge in 1993 resulted in an 80% reduction in traffic on that and parallel routes.  Fine. Evaporation on that scale absolutely shows closing roads works, that 4 out of 5 journeys were not made in vehicles, the traffic just vanished and people used public transport or active travel or simply didn't bother.

However, common sense suggests that in the years since then loads of roads have been closed, and accelerating numbers of areas pedestrianised, traffic calmed, made less porous and yet here we are, the traffic has not evaporated.  It's certainly reduced over time, mostly I think resulting from the TfL bus priority junction design changes.  Then that trend apparently started to reverse from about 2015, possibly reflecting the rise in Uber and home deliveries, growth in hybrids and electric vehicles exempt from the congestion charge, and the introduction of 20mph limits.  For transparency, I don't know any of that for sure, but it's pretty clear something has caused the changes.

Lambeth

Tower Hamlets

What I'm saying is that you need to produce much more recent general research to back up your assertion, and to quantify it.  eg, is there any suggestion that those living in non-porous zones use fewer cabs or white van deliveries before and after?  Is the generally observed overall evaporation rate 80% (which seems preposterous) or 0% (equally so)? How much displaced traffic gets forced onto main roads and what effect does that have on pollution levels?

None of us can model the scheme under discussion, and until detailed proposals are published we can't guess. But I think it's fair to say that those endorsing the proposals should at least try to substantiate that the scheme is likely do more good than harm.  And you're not going to be able to do that by pretending there will be no significant increase in main road traffic while simultaneously completely disregarding the pollution stats.


----------



## Winot (May 27, 2019)

There doesn’t seem to be any recent detailed academic research about traffic evaporation. Some relevant links here though:

When Paris Closed A Major Road To Cars, Half Its Traffic Just Disappeared

Braess paradox & traffic evaporation: does closing roads increase congestion?

There is plenty of evidence for induced demand though, and evaporation is the flip side of that.


----------



## newbie (May 27, 2019)

Winot said:


> There doesn’t seem to be any recent detailed academic research about traffic evaporation. Some relevant links here though:
> 
> When Paris Closed A Major Road To Cars, Half Its Traffic Just Disappeared
> 
> ...



Do you really think a study about the effect of removing the fast lane from urban expressways in foreign cities is directly comparable? 

Or pedestrianising the Paris equivalent of the Embankment?  


Now tell me about the health effect of concentrating the other 50% on already congested main roads.



Grand statements have been made about evaporation, now you're saying there's no recent research foundation for them?


----------



## teuchter (May 27, 2019)

newbie said:


> View attachment 172389
> Now tell me about the health effect of concentrating the other 50% on already congested main roads.



Similar to what you did with the other report you posted earlier, where you highlighted numbers that were from a period before the scheme had been fully implemented, in this case you have highlighted figures that come fro the period immediately after the scheme's implementation.

Those figures come from 2016. This article talks about the change in figures between 2017 and 2018. These figures show that traffic on the 'displacement routes' fell. This is pretty much what is expected in any 'evaporation' theory: some of the traffic will evaporate almost immediately; there will indeed be some level of increase on parallel routes; but this will also fall off over time (it takes a while for people to change travel habits in response to changes in congestion, etc).

My French is not good enough to do a search for the original source(s) of the statistics (if anyone can, I'd be interested) but below I have tried to summarise what the numbers are. Where they are in brackets I have made an assumption of no change between 2016-2017 and then inferred from precentage reductions given in the articles. I have also used this article.

So - if you look at the pre-closure figures, with those from Jan 2018, it would appear that:
- On the 'high' riverbank road am peak traffic has gone up from 1172 to 1441, and the pm peak traffic has hardly changed
- On Boulevard St Germain, am peak traffic has gone up from 1088 to 1461, and the pm peak traffic has actually reduced.

In other words, in the evening peak, it appears that around 2600 vph really has nearly all disappeared.
In the morning peak, we have an increase of around 269 vph on the 'high' river road and 367 vph on the Boulevard St Germain.

So, yes, it's resulted in displacement of around 600 cars in the morning peak, but that displacement involves losing 2000 cars per hour overall.

That to me is a sufficiently dramatic reduction to take the view that the displacement is a price worth paying. The next step is to continue with an overall, citywide policy of car traffic reduction to neutralise that displacement gain and carry on to go further, which is what Paris is doing as far as I am aware.

The alternative approach is to decide that that gain makes the whole scheme a failure, and re-open the lower river roads, to neutralise it. At the cost of re-introducing 2000 extra vehicle movements per hour overall. That's effectively what you are arguing is the better policy.


**********
am = vehicles per hour, am peak
pm = vehicles per hour, pm peak

Pre Sept 2015
Low river road 2600
High river road 1172 am, 1824 pm
Boulevard St Germain 1088 am, 1856 pm

Post closure (2016) 
Low river road 0
High river rd 2023 am, 2066 pm
Boulevard St Germain 1538 am, 1930 pm

Jan 2017
Low river road 0
High river rd (2023 am, 2066 pm)
Boulevard St Germain (1538am, 1930pm)

Jan 2018
Low river road 0
High river rd (1441 am 1838 pm)
Boulevard St Germain (1461am, 1785 pm)


----------



## newbie (May 27, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Similar to what you did with the other report you posted earlier, where you highlighted numbers that were from a period before the scheme had been fully implemented, in this case you have highlighted figures that come fro the period immediately after the scheme's implementation.


I was pointed at a source and commented on it.  if I was supposed to comment on something else that should have been made clear.


----------



## thebackrow (May 28, 2019)

Traffic evaporation is the counterpoint of induced demand (create more space and trips grow to fill it).  The effect is the same whether it's a lane on the M25 or a backstreet in Brixton.

Disappearing traffic? – Rachel Aldred

I'd point at the quote -
"*induced traffic has been understood theoretically for at least one-and-a-half centuries and demonstrated empirically in several studies over the latest eight decades*’

Strangely enough, once a theory has been comprehensively proven further research tends to drop off a bit.  What do you think has altered in human behavior since 2002, or 2014 or Paris last year to mean that the research doesn't apply to Brixton?

Should also be aware of Braess's paradox - Braess's paradox - Wikipedia

*"*a proposed explanation for the situation where an alteration to a road network to improve traffic flow actually has the reverse effect and impedes traffic through it.... Dietrich Braess noticed that adding a road to a congested road traffic network could increase overall journey time, and it has been used to explain instances of improved traffic flow when existing major roads are closed"

It's completely possible that closing Atlantic Road will reduce congestion on the other roads in the area...


----------



## teuchter (May 28, 2019)

One reason there's a lot more research/evidence on induced demand, than its counterpoint, is that we spent most of the last century and a half building new roads and increasing traffic rather than closing them.


----------



## Winot (May 28, 2019)

Interesting series about Barcelona, which deals with a number of the issues raised here.

Barcelona is pushing out cars and putting in superblocks. Here are the 2 biggest challenges ahead.


----------



## urbanspaceman (May 28, 2019)

I suggested this - what do people think ?

_"The pavement on the east side of Brixton Road, running underneath the railway bridge just to the north of the Atlantic Road junction, is narrow, gloomy, congested and polluted. This constricted right-of-way effectively cuts in two the northern and southern town centre commercial areas on Brixton Road. Open up both sides of Arch 585 so that pedestrians can pass much more freely, and are safely separated from traffic."_


----------



## newbie (May 28, 2019)

Winot said:


> Interesting series about Barcelona, which deals with a number of the issues raised here.
> 
> Barcelona is pushing out cars and putting in superblocks. Here are the 2 biggest challenges ahead.


Yes, interesting.  As with Paris I know nothing about Barcelona so it's hard to contextualise but they are at least considering gentrification & social equality  even if they have no real proposals other than build more housing.  

Their challenges are very different from London, are you proposing to start a 16 year reorganisation of public transport as a precursor to redesigning how the city works?


----------



## toblerone3 (May 28, 2019)

greenness on its own is no good.  Need some form of socialist fairness and activism to go with it.


----------



## Crispy (May 28, 2019)

urbanspaceman said:


> I suggested this - what do people think ?
> 
> _"The pavement on the east side of Brixton Road, running underneath the railway bridge just to the north of the Atlantic Road junction, is narrow, gloomy, congested and polluted. This constricted right-of-way effectively cuts in two the northern and southern town centre commercial areas on Brixton Road. Open up both sides of Arch 585 so that pedestrians can pass much more freely, and are safely separated from traffic."_


Would be great and have thought the same for a long time, but NR would never give up the rental.


----------



## newbie (May 28, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> The effect is the same whether it's a lane on the M25 or a backstreet in Brixton.


This is getting boring.  Every time you post you make sweeping assertions yet when I comment on them - as with your "_pollution isn't localised_" statement- you completely ignore what I said and just make another grand claim or two without anything to substantiate it.   

In this case, please prove it.



> Disappearing traffic? – Rachel Aldred








> It's completely possible that closing Atlantic Road will reduce congestion on the other roads in the area...


Anything is possible.  Please demonstrate your hypothesis by modelling how you think that will happen.


----------



## newbie (May 28, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Would be great and have thought the same for a long time, but NR would never give up the rental.


this


----------



## Winot (May 28, 2019)

newbie said:


> Yes, interesting.  As with Paris I know nothing about Barcelona so it's hard to contextualise but they are at least considering gentrification & social equality  even if they have no real proposals other than build more housing.
> 
> Their challenges are very different from London, are you proposing to start a 16 year reorganisation of public transport as a precursor to redesigning how the city works?



I’m not proposing anything. I don’t know all the facts and propose to leave it to the experts.


----------



## teuchter (May 28, 2019)

newbie said:


> This is getting boring.  Every time you post you make sweeping assertions yet when I comment on them - as with your "_pollution isn't localised_" statement- you completely ignore what I said and just make another grand claim or two without anything to substantiate it.
> 
> In this case, please prove it.
> 
> ...


thebackrow simply said that it's possible that closing AR could reduce congestion in other roads. Not that it would happen, that it could happen. Links have already been given to examples of where this has happened. 

No-one can model with full accuracy what would/will happen. Where's your modelling for the significant increase in localised pollution that concerns you enough to oppose this scheme?


----------



## Winot (May 28, 2019)

This thread really does exemplify the saying “the perfect is the enemy of the good”.


----------



## newbie (May 28, 2019)

teuchter said:


> thebackrow simply said that it's possible that closing AR could reduce congestion in other roads. Not that it would happen, that it could happen. Links have already been given to examples of where this has happened.
> 
> No-one can model with full accuracy what would/will happen. Where's your modelling for the significant increase in localised pollution that concerns you enough to oppose this scheme?


I've described what I think will happen to the traffic in pretty good detail, for both closing Atlantic Road and for reducing the traffic on Railton Road. No-one has addressed that at all. Just as no-one has grasped the nettle of the level of pollution on the main road- it's like the real local detail doesn't matter, there's a point to prove.

I've been repeatedly asked to accept waffle that relies general statements that are supposed to be applicable in all cases, - like "_pollution isn't localised_", "_The effect is the same whether it's a lane on the M25 or a backstreet in Brixton_", and that the traffic will evaporate.  Yet, as I've just quoted, the academics who research this stuff are much more circumspect, and want to consider each case individually. 

Which is what I've been saying throughout- that this specific scheme has to be looked at on its merits, and that it's for those proposing it to demonstrate that it will not do more harm than good.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> I've described what I think will happen to the traffic in pretty good detail, for both closing Atlantic Road and for reducing the traffic on Railton Road. No-one has addressed that at all.


This is nonsense. Somewhere upthread is a whole post where I took the numbers you were suggesting would be displaced, and set out some alternative ones based on another scheme elsewhere in London. 

Anyway, none of us here has the data or modelling expeetise to do anything other than speculate based on general observations of what tends to happen when this type of scheme is implemented. 

No one is pretending to be able to say what exactly will happen and neither is anyone trying to deny that effects will vary according to specific locations. 

The predictions and models will be done by TfL when the scheme comes to a detailed design stage and mitigations will be part of the design. This has been explained by toblerone3 over several posts. 

If you want to see that detail and data then you'll need to ask them at that stage.


----------



## newbie (May 29, 2019)

teuchter said:


> This is nonsense. Somewhere upthread is a whole post where I took the numbers you were suggesting would be displaced, and set out some alternative ones based on another scheme elsewhere in London.
> 
> Anyway, none of us here has the data or modelling expeetise to do anything other than speculate based on general observations of what tends to happen when this type of scheme is implemented.
> 
> ...


I probably will. Until then none of us can quantify this.  It appears 'model' was the wrong word, for which I'm sorry, and 'describe' would have been be better.  I've agreed "_It's completely possible that closing Atlantic Road will reduce congestion on the other roads in the area_", but I'd like a narrative description of how that could happen, just as I'd like one to show how there could be no increased pollution burden on main roads. It's frustrating that no-one will attempt it, because it's what I've been asking for since page 1.

We've discussed numbers based on reports about places elsewhere in London & Europe that neither of us know in detail.  However what no-one else has done for this specific scheme is to describe where traffic will go at the various affected junctions, nor how drivers will achieve their objectives if their current routes are closed off.  

According to the proposal some 6,000vpd use Atlantic and Railton Roads.  Unlike all other contributors to this thread, I've discussed potential alternative routes for commuters, Ubers and delivery vans as three specific categories that are part of that 6,000.  I do not feel personally able to make suggestions about how the school run or short local journeys will be affected. 

IMO it is up to those promoting this scheme to describe what will happen for all those journey types.

The contention that all the traffic is simply going to evaporate needs to be substantiated for this particular proposal.  The behaviour of drivers that are displaced needs to be considered, for each of the different journey types, in particular the routes and junctions they will use, with at least some recognition that there will be junctions and roads adversely affected by this scheme. IMO those who live, who work or who regularly use those places will be adversely affected.  No-one has addressed those people at all. No-one but me has mentioned residents, bus transit times, retail and office workers or anyone else.  There's just been a grand, generalised, assumption that all will be good.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2019)

What do you mean, no narrative has been provided as to what will happen to traffic if existing routes are closed off? It's repeatedly been perfectly clearly set out. Fine if you think that it's not going to happen in this specific case, but it's a lie to say no explanation has been given.


----------



## newbie (May 29, 2019)

teuchter said:


> What do you mean, no narrative has been provided as to what will happen to traffic if existing routes are closed off? It's repeatedly been perfectly clearly set out. Fine if you think that it's not going to happen in this specific case, but it's a lie to say no explanation has been given.


Please point to the posts that describe what I've asked for, the local detail.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> Please point to the posts that describe what I've asked for, the local detail.


You asked for narrative, not local detail.

The narrative is that a certain type of scheme tends to produce a certain type of result. That type of result has been observed not just worldwide and over an extended period of time but in similar-ish schemes elsewhere in London, in the recent past, where it can be assumed that certain general conditions are shared with this location. Certain London-specific and Lambeth- or local-specific characteristics, that suggest that displacement effects are likely to be towards the lower end of the range observed amongst general cases, have been identified and discussed - just for example, the proportion of car journeys that are made over walkable distances.

If you want specific local detail then you are asking for something no-one can give you because none of us here have access to data that describes what proportion of journeys, for example along Atlantic Road, are of what type. So it would be foolish for anyone to start making highly specific predictions. The only reasonable approach at this stage is to look at the general case and try and ascertain whether there's anything special about this particular case which means that it will produce anomolous results. I don't see that there is.

You have made certain specific predictions - congestion worsening significantly in certain locations. Perhaps you are frustrated that no-one is countering these predictions. The reason I am not countering them is I don't have the necessary information that would allow me to do so in a meaningful way. And I don't see why there's any point in trying to counter predictions that themselves aren't based on the kind of detailed information that would make them meaningful. Your predictions of congestion at particular locations are no less speculative than suggestions that no significant extra congestion will result.

I don't think there's much further we can go with this until (a)some actual proposals exist and (b)those designing and promoting those proposals provide some information about how they have come to their decisions.


----------



## newbie (May 29, 2019)

teuchter said:


> You asked for narrative, not local detail.
> 
> The narrative is that a certain type of scheme tends to produce a certain type of result. That type of result has been observed not just worldwide and over an extended period of time but in similar-ish schemes elsewhere in London, in the recent past, where it can be assumed that certain general conditions are shared with this location. Certain London-specific and Lambeth- or local-specific characteristics, that suggest that displacement effects are likely to be towards the lower end of the range observed amongst general cases, have been identified and discussed - just for example, the proportion of car journeys that are made over walkable distances.
> 
> ...



I've got to go and do other things now, so there will be plenty of time for you to fill in the missing info.  

Of course I've been speculative when I've used local knowledge and looked at maps and web resources to try to understand what will happen if this scheme is implemented.  There's absolutely no reason why you can't do the same, junction by junction, without wriggling.

So yes, it is frustrating,eg because despite all the general assurances, no-one has told me why there will be fewer white van deliveries or Uber trips if Atlantic or Railton Roads is closed.  Nor commuters, school runners or local journeys.

There were 40,000 Uber drivers, and 3.5m customers in London in 2017 paying £184million.  That's just one company. Cabs are not an insignificant factor.
Nor are deliveries, up 66% since 2014 nationwide and expected to grow another 54% by 2023.
It's not unreasonable to ask why you think closing either or both of these two roads will cause that traffic to evaporate. If it doesn't, where will it go, how will it service its customers?  We can't quantify the displacement, but you do need to explain, using something more than general research dating back to before either was a significant factor and apparently not updated since.

It's also not unreasonable to ask what routes and junctions will be adversely affected by local road closures, and which residents, workers and users will be harmed as a result. Refusal to engage on that just reinforces my impression that no-one but me cares.


----------



## snowy_again (May 29, 2019)

Ideally last mile deliveries become non car based.


----------



## Winot (May 29, 2019)

newbie you are asking for evidence that traffic evaporation will happen for this scheme but when evidence is given for other schemes you complain that they are not applicable because they relate to other places. The only way to provide the evidence you require is for this scheme to proceed.


----------



## teuchter (May 29, 2019)

newbie said:


> I've got to go and do other things now, so there will be plenty of time for you to fill in the missing info.
> 
> Of course I've been speculative when I've used local knowledge and looked at maps and web resources to try to understand what will happen if this scheme is implemented.  There's absolutely no reason why you can't do the same, junction by junction, without wriggling.
> 
> ...


These questions have already been answered, as best as they can at this point before any specific proposals or scheme details are available, and your constant misrepresentation that people are 'refusing to engage' with your points gives me no motivation to try and repeat a load of stuff again. Specifically regarding ubers and delivery vehicles: I don't know enough about the traffic make up to know how significant they are, nor do I see any reason that they should not respond to changes in the way other types of traffic does: if certain journeys become less convenient a proportion of them will either no longer be made, or be made by other modes. In any case the main pinch points for congestion/pollution are the commuter peaks and neither of those types of journeys are concentrated at those times, unlike trips to work and school runs which it's been demonstrated have high potential for mode change especially when an improved environment for walking and cycling is provided, which is a fundamental component of this proposal.


----------



## newbie (May 30, 2019)

Ok. 

It's up to about 450 comments, mostly wanting better cycling and pedestrian provision.  I've just been through and ticked loads.  


sfaics there are calls to block or heavily restrict traffic on all the routes between Herne Hill and both Brixton and Loughborough Junction, so someone somewhere will have a bit of juggling to do.


----------



## snowy_again (May 30, 2019)

Most of the Railton Road comments are about dangerous driving.


----------



## Winot (May 30, 2019)

snowy_again said:


> Most of the Railton Road comments are about dangerous driving.



A very good reason to close it. Easier to regulate that on main routes.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2019)

There are loads of comments about dangerous driving and speeding, on nearly all roads.

If there's one thing I'd say that seems to be missing from the proposed scope of the project, it's enforcement of speed limits.


----------



## snowy_again (May 30, 2019)

Winot said:


> A very good reason to close it. Easier to regulate that on main routes.


Hmm, I wouldn't necessarily close - just put in better traffic management measures - not speed bumps / tables but more infrastructure to prevent the fast / slow / fast / slow that lots of drivers do.


----------



## snowy_again (May 30, 2019)

But yes, speed enforcement should be a minimum.


----------



## Crispy (May 30, 2019)

teuchter said:


> enforcement of speed limits


Not in the council's legal power, if I understand it corectly (there's probably some nuances I'm missing)

There was a big report from the Dft on 20mph limits recently and one key finding was that road design had a much larger impact on driver speed than arbitrary limits.


----------



## snowy_again (May 30, 2019)

Wasn't there a proposal to shift that from police to councils recently?


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2019)

Crispy said:


> Not in the council's legal power, if I understand it corectly (there's probably some nuances I'm missing)
> 
> There was a big report from the Dft on 20mph limits recently and one key finding was that road design had a much larger impact on driver speed than arbitrary limits.


Thanks for posting that, hadn't seen this before.

The bit about enforcement in the 'lessons' conclusion is oddly worded.



> The guidance also needs to recognise the concern amongst the public regarding the apparent lack of enforcement, and the general view that the likelihood of being caught exceeding the limit is very small. Where a more proactive enforcement approach by the police is not practical, authorities should be encouraged to consider alternative approaches (e.g. community-based initiatives, use of vehicle activated signs, etc.), which may still require low level involvement of the police.



It seems to take as a given that basically, proper enforcement is unlikely to happen.

Had I written a report that found that people ignored 20mph limits... I'd have thought I might talk a bit more about enforcement.


----------



## snowy_again (May 30, 2019)

Hence the potential shift to other enforcement by councils - where the generated income can go to central or local pots.  

With ULEZ comes the chance to speed limit / manage in different ways


----------



## Winot (May 30, 2019)

My completely anecdotal take (based on cycling through Brixton daily since 1995) is that residential backstreets have got worse for speeding cars. I wonder whether this is a combination of congestion and speed cameras on main routes and no cameras or other enforcement on back streets. It's particularly bad on long straight roads such as Solon and Branksome (see also Brixton Water Lane).

I accept however that it's very difficult for Lambeth to fix this problem. They don't have the money/power to install cameras everywhere and they don't control the police.

I have added a comment to the website asking for speed bumps on either side of the roads with a cyclist flat route down the middle as on Vauxhall St. That seems to be the most effective configuration.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2019)

Winot said:


> residential backstreets have got worse for speeding cars.


That's my impression as well - I'd include not-quite-main roads as well.

I feel like I see many more large/powerful/expensive cars around than I used to, too. There seems to be a correlation between that and speeding.


----------



## Gramsci (May 30, 2019)

newbie said:


> Ok.
> 
> It's up to about 450 comments, mostly wanting better cycling and pedestrian provision.  I've just been through and ticked loads.
> 
> ...



I was LJ neighborhood planning forum. The residents association for the brixton road end of Loughborough road had a lot of ideas for traffic calming on their road.

The Liveable Neighborhood boundary is big. 

If every street came up with requests for more traffic calming Im not clear if all these requests will be funded.

I think the initial plan was mainly for central Brixton. All LJ was going to get was a cycle route on Barrington road. 

Be interesting to see if this Liveable neighborhood will encompass needs of those outside central Brixton.

Or peoples expectations will be raised and dissapointed.


----------



## Winot (May 30, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I feel like I see many more large/powerful/expensive cars around than I used to, too. There seems to be a correlation between that and speeding.



Car leasing has enabled this.

My MIL has given up cycling in Leicester (after 45+ years of doing so). The cars are wider (both parked and coming towards her) and there are fewer gaps. She is too scared to cycle now


----------



## snowy_again (May 30, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Be interesting to see if this Liveable neighborhood will encompass needs of those outside central Brixton.
> 
> Or peoples expectations will be raised and dissapointed.



Why do you expect that it can all be fixed in one go?


----------



## Gramsci (May 30, 2019)

snowy_again said:


> Why do you expect that it can all be fixed in one go?



This sounds like what a Council officer would say.

Thinking on this Ive recently been losing my rag or almost losing it.

My time in Brixton I've always tried to engage with the Council. Turning up to consultations etc.

I read up the stuff and try to engage with Council on that level.

The boundary for the Liveable neighborhood wasn't drawn up by the residents of Loughborough road. They found they are included in it. So, like I do, they read what is on the website and thought yes there are plenty of issues with our local roads.

Someone in Council I assume put the boundary line in.

So yes I do think it should be done all at once. Its what , when you read the website, engaging communities should be about.

So what are you implying? That lack money means that some communities who , without asking, are in the Liveable neighborhood shouldn't get works done to make it Liveable?

I don't get what you are asking me.

I didn't propose this scheme.

As Mayor and Council are proposing a Liveable neighborhood then if local communities come up with good idea shouldn't they be implemented?

Or are you saying that money is limited? So only some schemes should be done?


----------



## Gramsci (May 30, 2019)

At meeting last night I did say why wasn't this scheme not dressed up as "Liveable neighborhood" but about stopping rat runs for example. Like Railton road. Which I agree with.  Was told by someone present that talking about closing rat runs and road closures was "toxic".

Imo this "liveable neighborhood" concept was dreamed to make reducing car use more palatable.

And that is all car use. Including electric.


----------



## Gramsci (May 30, 2019)

From the discussion last night. 

The first free money from Mayor is about I think initial consultation. Like the interactive map.

I did say that the shops in Atlantic road should be individually consulted.

As a matter of fairness.

My chats with two business in central Brixton is that they didn't know about these plans to close Atlantic road. Until it was in local press. 

That's wrong imo.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> At meeting last night I did say why wasn't this scheme not dressed up as "Liveable neighborhood" but about stopping rat runs for example. Like Railton road. Which I agree with.  Was told by someone present that talking about closing rat runs and road closures was "toxic".
> 
> Imo this "liveable neighborhood" concept was dreamed to make reducing car use more palatable.
> 
> And that is all car use. Including electric.


We have fairly direct evidence in LJ of how proposals to close roads can go down. So, I'm fine with using terminology that emphasises the positive effects of reducing traffic.


----------



## snowy_again (May 31, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> This sounds like what a Council officer would say.
> 
> Thinking on this Ive recently been losing my rag or almost losing it.
> 
> ...



Thanks, that's the first time I've been accused of being like a council officer. You seem to be suggesting doing nothing is better than asking people what they want?

How do you think this will work? So far over 450 comments, 2/3rds of which are suggesting a change to the physical environment and there's an initial £5m budget*. So evidently not enough funds in phase 1 to deliver all the physical changes (should they be the right ones) due to the cost of capital works with TFL and their suppliers. 

So how would you go about deciding which ones get implemented and which don't?

*i think from memory.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2019)

teuchter said:


> We have fairly direct evidence in LJ of how proposals to close roads can go down. So, I'm fine with using terminology that emphasises the positive effects of reducing traffic.



The LJ proposals were dressed in similar way as this Liveable neighborhood concept. Making LJ a destination, linking LJAGs farm with LJAGs Platform project.

The LJ road closures was dressed in this way.

So I agree this is failed strategy.

The interesting thing about hearing the LJ residents was that they want traffic calming. The same group opposed the road closure of Loughborough road.

People I think want traffic reduction.

But it needs sensitive consultation. Listening to people rather than telling them what is going to happen.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2019)

snowy_again said:


> Thanks, that's the first time I've been accused of being like a council officer. You seem to be suggesting doing nothing is better than asking people what they want?
> 
> How do you think this will work? So far over 450 comments, 2/3rds of which are suggesting a change to the physical environment and there's an initial £5m budget*. So evidently not enough funds in phase 1 to deliver all the physical changes (should they be the right ones) due to the cost of capital works with TFL and their suppliers.
> 
> ...



I didn't say you are like one. I said you sounded like one. This post is the same.

One of my reservations is that I don't think all the concerns/ suggestions in the comments will be addressed.

I think that the plan to do this particular scheme focusing on Atlantic road and building routes into Brixton won't change.

Officers will say what you are. Money is limited. Other ideas are interesting but not really able to be incorporated into the practicalities/ financial constraints of this scheme.

Problem I have is the website is clear on the Liveable neighborhood in theory. A lot of comments are in line with the concept. If one takes it literally.

To answer your question. Its not my problem. If a load of traffic calming suggestions are put in which are technically possible they should all be funded.

Its the Council's fault for making such a wide boundary. They did it go to get the money. The boundary was decided on basis of walking distance to central Brixton. The scheme is about routes to and through central Brixton.

In reality what some comments are about is specific issues on certain roads and estates.

Not about routes to central Brixton or connections.

I'm a resident. Its not my job to decide who gets what.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2019)

Another thing.

Whilst residents, as in LJ, may be against total road closures they aren't against things like the 20mph limit on speed.

Yet this in practice not enforced.

On Loughborough road residents have said traffic doesn't keep to the speed limit.

So if Council want to get residents support it should make sure the 20mph is kept to.

On Loughborough road large goods vehicles and coaches aren't allowed. I didn't know about this. Its regularly ignored.

The Council could make sure things like the 20mph limit is a reality before going for a "liveable neighborhood".

Its one thing that could put the liveable neighborhood idea to mean something. Actually make existing policies function.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 1, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The boundary for the Liveable neighborhood wasn't drawn up by the residents of Loughborough road. They found they are included in it. So, like I do, they read what is on the website and thought yes there are plenty of issues with our local roads.
> As Mayor and Council are proposing a Liveable neighborhood then if local communities come up with good idea shouldn't they be implemented?  Or are you saying that money is limited? So only some schemes should be done?





Gramsci said:


> To answer your question. Its not my problem. If a load of traffic calming suggestions are put in which are technically possible they should all be funded.





Gramsci said:


> In reality what some comments are about is specific issues on certain roads and estates. Not about routes to central Brixton or connections. I'm a resident. Its not my job to decide who gets what.





Gramsci said:


> Whilst residents, as in LJ, may be against total road closures they aren't against things like the 20mph limit on speed. Yet this in practice not enforced. On Loughborough road residents have said traffic doesn't keep to the speed limit. So if Council want to get residents support it should make sure the 20mph is kept to.



And you still dont understand why you might be considered “part of the awkward squad”?
Engaging with residents is never going to be “clean” as they’re not an amorphous group who all think the same. If the council had gone around and asked every single one of them whether they wanted to be included they would have got both positive and negative answers. Perhaps the decision should have been made only if there was a majority, or a 2/3 majority. Do you ask residents groups?  How do you ensure that they’re actually representative and not dominated by a small number of people who dont actually try to represent anyone else’s views?

Without sending this thread completely off track remember that the whole Brexit shitshow is a result of an attempt at direct democracy rather than representative democracy. Asking the people to make a decision on stuff they don't really understand based on misinformation and rumour has its issues.

You’re saying that every suggestion or request from residents must be funded. Who decides what is “a good idea”? What about if there are two suggestions that are in opposition? (one wants a cycle route through the park, another wants cycles banned from the park). What if someone wants a crossing removed because it slows down motor traffic? What if residents make suggestions that evidence says will fail to achieve their objective - traffic calming suggestions that have been tried time and time again without success -  surely that would be a waste of money?

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to get residents to help identify the issues in an area and leave the solutions to experts rather than someone without any experience (or is that “top down” - or have we had enough of experts?)  What if the solution to the problem that people say they have is something they dont think they want eg, if you don’t want drivers speeding through your area the best solution is to close the road to through traffic, since drivers are less likely to speed at the start or end of their journey and around their neighbours than when they’re taking a shortcut through someone else’s neighbourhood.  What about “partial closures” that allow buses, cycles and pedestrians through?

How do you propose making sure 20mph is kept to?  Really harsh, regular speed bumps - what about the impact on bus passengers?  Speed cameras only seem to work for the 10m or so they cover and can only be installed where there have been road deaths. They’re not allowed to be hidden/covert.  The Police haven’t got resource.  What about the residents who object to being fined for speeding?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> And you still dont understand why you might be considered “part of the awkward squad”?
> Engaging with residents is never going to be “clean” as they’re not an amorphous group who all think the same. If the council had gone around and asked every single one of them whether they wanted to be included they would have got both positive and negative answers. Perhaps the decision should have been made only if there was a majority, or a 2/3 majority. Do you ask residents groups?  How do you ensure that they’re actually representative and not dominated by a small number of people who dont actually try to represent anyone else’s views?
> 
> Without sending this thread completely off track remember that the whole Brexit shitshow is a result of an attempt at direct democracy rather than representative democracy. Asking the people to make a decision on stuff they don't really understand based on misinformation and rumour has its issues.
> ...



What I said was this:

 If a load of traffic calming suggestions are put in which are *technically* possible they should all be funded.

So your idea that I'm against experts is wrong.

Now onto Brexit. Your argument is that the referendum was fuelled by misinformation. That it was about asking people about things they don't understand.

I don't know where to start with this parallel. I don't think people are stupid. Since the referendum there has been plenty of argument. Looks to me if there was another referendum now it would still be close.


Using Brexit as a parallel. I find insidious argument. Im a Remainer but the thrust of a lot of Remain argument is that some people shouldn't really be asked their opinion as they are ignorant, stupid and therefore easily swayed by "misinformation".  Had this line put to me couple of days ago.

If only we could go back to the days of centre ground politics run by evidence based policy. As under the New Labour third way.

The Brixton Liveable neighborhood covers half of Loughborough Junction for example. What should happen is that ideas of for Street calming in LJ should be funded. I'm afraid that this project is going to be about central Brixton. All the proposals look like that its about this.


A parallel to Brexit is what happened in LJ over the road closures. This had been building up for a number of years. Estate residents got the chance to reject the proposals of the Council, "experts" and LJAG. All of whom they saw as the middle classes imposing their ideas on them. That I think is a parallel to Brexit. Working class people who had not been listened to for years and ignored gave the local establishment a good kicking.

Yet people in LJ do want traffic calming. But they want a say in it. As I've posted up.

There is imo not to much democracy but a proven lack of it in Lambeth. The LJ road attempted road closures- some of which I supported- failed.

See this over Council led estate "regeneration" as in Cressingham Gardens.

And I keep being told by Council that this is a Coop Council.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> And you still dont understand why you might be considered “part of the awkward squad”?
> Engaging with residents is never going to be “clean” as they’re not an amorphous group who all think the same. If the council had gone around and asked every single one of them whether they wanted to be included they would have got both positive and negative answers. Perhaps the decision should have been made only if there was a majority, or a 2/3 majority. Do you ask residents groups?  How do you ensure that they’re actually representative and not dominated by a small number of people who dont actually try to represent anyone else’s views?
> 
> Without sending this thread completely off track remember that the whole Brexit shitshow is a result of an attempt at direct democracy rather than representative democracy. Asking the people to make a decision on stuff they don't really understand based on misinformation and rumour has its issues.
> ...



On my view of experts.

I've had over two years of Council officers in Regen. Highly paid experts telling me I was wrong on the Grove Adventure playground.

Turns out I was right and they were wrong. Its getting 60 plus children a day over this half term. Now the leader of Council has told Regen that land should be kept for youth provision. 

The Council experts kept telling me the site could be developed as their was no demand for an APG in the area.

I was ridiculed by them for over two years for my insistance it should be kept.

So no I don't always trust the experts.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 1, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Yet people in LJ do want traffic calming. But they want a say in it.
> 
> If a load of traffic calming suggestions are put in which are *technically* possible they should all be funded.



Technically possible covers pretty much any eventuality. It would be technically possible to build an elevated motorway above Coldharbour Lane, and it might be popular with some people - that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

'Calming' has comprehensively failed to produce 'liveable neighborhoods' despite many millions being spent on it.  The main 'routes' suggested on Ferndale Road, Railton Road and Barrington Road already have humps and chicanes. As do most of the other rat run roads through the entire area.  They've not delivered comfortable speeds - funding more of the same seems a huge waste of money.

*Some* people in LJ want calming. I’m sure some don’t. Some have asked for tracks.  Some will ask for Loughborough Road to be closed.  The point about Brexit was that nothing you do is going to get full agreement and no opposition.  (and your assessment of Brexit as a working class kickback isn't really supported by evidence anyway (Brexit was not the voice of the working class nor of the uneducated – it was of the squeezed middle | British Politics and Policy at LSE)

Again,  Who decides what is “a good idea”? What about if there are two suggestions that are in opposition? (one wants a cycle route through the park, another wants cycles banned from the park). What if someone wants a crossing removed because it slows down motor traffic? What if residents make suggestions that evidence says will fail to achieve their objectives (but are 'technically possible'?). 

Apart from that - if all LJ residents want is a few speed humps they'll get nothing as that won't deliver one of the objectives of the project (on which funding is almost certainly dependent) ie a safe, comfortable walking and cycling route between Brixton and Loughborough Junction.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Technically possible covers pretty much any eventuality. It would be technically possible to build an elevated motorway above Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> *Some* people in LJ want calming. I’m sure some don’t. Some have asked for tracks.  Some will ask for Loughborough Road to be close.  (and your assessment of Brexit as a working class kickback isn't really supported by evidence anyway (Brexit was
> Without sending this thread completely off track remember that the whole Brexit shitshow is a result of an attempt at direct democracy rather than representative democracy. Asking the people to make a decision on stuff they don't really understand based on misinformation and rumour has its issues.t the voice of the working class nor of the uneducated – it was of the squeezed middle | British Politics and Policy at LSE)
> ...



I really am at a loss with your posts. 

What you said about Brexit was:




> Without sending this thread completely off track remember that the whole Brexit shitshow is a result of an attempt at direct democracy rather than representative democracy. Asking the people to make a decision on stuff they don't really understand based on misinformation and rumour has its issues.



Now ur saying:



> The point about Brexit was that nothing you do is going to get full agreement and no opposition



Which is different from what you said before.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Apart from that - if all LJ residents want is a few speed humps they'll get nothing as that won't deliver one of the objectives of the project (on which funding is almost certainly dependent) ie a safe, comfortable walking and cycling route between Brixton and Loughborough Junction.



Who said they want a few speed bumps? Not Me.

A valid interpretation of the project is to produce a liveable neighborhood for everyone in the boundary. 

A boundary that was set with no consultation with LJ residents. 

So some LJ residents as represented by tenants association may have ideas that don't necessarily fit in idea of routes to central Brixton but do fit in with idea of liveable neighborhood. I like others in LJ use the Coop shop on Brixton road and the chemists. So don't always use central Brixton for shopping. 

Why I said I'm afraid that valid ideas will be sidelined as this scheme is about Brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> And you still dont understand why you might be considered “part of the awkward squad”?
> 
> 
> How do you propose making sure 20mph is kept to?  Really harsh, regular speed bumps - what about the impact on bus passengers?  Speed cameras only seem to work for the 10m or so they cover and can only be installed where there have been road deaths. They’re not allowed to be hidden/covert.  The Police haven’t got resource.  What about the residents who object to being fined for speeding?



So I'm the awkward squad because I support 20 mph speed limit decided by the Council?

What ru going on about?

I've noticed in my area LJ , which was against road closures, its the one thing no one I know opposes. Its something that those who supported the road closures and those who opposed them don't argue about.

That and the ban on heavy goods vehicles and coaches.

There are areas of agreement between different views on transport.

These should be built on imo.

So yes they should be enforced.

Perhaps then public confidence can be rebuilt and further discussions on change to transport and road use can be restarted.

It was after all a Council decision to bring in 20mph speed limit.

Being a member of the "awkward squad" doesn't mean I knee jerk oppose everything the Council proposes or does.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 1, 2019)

I'd love the 20mph limit to be adhered to - I think all cars should have automatic speed limiters built in so that speeding is impossible.  

However, in the meantime - *how* do you think it should be enforced? (this is a problem borough wide - not just in LJ) 

Again, Who decides what is “a good idea”? What about if there are two suggestions that are in opposition? (one wants a cycle route through the park, another wants cycles banned from the park). What if someone wants a crossing removed because it slows down motor traffic? What if residents make suggestions that evidence says will fail to achieve their objectives (but are 'technically possible'?).


Gramsci said:


> I've noticed in my area LJ , which was against road closures, its the one thing no one I know opposes. Its something that those who supported the road closures and those who opposed them don't argue about.


Is that all residents in the area were against? a majority? how was this assessed.  I remember reports of some very angry meetings where anyone who tried to speak up for the scheme was shouted down.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I'd love the 20mph limit to be adhered to - I think all cars should have automatic speed limiters built in so that speeding is impossible.
> 
> However, in the meantime - *how* do you think it should be enforced? (this is a problem borough wide - not just in LJ)
> 
> ...



Your starting to get on my nerves.

Ive just said I support the 20mph limit. So why are you questioning me about something we both agree on?

I'm failing to understand what your problem is. 

I'm saying I agree with you on certain issues and you are coming back at me with questions on what I've said I agree with you about.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Is that all residents in the area were against? a majority? how was this assessed.  I remember reports of some very angry meetings where anyone who tried to speak up for the scheme was shouted down.



I don't want to repeat myself. Go back and see what I've posted on this.


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> one wants a cycle route through the park, another wants cycles banned from the park



That's of only symbolic consequence, people will ride in the park whatever the signs say.

More relevant, there are people on all of the through routes interconnecting a railway infested triangle identifying the same problems and all seeking the same solution- restrictions on through traffic for their street.  The reasoning hinges round much the same issues in all the streets, speed, danger, air quality, children and so on (plus house prices, but we don't mention that). So does the solution: stop the traffic, make this street better. 

Gramsci is right, as framed this project is focused on improving quality of life on routes into and through Brixton, not on producing improvements throughout the project area. Closing Railton Road can only be considered because other through routes are available. Why wouldn't the people living on them, and those much more centered on the other two nodes of the HH/LJ triangle want their needs considered? What's in it for them?  They're commenting that their streets and their bridge junctions need to be made better. Not worse.

Who decides that?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 2, 2019)

newbie said:


> That's of only symbolic consequence, people will ride in the park whatever the signs say.



I don't know if that's true.  You won't find many people riding away from the permitted routes through Hyde Park, Hampstead Heath or Wandsworth Common as fines are issued fairly regularly.

Lambeth's policy (cycling permitted everywhere in parks but not actively encouraged/signposted unless facilities are upgraded) is pretty progressive by London standards.



newbie said:


> Gramsci Closing Railton Road can only be considered because other through routes are available. Why wouldn't the people living on them, and those much more centered on the other two nodes of the HH/LJ triangle want their needs considered? What's in it for them? They're commenting that their streets and their bridge junctions need to be made better. Not worse. Who decides that?



Are we talking about the residents of Loughborough Road now?  I thought they decided (or people decided for them) that it should remain a busy road.  

Decisions about TfL roads, and designated 'A' roads which form part of the Strategic Road network such as Brixton Road and Coldharbour Lane, are pretty much down to TfL


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Are we talking about the residents of Loughborough Road now?  I thought they decided (or people decided for them) that it should remain a busy road.




No, sorry if I wasn't clear. Look at the map at all the through routes in and around the Herne Hill/Brixton/Loughborough Junction triangle:
Milkwood Road
Shakespeare Rd
Railton Road
Dulwich Rd/Effra Rd
and CHL
have strikingly similar complaints and suggested variants of the same solution, restriction of traffic. The same is true of the bridge junctions in all 3 places. 



> Decisions about TfL roads, and designated 'A' roads which form part of the Strategic Road network such as Brixton Road and Coldharbour Lane, are pretty much down to TfL


Does that mean only TfL should consider their needs and their comments should be ignored?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 2, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I don't want to repeat myself. Go back and see what I've posted on this.



I've actually gone back to read the last few pages of the 130 post thread on the Loughborough Road scheme. 

What's now confusing me is that you seemed to support it at the time, be in favour of measures to reduce traffic, and supportive of Waltham Forest Mini-Holland.  That's *exactly* what the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme is (even if the branding has changed from mini-holland to LN).  These are quotes from a few of your posts but I don't think they're out of context. 

I'll admit that class discussions are a bit beyond me - I don't know what constitutes working class any more as the old manual labour distinction has gone and nearly all of us are 'waged'.  Moreover a look at the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood map shows a mix of housing types and estates in all of the wards (though Loughborough has a higher proportion of estates than the others much other estate or housing association isnt marked ).  Ferndale Road has Guinness housing and the Edmundsbury Estate at one end and big houses, mostly now private flats at the other.  Railton Road is pretty mixed.   


Loughborough Junction public space improvements - consultation begins

“How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me.“
“For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?“
“What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist.  There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating.  My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.”

“Walthamstow "mini Holland”.  Waltham Forest Council pushed it through despite opposition. This article suggests its becoming a success. Lambeth have effectively ditched there manifesto committment to making Lambeth a cycle and pedestrian friendly borough. I have seen the Walthamstow Mini Holland as a friend of mine lives in it. It basically stops rat runs. “


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 2, 2019)

newbie said:


> Milkwood Road
> Shakespeare Rd
> Railton Road
> Dulwich Rd/Effra Rd
> ...



Great.  The project summary on the website says "The residential areas surrounding Brixton town centre are open for ‘rat running’ traffic. The historical layout of the rail network and limited number of crossing points means traffic is funnelled through these. This means local roads, such as Ferndale Road and Railton Road, are disproportionately busy and established ‘rat-runs’. The development of a Liveable Neighbourhood will seek to address these issues and change the way these streets function. Protecting local streets from through traffic will help pave the way for major improvements to Brixton Road that will be needed to create a safer, healthier, more people friendly town centre in the future."


----------



## newbie (Jun 2, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Great.  The project summary on the website says "The residential areas surrounding Brixton town centre are open for ‘rat running’ traffic. The historical layout of the rail network and limited number of crossing points means traffic is funnelled through these. This means local roads, such as Ferndale Road and Railton Road, are disproportionately busy and established ‘rat-runs’. The development of a Liveable Neighbourhood will seek to address these issues and change the way these streets function. Protecting local streets from through traffic will help pave the way for major improvements to Brixton Road that will be needed to create a safer, healthier, more people friendly town centre in the future."


It's already been decided, the consultation can't change it?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 2, 2019)

newbie said:


> It's already been decided, the consultation can't change it?



I'm guessing the engagement process is about the 'how' rather than the what.  The high level objectives presumably needed to be set to win the funding.

Even with something as simple as 'close Atlantic Raod to private cars' theres a long way to go to how the street will look and function.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 2, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I've actually gone back to read the last few pages of the 130 post thread on the Loughborough Road scheme.
> 
> What's now confusing me is that you seemed to support it at the time, be in favour of measures to reduce traffic, and supportive of Waltham Forest Mini-Holland.  That's *exactly* what the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme is (even if the branding has changed from mini-holland to LN).  These are quotes from a few of your posts but I don't think they're out of context.
> 
> ...



I was referring to my posts from this thread. 

Not what I wrote five years ago. 

I don't know what else to say without repeating previous posts on this thread.

I have say again and again I'm not against measures to reduce traffic. 

I think that is where your confusion lies. You don't seem to understand that not 100% supporting this Brixton Liveable neighborhood scheme doesnt mean one is opposing all traffic reduction/ traffic calming measures or getting rid of rat runs. I said that all here on this thread.

One lesson from LJ fiasco is that people when asked want traffic calming measures. Council/ LJAG tried to foist their own pet scheme on a working class Council Estate and they weren't having it. So the whole thing got ditched. That doesn't mean people are against traffic calming and traffic reduction.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 2, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I have say again and again I'm not against measures to reduce traffic.



At the moment you seem to have come down as very negative on this.  You say you support traffic reduction and in the past have demanded better for walking and cycling. I don’t get it. 


Traffic calming is bullshit. 10 years of Lambeth’s “resident led” “our streets” programme has spent millions putting in traffic calming because its the lowest common denominator. It’s the only thing everyone will support. That’s because it does nothing. None of the “our streets” areas are dramatically different. None are comfortable for walking and cycling. 


There will be a huge amount of opposition to anything that’s proposed - if there isn’t it’s a sure sign it’s too weak to be effective. 


I’m a cyclist myself, I support cycling but, not this scheme, not this road, not here because of impact on residential streets, not here because of impact on main road residents, imposed on working class area, middle class area pushing traffic elsewhere. People wanting their street gentrified, not wanting this area gentrified. There’s always a reason not to change.


All that plays into the hands of the motor centric lobby who will fight against anything that restricts their driving. 


no scheme will be perfect. No scheme will have no downsides. you’ve got to decide which side you’re on.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 2, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> At the moment you seem to have come down as very negative on this.  You say you support traffic reduction and in the past have demanded better for walking and cycling. I don’t get it.
> 
> 
> Traffic calming is bullshit. 10 years of Lambeth’s “resident led” “our streets” programme has spent millions putting in traffic calming because its the lowest common denominator. It’s the only thing everyone will support. That’s because it does nothing. None of the “our streets” areas are dramatically different. None are comfortable for walking and cycling.
> ...



I know you don't get it.

So its back to accusations of supporting the motor lobby.

BTW I don't own a car. I cycle everyday and use public transport.

So don't tell me I'm supporting the motor lobby.

And I walked to doing my shopping today.


----------



## newbie (Jun 3, 2019)

Or me.  

I rather think most people are skeptical about planning schemes and the sweeping claims of single issue evangelists.  

btw I don't think I agree about traffic calming on the backstreets.  To my mind there is less traffic and it is moving slower than before the humps started to appear.  The 20 limit has improved that further but that alone wouldn't stop people hurtling along straight stretches like the Branksome/Lambert racetrack the way they used to.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Is that all residents in the area were against? a majority? how was this assessed.  I remember reports of some very angry meetings where anyone who tried to speak up for the scheme was shouted down.



That's correct; I went to at least one of those meetings. I live in Loughborough Junction too.

I do not agree with Gramsci's view that a majority of residents were against the scheme. Whether we're talking about the whole of the area involved, or just the residents of Loughborough Estate. It can't be proven either way, but there is no evidence that a majority were against.

Gramsci has become focussed on this as a class issue but while I don't think this part of the picture should be ignored, I think it has become over-emphasised.

At the time of the LJ closures, I remember saying that if they had been implemented on the "middle class" side of LJ - that is, say Milkwood Rd and/or Herne Hill Road had been blocked, instead of Loughborough Rd (with the same aim of reducing the north/south through-traffic in the area) then the complaint would have been that the residents on those roads were benefitting, with residents on the Loughborough estate being ignored. To some extent that is what we are now seeing with the LN proposal - complaints that there is too much emphasis on central brixton. You can find a class-based argument to oppose a scheme that includes the Loughborough estate area and you can find one that opposes a scheme that excludes it. You can't win - unless you're the car lobby.

Gramsci I don't disagree with everything you say on this but I do think you are being a bit "awkward squad". There's never going to be a perfect solution or scheme. You know that any attempts to improve things for pedestrians and cyclists always come up against a whole load of opposition. It's frustrating when even those who have previously demonstrated that they strongly support the principles, are adding to the obstacles to things ever changing.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 3, 2019)

newbie said:


> btw I don't think I agree about traffic calming on the backstreets. To my mind there is less traffic and it is moving slower than before the humps started to appear.



I"m not claiming that speed humps have no impact, but they don't turn a busy street into somewhere that's good for walking and cycling.  Milkwood Road has had at least two traffic calming schemes already and the 85%ile speed over 30mph. All the evidence points to more traffic on backstreets not less as well due to SatNav use.




Gramsci said:


> So don't tell me I'm supporting the motor lobby.



I'm not claiming you're supporting but if you oppose schemes like this you're helping them.  To return to the Brexit analogy - Green Party peer Jenny Jones voted Leave but for completely different reasons to Nigel Farage.  However, a Tory/UKIP led exit for europe will lead to a bonfire of environmental rules. One way or another she's aligned herself with a load of right wing xenophobes without 'supporting' them.

Lambeth have tried 'resident-led' schemes though Our Streets - Our Streets - The Neighbourhood Enhancement Programme | Lambeth Council  - Ferndale ward was one of the first to get the funding.  It's got humps all over the place but it's included in the Liveable Neighbourhood area because that simply hasn't worked.  As Our Streets worked its way through Streatham over the last couple of years anything radical or effective was quickly eliminated because some people loudly objected to it.

Your quote from 5 years ago sums it up perfectly "“What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist. There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.”  That's exactly what has happened through 5 years of  'resident led' design (following? in response to?) LJ.


----------



## newbie (Jun 3, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> some people loudly objected to it.
> 
> Your quote from 5 years ago sums it up perfectly "“What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist. There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.”  That's exactly what has happened through 5 years of  'resident led' design (following? in response to?) LJ.



well, and a 20mph limit.

Who should lead the design?  How should the views of '_some people_' be recognised and accomodated?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 3, 2019)

newbie said:


> well, and a 20mph limit.
> 
> Who should lead the design?  How should the views of '_some people_' be recognised and accomodated?



20mph limit is great but it resulted in an average of just 1mph speed reduction across the borough.  Some roads dropped by 3 or 4 mph, some were recording higher speeds after the 20mph limit was put in place.

Your other question has been answered repeatedly upthread.


----------



## T & P (Jun 3, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> 20mph limit is great but it resulted in an average of just 1mph speed reduction across the borough.  Some roads dropped by 3 or 4 mph, some were recording higher speeds after the 20mph limit was put in place.


 What you report was completely to be expected tbh. When you get politically motivated blanket speed limits covering an entire borough that take no consideration whatsoever to the characteristics of any individual roads affected, you are always going to get some roads where a 20 mph is widely ignored, simply because it is absurdly low and unfit for purpose. Yet the very same drivers will happily observe the 20 mph limit (and often drive at even lower speeds) on roads that merit such lower speeds.

A 20 mph on the likes of Railton Road, Coldharbour Lane, LJ area, and all small residential side streets is highly advisable and justifiable. The same limit on many major through roads is too low a limit for the road in question, and in some cases laughably so.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2019)

T & P said:


> The same limit on many major through roads is too low a limit for the road in question, and in some cases laughably so.



We've been through this on other threads, but there are very few roads in Lambeth that (a) there's no reason for anyone to cycle along and (b) there's no reason for pedestrians to want to cross.

It's not 'laughable' when you're the pedestrian or cyclist trying to use a "major through road".

In any case, the 20mph limit is widely ignored on roads that are not "major through roads".

The widespread and endemic problem is inappropriate driving, not inappropriate speed limits. I'm truly fed up with these arguments. I just got home from the shops and watched someone undertake another car at speed, metres from my front door and at a point where people often want to cross the road. And that was just a few minutes after I watched a guy on crutches have to take several steps backwards because a car wasn't going to slow down for him and let him cross.


----------



## T & P (Jun 3, 2019)

teuchter said:


> *The widespread and endemic problem is inappropriate driving, not inappropriate speed limits. *I'm truly fed up with these arguments. I just got home from the shops and watched someone undertake another car at speed, metres from my front door and at a point where people often want to cross the road. And that was just a few minutes after I watched a guy on crutches have to take several steps backwards because a car wasn't going to slow down for him and let him cross.


 Exactly. Inapproprite driving will happen irrespective of the speed limits, and the two scenarios you've just describe will still happen with the culprits travelling under 20 mph. So it does not make the case for far-too-draconian speed policy decisions that are actually more likely to be counterproductive, as it erodes trust in the entire system and and drives (no pun intended) more people into disregarding and breaking the speed limit.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2019)

No "far-too-draconian speed policy decisions" have been made.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 3, 2019)

T & P said:


> the two scenarios you've just describe will still happen with the culprits travelling under 20 mph



But if there is a collision the vulnerable road user is much more likely to live or not to suffer life changing injuries, and the collision is much less likely to happen because everyone has more time to react and stopping distances are shorter.



T & P said:


> absurdly low and unfit for purpose


Pretty much any trip inside the north and south circular is quicker by bike than by car - trip time is dictated by signals not by top speed. Pushing past at high speed just gets to you the back of the queue ahead a bit sooner, where the person on the bike catches you up again.  It's tortoise and hare stuff.   Coming home by car once we saw someone in a distinctive vehicle driving like an arsehole right out at Chiswick - accelerating hard off lights, running through ambers, using the wrong lane to jump a queue. We saw them again at Wandsworth still doing the same and finally found ourselves behind them as we pulled into our own street.  All that stupid, dangerous, aggressive driving hadn't given them even 10 seconds of benefit.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2019)

This is the thing - there are lots of good reasons to reduce speeds but almost no good reasons to increase speeds. Even from the point of view of the car driver's interests - being able to drive 10 or 20mph faster doesn't really get you anywhere more quickly within London. Mostly the only reason to drive fast is impatience, or for fun.


----------



## T & P (Jun 3, 2019)

teuchter said:


> No "far-too-draconian speed policy decisions" have been made.


Applying a one-speed-fits-all limit over tens of square miles covering roads as different as Kennington Road and a small narrow one way residential speed is every bit as draconian as using the same sentencing guidelines for a guy caught with with 3 spliffs in his pocket, and another carrying 50 kg of marching powder in the boot of his car.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2019)

T & P said:


> Applying a one-speed-fits-all limit over tens of square miles covering roads as different as Kennington Road and a small narrow one way residential speed is every bit as draconian as using the same sentencing guidelines for a guy caught with with 3 spliffs in his pocket, and another carrying 50 kg of marching powder in the boot of his car.



Applying a 20mph limit to Kennington Road is not draconian; it's entirely consistent with the purpose of 20mph limits in the first place. 

What is the good reason to allow people to travel at >20mph on Kennington Road?


----------



## T & P (Jun 3, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Pretty much any trip inside the north and south circular is quicker by bike than by car - trip time is dictated by signals not by top speed. Pushing past at high speed just gets to you the back of the queue ahead a bit sooner, where the person on the bike catches you up again.  It's tortoise and hare stuff.





teuchter said:


> This is the thing - there are lots of good reasons to reduce speeds but almost no good reasons to increase speeds. Even from the point of view of the car driver's interests - being able to drive 10 or 20mph faster doesn't really get you anywhere more quickly within London.


 This does by no mean apply to all areas, and more importantly to all or most times of the day. Perhaps an agreeable compromise is to apply lower speed limits during daytime/ working hours, and a higher one at quiet times/ night time, when car journeys are undoubtedly much much quicker and certainly vastly quicker than the equivalent journey on a bicycle.

Or to put it another way: a 20 mph limit at 2 am on a road like this is so indescriably draconian and absurd, not even the police respects it whenever I've seen a patrol car on it, let alone anyone else. 

Google Maps

Virtually 100% non-compliance at night times with little or no other traffic. Not because 100% of drivers are reckeless law breakers. Because in such circumestances the limit completely unfit for purpose. And when you get councils slapping borough-wide 20 mph limits that don't make excptions for the like of this, you're going to end up with most drivers thinking the council road policy is not worth the paper is printed on.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2019)

What exactly is the logic that leads to suggesting that speed limits should be higher at night? Is it because pedestrians and cyclists should be in bed, instead of causing trouble trying to use public roads without getting killed?


----------



## Winot (Jun 3, 2019)

I cycle down Kennington Rd 2-3 times a week. The time it’s most dangerous is outside of bus lane hours when motor vehicles think it’s acceptable to close pass me. Perhaps there should be a lower than 20mph limit after 7pm.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I'm not claiming you're supporting but if you oppose schemes like this you're helping them.  To return to the Brexit analogy - Green Party peer Jenny Jones voted Leave but for completely different reasons to Nigel Farage.  However, a Tory/UKIP led exit for europe will lead to a bonfire of environmental rules. One way or another she's aligned herself with a load of right wing xenophobes without 'supporting' them.
> 
> Lambeth have tried 'resident-led' schemes though Our Streets - Our Streets - The Neighbourhood Enhancement Programme | Lambeth Council  - Ferndale ward was one of the first to get the funding.  It's got humps all over the place but it's included in the Liveable Neighbourhood area because that simply hasn't worked.  As Our Streets worked its way through Streatham over the last couple of years anything radical or effective was quickly eliminated because some people loudly objected to it.
> 
> Your quote from 5 years ago sums it up perfectly "“What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist. There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.”  That's exactly what has happened through 5 years of  'resident led' design (following? in response to?) LJ.



Im starting to find this tiresome. 

I'm not opposing this scheme. 

I thought these proposals for a liveable neighborhood were up for consultation?

So far I've said I want Railton road rat run stopped. I listened to residents group ideas for traffic calming on Loughborough road and I think these ideas should be funded if technically possible. Ive also said I think closing off section of CHL instead of Atlantic road should be looked at. As most of Brixton residential area is located in that part of Central Brixton and when it was closed for roadworks my anecdotal knowledge leads to me to think this would be supported by residents. I also think that social issues should be dealt with under this scheme as under the definition of liveable neighborhood they are relevant.

So how you can say I'm opposing this scheme is beyond me.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I'm not claiming you're supporting but if you oppose schemes like this you're helping them.  To return to the Brexit analogy - Green Party peer Jenny Jones voted Leave but for completely different reasons to Nigel Farage.  However, a Tory/UKIP led exit for europe will lead to a bonfire of environmental rules. One way or another she's aligned herself with a load of right wing xenophobes without 'supporting' them.
> .



I find this line of argument common. If you are not for us your against us. I've had it recently here on another matter.

I find it ends up mirroring the behaviour of the those who being criticized. In this case the motor lobby.

If I don't 100% support these plans for a liveable neighborhood then I'm just as bad as a petrol head.

Doesn't matter that I've put forward alternative suggestions or supported aspects of it. Or read up what its about and have my own interpretation of it.

On Brexit. I know one person who is Lexit. I respect his views. As I said EU is pretty crap institution. Not democratic, enforcing racist borders, enforcing neo liberal austerity on countries. 

I only just support Remain. 

To say all leavers are giving support to Farage is wrong.

EU is seriously flawed. Its not simple stay good leave bad.

Same with altering transport/ road use.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> But if there is a collision the vulnerable road user is much more likely to live or not to suffer life changing injuries, and the collision is much less likely to happen because everyone has more time to react and stopping distances are shorter.
> 
> 
> . .



You say this to T & P yet when I say I support 20mph you criticise me:

Post 209 on this thread not from five years ago:




> How do you propose making sure 20mph is kept to? Really harsh, regular speed bumps - what about the impact on bus passengers? Speed cameras only seem to work for the 10m or so they cover and can only be installed where there have been road deaths. They’re not allowed to be hidden/covert. The Police haven’t got resource. What about the residents who object to being fined for speeding?



I don't agree with T & P but this way of arguing by you is a wind up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2019)

teuchter said:


> That's correct; I went to at least one of those meetings. I live in Loughborough Junction too.
> 
> I do not agree with Gramsci's view that a majority of residents were against the scheme. Whether we're talking about the whole of the area involved, or just the residents of Loughborough Estate. It can't be proven either way, but there is no evidence that a majority were against.
> 
> ...



I'd say on the Loughborough estate and residents further down Loughborough road, the area the road closure scheme most affected, majority were against. 

The campaign against the road closures was led by Council tenants.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 4, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> this way of arguing by you is a wind up.



It's really not intended to be.  We're going round in circles on here but from what you wrote 5 years ago we should be 95% in agreement on both why this is needed and what needs to be done.  How about I buy you a beer and we have a good face to face discussion on this?

Your suggestions in Post 245 above are reasonable.  Demanding that 'every technically feasible resident suggestion must be implemented' is not and I explained why upthread.  On 20mph I agree it should be the London wide speed limit. Actually I think it should be lower in places (the City of London are seeking to implement a 15mph limit). However, I've been through the wringer on speeds - i've lobbied councillers, been to Police meetings, done Community Roadwatch and looked at every possible form of traffic calming. Demanding "20mph must be enforced" without a practical suggestion as to how isn't helpful. No form of calming actually reduces volumes and nor do they really slow speeds if it's a rat run or the whole appearance of the road is wrong (eg the 'motorway' like Barrington with wide lanes and a hatched central area). On enforcement there simply isn't enough Police resource to give people have a real fear of being caught (and the Police will only enforce standing in the road wearing hi-viz anyway so all but the worryingly unobservant slow down when they are enforcing).  The same drivers we caught (and fined) on Roadwatch were speeding down the road the next day. It achieved nothing. 

So - a beer?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2019)

Although enforcement of the 20 limit might be outside the scope of the liveable neighbourhood scheme, I do hope that the number of comments about it on the consultation map might end up with someone somewhere seeing that it's something that a lot of people want. 

Who ultimately has the power to change things - if resources allocated to it were given to the police, for example, is that a central government thing or a mayor's office thing?


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 4, 2019)

There is often talk of local authorities becoming involved in enforcing 20mph instead of the police, but unfortunately local authorities don't have the budget to do this either.

Local authorities ‘could enforce 20mph limits’


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 4, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Who ultimately has the power to change things - if resources allocated to it were given to the police, for example, is that a central government thing or a mayor's office thing?



As I understand it, Police funding is set by central government but the mayor sets (influences?) priorities. Traffic Policing was cut last year to focus more on knife crime (which the community were demanding) 122 traffic officers to join Met's Violent Crime Task Force in London

I spent years trying to get local "neighbourhood" Police to focus more effort on traffic (speeding, mobile phone use, dangerous driving).  Supposedly the 'Safer Neighbourhoods Panels' were how the community set priorities for the Police but this then became ward 'promises' and then this got softened again to something else because they didn't actually have the resource to deliver against a promise.  Trying to get Traffic onto the priority list was worthy of Joseph Heller.  Although the community was meant to be setting priorities we couldn't have traffic on there as a ward priority because it wasn't a borough priority.  Borough priorities were supposedly set to reflect ward priorities - you get the picture.



toblerone3 said:


> There is often talk of local authorities becoming involved in enforcing 20mph instead of the police, but unfortunately local authorities don't have the budget to do this either.


Although I think the request is that they retain the fines to cover costs of enforcement with any surplus added to local transport budget (same as parking).  Police don't keep any traffic fines (goes to central government) so it's just a cost for them. This is a whole other rabbithole to disappear down - also need to simplify the paperwork and keep these out of court.  When I did enforcement Police set "limit" way higher than it should have been for a 20mph road - basically to the small 10 or so tickets they thought they could actually process in an hour. Resource requirements were ridiculous - at least 2 vehicles and 3 or 4 officers from memory.  This needs to be one man (covert) with a handheld camera/speed monitor, tickets automatically issued, no need for roadside stop, no appeals but rule don't allow that. 

Yes, enforcement would be great but at present it's completely beyond the power of Lambeth to do anything about it and way outside the scope of any Liveable Neighbourhood project.


----------



## T & P (Jun 4, 2019)

teuchter said:


> What exactly is the logic that leads to suggesting that speed limits should be higher at night? Is it because pedestrians and cyclists should be in bed, instead of causing trouble trying to use public roads without getting killed?


The logic oft repeated that cars will get caught at the next traffic lights anyway and cyclists will undboutedly catch up with them, so there's no harm done in forcing cars to do 20 mph on main roads that for about 98% of the total lifespan of the existence of traffic laws had been allowed to travel at 30mph, until some local authorities decided one-speed fits it it all was the thing to do.

Bike journeys being as fast or faster than car journeys certainly do happen, at busier times, on some routes. But it certainly does not happen on many other routes, and it is a complete fallacy to say a cycle journey will always be as fast or faster than a car journey in London. In a myriad of scenarios the latter will be significantly faster.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2019)

T & P said:


> The logic oft repeated that cars will get caught at the next traffic lights anyway and cyclists will undboutedly catch up with them, so there's no harm done in forcing cars to do 20 mph on main roads that for about 98% of the total lifespan of the existence of traffic laws had been allowed to travel at 30mph, until some local authorities decided one-speed fits it it all was the thing to do.
> 
> Bike journeys being as fast or faster than car journeys certainly do happen, at busier times, on some routes. But it certainly does not happen on many other routes, and it is a complete fallacy to say a cycle journey will always be as fast or faster than a car journey in London. In a myriad of scenarios the latter will be significantly faster.


I don't think you get the point. The relative speed of cars vs bikes is not really the important bit.

The fact is that reducing motor traffic speed has very great benefits for pedestrians and cyclists, and fairly minor disbenefits for motorists.

You've not answered the question though - what's the logic for raising the speed limit at night? What is different then, compared to daytime?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2019)

T & P said:


> main roads that for about 98% of the total lifespan of the existence of traffic laws had been allowed to travel at 30mph, until some local authorities decided one-speed fits it it all was the thing to do.



Actually:
In 1861 the speed limit in built up areas was established at 10mph.
In 1865 it was reduced to 2mph
In 1896 it was raised to 12mph
In 1903 it was raised to 20mph.
In 1930 speed limits for cars were abolished altogether
In 1934 a speed limit was re-introduced at 30mph.

So, it spent around 70 years at speeds below 20mph, and about 85 years at 30mph. I make that 54%, not 98%.

But just because it's been at 30mph for a long time doesn't make anything magical about that number. It's no coincidence that it corresponds to the period in history where suddenly lots of people became car owners, and there was a switch in priority as far as roads were concerned - car becomes king. This was reflected in the way our cities became increasingly anti-pedestrian in their road design. Time now to reverse that, and get back to the kind of speed limits that were originally considered sensible.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 4, 2019)

T & P said:


> Bike journeys being as fast or faster than car journeys certainly do happen, at busier times, on some routes. But it certainly does not happen on many other routes, and it is a complete fallacy to say a cycle journey will always be as fast or faster than a car journey in London. In a myriad of scenarios the latter will be significantly faster.



I think you would really be surprised at how rarely a bike isn't as quick or quicker, or how little difference there is between them at a very quiet time of day for trips inside zone 3.  I avoid driving in London except to leave so my examples are places that link to trunk roads out in different directions that I also cycle to.  Google's cycling times are also pretty conservative - i easily beat them if i know the way.

Brixton to Tower Bridge (your Kennington Road route). Right now it's 27 minutes by bike, 32 by car.  At night its a bit quicker by both but at most the car would be single digit minutes quicker and at night on a bike it's highly unpleasant as drivers undertake at high speed in the bus lanes.

Brixton to White City - 42 minutes by bike, 46 by car. On a really good run late at night you might get back from there in 40 minutes...

Anyway, this is rather moot.  TfL's new quality criteria for cycle routes won't allow cyclists to be mixed with motor traffic where 85%ile speed is over 30mph (ie on any 30 limit road).  New Government guidance will say mixing cyclists with traffic on 30mph roads is "suitable for few people and will exclude most potential users". Basically, if people are going to be enabled to cycle in volumes it will not be sharing with 30mph traffic, whatever the time of day.  I'm comfortable with a road having a 30mph limit if it has protected space for cycling but you still need to consider pedestrians.


----------



## newbie (Jun 5, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Brixton to White City - 42 minutes by bike, 46 by car. On a really good run late at night you might get back from there in 40 minutes...


you might 

(From a slightly different starting point) cars currently, mid morning, have a 6 minute advantage (46/40) with scope for impatient drivers to increase that with acceleration and top speed.  '_It's quicker by bike_' is not going to persuade people out of cars except perhaps during the rush hour, and the ones who do that twice a day obviously don't care.


> Anyway, this is rather moot.  TfL's new quality criteria for cycle routes won't allow cyclists to be mixed with motor traffic where 85%ile speed is over 30mph (ie on any 30 limit road).  New Government guidance will say mixing cyclists with traffic on 30mph roads is "suitable for few people and will exclude most potential users". Basically, if people are going to be enabled to cycle in volumes it will not be sharing with 30mph traffic, whatever the time of day.  I'm comfortable with a road having a 30mph limit if it has protected space for cycling but you still need to consider pedestrians.


Good.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 5, 2019)

newbie said:


> with scope for impatient drivers to increase that with acceleration and top speed.  '_It's quicker by bike_' is not going to persuade people out of cars




Still comparable - it’s not significantly *quicker* by car and you’ve also got to consider parking (both time to find a parking space and to walk to destination once parked).  Cycling *tends* to be more point to point (though parking can still be an issue).

This was responding to T&P trying to claim that in a myriad of scenarios driving would be quicker and that speed limits should be higher - which is not supported by the fact that journey times by a bike (for most people cruising 12mph, top speed 20ish) are often quicker, and at worst not materially slower than a car for most trips in London. This is strong evidence, as pointed out upthread, that acceleration and top speed usually make no difference to journey time - you just get to the next queue or red light quicker.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2019)

I've set my stopwatch running to see how long it takes someone to say something about cyclists and red lights.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 5, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I've set my stopwatch running to see how long it takes someone to say something about cyclists and red lights.



Stop that clock !!!
Myself and 3 others just had to take evasive action when a cyclist ignored the red light at a pedestrian crossing.....this not five minutes ago, I got in made a brew and sat down yours is literally the first post I read. There may have been mitigating factors  he was hurtling down Brixton road at around 20 mph and was riding a fixed wheel so may have struggled to stop


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2019)

To be clear - I don't defend cyclists running red lights at pedestrian crossings. Cyclists should show the same consideration to pedestrians as they would like drivers to show to them.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 5, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I've set my stopwatch running to see how long it takes someone to say something about cyclists and red lights.


"They should pay Road Tax" etc.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 5, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> Stop that clock !!!
> Myself and 3 others just had to take evasive action when a cyclist ignored the red light at a pedestrian crossing.....this not five minutes ago, I got in made a brew and sat down yours is literally the first post I read. There may have been mitigating factors  he was hurtling down Brixton road at around 20 mph and was riding a fixed wheel so may have struggled to stop



I suspect that some people are idiots irrespective of their form of transport.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2019)

Amsterdam's Amazing Disappearing Parking Spaces - CityLab



Amsterdam is doing what we should do in London. I've been banging on about this on here for years; there's always people saying it's unrealistic and thinking up reasons why we can't do it. Maybe we'll get there one day.


----------



## sparkybird (Jun 7, 2019)

Drivers consistently ignore the 20 mile speed limit. I am overtaken at least 3 times a week... And I'm doing 25! Until these drivers understand WHY the limit is in place they will continue to ignore it. If it's pushed lower or rolled out to more roads it will make no difference.
Surely it's better to educate rather than enforce?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2019)

How does one do that? I think drivers are more interested in what they can get away with, than what they are 'educated' is ok. They will say, yes, this makes sense in principle but then decide that they are safe to exceed it in all sorts of circumstances. Many people are still driving well over 30 so it's not like they even accept the old limit.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 7, 2019)

sparkybird said:


> And I'm doing 25



Presumably, you're on a bike?   Because being educated you understand why the limit is in place?  You understand that 25mph in a car is significantly more dangerous than 20mph?  You'd not drive at 25% in excess of what's supposed to be the maximum speed in a car, a level even the lax Police "guidance" (+10% +2mph) says you should be fined. 

Ideally we'd have not just more enforcement but massively higher penalties if caught. interesting to compare Swiss to the UK. SpeedingEurope.com: Switzerland 

My 20mph road sees a fair few drivers daily travelling at over 43mph. Get caught at that speed in Switzerland and it's a minimum 1 year in jail....


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 7, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Presumably, you're on a bike?



Hold up.....are you saying speed limits don't apply to bikes ?




> My 20mph road sees a fair few drivers daily travelling at over 43mph.



Apologies, how can you be specific about the speed of 43mph ? Do you have measuring equipment ?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2019)

I think thebackrow may have taken part in community roadwatch sessions, which I have done too. In that case you use proper speed guns. We measured someone doing 45mph on my road just recently. Loads of people doing upper 30s. The police guys that run the sessions have measured people doing 60-something in other parts of Lambeth.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 7, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> Hold up.....are you saying speed limits don't apply to bikes ?



No, legally they don't: *"The law of the road *The Highway Code rule 124 is clear on keeping within speed limits, but does not mention cyclists. Archive notes on the Department of Transport code of conduct for cyclists gives general advice on using cycle paths, particularly those shared with pedestrians, suggesting "if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road". So – going fast? Then the road is the place to be."  "*The legislation regarding speeding covers motor (or mechanically propelled) vehicles only*."Metropolitan police, spokesman Mark Ottowell  

Can cyclists be fined for speeding?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 7, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> Apologies, how can you be specific about the speed of 43mph ? Do you have measuring equipment ?


From that link 70kmh, 1 year jail, = 43mph
We had one of those speed display signs on our street for a while that's supposed to get people to slow down.  It displayed speeds up to 40mph or so but displayed blank if faster.



cuppa tee said:


> Hold up.....are you saying speed limits don't apply to bikes ?


That's correct - speed limits don't apply to cycles. Detail here if you're interested -  https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/medi...imit-or-does-the-law-only-apply-to-motorists/

Think about what happens if a car and a bike traveling at the same speed hit a wall and the damage that will be caused. Bikes really aren't dangerous, cars are. 
This is because Physics...   Kinetic energy = mass x speed squared.

Also think about the relative risk - a person on a bike really doesn't want to hit a pedestrian.  If they do they'll almost certainly come off the bike and they'll likely be hurt at least as much as the pedestrian, if not worse.   Driver regularly hit pedestrians without even noticing.

This chart is kinetic energy of a car at 30mph vs a bike at 20mph but you get the idea...


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 7, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I think thebackrow may have taken part in community roadwatch sessions, which I have done too. In that case you use proper speed guns. We measured someone doing 45mph on my road just recently. Loads of people doing upper 30s. The police guys that run the sessions have measured people doing 60-something in other parts of Lambeth.



I see, tbh you probably have me down as one of the motoring lobby but I am someone who drives only when strictly necessary mostly I will be on foot or bike...I have seen unbelievable acts of selfish stupidity from people using all modes of transport, one guy drove behind me bibbing like a maniac to get past for a couple of hundred yards through a quiet street with speed bumps, when he got past he stopped his car in front got out and came over to my door wanting a fight, in the same spot another dude threw a rock at my windscreen. There are plenty of selfish people out there like the two guys who decided it would be fun to sprint Sean Kelly style at a orange light on a pedestrian crossing at school leaving time going thru a group of kids and mums with proms at high speed in the process. Honestly I get there is a problem with cars but posting diagrams like the one above give cyclists a get out clause but if they plough into a little kid an old person or a dog at speeds approaching 40mph then they will do plenty damage as thus far vulnerable pedestrians are not using helmets as a rule.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2019)

There's no excuse for cyclists cycling dangerously and at excessive speed but as pointed out above, the relative danger compared to a car travelling at the same speed is relevant, as is the added incentive for cyclists not to hit anyone because they will injure themselves too.

In reality, 20mph is already quite fast on a bike and I think you'll rarely see a bike going a lot faster than that within London.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 7, 2019)

cuppa tee said:


> at speeds approaching 40mph



There are idiots on any form of transport.  The difference is their abilty to cause harm.  Regardless, I think you might be overestimating cyclists speeds by some significant margin.  According to "Bicycling Magazine" the average Tour de France rider maintains an average speed of 25 to *28 mph* on the flat.  Few of us mortals can maintain more than 20mph for any length of time and even on the steepest hills of south London I don't think anyone would be approaching 40mph - they're neither steep enough nor long enough.

It's a distinctly odd situation where cyclists are considered to be going too fast at 20mph but you consider 25mph in a 20 limit in a car to be ok.... 

Stop and watch a set of traffic lights for a while - say the ones outside Brixton tube, and count the number of cars that pass the lights on amber or red on every sequence.  Or the number of cars that start moving while pedestrians are still on the crossing - on flashing amber, let alone green.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2019)

Or stop on the crossing.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 7, 2019)

snowy_again said:


> No, legally they don't: *"The law of the road *The Highway Code rule 124 is clear on keeping within speed limits, but does not mention cyclists. Archive notes on the Department of Transport code of conduct for cyclists gives general advice on using cycle paths, particularly those shared with pedestrians, suggesting "if you want to cycle quickly, say in excess of 18mph/30 kph, then you should be riding on the road". So – going fast? Then the road is the place to be."  "*The legislation regarding speeding covers motor (or mechanically propelled) vehicles only*."Metropolitan police, spokesman Mark Ottowell
> 
> Can cyclists be fined for speeding?



Since this is a london-centric thread, I think it's worth noting that bylaws mean that the speed limits in the royal parks apply to cyclists as well as motorised vehicles.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2019)

An update via email



> Hi everyone,
> 
> Our initial consultation has been running for just over a month. In that time over 350 people have contributed to the map and approaching 2,000 people have visited the website – thanks for this fantastic response!
> 
> ...


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 14, 2019)

teuchter said:


> An update via email



Who was the sender ?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2019)

teuchter said:


> An update via email



The email you quote says get in touch by email. Can you post up email address?


----------



## Winot (Jun 15, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The email you quote says get in touch by email. Can you post up email address?



It’s at the end here:

Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood & Clean Air Week


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The email you quote says get in touch by email. Can you post up email address?


The email came from support@commonplace.is.
But as Winot says the email to reply to is on the web page and is a Lambeth one.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2019)

> Our initial consultation has been running for just over a month. In that time over 350 people have contributed to the map and approaching 2,000 people have visited the website – thanks for this fantastic response!



Is that a lot?  I don't know but the West Norwood one got over 1000 comments and the tiny Tulse Hill one* has gained 40.





* Nobody seems to have commented about the fine description


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 18, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The email you quote says get in touch by email. Can you post up email address?



You didn't respond to my offer above - ..."from what you wrote 5 years ago we should be 95% in agreement on both why this is needed and what needs to be done. How about I buy you a beer and we have a good face to face discussion on this?"

What's just happened in Notting Hill/Holland Park shows how difficult it is to make positive change.  The depressing lesson of west London's lost cycle route  No scheme will be perfect, making Atlantic Road much better for pedestrians and cyclists now may have a slight negative impact on a few other roads (until, hopefully, they are dealt with later).  But being 'awkward squad' on this stuff DOES play into the hands of the reactionary petrolheads. All that sudden 'environmental' concern about the loss of a couple of trees on Holland Park Avenue - someone's pointed out on Twitter that Holland Park constituents consume 9000 trees every Christmas (presumably based on council disposal figures).  

I see from Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme to reduce pollution receives mixed reviews that that John Gordon of the Market Traders Federation wants a multi storey car park back on the Popes Road site and thinks that "pollution will nigh on disappear when ULEZ comes in in 2020".	   

The MD of POP Brixton "He said you often get the line that people who come by car spend less money than people who come by other means. But for me that negates who is buying and I do worry that restricting traffic and parking means certain cultures are excluded from being able to do their shop”.   Based on the recent car ad featuring Brixton I'm guessing he's thinking of Range Rover driving Fulhamites when he's talking about 'certain cultures' ( he mentions parking at North End Road in Fulham for 20p an hour)


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> You didn't respond to my offer above - ..."from what you wrote 5 years ago we should be 95% in agreement on both why this is needed and what needs to be done. How about I buy you a beer and we have a good face to face discussion on this?"
> 
> What's just happened in Notting Hill/Holland Park shows how difficult it is to make positive change.  The depressing lesson of west London's lost cycle route  No scheme will be perfect, making Atlantic Road much better for pedestrians and cyclists now may have a slight negative impact on a few other roads (until, hopefully, they are dealt with later).  But being 'awkward squad' on this stuff DOES play into the hands of the reactionary petrolheads. All that sudden 'environmental' concern about the loss of a couple of trees on Holland Park Avenue - someone's pointed out on Twitter that Holland Park constituents consume 9000 trees every Christmas (presumably based on council disposal figures).
> 
> ...



I agree with what John says. He has done a lot of work over the years to support the market traders. A good guy.

I thought the point of the ULEZ scheme was to reduce pollution? I don't know anyone who is against it.

Like I said before certain measures will get backing. But not all.

So Gordon is not opposing ULEZ but is sceptical of the liveable neighborhood. That doesn't make him a petrol head.

If the Council is so concerned it should not have let Tesco's have car park on the Streatham site. The market traders lost their car park as Tesco's made Lambeth move the Ice Rink to Brixton on that site whilst the Streatham development was finished. I was part of the campaign to support the market traders keeping their car park.

It was nauseating to hear Labour Cllrs go on about green transport in relation the Brixton market yet give Tesco's what they wanted.

But of course taking parking from the market traders is easy. Standing up to big multinational like Tesco isn't.

In practise Green issues are implemented on the less well off whilst the corporates aren't affected.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 20, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I agree with what John says. He has done a lot of work over the years to support the market traders. A good guy.
> 
> I thought the point of the ULEZ scheme was to reduce pollution? I don't know anyone who is against it.
> 
> Like I said before certain measures will get backing. But not all.



Will you meet me for a beer to discuss this Gramsci?  I'm buying. 

Measures that don't inconvenience anyone will get backing - they're also the ones that will be ineffective. ULEZ is likely to improve pollution but it isn't going to 'nigh on disappear' as anyone who has been into central London since April will tell you.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 20, 2019)

What type of market customers are the ones that used/ would use a car park?

Is there evidence that closing the multistorey carpark has impacted negatively on the market?

Good post from co-op on a previous thread (from before the carpark was demolished) here:



co-op said:


> You may have some anecdotal evidence that extra parking in Brixton benefits the market, but it is unlikely to be the case in my opinion.
> 
> Traders (the large majority, everywhere as far as I can see) routinely fight attempts to cut down on car use, claiming that it will reduce their trade and cost them money. However whenever the claim has been systematically analysed it has found to be false. When Oxford pedestriansed some city centre roads in 1999, te storm of opposition was so strong that the council agreed to monitor trading levels over the next two years. The report was carried out by C.B.Hillier Parker, the property and retail consultants and agents. They found that far from deterring shoppers, footfall rose in pedestrianised streets (by 10%) and that commercial rents in pedestranised streets had begun to grow quicker than in non-pedestrianised ones. The same result was found by a Living Streets analysis of pedestrianisation in York.
> 
> ...




The traders do, of course still have a car park, just a much smaller one.

I don't want Tesco etc to be given planning permission for supermarkets with large carparks, like the Streatham one, either. But Lambeth making a wrong decision there doesn't justify supporting a wrong decision in Brixton town centre.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 20, 2019)

> Mr Gordon, 65, said Brixton’s community is based on shops used by working people within the Caribbean and African communities who can only shop once a week.
> 
> He said they buy things like a bag of rice or a drum of oil that they cannot take on public transport.
> 
> “Making parking difficult or impossible in Brixton will force them to shop elsewhere. Shops would go out of business and yuppy businesses would come in.



This is more backwards thinking: people have developed shopping habits that are car-dependant, therefore we must accept car dependancy rather than getting people to change their habits.

As ever - what do working people within the Carribean and African communities, who don't own a car, do? Shouldn't we be making things work for them?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 24, 2019)

Back (momentarily) to speeding - sounds like there was a 'community road watch' on Lyham Road last week between 5 and 6pm one afternoon.  
"We  spotted 58 drivers doing 25 and above in a hour, 13 drivers recorded at over 30mph.  4 over 35mph, 1 over 50mph"


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 24, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> I see from Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme to reduce pollution receives mixed reviews that that John Gordon of the Market Traders Federation wants a multi storey car park back on the Popes Road site and thinks that "pollution will nigh on disappear when ULEZ comes in in 2020".


ULEZ is likely to be full of holes and rich people will just pay it anyway. Atlantic/Railton road is really congested as it is, especially at the weekend and this guy wants to bring more traffic in?. 

We should be designing places to be less car centric and towards other types of transport.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2019)

The loss of the Brixton market car park and the Streatham Ice Rink/Tescos development are linked.

The market traders lost the car park to facilitate the development of the Streatham development.

This was a decision by the Council under pressure from Tescos.

This isn't forgotten.

The decision to allow Tescos a car park and the loss of Brixton markets car park can't be separated out.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> The loss of the Brixton market car park and the Streatham Ice Rink/Tescos development are linked.
> 
> The market traders lost the car park to facilitate the development of the Streatham development.
> 
> ...


None of this makes an argument for reinstating a large car park in central brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2019)

teuchter said:


> None of this makes an argument for reinstating a large car park in central brixton.



I never said it was.

The point Im making is that the decision to get rid of the Brixton market car park and the Ice rink/Tescos project are linked. 

What I am saying is that it was unfair to get rid of market car park to help Tescos have one in Streatham.

One of the justifications I got from a Cllr was that this was green move. 

The Streatham development was joint project between Lambeth and Tescos. Lambeth didn't insist on car free development. 

So I entirely sympahise with John Gordon.

The other reason that the car park was demolished is that Lambeth Regen regard the site as a development opportunity. 

At the time Regen were thinking of demolishing the Rec and International house. 

Then doing a partnership as in Streatham. Giving the developer the Rec site and getting a new smaller Rec on what is now Pop. 

This was stopped for time being due to community opposition.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2019)

So do you think the car park should be reinstated, or not?


----------



## alex_ (Jun 26, 2019)

teuchter said:


> So do you think the car park should be reinstated, or not?



I suspect pop is the stalking horse for a load of flats.

Car park to flats = outrage

Car park to pop to flats = most people have short memories.

Alex


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 30, 2019)

teuchter said:


> So do you think the car park should be reinstated, or not?



What I think should happen is a level playing field.

Tesco's at Streatham and Sainsbury's at Vauxhall should have their car parks taken off them.

Then they can compete with Brixton shopping area on a level playing field of minimal parking for cars.

The car park at Sainsbury's at Vauxhall is gross. Its so big its never even half full.

Why is Lambeth giving big operators this massive car parks when it claims to be into reducing car use? 

Btw today I did my shopping in Brixton. The street market for fruit and veg, Nour Cash and Carry for special ingredients.

I think taking on Tesco's and Sainsbury's would be a good thing.

Support small business like Nour Cash and Carry.

Secondly briing in rent controls to stop evil landlords upping rent on small shopkeepers.

If the aim is to reduce car use then supporting small business is the way to go.

And that isn't eateries. Its market traders etc.


----------



## Xeno (Jul 3, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> What I think should happen is a level playing field.
> 
> Tesco's at Streatham and Sainsbury's at Vauxhall should have their car parks taken off them.
> 
> ...



Some small traders favour the car parks. I'd be interested to know what the Nour people think of the Tesco car park on Acre Lane. I was surprised to find that, when the new Sainsbury on the corner of Tulse Hill and Brixton Water Lane was at planning stage, the traders on Tulse Hill welcomed it because it would bring in more people. My initial assumption was that they would be opposed to the new store because it would swallow up their customers. As I understand it, many Brixton traders like the Tesco car park because it is effectively a free car park for all Brixton town centre shoppers. LIkewise, the Clapham Sainsbury's for Clapham shoppers, although you have to get a voucher endorsed at the till to park there. By allowing driving into small town centres like Clapham and Brixton, where it ought to be banned, the big stores actually have a common interest with many small traders. We should justify cutting car parks on traffic-reduction and quality of life grounds alone. Don't always expect small traders to be on your side.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 3, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> I think taking on Tesco's and Sainsbury's would be a good thing.



My view is that as a basic principle all parking should be chargable - all of those of us who walk, or even take a taxi home from, supermarkets with parking are effectively subsidising those who drive there and paying higher prices.  Parking is not free to provide. 

However, I'm not there is anything legally Lambeth Council could do to either force charging or to take their car parks away - how would they practically do it? Compulsory purchase the car park land? Would cost millions and almost certainly be legally challenged by the supermarkets who would have far more money to spend on lawyers than Lambeth.  I dont' think theres any way to force them to charge.

The Tesco site on Acre Lane will be redeveloped at some point. I'm sure I've read or heard that there is a long term plan to clear the site and rebuild with an underground car park and flats above - the current site is a hugely inefficient use of the space and I'm pretty sure that bit of Acre Lane is zoned for at least 5 floors (what's Mr Knight got permission for for the Diamond Plumbers site?). There's a *lot* of money to be made  on that site.

The one that Lambeth really shouldn't have allowed is the Sainsbury's opposite Hootananny. It's too large a store for the size of the car park, generates a load of car trips that makes the whole area more dangerous for peds and cyclists on a junction where two arms (including the BWL west) have no pedestrian phase.  It should have been given permission with disabled parking only.  Cycle parking there is a joke as well - a tiny number of spaces in a location where they've been repeatedly driven into so they're unusable.


----------



## newbie (Jul 4, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> Cycle parking there is a joke as well - a tiny number of spaces in a location where they've been repeatedly driven into so they're unusable.


 I use them regularly without problem.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2019)

Xeno said:


> Some small traders favour the car parks. I'd be interested to know what the Nour people think of the Tesco car park on Acre Lane. I was surprised to find that, when the new Sainsbury on the corner of Tulse Hill and Brixton Water Lane was at planning stage, the traders on Tulse Hill welcomed it because it would bring in more people. My initial assumption was that they would be opposed to the new store because it would swallow up their customers. As I understand it, many Brixton traders like the Tesco car park because it is effectively a free car park for all Brixton town centre shoppers. LIkewise, the Clapham Sainsbury's for Clapham shoppers, although you have to get a voucher endorsed at the till to park there. By allowing driving into small town centres like Clapham and Brixton, where it ought to be banned, the big stores actually have a common interest with many small traders. We should justify cutting car parks on traffic-reduction and quality of life grounds alone. Don't always expect small traders to be on your side.



Not that simple. In Streatham Tesco's have started to implement time limits. As they saw people were were using the Tesco car park as parking space to use shops in Streatham not only Tesco's. Tesco's have started to introduce technology to mean that one has to shop in the store and not just use it to access other small business.

I said if Brixton market is to lose its car park ( as it did) then Tescos should lose theirs.

I said that Brixton market lost their car park to facilitate Streatham development with big car park for Tescos Beijing finished.

I also said the. Streatham development was a partnership development between Lambeth and Tescos. So why didnt Lambeth insist on car free development?

I really wish posters would actually read the content of my posts.

I want a level playing field.

Why does this keep being mis interpreted?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> My view is that as a basic principle all parking should be chargable - all of those of us who walk, or even take a taxi home from, supermarkets with parking are effectively subsidising those who drive there and paying higher prices.  Parking is not free to provide.
> 
> However, I'm not there is anything legally Lambeth Council could do to either force charging or to take their car parks away - how would they practically do it? Compulsory purchase the car park land? Would cost millions and almost certainly be legally challenged by the supermarkets who would have far more money to spend on lawyers than Lambeth.  I dont' think theres any way to force them to charge.
> 
> ...



The Streatham development was a partnership.

The Council did it to get a new Leisure centre and Ice Rink.

It was their political choice.

So they had a choice.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2019)

thebackrow said:


> My view is that as a basic principle all parking should be chargable - all of those of us who walk, or even take a taxi home from, supermarkets with parking are effectively subsidising those who drive there and paying higher prices.  Parking is not free to provide.
> 
> However, I'm not there is anything legally Lambeth Council could do to either force charging or to take their car parks away - how would they practically do it? Compulsory purchase the car park land? Would cost millions and almost certainly be legally challenged by the supermarkets who would have far more money to spend on lawyers than Lambeth.  I dont' think theres any way to force them to charge.
> 
> ...



Here is Chuka ( when he was Labour) on the Streatham development:




> Mr Umunna said: “This is great for Streatham’s regeneration and the new ice and leisure centre makes it even more of a destination which is good for all the small businesses here.  This is more than a fantastic new leisure centre, it’s created hundreds of jobs and  homes too but none of it would have been possible withou*t  the smart, strategic partnership forged between Lambeth council and Tesco.”*




Streatham has a new Tesco and its ice rink back


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 5, 2019)

Gramsci said:


> Not that simple. In Streatham Tesco's have started to implement time limits. As they saw people were were using the Tesco car park as parking space to use shops in Streatham not only Tesco's. Tesco's have started to introduce technology to mean that one has to shop in the store and not just use it to access other small business.
> 
> I said if Brixton market is to lose its car park ( as it did) then Tescos should lose theirs.
> 
> ...



It's not.  You may "want" things but there's no point demanding something if it's not in someone's power to deliver. *How* should tesco's car park be taken away (see my post above)? 

The Popes Road car park was demolished because it was structurally unsound Popes Road Car Park - DDS Demolition 
" the steel packer plates between the spandrel panels and the main frame had rusted and blown, which had compromised the structural integrity of the structure. Following a number of structural reports the Car park was deemed unfit for public use and a possible source for falling debris".
It was built at a time when car centric planning was at its height and an elevated Motorway was planned to run down Coldharbour Lane. Research showed that only a small minority of market customers arrived by car and, with Brixton being a major public transport hub, there really is no justification for car parking which encourages short car trips. 

I'm guessing Lambeth couldn't insist on a car free development for Streatham as a large Tesco store probably isn't considered viable without it. So likely they had the choice of no parking or no ice rink. 

I've offered to buy you a beer now and chat about this stuff in person a number of times now but you still haven't responded. I agree with you, big supermarkets with big car parks are not what we need in cental London.  However, I really don't think the answer is to build a big car park for the market and im sure that Lambeth have no way of taking Tesco's away.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2019)

Brixton past,present and future




> Hi everyone,
> 
> Many thanks for your contribution to the project so far. We have had nearly 4,000 contributions and there is still time. The map consultation will be open for four more weeks*, please help us with the final push by sharing this News item with your social media friends via Facebook or Twitter using the buttons below*.





> *What’s next?*
> 
> Over the next four weeks our team will be out on the street running a series of face to face engagement events and circulating materials via local media, project stakeholders, community champions, businesses, GPs, Libraries, Tenancy and Residents Associations and many more.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 9, 2020)

latest update on this from presentation from last Brixton Neighborhood Forum in January:


*Brixton Liveable Neighborhood*

This is ongoing project.

Next stage of consultation begins soon.

The project is going to recruit five local people to help.

There is going to be a lot more face to face consultation. Visits to business etc. *Going to people on their terms/ catch people where they already are"

The Brixton Liveable Neighborhood has been divided into different areas. Consultation will be done in these areas. Loughborough Junction will have consultation specific to it for example.

A new Commonplace website will come out soon. I think this is it:









						Check out Lambeth Council’s ideas for healthier and safer streets
					

Have your say on healther and safer streets in Brixton




					brixtonstreets.commonplace.is


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> latest update on this from presentation from last Brixton Neighborhood Forum in January:
> 
> 
> *Brixton Liveable Neighborhood*
> ...


Interesting that they appear to be revisiting the idea of partially blocking through traffic on Loughborough Road.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 2, 2020)

Video here, be interesting to see if they can do anything to Railton rd.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 28, 2020)

Looks like we're going to see some of the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood changes sooner rather than later

Covid-19: Transport Strategy COVID-19 Emergency Response


----------



## teuchter (Apr 28, 2020)

Wait - Lambeth council proactively doing something right? This is all a dream after all.

Good on them, though.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2020)

Ive emailed Cllrs about this section of pavement between Moorlands road and LJ.

To edit. Cllr Donatus has sent this onto the relevant Council officer for consideration.

This section of road is busy. Traffic is going faster as less traffic so cannot really step onto road safely. Pavement is to narrow to  socially distance. Houses are directly by the pavement. This stretch of pavvement  is used a lot to get from LJ to Brixton and back.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 28, 2020)

Should be no parking all along that road. There's enough road width for a 2.7m pavement, 1.5m cycle path and 3.5m traffic lane in each direction.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Ive emailed Cllrs about this section of pavement between Moorlands road and LJ.
> 
> To edit. Cllr Donatus has sent this onto the relevant Council officer for consideration.
> 
> This section of road is busy. *Traffic is going faster as less traffic *so cannot really step onto road safely. Pavement is to narrow to  socially distance. Houses are directly by the pavement. This stretch of pavvement  is used a lot to get from LJ to Brixton and back.



Something needs to be done about traffic speed too. The 20mph limit should not be affected by the amount of traffic. It has to be enforced.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2020)

Crispy said:


> Should be no parking all along that road. There's enough road width for a 2.7m pavement, 1.5m cycle path and 3.5m traffic lane in each direction.



Its a CPZ. Some of my neighbours use it. Alternative might be to give them right to park in nearby roads.

There is idea of a "freeway" so buses can move more quickly. This would mean banning all vehicles from parking through CHL from Brixton to Camberwell ( where Kings hospital is.)

Neither idea is going to be popular with car owners or local shopkeepers. Loco in LJ does a lot of trade from people in  evenings parking next to shop.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Something needs to be done about traffic speed too. The 20mph limit should not be affected by the amount of traffic. It has to be enforced.



Yes its low on police list of things to do around here. Ive seen them have speed traps near Hyde Park Corner. lambourginis around that area.  To  tempting to put foot down in one of those.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Its a CPZ. Some of my neighbours use it. Alternative might be to give them right to park in nearby roads.
> 
> There is idea of a "freeway" so buses can move more quickly. This would mean banning all vehicles from parking through CHL from Brixton to Camberwell ( where Kings hospital is.)
> 
> Neither idea is going to be popular with car owners or local shopkeepers. Loco in LJ does a lot of trade from people in  evenings parking next to shop.



Some of the opposition to the road closures a few years back claimed to be centred around a concern about the freedom of access along CHL for ambulances to and from Kings. So those people ought to be pleased with moves to ensure the free movement of buses carrying key workers to and from the hospital and I'm sure will not complain about giving up on street parking.


----------



## Winot (Apr 28, 2020)

This is really good news. A slight moan though - I wish they would link to the actual decision on these news pages. Anyway, it's here Decision - Covid-19: Transport Strategy COVID-19 Emergency Response | Lambeth Council.

I also spent ages trying to find a map for Cycleway 5 on the Lambeth website and got lost in a morass of dead consultations, before I realised that I needed to search for Quietway 5 on the TfL website (although I think they might not be called Quietways any more).


----------



## teuchter (Apr 28, 2020)

Winot said:


> This is really good news. A slight moan though - I wish they would link to the actual decision on these news pages. Anyway, it's here Decision - Covid-19: Transport Strategy COVID-19 Emergency Response | Lambeth Council.
> 
> I also spent ages trying to find a map for Cycleway 5 on the Lambeth website and got lost in a morass of dead consultations, before I realised that I needed to search for Quietway 5 on the TfL website (although I think they might not be called Quietways any more).


The naming on cycle routes is a mess... they are in the process of re-naming them all I think. So maps don't always match with signage, and some routes seem to have partial old and partial new signage. All that on top of what is patchy signage anyway.

I think they are renaming them all to "cycleways" so cycle superhighways and quietways are no longer a thing, officially.

The maps here are quite good, but also incomplete and not quite up to date: Route Plan Roll


----------



## Winot (Apr 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The naming on cycle routes is a mess... they are in the process of re-naming them all I think. So maps don't always match with signage, and some routes seem to have partial old and partial new signage. All that on top of what is patchy signage anyway.
> 
> I think they are renaming them all to "cycleways" so cycle superhighways and quietways are no longer a thing, officially.
> 
> The maps here are quite good, but also incomplete and not quite up to date: Route Plan Roll



There's an (up-to-date?) TfL map here. I prefer 'fixed' maps like yours but I guess dynamic maps are easier to update.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 28, 2020)

OpenCycleMap.org - the OpenStreetMap Cycle Map is probably the best source for London's cycle 'routes' although the number isn't up to date on there either at the moment. 

theoretically TfL are renaming only the sections of routes that meet their new quality criteria but that's not still not tight enough and is leading to lots of partial route numbering.

This is the "Oval triangle" - Fentiman Road area - that's being looked at.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2020)

To show what its like now in West End here is Piccadilly on my way home tonght. West End is a ghost town. Never seen it like this. Be

 A few buses, Deliveroo bikes and homeless is all I see.


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> To show what its like now in West End here is Piccadilly on my way home tonght. West End is a ghost town. Never seen it like this. BeView attachment 209572
> 
> A few buses, Deliveroo bikes and homeless is all I see.


We've been out on bikes to the West End and City a few times during lockdown, it's been perfect for carefree sightseeing and exploring in the emptiest places that we can realistically get to. Here's Marble Arch in the middle of a beautiful day.


----------



## newbie (Apr 29, 2020)

Winot said:


> This is really good news. A slight moan though - I wish they would link to the actual decision on these news pages. Anyway, it's here Decision - Covid-19: Transport Strategy COVID-19 Emergency Response | Lambeth Council.


Wow. This is a surprise.  I've been a bit critical of Lambeth (as if)  because they haven't opened both gates at park entrances, and here they are cooking up pavement widening around them, to be implemented immediately.

And a pre-emptive strike on the worst of the railway bridges in an attempt to implement (or impose?) a very different vision because they can, while stakeholders other than the emergency services & TfL aren't involved. Spending such a tiny amount of money could have a very profound effect on this area as/when it all gets busier again.

Lambeth Council?  This seems more unreal than any of the other stuff that's been going on.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 29, 2020)

I'm seeing loads of people out on bikes who I don't think normally would be - families with little kids for example. And quite a few people sitting out on their doorsteps when it's sunny. The sort of thing you see in places like Amsterdam where they don't need a global pandemic in order to make the streets places that aren't polluted traffic nightmares.


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2020)

LJ has been done. That was quick.


----------



## thebackrow (May 18, 2020)

Looks like much of the Brixton LN programme will be happening much sooner - 









						There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen
					

Lambeth Council has today announced jaw dropping plans to enable more people to ride safely locally and to work. These much needed proposals add to the councils recent walking and cycling response …




					lambethcyclists.org.uk


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 5, 2020)

"shits getting real"


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 5, 2020)

I’m intrigued as to how they will manage the ones on Railton road / Hurst Street.

It took five workmen 5 hours to put up two sign posts for APNR cameras yesterday - which are located on the bend of Railton road where drivers put their foot down and speed down towards Hamilton’s. I suspect there’ll be lots more dangerous driving until drivers start to get fined. 

Does anyone know whether there’ll be lane restrictions there?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> I’m intrigued as to how they will manage the ones on Railton road / Hurst Street.
> 
> It took five workmen 5 hours to put up two sign posts for APNR cameras yesterday - which are located on the bend of Railton road where drivers put their foot down and speed down towards Hamilton’s. I suspect there’ll be lots more dangerous driving until drivers start to get fined.
> 
> Does anyone know whether there’ll be lane restrictions there?


Do you know what led to those getting installed? Was it as a result of local residents pushing for it?

As I understand things, it's very difficult to get speed cameras put up until someone's actually been killed because apparently that's how you decide that a bit of road is dangerous (  )


----------



## Winot (Jun 5, 2020)

I’m guessing that ANPR cameras register whether or not a car has entered a banned zone rather than being able to check the car’s speed.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2020)

Oh I see - these are connected to the new restricted zones rather than speeding.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 5, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Do you know what led to those getting installed? Was it as a result of local residents pushing for it?
> 
> As I understand things, it's very difficult to get speed cameras put up until someone's actually been killed because apparently that's how you decide that a bit of road is dangerous (  )


It’s a TFL initiative isn’t it? Big central push to get things done quickly which makes a pleasant change. I’m guessing they used the Liveable Neighbourhoods data as a way to start. But yes, licence plate recognition not speeding - hence my confusion as to whether the access is only for the 322 bus and cycles.


----------



## editor (Jun 5, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> "shits getting real"
> View attachment 216167


Cheers for the update - I've posted more info here 









						Railton Road area in Brixton/Herne Hill gets low traffic neighbourhood in June 2020
					

Residents in the streets around Railton Road – which links Coldharbour Lane in Brixton with the centre of Herne Hill have been notified that the much talked-about low traffic neighbourhood (L…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 5, 2020)

It'd be great if they did something about Railton road, that street is full of speeding cars.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It'd be great if they did something about Railton road, that street is full of speeding cars.


And Coldharbour Lane.
And Hinton Road.
And Milkwood Road.
And Loughborough Road.
And Herne Hill Road.

etc...


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 6, 2020)

Not sure if this has been thought through. We live on Railton and it’s a complete rat run of speeding vehicles, already had one barrel roll down the street because he clipped another car so that’s good but they are proposing no entry into Shakespeare where the railway bridge is, so if you want to go to camberwell, LJ or beyond avoiding brixton town centre, you can’t. My wife is a primary school teacher in Vauxhall so she is now faced with driving via milkwood road via Dulwich road which will take all the traffic or via brixton. She could take the bus or walk (doesn’t feel safe cycling ironically) but especially right now, when you are being urged to not take public transport, it all seems rushed


----------



## madolesance (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Not sure if this has been thought through. We live on Railton and it’s a complete rat run of speeding vehicles, already had one barrel roll down the street because he clipped another car so that’s good but they are proposing no entry into Shakespeare where the railway bridge is, so if you want to go to camberwell, LJ or beyond avoiding brixton town centre, you can’t. My wife is a primary school teacher in Vauxhall so she is now faced with driving via milkwood road via Dulwich road which will take all the traffic or via brixton. She could take the bus or walk (doesn’t feel safe cycling ironically) but especially right now, when you are being urged to not take public transport, it all seems rushed


She can drive out towards Effra Road and head towards Brixton Hill A23 that runs all the way to Vauxhall avoiding all the other side streets that probably don't need unnecessary traffic. A roads are there to serve as arteries for traffic to move freely around neighbourhoods. Currently our neighbourhoods are plagued by folks who only use them as, dare I say it 'rat runs'? Its not fair on the people who actually live there, walk there, want to cycle there and just generally want to enjoy the place where they live.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2020)

According to this our road is totally cut off from any access.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 6, 2020)

I picked the first primary school I could find in Vauxhall. This route avoids all main roads, except the junction at Oval, which has good segregated cycle lane provision.


----------



## madolesance (Jun 6, 2020)

Rushy said:


> According to this our road is totally cut off from any access.


Every road has access.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> My wife is a primary school teacher in Vauxhall so she is now faced with driving via milkwood road via Dulwich road which will take all the traffic or via brixton. She could take the bus or walk (doesn’t feel safe cycling ironically) but especially right now, when you are being urged to not take public transport, it all seems rushed


That's exactly why this is a priority - there's no way that the city can cope with people driving single occupancy cars for trips of around 2 miles. from the middle of Railton to Vauxhall tube station is about a 45 minute walk but the whole point of this is to make it so she _does_ feel safe cycling.  

TfL are supposed to be creating an emergency cycle route on A23 shortly which will mean she should have her whole trip on protected or very low traffic roads.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Not sure if this has been thought through. We live on Railton and it’s a complete rat run of speeding vehicles, already had one barrel roll down the street because he clipped another car so that’s good but they are proposing no entry into Shakespeare where the railway bridge is, so if you want to go to camberwell, LJ or beyond avoiding brixton town centre, you can’t. My wife is a primary school teacher in Vauxhall so she is now faced with driving via milkwood road via Dulwich road which will take all the traffic or via brixton. She could take the bus or walk (doesn’t feel safe cycling ironically) but especially right now, when you are being urged to not take public transport, it all seems rushed


In the current situation, these closures make it easier to cycle or walk, for those who are willing/able to.
It doesn't make it any harder for those who have no option but to use public transport - but hopefully the measures that improve things for walkers/cyclists encourage more people to do that, and take some of the demand off public transport.
For those who are lucky enough to have the option to drive, which from that individual's point of view is currently the lowest risk method of transport (but presents risks to others) it'll take them a bit longer to get to work. 

Doesn't seem unfair to me.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 6, 2020)

Crispy said:


> I picked the first primary school I could find in Vauxhall. This route avoids all main roads, except the junction at Oval, which has good segregated cycle lane provision.



Looking at the Lambeth Cyclists site the 'first phase' of the councils plans also includes 'safe space on Loughborough Road'  so even without the A23 there should be a safe cycle route up to Oval.

_The ‘baseline’ plan, which Lambeth will fund itself, will see four low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) and three healthy routes in place by August. The LTNs will be the Oval/Fentiman Road area, Railton Neighbourhood, Ferndale Neighbourhood and Streatham Hill. Cycleway/Quietway 5 gets improvements between Clapham and Waterloo and safe space will be created on Kennington Road and Loughborough Road. And Windmill Drive will be closed to through traffic. Finally(!)_


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2020)

madolesance said:


> Every road has access.


Can't see how. Not without going through the no entry signs onto Railton Road. I'll PM you my road name.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 6, 2020)

Crispy said:


> I picked the first primary school I could find in Vauxhall. This route avoids all main roads, except the junction at Oval, which has good segregated cycle lane provision.
> 
> View attachment 216351


Yes that’s the bit that’s closing, down Shakespeare


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Yes that’s the bit that’s closing, down Shakespeare


I think he meant to cycle it. I go that way on my normal commute and it’s fine.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 6, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In the current situation, these closures make it easier to cycle or walk, for those who are willing/able to.
> It doesn't make it any harder for those who have no option but to use public transport - but hopefully the measures that improve things for walkers/cyclists encourage more people to do that, and take some of the demand off public transport.
> For those who are lucky enough to have the option to drive, which from that individual's point of view is currently the lowest risk method of transport (but presents risks to others) it'll take them a bit longer to get to work.
> 
> Doesn't seem unfair to me.


Think you are missing the point, primary school teacher - key worker plus has to transport loads of heavy books, work etc. If you cut off an entire section as this proposal lists, you force all traffic into Dulwich road, a23, milkwood road etc. The traffic on those streets will go from being horrendous during the rush to all the time. It’s a sticking plaster to a much greater issue being pushed through without proper consultation using emergency COVID legislation.


----------



## co-op (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Yes that’s the bit that’s closing, down Shakespeare



Still open to cyclists


----------



## co-op (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> The traffic on those streets will go from being horrendous during the rush to all the time. It’s a sticking plaster to a much greater issue being pushed through without proper consultation using emergency COVID legislation.



This is generally a myth; drivers drive to a given time. If it takes longer they drive less. _Broadly_ traffic flows settle at a rate where individual drivers are prepared to invest that amount of time. If you increase the space for cars, you just increase the number of car journeys and the speed stays the same.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think he meant to cycle it. I go that way on my normal commute and it’s fine.


Oh I see. Tbh c


co-op said:


> This is generally a myth; drivers drive to a given time. If it takes longer they drive less. _Broadly_ traffic flows settle at a rate where individual drivers are prepared to invest that amount of time. If you increase the space for cars, you just increase the number of car journeys and the speed stays the same.


source?


----------



## co-op (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Oh I see. Tbh c
> 
> source?



It's pretty well-known, tbh I haven't got one at hand. 



Probably you'll find some stuff if you google "predict and provide" (ie the theory that if you increase road capacity for cars, you reduce congestion, tl:dr, it always fails)


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Can't see how. Not without going through the no entry signs onto Railton Road. I'll PM you my road name.


I may have misunderstood - can local traffic still drive on Railton Road?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Think you are missing the point, primary school teacher - key worker plus has to transport loads of heavy books, work etc. If you cut off an entire section as this proposal lists, you force all traffic into Dulwich road, a23, milkwood road etc. The traffic on those streets will go from being horrendous during the rush to all the time. It’s a sticking plaster to a much greater issue being pushed through without proper consultation using emergency COVID legislation.


I've a friend who is a primary school teacher and does not own a car.
I think it's good that the measures will make it easier for her to cycle, if she wants to, and keep the pressure off public transport if she has to use that.
Your partner has the same options, plus the luxury of an additional one, which is to use her car. If everyone used a car it wouldn't work, so she's lucky that everyone else doesn't have that option.

As pointed out by co-op making this less convenient for drivers means less car journeys, so all the traffic does not simply transfer to other roads. Pretty sure this has been discussed at length through the earlier parts of this thread, so have a read of it if you are interested.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 6, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I may have misunderstood - can local traffic still drive on Railton Road?


Only buses can drive (anyone can walk or cycle) through the points marked with no-entry signs but no street seems to be between two no-entry points without another street off it which you can use to reach the rest of the road network.

(edited)


----------



## co-op (Jun 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Only buses can drive through the points marked with no-entry signs but no street seems to be between two no-entry points without another street off it which you can use to reach the rest of the road network.



I can’t understand the map graphic very well but the general idea is in the jargon “filtered permeability” ie everyone can access their house with a car but the only people who can pass through the zone are pedestrians and cyclists. Properly done, you should be able to pass on foot or bike from safe zone to safe zone right across a city, leaving main roads to those in cars. It’s by far the most efficient transport offer, also of course healthier, better for the environment etc etc


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Can't see how. Not without going through the no entry signs onto Railton Road. I'll PM you my road name.


I reckon the graphic just has the no entry sign in slightly the wrong place and it should be a little further along Railton Rd.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 6, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I've a friend who is a primary school teacher and does not own a car.
> I think it's good that the measures will make it easier for her to cycle, if she wants to, and keep the pressure off public transport if she has to use that.
> Your partner has the same options, plus the luxury of an additional one, which is to use her car. If everyone used a car it wouldn't work, so she's lucky that everyone else doesn't have that option.
> 
> As pointed out by co-op making this less convenient for drivers means less car journeys, so all the traffic does not simply transfer to other roads. Pretty sure this has been discussed at length through the earlier parts of this thread, so have a read of it if you are interested.


Don’t get me wrong, it has many benefits and as someone who lives on Railton, a reduction in traffic is to be welcomed. My point is this is being railroaded through using covid legislation without proper consultation. E.g if there were bus services that ran down Shakespeare to camberwell and beyond that would help. At the minute, if you want to go down that route it’s by walking or cycling


----------



## Rushy (Jun 6, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I reckon the graphic just has the no entry sign in slightly the wrong place and it should be a little further along Railton Rd.


I think I'd misunderstood. I thought Railton Road was being made car free. But it is only no-through traffic, so it would appear to work as proposed. That said - I think they might need to move the no entry sign close to Herne Hill House (tower block). As it stands, the skip lorries from the skip yard will all have to re-route through Poets Corner roads rather than using the one way system in Herne hill, which could be a bit ugly.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Don’t get me wrong, it has many benefits and as someone who lives on Railton, a reduction in traffic is to be welcomed. My point is this is being railroaded through using covid legislation without proper consultation. E.g if there were bus services that ran down Shakespeare to camberwell and beyond that would help. At the minute, if you want to go down that route it’s by walking or cycling


Yup, there's an argument to be had about whether the current situation justifies things being done in "emergency mode" with less than usual consultation. I don't think it's entirely without consultation though, most of these things were already part way down that route. But anyway, this doesn't affect public transport routes. It doesn't make your public transport options worse than they are at them moment. 

There is indeed a bit of a hole in the public transport system, between Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction, by the way - as discussed here which is mainly about Milkwood Rd but Shakespeare Rd is semi-parallel.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 6, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Yup, there's an argument to be had about whether the current situation justifies things being done in "emergency mode" with less than usual consultation.



Not much of one -




__





						Traffic Management Act 2004: network management to support active travel
					






					www.gov.uk
				



"The government therefore expects local authorities to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians"
"Local authorities in areas with high levels of public transport use should take measures to reallocate road space to people walking and cycling, both to encourage active travel and to enable social distancing during restart"
"Measures should be taken as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks, given the urgent need to change travel habits before the restart takes full effect."
"bringing forward permanent schemes already planned, for example under Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans, and that can be constructed relatively quickly."

Lambeth's stuff is just an acceleration of their plans and transport strategy - which had already been consulted on and approved.  It's just happening over a much shorter timeframe.


----------



## co-op (Jun 6, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> My point is this is being railroaded through using covid legislation without proper consultation.



Lambeth consultations have been unbelievably rubbish at times, I remember filling in one when I lived between Vauxhall and Stockwell in - I guess about 2000 - and it showed a "proposed" filter to stop cars using the extension of Fentiman Road that goes from South Lambeth Rd through to Wandsworth Rd under the railway arches. That road had a car gate put on it some time in the 1980s at the latest as I used it use it then.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Not much of one -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not what my local  Cllr said at recent meeting.

The Council is using its powers to help social distancing on pavements for example.

These are temporary measures to deal with pandemic.

They arent permanent.

A proper evaluation of these temporary measures and consultation with local communities will be restarted at later date. Some might be made permanent.

So no the Council isn't saying this has all been consulted and approved. Rightly so imo.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 6, 2020)

The more cynical part of me wonders about the Shakespeare Road no entry. The recycling centre is just past that and there’s constant skip lorries in and out. However they want to sell the site and build another massive load of flats. Be a lot easier to argue their case if they can’t easily operate their lorries in the future. Probably just a coincidence


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 6, 2020)

I would guess they’re closing Shakespeare because of the school. Most of the road is in Southwark anyway.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So no the Council isn't saying this has all been consulted and approved. Rightly so imo.



Yes, but that wasn't what I was saying. The _transport strategy and implementation plans_ have been approved (and were consulted on), and they included the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood of which this is part.

The actual Railton Neighbourhood scheme is going in as temporary measures (as per central Govt instruction) but then needs a consultation before it can be made permanent.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Yes, but that wasn't what I was saying. The _transport strategy and implementation plans_ have been approved (and were consulted on), and they included the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood of which this is part.
> 
> The actual Railton Neighbourhood scheme is going in as temporary measures (as per central Govt instruction) but then needs a consultation before it can be made permanent.



No the liveable neighborhood scheme consultation has not finished yet.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would guess they’re closing Shakespeare because of the school. Most of the road is in Southwark anyway.


Shakespeare Road is in Lambeth, nowhere near Southwark. Also, Evelyn Grace School will see 100% increase of traffic from Norris Skips and Network Rail Depot


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Evelyn Grace School will see 100% increase of traffic from Norris Skips and Network Rail Depot


Apparently the "official route" for the traffic from those is north down Shakespeare anyway and any increase will be more than offset by the reduction in other traffic.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Apparently the "official route" for the traffic from those is north down Shakespeare anyway and any increase will be more than offset by the reduction in other traffic.


Large vehicles from Network Rail depot and Norris Skips will increase 100% north Shakespeare Road, and a barrier will be in place between north Shakespeare and Poet's Corner, thus dividing the community.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Also, Evelyn Grace School will see 100% increase of traffic from Norris Skips and Network Rail Depot


Do you have numbers? eg. how many lorry movements per day are there currently, to and from the waste site?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> a barrier will be in place between north Shakespeare and Poet's Corner, thus dividing the community.


How will it divide the community? Are you saying it will prevent people who live in the poets corner area driving to see their friends living on the north part of Shakespeare Road, or something like that?


----------



## Crispy (Jun 9, 2020)

Judging by the tyre marks on google streetview, I'd say that 100% would be a stretch. More tracks lead North than South at ooh a 2:1 ratio maybe?
Wouldn't take much to do a count, and I'm sure the information exists in a dusty study somewhere


----------



## co-op (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Large vehicles from Network Rail depot and Norris Skips will increase 100% north Shakespeare Road, and a barrier will be in place between north Shakespeare and Poet's Corner, thus dividing the community.



It's major or busy roads that "divide communities", not cyclists and pedestrians.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Large vehicles from Network Rail depot and Norris Skips will increase 100% north Shakespeare Road, and a barrier will be in place between north Shakespeare and Poet's Corner, thus dividing the community.


OK, so by 100% you mean large traffic will double.  So you think 50% of traffic at the moment heads in the other direction from those depots.  Do you have any evidence for that because it's meant to be a small minority (because it's not the route they're meant to use). 

How is a community divided when there is still access on foot or by bike? (Almost) no-one should be driving trips from Shakespeare Road area to Herne Hill - even if they are unable to walk is a 2 tonne 5 seater car built for driving on motorways really the appropriate form of transport?


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> OK, so by 100% you mean large traffic will double.  So you think 50% of traffic at the moment heads in the other direction from those depots.  Do you have any evidence for that because it's meant to be a small minority (because it's not the route they're meant to use).
> 
> How is a community divided when there is still access on foot or by bike? (Almost) no-one should be driving trips from Shakespeare Road area to Herne Hill - even if they are unable to walk is a 2 tonne 5 seater car built for driving on motorways really the appropriate form of transport?


Yes, 50-50 with Norris skip wagons and Network Rail., however the articulated lorries have to come down from Coldharbour due to the railway bridge. I cycle everywhere but it's the symbolism of a physical barrier; not forgetting that, from my understanding, the Poet's residents can come and go as they please in their cars (would need to confirm as Lambeth have provided such scant information). Also, don't forget the increase of u-turning at the railway bridge by delivery vans, cabs etc. I work next to a similar road arrangement at Kennington and all day, every day 3-point turns outside the same row of houses. I feel for those residents, I really do.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> OK, so by 100% you mean large traffic will double.  So you think 50% of traffic at the moment heads in the other direction from those depots.  Do you have any evidence for that because it's meant to be a small minority (because it's not the route they're meant to use).
> 
> How is a community divided when there is still access on foot or by bike? (Almost) no-one should be driving trips from Shakespeare Road area to Herne Hill - even if they are unable to walk is a 2 tonne 5 seater car built for driving on motorways really the appropriate form of transport?


Forgot to mention: I agree completely with you on why drive around Herne Hill in a Chelsea Tractor. I'll stick with my bike.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> the Poet's residents can come and go as they please in their cars


So can the residents on the N part of Shakespeare Rd.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> from my understanding, the Poet's residents can come and go as they please in their cars.
> Also, don't forget the increase of u-turning at the railway bridge by delivery vans, cabs etc.



all  residents can come and go as they please, and all properties are still accessible by car.  It's just some trips are now slightly longer, but hopefully a lot of short trips that are currently driven (40% of trips by car in London are under 2 miles) won't be.
I'll take a small number of u-turning vans over a lot of speeding through traffic any day thanks.


----------



## co-op (Jun 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I'll take a small number of u-turning vans over a lot of speeding through traffic any day thanks.



100% this. I hardly ever cycle this road nowadays but I used to use it a lot and it was terrible for speeding and narrow overtakes by cars.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> So can the residents on the N part of Shakespeare Rd.


Apparently not from the info we've been given. ANPR will identify Poet's drivers who can access the "Bubble" in and out but anyone else will be fined. I guess for Poet's it'll be a bit like living inside a mini-congestion charge zone. If you live within the Central London congestion zone you only pay a fraction of the fee, everyone else full charge. If Lambeth could provide some info perhaps we would know where we are.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> all  residents can come and go as they please, and all properties are still accessible by car.  It's just some trips are now slightly longer, but hopefully a lot of short trips that are currently driven (40% of trips by car in London are under 2 miles) won't be.
> I'll take a small number of u-turning vans over a lot of speeding through traffic any day thanks.


We don't know that until Lambeth provide more info. We were told at the Zoom meeting that only residents _within _Poet's can come and go as they please.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Apparently not from the info we've been given. ANPR will identify Poet's drivers who can access the "Bubble" in and out but anyone else will be fined. I guess for Poet's it'll be a bit like living inside a mini-congestion charge zone. If you live within the Central London congestion zone you only pay a fraction of the fee, everyone else full charge. If Lambeth could provide some info perhaps we would know where we are.


What I meant was that the Poets corner residents can get to and from their houses by car, and so can N Shakespeare residents get to and from their houses by car.

If a N shakespeare resident wants to drive to the poets corner area, they have to go a long way around, and the same is true vice versa.

I am yet to fully understand how the APNR points work, but it looks like anyone can drive into and out of the poets corner area as long as they don't pass through those APNR points.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

Indeed. We'll have to see. Just a shame Lambeth haven't involved residents.


----------



## Winot (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Indeed. We'll have to see. Just a shame Lambeth haven't involved residents.



If they involved residents it wouldn’t happen.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

How right you are.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Apparently not from the info we've been given. ANPR will identify Poet's drivers who can access the "Bubble" in and out but anyone else will be fined. I guess for Poet's it'll be a bit like living inside a mini-congestion charge zone. If you live within the Central London congestion zone you only pay a fraction of the fee, everyone else full charge. If Lambeth could provide some info perhaps we would know where we are.


That's definitely incorrect and not what I heard from that meeting. The ANPR cameras allow buses and bin lorries through - nothing else.



Rocky Sullivan said:


> Indeed. We'll have to see. Just a shame Lambeth haven't involved residents.


Other than the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood engagement thats been going on since last year?


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's definitely incorrect and not what I heard from that meeting. The ANPR cameras allow buses and bin lorries through - nothing else.
> 
> 
> Other than the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood engagement thats been going on since last year?


A poorly composed leaflet with a cartoon map through the door last Thursday isn't "engagement". None of the Shakepeare Road (North) residents I've spoken to knew until then. Lambeth should have been out on the streets informing people, asking opinions/concerns, visiting local catchment area schools etc. Can we assume this "engagement project" was online? Not everyone has access to internet, social media etc, especially the elderly and vunerable members of our community.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Lambeth should have been out on the streets informing people, asking opinions/concerns, visiting local catchment area schools etc.


They were until lockdown. This was in the Brixton Bugle paper at the end of January?


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

Well, they never made it down the north end! We are arguing for safer streets with lowered pollution just like everyone else - but unfortunately we have not been included.


----------



## co-op (Jun 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> If they involved residents it wouldn’t happen.





Rocky Sullivan said:


> How right you are.



I wouldn't bet on that, borough-wide well under half off Lambeth households have "access" to a car let alone use one on a regular basis and car ownership is hugely skewed to the southern suburban ends of the borough; in places like Poets Corner car ownership is very low and cars are unpopular.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

Also, one of our neighbours has just sent me this after trawling though Lambeth website for most of this morning:

Hi, the only information that seems to be specific to our road is on page 7 under the heading “Railton Road”. It states “*Statutory consultation and engagement 25.05.20 – 8.06.20” and “Implementation – 8.06.20 – 15.06.20*”. [it is unclear in what way exactly the consultation and engagement took place].

The Claire Holland letter arrived last week dated 4 June 2020 and makes _no_ mention of consultation and engagement. Why send it before consultation period ended? Bizarre.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Also, one of our neighbours has just sent me this after trawling though Lambeth website for most of this morning:
> 
> Hi, the only information that seems to be specific to our road is on page 7 under the heading “Railton Road”. It states “*Statutory consultation and engagement 25.05.20 – 8.06.20” and “Implementation – 8.06.20 – 15.06.20*”. [it is unclear in what way exactly the consultation and engagement took place].
> 
> The Claire Holland letter arrived last week dated 4 June 2020 and makes _no_ mention of consultation and engagement. Why send it before consultation period ended? Bizarre.


Like when they extended consultation for using the park as an event space. It was extended retrospectively and everyone got a letter on the last day of the extension. Lambeth are a bad joke. Even though I support the general principle of the original scheme they have managed to make me think less of them.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

There seems to be some explanation here:









						About Railton Neighbourhood
					

A space to learn about and feed into the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood.




					rtstreets.commonplace.is
				






> As part of our response to the current pandemic we will be creating low traffic neighbourhoods across Lambeth.
> 
> In the Railton neighbourhood we will be introducing "bus gates" in 3 locations (Atlantic Road, Leeson Road and Herne Place) and modal filters in 2 locations (Shakespeare Road and St Matthews Road)
> 
> ...



And

*



			How will the Railton LTN be delivered?
		
Click to expand...

*


> The low traffic neighbourhood will be delivered in two stages:
> 
> 
> Immediately creating a low traffic neighbourhood using temporary features
> ...




It would seem that this stuff is being done as part of the emergency Covid stuff, rather than the necessary conclusion of what happens as a result of the BLN.

So in effect the consultation is still ongoing, and people can make their comments.

If people are worried that Shakespeare Road is going to become a lorry racetrack then they can see what happens. If it does, the evidence will be there, rather than speculation.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 9, 2020)

They clearly know what it is they are planning to do. It would not take very much for them to clarify the information properly to the people it will affect. Or make it easily accessible rather than have to search high and low for it. The link in the letter is all but useless.

I can see no emergency to deal with on St Matthews Road. The pavements are never crowded with walkers. The road is not all that busy and feels safe to cycle on. Unless you count the north end which is usually chock full of illegally parked council cars (which wardens ignore) displaced by Lambeth's "Car Free" Town Hall development. Again, not saying that a "modal gate" will be a bad thing (so long as Lambeth do not turn it into a council car park). What is poor is the typically crap communication.

A bike link from the Town Hall to the North end of St Matthews Road would be very useful. Loads of bikes currently have to take to the pavement or risk going the wrong way in the one way system (or take the A23).


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> They clearly know what it is they are planning to do. It would not take very much for them to clarify the information properly to the people it will affect. Or make it easily accessible rather than have to search high and low for it. The link in the letter is all but useless.
> 
> I can see no emergency to deal with on St Matthews Road. The pavements are never crowded with walkers. The road is not all that busy and feels safe to cycle on. Unless you count the north end which is usually chock full of illegally parked council cars (which wardens ignore) displaced by Lambeth's "Car Free" Town Hall development. Again, not saying that a "modal gate" will be a bad thing (so long as Lambeth do not turn it into a council car park). What is poor is the typically crap communication.
> 
> A bike link from the Town Hall to the North end of St Matthews Road would be very useful. Loads of bikes currently have to take to the pavement or risk going the wrong way in the one way system (or take the A23).


Yes, similar to North Shakespeare Road: wide pavements never crowded so no need to widen them with barriers.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I can see no emergency to deal with on St Matthews Road. The pavements are never crowded with walkers. The road is not all that busy and feels safe to cycle on.


Not at the times I've ridden it.  A fair proportion of the vehicles from Brixton Water Lane (next to Hootenanny) drive at high speed (usually pushing dangerously past any cyclists either in the junction or alongside Sainsburys) along to St Matthews road and then at high speed down St Matthews Road.  Presumably their satnavs tell them that this is slightly quicker than Effra Road.

Brixton Water Lane is part of an old cycle route that runs from Clapham Common to Dulwich and beyond.  

"No one swims across the river so we don't need to build a bridge"


----------



## Rushy (Jun 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Not at the times I've ridden it.  A fair proportion of the vehicles from Brixton Water Lane (next to Hootenanny) drive at high speed (usually pushing dangerous past any cyclists either in the junction or alongside Sainsburys) along to St Matthews road and then at high speed down St Matthews Road.  Presumably their satnavs tell them that this is slightly quicker than Effra Road.
> 
> Brixton Water Lane is part of an old cycle route that runs from Clapham Common to Dulwich and beyond


Sure. There are occasionally twats like in every street. But it is actually a pretty quiet road. And comparatively wide. Not saying it should not be improved. Just that it does not appear to justify emergency measures.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Sure. There are occasionally twats like in every street. But it is actually a pretty quiet road. And comparatively wide. Not saying it should not be improved. Just that it does not appear to justify emergency measures.



That's the point though.  If you cut out the rat running through traffic the twat quotient drops considerably as people _tend_ to drive a bit more slowly when they're close to home and around their neighbours.  You only need a few of those twats to make that route uncomfortable for people cycling (and I reckon I've probably met at least one of them every time I've ridden a bike on there).  It will almost certainly reduce congestion on the southern section of the "gyratory" as well as the rat runners regularly block vehicles trying to head south on Brixton Hill there.   And not having vehicles turning out of St Mathews Road will improve safety for anyone on a bike unlucky enough to to be trying to get east-west and reach Acre Lane at that point.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Sure. There are occasionally twats like in every street. But it is actually a pretty quiet road. And comparatively wide. Not saying it should not be improved. Just that it does not appear to justify emergency measures.


The state of road safety, air pollution and pedestrian/cyclist accessibility, in general in London justifies emergency measures, Covid or not, in my opinion.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's the point though.  If you cut out the rat running through traffic the twat quotient drops considerably as people _tend_ to drive a bit more slowly when they're close to home and around their neighbours.  You only need a few of those twats to make that route uncomfortable for people cycling (and I reckon I've probably met at least one of them every time I've ridden a bike on there).  It will almost certainly reduce congestion on the southern section of the "gyratory" as well as the rat runners regularly block vehicles trying to head south on Brixton Hill there.   And not having vehicles turning out of St Mathews Road will improve safety for anyone on a bike unlucky enough to to be trying to get east-west and reach Acre Lane at that point.


To be honest, that junction is one of the reasons I think consultation is essential. It's not clear where the modal gate is proposed for. If it is placed at the north end, then no one will have to use that junction. If it is half way down the road then half the locals are forced to use that junction which many drive to other end to avoid. The bus lane turning north is too long so cars can only leave st matthews road to go north if is clear and the next lane is fully clear (as well as both south bound lanes). Often they sit blocking the southbound lanes so as to avoid entering the bus lane. Or don't exit the junction and jams build up on St Matthews Road which prevent vehicles entering the road from the gyratory. And because the council dumps all it's non existent car free development vehicles on the yellow lines (against all guidance), no one can pass. It's a shit show. (Yes, I appreciate that is not entirely clear ).

I will be delighted if the council, recognising the need to make the road more people friendly, stops allowing its employees to chogg up the end of the street too. But I suspect that they just want it to be a council carpark.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Yes, similar to North Shakespeare Road: wide pavements never crowded so no need to widen them with barriers.


And there's no proposal to widen them on N Shakespeare Rd, as far as I can see. The pavement widening is for Atlantic Rd.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The state of road safety, air pollution and pedestrian/cyclist accessibility, in general in London justifies emergency measures, Covid or not, in my opinion.


Yes yes. I know you do. But that is not what is happening, is it.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Yes yes. I know you do. But that is not what is happening, is it.


I think it is what's happening. The Covid emergency has highlighted the wider emergency. It turns out that when a greater number of people want or have to walk/cycle, due to the Covid situation, the infrastructure is all wrong. Of course many of us have been saying for ages that it's all wrong, but now it's been made obvious.

I'm sure it could all be done better, seeing as it's Lambeth that's doing it, but it's better than nothing, which is largely what would be happening otherwise.


----------



## Winot (Jun 9, 2020)

I think Lambeth are using the Covid emergency as an opportunity to introduce quickly lots of other traffic measures that they have been thinking about for some time.

Inevitably anything done quickly will have a few failures but on the whole I think this is going to be A Good Thing.

Frankly I am tired of decades of mealy-mouthed inaction and consultations that slow down progress. Fuck it - a revolution is needed.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> I think Lambeth are using the Covid emergency as an opportunity to introduce quickly lots of other traffic measures that they have been thinking about for some time.
> 
> Inevitably anything done quickly will have a few failures but on the whole I think this is going to be A Good Thing.
> 
> Frankly I am tired of decades of mealy-mouthed inaction and consultations that slow down progress. Fuck it - a revolution is needed.


I reckon a fair proportion of people complaining about things being done too quickly now, are the same people who have spent the past few decades being obstructive to the various schemes proposed and considered in that time. So, because it's been held up for so long, now it just has to be done in a rush because that's the only option, and they've only got themseves to blame if they don't like it


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> I think Lambeth are using the Covid emergency as an opportunity to introduce quickly lots of other traffic measures that they have been thinking about for some time.
> 
> Inevitably anything done quickly will have a few failures but on the whole I think this is going to be A Good Thing.
> 
> Frankly I am tired of decades of mealy-mouthed inaction and consultations that slow down progress. Fuck it - a revolution is needed.



I have real concerns about this way of viewing it.

As I said previously at last neighborhood meeting in LJ the Cllr said that these are temporary measures put in place due to the pandemic. After that they will be evaluated and consulted on. At the moment its in place due to the health crisis.

I accept that.

On consultation. Just been having a disagreemnt with the Council about lack of consltation on a local park.

One Cllr has a habit of accusing those who critically support/ scrutinise Council plans as being "unrepresentative". The Council really hate it when locals ask questions. Officers just look flabbergasted that people might scrutinise the plans they produce.

One of the reasons the Council end up getting opposition is their piss poor social skills and total lack of ability to win people over. Thats some Cllrs and some officers.

Take the Liveable Neighbourhood Consultation. Officer turns up to LJ meeting and says those present were "privileged". Making effort to attend a metting denoted "privilege". I let that one pass. Im so used to this shit from officers.

Its not that consultations slow down progress its that the Council just is incapable of working with residents.

Estate Regeneration is another one where the Council is taking action and bypassing any meaningful consultation with residents.

I don't want the  Council to get to used to emergency powers that it has for the pandemic.

Im critically supporting what they are doing now re streets- but expect consultation afterwards.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2020)

Another view which I understand ( from a local campaigner ) is this is a moral issue and so normal democratic process can be set aside. Its the morally right thing to do in time of climate change. Its also a move to greater equality as car ownership in Lambeth is low.

So that is another way to look at it.

Council should use powers it has to push this through as its for the greater good.

Its similar to XR take on green issues.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I have real concerns about this way of viewing it.
> 
> As I said previously at last neighborhood meeting in LJ the Cllr said that these are temporary measures put in place due to the pandemic. After that they will be evaluated and consulted on. At the moment its in place due to the health crisis.
> 
> ...



Good post.

It is not that it is being done too quickly. It is that scheduled consultation stages are being blatantly skipped. This is not bringing the schedules forward. It's not a heroic rush that is causing the stages to slip. Obfuscation is not a special emergency measure. It is sadly predictable Lambeth behaviour. Announcing consultations after they are over - or when they have a day to run, or not making the information easily accessible - is just what they do.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Another view which I understand ( from a local campaigner ) is this is a moral issue and so normal democratic process can be set aside. Its the morally right thing to do in time of climate change. Its also a move to greater equality as car ownership in Lambeth is low.
> 
> So that is another way to look at it.
> 
> ...



I agree with this with a caveat. Rather than using the situation to use exceptional powers, Lambeth is using the situation to justify continuing what it has been doing for years (ie. misinformation, piss poor consultation and inept engagement with the people they represent). If they had used the sunshine times to build trust then I would have confidence in their using exceptional powers.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 10, 2020)

So, having seen Gramsci's link,  this is why I have an issue with the St Matthews proposal.

In principle it would be fine. They have proposed a pair of modal gates with a pedestrian area in between about half way up the road which should in principle reduce it to local traffic only. I think this will work on the south end of the road. Problems arise at the north end which is currently being used as an informal carpark for the "car Free" town hall development. Since the Town Hall opened, every resident bay and yellow line has been taken up by council vehicles displaying Emergency and Statutory permits (obviously not just now). Although these are almost all parked illegally (and against policy for use of those permits), parking wardens will tell you that they have been advised not to carry out enforcement on those vehicles. These are constantly coming and going. All this traffic will still exist and it will all come and go through the north end junction. As they won't be able to drive through they will have no option but to turn in the road or drive onto private property to turn. The controlled areas around the junction back on to the gyratory are often blocked with parked council vehicles despite having yellow lines and make the narrow junction particular dangerous with cars queuing to go both ways and often waiting on the red route for blockages to clear. It's not fun cycling in or out. All this on a road which is supposed to become a calmed cycle route.

A solution would be to add that end of St Matthews Road to the  list of streets which council vehicles from the "car free" development are banned from parking on (because they have been creating such a nuisance). And possibly change the parking zone from BR to BIR to discourage local drivers trying to park as close to the town center as possible.

Personally I don't like that it will limit me to using that particular junction onto the gyratory - as someone else has pointed out above, it is a horrible junction and I tend to avoid it. But I don't drive all that often, particularly during peak hours, and I drive a van so cars do tend to give way a bit more. So I can live with that.


----------



## Winot (Jun 10, 2020)

Rushy sounds like the focus should be on getting Lambeth staff to stop parking there. Would have made quite a story of hypocrisy for SLP in the old days. Perhaps Brixton Blog could be alerted? I would definitely contact Claire Holland too.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 10, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I agree with this with a caveat. Rather than using the situation to use exceptional powers, Lambeth is using the situation to justify continuing what it has been doing for years (ie. misinformation, piss poor consultation and inept engagement with the people they represent). If they had used the sunshine times to build trust then I would have confidence in their using exceptional powers.


I'll second that: that's my experience of my dealing with the council


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> Rushy sounds like the focus should be on getting Lambeth staff to stop parking there. Would have made quite a story of hypocrisy for SLP in the old days. Perhaps Brixton Blog could be alerted? I would definitely contact Claire Holland too.



Am I right in thinking the £1.8 million is the spend for this scheme in Poet's Corner. Jeez! That funding should be for urgent stuff across the borough. Also, what's chance the bill will go up (they usually do with UK civic/national building projects).


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2020)

Rocky Sullivan said:


> Am I right in thinking the £1.8 million is the spend for this scheme in Poet's Corner. Jeez! That funding should be for urgent stuff across the borough. Also, what's chance the bill will go up (they usually do with UK civic/national building projects).



No its not just for Poets corner. Its the whole borough.

If I remember correctly Lambeth is fronting up some money in hopes that Government will fund it later. Government did make a big thing about extra money for these measures.


----------



## Rocky Sullivan (Jun 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No its not just for Poets corner. Its the whole borough.
> 
> If I remember correctly Lambeth is fronting up some money in hopes that Government will fund it later. Government did make a big thing about extra money for these measures.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 11, 2020)

Details of the Railton rd scheme here:









						About Railton Neighbourhood
					

A space to learn about and feed into the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood.




					rtstreets.commonplace.is


----------



## Rushy (Jun 11, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Details of the Railton rd scheme here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the document Gramsci linked to. It has helpful details. Why Lambeth did not distribute those links either with the letter or when requesting additional information from councilors is beyond me. 

(ETA, it's not really beyond me.)


----------



## Winot (Jun 11, 2020)

Rushy said:


> That's the document Gramsci linked to. It has helpful details. Why Lambeth did not distribute those links either with the letter or when requesting additional information from councilors is beyond me.



 Yes their comms are dreadful.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 11, 2020)

Winot said:


> Yes their comms are dreadful.


Having seen the way they have handled numerous other consultations, I've no doubt that it's quite deliberate. And Jim Dickson (whose ward this is in) is cabinet member and ex leader of the council. His day job is no less than Director of Public Affairs (previously Politics Director) at an international corporate communications consultancy. He specialises in public affairs relating to infrastructure, development and transport. So when I read posters dismissing irate and uninformed neighbours knocking on eachothers door as organised ideologues taking advantage of little old Lambeths poor communications, I weep.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 12, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Having seen the way they have handled numerous other consultations, I've no doubt that it's quite deliberate. And Jim Dickson (whose ward this is in) is cabinet member and ex leader of the council. His day job is no less than Director of Public Affairs (previously Politics Director) at an international corporate communications consultancy. He specialises in public affairs relating to infrastructure, development and transport. So when I read posters dismissing irate and uninformed neighbours knocking on eachothers door as organised ideologues taking advantage of little old Lambeths poor communications, I weep.



To be clear - I don't think that worried locals knocking on each others' doors are "organised ideologues" - that's an understandable response, and my point was that I would want to encourage people not to assume the worst, and not to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because Lambeth is involved in something.

I do, however, think that it's not uncommon to see "organised ideologues" getting involved in these situations. They might be local residents, or they might be external to the area. I believe I saw both of those scenarios play out during the Loughborough Junction fiasco.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 12, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Having seen the way they have handled numerous other consultations, I've no doubt that it's quite deliberate. And Jim Dickson (whose ward this is in) is cabinet member and ex leader of the council. His day job is no less than Director of Public Affairs (previously Politics Director) at an international corporate communications consultancy. He specialises in public affairs relating to infrastructure, development and transport.



He may well do, but that's not his role and responsibilities at Lambeth where he's a councillor not a salaried officer.  Thats like criticising the Government Health Minister for the performance of the Air Force because they used to be a pilot. (that analogy may or may not work)  



teuchter said:


> I do, however, think that it's not uncommon to see "organised ideologues" getting involved in these situations. They might be local residents, or they might be external to the area. I believe I saw both of those scenarios play out during the Loughborough Junction fiasco.



So yes, you'll likely see walking, cycling, air quality and environmental campaigners cheering these plans while the Association of Bad Drivers, Cabbies, the Freight Transport Association and usually some (mostly conservative) politicians who think the ability to drive unhindered wherever you want is crucial to life in general (possibly because they fear having to mix with the common people if they can't lock themselves inside their car from door to door).

Some of these people will be from outside the area because they think whats happening there will either be good or bad for them personally -  theres a pro-driving/anti-20mph campaigner from Croydon who turned up at meetings about New Park Road.

It does always strikes me as odd that the Conservatives think everything should be governed by a free market and privatised except parking and driving, which should always be either free or as cheap as possible, and all laws should be strictly enforced except if they relate to speeding or parking.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> He may well do, but that's not his role and responsibilities at Lambeth where he's a councillor not a salaried officer.  Thats like criticising the Government Health Minister for the performance of the Air Force because they used to be a pilot. (that analogy may or may not work)


No it doesn't, does it. I think a better analogy might be criticism of an off duty pilot for standing by whilst the jumbo captain presses the wrong button and the plane plummets to the ground. "Yeah, I was going to say that he should have pressed the red one but I'm contracted to a different airline on Wednesdays".


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 12, 2020)

Rushy said:


> No it doesn't, does it. I think a better analogy might be criticism of an off duty pilot for standing by whilst the jumbo captain presses the wrong button and the plane plummets to the ground. "Yeah, I was going to say that he should have pressed the red one but I'm contracted to a different airline on Wednesdays".



But this isn't life or death is it?  If you're a part time pilot for another airline, and your job for this airline is  catering policy you're not going to be very popular if you keep bursting into the cockpit and telling them they're doing the flying bit all wrong.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 12, 2020)

I got this by email this evening



> I am writing to provide an update on our plans to introduce an emergency low traffic neighbourhood in the Railton area.
> 
> In line with statutory guidance provided by national government, the council will be stopping through traffic from cutting through the neighbourhood by making temporary changes to the road layout. Work will begin this weekend.
> 
> ...


----------



## editor (Jun 12, 2020)

Update Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood – emergency changes introduced this weekend, 13th-14th June 2020


----------



## newbie (Jun 12, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I do, however, think that it's not uncommon to see "organised ideologues" getting involved in these situations.


That's how this thread reads.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 12, 2020)

newbie said:


> That's how this thread reads.



ideologue:an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

That probably describes pretty much anyone on Urban75, even if their ideology is as simple as 'anything the council does is bad' and 'anything that changes makes things worse'


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> But this isn't life or death is it?


I'm not the one declaring it an emergency!


----------



## Rushy (Jun 12, 2020)

newbie said:


> That's how this thread reads.


I don't think most people's views are as polar as they look (some perhaps!). But I think the style of debate here is more about proving points than about finding common ground and winning anyone over. I think the cycling lobby (whose aims I have a lot of sympathy for) can't believe their luck with the emergency measures being declared. Even though both schemes should hopefully (with some crucial safety changes) benefit me personally, I am uncomfortable with the willingness to drop consultation and consent when it is a project you are in favour of.

Anyway - folk will be delighted to know that the St Matthews Road one is pretty much up and running ...


----------



## teuchter (Jun 12, 2020)

They have said that there will be formal consultation before anything is made permanent. I realise that some may be sceptical about that.


----------



## newbie (Jun 13, 2020)

Rushy said:


> . I think the cycling lobby (whose aims I have a lot of sympathy for) can't believe their luck with the emergency measures being declared. Even though both schemes should hopefully (with some crucial safety changes) benefit me personally, I am uncomfortable with the willingness to drop consultation and consent when it is a project you are in favour of.


Quite so.  I cycle everywhere so welcome even quieter backstreets. However I recognise that cyclists are a small, albeit vocal moral highground, minority and I'm yet to be convinced these changes will be popular with all the rest, whether they're primary school teachers effectively forced to do what they're told is good for them, delivery drivers, car nuts, bus users or people who live on the main roads that will pick up the brunt of displaced traffic.

Even the council recognise there's an issue, but they're going to push it through anyway, in haste and without proper planning..



			https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s116918/20200419_Transport%20Strategy%20Response%20BECC%20report%20Final.pdf
		


It looks very much like they're taking advantage of the covid crisis to force through changes that would otherwise be very hard to implement because of opposition. Which makes me wonder about the exit strategy, what happens if the cycle lobby loses the post-implementation formal consultation, or there is a successful legal challenge?  (this is Lambeth, and even they don't expect everything to be watertight).






> Anyway - folk will be delighted to know that the St Matthews Road one is pretty much up and running ...


I use it a lot, on bike and foot and occasionally by car, because it's so quiet.  I'm not aware that there's been any consultation about blocking it, just as there's been no consultation on other 'priority' Low Traffic Neighbourhoods including, I think, Brixton Hill (both sides) and Tulse Hill, though I can't find clear details of the proposals.  Re-engineering the social landscape on that scale will affect everyone living in the area yet we're being asked to trust that schemes cooked up between the council and various pressure groups will suit everyone.  I hope they do.


----------



## happyshopper (Jun 13, 2020)

I live in central Brixton. I have a car and sometimes use the roads that are being blocked. It will be a pain. But let’s just see how it works out.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 13, 2020)

Does anyone know how much the fines will be? Nice little earner for Lambeth


----------



## teuchter (Jun 13, 2020)

There's a very easy way to make sure that Lambeth don't get hold of your hard earned cash through fines.


----------



## newbie (Jun 13, 2020)

The Railton scheme is the one with the most detailed, easily accessible information.  Yet local residents appear to be in the dark and all the ideologue    oops ' _walking, cycling, air quality and environmental campaigners_ ' can do is sneer. Keep it up, it's obviously the way forward.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 13, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Does anyone know how much the fines will be? Nice little earner for Lambeth


Don’t they go straight to Govt? Speeding fines do.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 13, 2020)

newbie said:


> The Railton scheme is the one with the most detailed, easily accessible information.  Yet local residents appear to be in the dark and all the ideologue    oops ' _walking, cycling, air quality and environmental campaigners_ ' can do is sneer. Keep it up, it's obviously the way forward.


There is a lot of talk about how everyone should just get together in good faith behind plans but I don't think some realise just how alienating and ultimately polarising the accompanying sneering is. I whether that contributed at all towards the LJ fiasco.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 13, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There's a very easy way to make sure that Lambeth don't get hold of your hard earned cash through fines.


We have, we’ve bought a second hand bin lorry. Bugger to park mind


----------



## teuchter (Jun 13, 2020)

What's the sneering?


----------



## newbie (Jun 13, 2020)

Post above mine, and a lot of the rest of the thread.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 13, 2020)

It's very common to see objections to speed cameras on the basis that they are just there to "catch people out" and make easy money for the council/police/govt. This is a very familiar line. The answer is very straightforward (you don't even need to get into where the money goes or what it funds) - if you don't want the speed cameras to be money making schemes, just don't speed, and you can have the side benefit that you're less likely to kill someone too.

So, I don't see what the problem is with giving the same answer here. I don't see how that is "sneering".

A bit relevant to the talk of ideologues too. Totally agree that with these things, you'll get people from both sides with wider agendas. Call them ideologues if you like. But how honest does each side tend to be about what their wider agenda is?

I think most people who come into this with the agenda of improving the city for pedestrians & cyclists are fairly open about what they want and why. Speaking for myself only, yes I do want to restrict the freedom of motorists. Absolutely it doesn't work unless you do that. I think there should be some exceptions - people with disabilities and people who genuinely need their vehicle for work purposes. For people that want to drive round to their friend's house instead of getting the bus, yup, I want to make that less attractive and less convenient for them. I'm completely open about that.

Then on the "anti" side you'll see what I believe are often disingenuous arguments. There'll be concern about the effects on this or that group, but really, they just don't want restrictions to private car use in principle, on an ideological level. But that is often not stated openly. In the context of speed cameras - why would you object to speed cameras if you truly honestly believed that speed limits should be respected? If the speed limits were respected, the issue would go away. The real reason a lot of people object to speed cameras is that they don't actually believe in speed limits - they think they should be a kind of guidance, and that they should be able to make a judgement that their driving skill and experience means they can exceed them safely. That's not often explicitly stated, though. Why not just come out and say it - instead of making it about the money that's generated.

So, when Not a Vet speculated that the APNR cameras might be a "nice little earner" for the council - what's the meaning of that statement? What's the reason to raise it as an issue? Maybe Not a Vet has observed these cameras going up and feels they are not sufficiently signposted, in which case that's a valid thing to discuss.

It's not "sneering" to point out that there's no reason for the fines to be a problem if you intend to comply with the new arrangements, and are prepared to let it run for a while and see how things go.

By the way I know someone will suggest that the "pro cycling" or "pro environmental" ideologues will have dishonestly concealed motivations. What are they? Gentrification is often raised. I don't think that concern should be ignored at all. I don't think most people in support of a pedestrian friendly city actually have any intention of accelerating gentrification, but I think there's a big danger of things being percieved that way, and people being blind to that. This was a factor in the Loughborough Junction scheme and one that lessons have to be learned from. Here, though we have something being pushed in one of Brixton's already more affluent neighbourhoods.

If America, the suspicion levelled against those who push for public transport and cycling infrastructure and so on can be that they are "communists". That's their secret agenda. I've seen that explicitly stated. As it happens I've recently been accused on my anti car propaganda thread as having "communist tendencies".


----------



## Winot (Jun 13, 2020)

I am principled; you are an ideologue.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 13, 2020)

When did Brixton lose its nerve on this anyway? When I first came to Brixton it was in the midst of Reclaim the Streets. People were staging physical reclamation of the streets by deliberately blocking the main roads through Brixton without warning, several thousand people on occasion according to this.

20 years later, a very partial reclaiming of the streets, not even the main streets, is being effected (cars aren't even being removed at all) and we're here having to argue that some street planters and no-through roads are not going to destroy the community or cause traffic mayhem.


----------



## Winot (Jun 13, 2020)

teuchter said:


> When did Brixton lose its nerve on this anyway? When I first came to Brixton it was in the midst of Reclaim the Streets. People were staging physical reclamation of the streets by deliberately blocking the main roads through Brixton without warning, several thousand people on occasion according to this.
> 
> 20 years later, a very partial reclaiming of the streets, not even the main streets, is being effected (cars aren't even being removed at all) and we're here having to argue that some street planters and no-through roads are not going to destroy the community or cause traffic mayhem.



Because Urban75 members have got old and bought cars.


----------



## newbie (Jun 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Then on the "anti" side you'll see what I believe are often disingenuous arguments. There'll be concern about the effects on this or that group, but really, they just don't want restrictions to private car use in principle, on an ideological level.



to me that just reads as '_I'm right and anyone who doesn't fully agree is wrong and their views should be smeared_'.

I went to the RTS in Brixton.  Great day out, lovely people having a party, sandpit outside Morleys, all that.  Until I met a tired old lady, clearly on the verge of tears, didn't know how she'd get home, where her bus was.  Collateral damage, but it left a taste I've never quite got rid of. A taste of the innocent youthful arrogance that says everyone else will benefit from what's good for me and mine, because it must be good for all.

You carry on with your _principled_ campaign to restrict what other people do because you don't like it and you know what's best for them.  That's fine.  What's less appealing is the immediate accusations that anyone questioning your vision is dishonest or disingenuous, with motives,  hidden until you expose them, that are somehow representative of a malign agenda. Sneers in other words. Meanwhile you've gone off on one about speed cameras that no-one mentioned and ignored completely the discussion about how these schemes are being forced through at a time when most people are preoccupied with the virus. I wonder if that's because in the 20+ years since RTS the idea of widespread impermeable residential areas has not gained enough popular traction to be adopted legitimately, so steamrollering is the only way to achieve it.

Is top down, imposed social engineering really the outcome RTS sought?

I walked down St Matthews Rd yesterday.  Saw a few drivers look confused then reverse till they could find somewhere to turn round, before joining the traffic on one or other of the main roads.  They're all local, hardly anyone else uses that street, so they'll get used to it (or, as with the gates on Lambert Road, perhaps they won't).  Maybe they all went home, forswore using their car ever again and became evangelical cyclists.  Maybe. Or maybe they're grumbling to their mates, reading up on the dreadful Lambeth website, or on the starry eyed lambethcyclists one, or turning to threads like this where common people like them have been denigrated throughout.



Winot said:


> Because Urban75 members have got old and bought cars.


Perhaps.  Old is, after all, bad, just as power assisted personal mobility is bad.  Perspective and experience equate only to '_loss of nerve_', or '_anything that changes makes things worse_' rather than accumulated perception of complexity, of babies and bathwater. The sort that recognises glib talk of _'exceptions - people with disabilities and people who genuinely need their vehicle for work purposes_' as an expection that those at the sharp end somehow justify themselves and/or their use case to the local state, in order for their details to be added to a database for modal gates. A database which will automatically include all the different sorts of cab, delivery vehicles, state & local state exemptions that already make up the greater proportion of local streets traffic (exceptions perhaps being during the school run, the rush hour and the period when 4wds with tinted windows drop off supplies of coke to the very same people who demand access restrictions).

So yeah,  whilst I (and I think most people) want a substantial reduction in pollution, noise, congestion, danger etc I am far from convinced that authoritarian impermeable residential neighbourhoods is the best way to achieve it. The skewed and obviously outcome pre-determined consultations and the virtue signalling and posturing on this thread have done little to persuade me.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 14, 2020)

So at the minute it’s just a few signs, no cameras, most drivers are ignoring it. Quite a lot of angry comments from mostly north Shakespeare road residents on the right to reply council webpage, mostly about the lack of consultation and communications. Think we will just park the car on the other side of the restriction and carry on as normal. Unfortunately my wife does not feel safe cycling to Vauxhall every day and as a key worker, there’s no other choice other than to drive


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2020)

newbie said:


> So yeah,  whilst I (and I think most people) want a substantial reduction in pollution, noise, congestion, danger etc I am far from convinced that authoritarian impermeable residential neighbourhoods is the best way to achieve it.



So what do you think is the best way to achieve it?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> We have, we’ve bought a second hand bin lorry. Bugger to park mind


You need one of these.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2020)

newbie said:


> What's less appealing is the immediate accusations that anyone questioning your vision is dishonest or disingenuous, with motives,  hidden until you expose them, that are somehow representative of a malign agenda.


I was quite careful not to say "anyone" and I gave some examples of issues raised that do need to be seriously considered.



newbie said:


> Until I met a tired old lady, clearly on the verge of tears, didn't know how she'd get home, where her bus was.  Collateral damage, but it left a taste I've never quite got rid of. A taste of the innocent youthful arrogance that says everyone else will benefit from what's good for me and mine, because it must be good for all.



I've got an elderly lady collateral damage anecdote as well if you want. A little while ago I met my neighbour - she was standing on the corner trying to cross the road. This is a side road that shouldn't have much traffic on it. You have to cross it in order to get from where we both live to the shops or the bust stop - there's no option to get there using only controlled crossings. She had clearly been standing there for some time. She told me she couldn't get across because of the number of cars that kept coming in and out of that junction. These cars are using a rat-run to avoid the main traffic lights - the lights that control the junction but also the pedestrian crossings. This is known as a rat run cut through. It's been discussed with councillors. 

It was closed off in the LJ "trial". Bear in mind this is not blocking anyone's route to anywhere, other than making them use the main junction with the traffic lights. What happened was that people kept using it, just driving onto the pavements, and eventually smashing one of the planters out of the way. The block was removed when the trial was abandoned, and we were back to the constant stream of cars using this side road, mostly at excessive speed. You have to be careful crossing that junction - I have to be careful, but my elderly neighbour can't walk very fast so it affects someone like her much more than me. This is her only route to the shops, remember. A little while before that, I saw an accident at this same junction. A cyclist was knocked off their bike by someone turning in or out of that junction without looking properly. The cyclist was lying on the road (as far as I know they were OK) and there was an ambulance there. Meanwhile, cars were continuing to come in an out of that junction. The injured cyclist and ambulance were blocking the road. The response of the cars was to hoot their horns, and bypass it by driving along the pavement.  A whole stream of them. 

Back to the same cut-through road, but the other end. A few months prior (there are pictures posted on here somewhere i think) a car had mounted the pavement at that junction, smashing into a load of stuff on the pavement. As far as I know this was related to the same use of this cut through, turning in and out of a side road at speed, one that has no controlled crossings. Luckily no one on the pavement was hit by that car, as far as I know.

All of this - elderly people not being able to get to the shops easily - people knocked off their bikes and scooters (I observe a regular stream of accidents at another junction close by, forming part of the same cut through route) - cars smashed into pavements, this is what leaves a bad taste in my mouth, a very bad taste. Not just based on a one off dispruption to someone's travel plans, based on a continuing situation that seems to be getting worse rather than better.

Your anecdotal lady - she was on the bus. The idea of getting unecessary cars off the streets is to make things better for people who rely on the bus, or walking. Maybe you have noticed that most drivers around Brixton are not elderly ladies. Do you look at who's driving cars? In my observation there' quite a high predominance of individual, young men. Certainly in the more expensive cars, and the ones that are speeding through the cut-through.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2020)

newbie said:


> when 4wds with tinted windows drop off supplies of coke to the very same people who demand access restrictions



What was it you said about smearing?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Unfortunately my wife does not feel safe cycling to Vauxhall every day


Which is exactly the problem that the liveable neighbourhood schemes are trying to address.




Not a Vet said:


> and as a key worker, there’s no other choice other than to drive


There is another choice, which as I said previously is the one that all the key workers without a car have to take.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Which is exactly the problem that the liveable neighbourhood schemes are trying to address.
> 
> 
> 
> There is another choice, which as I said previously is the one that all the key workers without a car have to take.


Can I not just have a different opinion to you? Those options are not going to work for us so sorry no


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Can I not just have a different opinion to you? Those options are not going to work for us so sorry no


Of course you can have a different opinion to me. If you don't want a response to it, don't post it up on the area's most argumentative public discussion boards.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2020)

Winot said:


> Because Urban75 members have got old and bought cars.



I don't have a car. I am older. Nor can I afford a car.

You have made your position clear. These measures should be pushed through anyway. Without consultation. Fair enough. That is a viewpoint.

Because I take a critically supportive view does not mean I own a car or just got older.

My experience of Lambeth is that Im concerned how this particular New Labour Council consults and deals with its residents.

I am older so I  have more experience of dealing  with Council on planning issues- consultations on future of Brixton and LJ.

This experience has led to me seeing that Lambeth Council don't reallly consult people.

On a range of issues ( The Rec and Grove Adventure playground, LJ Masterplan) Ive seen senior officers/ Senior Cllrs attempt to push through things with misuse of consultation.

I woud also inclde the consultation on the Libraries/ Parks and Leisure services. Which this Council did  appaling job on. Called Culture 2020. Which I took part in.

Ive also seen how the Council Estate Regeneration scheme is alienating residents against a Labour Council.

So no Im not going to support this Liveable Neighbourhood idea uncritically.

Ive spent a lot of my time in Brixton// LJ opposing this New Labour Council. Opposing Rec demoition, opposing sell off of adventure playground  to developer etc. Im not against the Labour party. Im against New Labour ( now call themselves Progressives) who still run this Council.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think most people who come into this with the agenda of improving the city for pedestrians & cyclists are fairly open about what they want and why. ...
> 
> Then on the "anti" side you'll see what I believe are often disingenuous arguments. There'll be concern about the effects on this or that group, but really, they just don't want restrictions to private car use in principle, on an ideological level. But that is often not stated openly.


I hear you. Over and over and over, I hear you. I am in principle in favour of these zones but I don't agree at all with your absolutism. And whatever anyone says to the contrary you have already convinced yourself that they are probably hiding an alternative agenda (and you repeatedly remind us of this). You are driving a massive wedge. Can you see any point in further engagement?



teuchter said:


> Of course you can have a different opinion to me. If you don't want a response to it, don't post it up on the area's most argumentative public discussion boards.



There is almost no room for anyone to mention a cycling or traffic related matter without your expert and immediate moderation.  Engagement is about as productive as debating the nature of God with a born again christian. There was a time when you despised that kind of smothering omnipresence in the Brixton forums. What has happened?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I don't have a car. I am older. Nor can I afford a car.
> 
> You have made your position clear. These measures should be pushed through anyway. Without consultation. Fair enough. That is a viewpoint.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't ask anyone to support it uncritically. I'd hope you might support the principle while being critical of the council's approach. But what actually are the available options, for someone who supports the idea in principle? One is to try and argue the case for the benefits of what's proposed, without claiming it's ideal. That's what I choose. What's the alternative - to oppose it and help those who would like to scupper it, on a matter of principle to object to Lambeth's methods? I feel I know what the pra tical outcome of that is.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I wouldn't ask anyone to support it uncritically. I'd hope you might support the principle while being critical of the council's approach. But what actually are the available options, for someone who supports the idea in principle? One is to try and argue the case for the benefits of what's proposed, without claiming it's ideal. That's what I choose. What's the alternative - to oppose it and help those who would like to scupper it, on a matter of principle to object to Lambeth's methods? I feel I know what the pra tical outcome of that is.


The is no option to support or object or cooperatively steer this (not for residents anyway). Because there has been no consultation.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2020)

Rushy said:


> The is no option to support or object or cooperatively steer this (not for residents anyway). Because there has been no consultation.



What would steering it look like, in relation say to St. Matthew’s Rd? Wouldn’t you just get a bunch of people saying no they shouldn’t shut the road at all and another bunch supporting it?

I do see your point in relation to consultation but I’m not sure what it would actually achieve. Having it as a pilot and then having consultation doesn’t seem a bad way to assess the viability.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2020)

And incidentally I have asked two of the major critics on these threads for their positive suggestions and they have gone strangely quiet.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I wouldn't ask anyone to support it uncritically. I'd hope you might support the principle while being critical of the council's approach. But what actually are the available options, for someone who supports the idea in principle? One is to try and argue the case for the benefits of what's proposed, without claiming it's ideal. That's what I choose. What's the alternative - to oppose it and help those who would like to scupper it, on a matter of principle to object to Lambeth's methods? I feel I know what the pra tical outcome of that is.





I need to go and have a look at to see it. The reason Council give for this is the pandemic and need to give more space to pedestrians and cyclists. Pedestrians to be able to socially distance and cyclist to reduce pressure on public transport. So I will judge it on that.

What does concern me is that Railton scheme does not necessarily seem to be about the above reasons. But I will go and have a look to see.

I think in the case of the Railton part of the the Brixton "Liveable" Neighbourhood what I think won't matter.

Officers/ Cllrs know scheme like this is going to get opposition.

Which is why road closures were renamed "Liveable Neighbourhoods".

So officers senior Cllrs are using pandemic to push this section  of the scheme through. I very much doubt it will be dismantled after the pandemic.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2020)

Winot said:


> And incidentally I have asked two of the major critics on these threads for their positive suggestions and they have gone strangely quiet.



You have said what you think. You don't believe in consultation.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I hear you. Over and over and over, I hear you. I am in principle in favour of these zones but I don't agree at all with your absolutism. And whatever anyone says to the contrary you have already convinced yourself that they are probably hiding an alternative agenda (and you repeatedly remind us of this). You are driving a massive wedge. Can you see any point in further engagement?
> 
> 
> 
> There is almost no room for anyone to mention a cycling or traffic related matter without your expert and immediate moderation.  Engagement is about as productive as debating the nature of God with a born again christian. There was a time when you despised that kind of smothering omnipresence in the Brixton forums. What has happened?


I think you're exaggerating. I just checked the post counts on this thread - which is one I started, so obviously I'm going to be active on it. The largest number of posts (96) is from me. Then it's 76 posts from newbie who has been one of the most extensive critics who I've obviously been responding to, along with others. It doesn't seem disproportionate to me.

You're right that an over-persistance with the same points can put some people off. The way I see it, when these issues come up on multiple threads on multiple topics, each one with some different people making similar objections, objections that I see come up over and over again, and which I see as misguided, then inevitably I'm going to end up countering them many times with similar arguments. That's no doubt irritating for you, because you also follow multiple subjects but I know you well enough that I'll not lose too much sleep over it. 

On your last point, depending on what exactly you mean, well I don't have the power to ban anyone, nor do I have the power to moderate anyone. You know I might tread more carefully in other contexts but this is urban75. 

I'm more interested though, in what things you think I'm 'absolutist' on. Because on this thread I'm generally arguing in favour of a principle that doesn't force anyone to give up their car - it doesn't even make them pay more for their parking space. It doesn't prevent them from accessing their home or anywhere else by car. It's something that's been successfully implemented in other European cities. It already exists in other bits of Lambeth. It's not even radical but people seem to be respinding as if it is.


----------



## newbie (Jun 14, 2020)

Winot said:


> So what do you think is the best way to achieve it?


It's really not my proposals we're discussing here, it's what Lambeth are currently planning that matter. 

I'm not going to duck the question, I can but try to answer, but I'm not part of a group with a rehearsed position, and temperamentally I'm far more comfortable with deconstructing than I am with blue sky thinking. So I suspect I'm about to dig myself a hole, but here goes. I hope no-one can be bothered to read it.

Start from a place that prioritises public acceptance and accountability, which I think means class based equity as well as emphasising acceptance and accommodation of minority viewpoints and of course Equalities and Disabilities legislation, policy and so on.  For all to gain some have to lose, but that has to be seen as fair. IOW best practice- I'm not attempting to write a comprehensive, watertight policy paper, I hope you get the drift.

Identify root problems- I've mentioned some above, ' pollution, noise, congestion, danger ', everyone can add to or reorder  that list easily enough, we all recognise the problems
And root causes, which could start with through commuting, massive vehicles with huge engines as well as human behaviour.
Clear objectives, aiming to improve climate change, pollution related illness and premature death, road casualties, and other measurables.  
Encourage improved quality of life, access to mobility but with better  journey times, healthy lifestyles, better streetscapes.  
Underpin with resilience and redundancy, which are sorely lacking from the impermeable neighbourhood proposals, and a systematic approach.
And there's real urgency.
There's huge amounts of work and evidence about all that, most of which I haven't read, though I'm unconvinced it all starts from what I see as the priorities.


Zonal extension of the CC and LEZ based on London road rationing- annual allowance calculated on some combination of home location, vehicle footprint, engine size, road usage.  Initially administered via ANPR, vehicles are already databased on every journey, this simply extends that.  Tradeable, because we live under capitalism, so those without a car can sell their credits to someone else, including those who want to commute into London (personally I'd vote to ban them completely but suspect I'd lose).  Ideally moving towards a per adult basis, but that isn't quickly realisable and probably wouldn't be popular, so probably household based using Council Tax and DVLA databases.  

I'll see what others think, but an approach of that sort at least makes an attempt to substantially hammer the main issues.

Beyond that, I'd like to see local logistics hubs, where packages are sorted for onward delivery by foot, cargo bike, drone, robot etc.  If you like you could paint everything red and label it Post Office. 

 I doubt there'll ever be taxi ranks, but there's no real reason why most people couldn't walk to their nearest main road if they don't want cars in their street. They walk to their zip car.

I certainly want more dedicated cycle space and properly labelled quiet routes, but the infrastructure - and I give those on this thread credit where it's due- has improved massively and covid will certainly spur that on.

I'd like to see equitable resident vehicle parking arrangements- I can see no good reason why residents of some streets pay more or less than others for equivalent static road space.  That should be London wide, although that's a massively hard sell.

I'll vote to ban SUVs immediately.

There's more but that'll do.  None of it involves gentrified impermeable areas and sacrificial arteries where all the displaced probelms end up in the lungs and lives of people who have no other choice but to live there.

None of this can be implemented in the next few weeks, without public consultation.  That's both a bad and a good thing.  

It's unrealistic pie in the sky, of course it is, but  that's taken me hours to write, and I can pick huge holes in it, but it's a sunny day and I've been seeing notifications come in for the thread and I haven't read any of it. l8r


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2020)

Interesting ideas newbie  and thanks for engaging. I’ll have a proper read when it’s not sunny.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 14, 2020)

Rushy said:


> You need one of these.



I miss the acre lane tank, complete with large pink pig in police hat Iirc


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 14, 2020)

There’s been a few posts saying the traffic will just go elsewhere, but that’s not always what happens:









						Induced demand - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






> Taking the results as a whole, there was an average reduction of 41% of the traffic flows on the roads whose capacity had been reduced, of which rather less than half could be detected as reappearing on alternative routes.[citation needed] Thus, on average, about 25% of the traffic disappeared.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 14, 2020)

newbie said:


> So yeah,  whilst I (and I think most people) want a substantial reduction in pollution, noise, congestion, danger etc I am far from convinced that authoritarian impermeable residential neighbourhoods is the best way to achieve it. The skewed and obviously outcome pre-determined consultations and the virtue signalling and posturing on this thread have done little to persuade me.



if only there were a country with a similar climate and geography (fewer hill, much more wind - very similar effect on cycling), and a large metropolitan area of a similar density to London that had spent the last 50 years experimenting and improving this approach.  We could look at what they’d done, and see whether it had positive outcomes.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2020)

Winot said:


> What would steering it look like, in relation say to St. Matthew’s Rd? Wouldn’t you just get a bunch of people saying no they shouldn’t shut the road at all and another bunch supporting it?
> 
> I do see your point in relation to consultation but I’m not sure what it would actually achieve. Having it as a pilot and then having consultation doesn’t seem a bad way to assess the viability.


I don't know what other people would say in consultation. No one has had a chance to hear them. Of course there will be people for and against. Should we dispose of planning consultations because there will be people for and against?

Any outcome will have winners and losers. You don't need everyone's agreement. But consultations are valuable learning experiences. Even if it is certain that a project of some description is going to go ahead, consultation almost inevitably means less losers because it will usually be possible to address a number of the issues behind objections . And if people see that, many  who are still losers - not all, of course -will acknowledge that they have been listened to.  Consent does not mean 100% agreement.

I have nothing against a pilot but it should be your best effort and well thought out. in order to give it the best chance of success. It is reckless to just implement an unnecessarily rushed idea and say "let's see what happens". I have expressed my concerns above. They involve serious safety issues which could be overcome if the will is there. Much of the traffic on St Matthews during the day is for the Car Free Town Hall parking and so will not be stopped by a modal gate.  It will just come in and out of one entrance - mostly the one closest to the Town Hall. It will almost certainly put additional pressure on that junction which was apparently acknowledged during steering as being dangerous. I am also concerned at no longer having an alternative to using that dangerous junction during busy hours. (It is often snarled up and it has taken three years for the wall to be rebuilt on the corner after a car went head first into it, trying to avoid a car coming in the opposite direction.



I was disappointed to learn that there has been steering with cycling groups but without residents. That makes their exclusion very deliberate. Cyclist input is obviously essential in a project like this. But we must remember that cyclist passing through spend perhaps 60 seconds twice a day - if at all - in the immediate area. The real area experts who know how things work are the people who live and work there. The introduction to Lambeth's exciting Introduction to the Cooperative Council Constitution says _*"Citizens are valuable sources of insight and expertise, and are often best placed to identify solutions to meet the needs of their local area."*_ I find myself quoting this more and more often as The Cooperative Council does everything it can to bypass the people it is supposed to represent. It really does seem to hold them in contempt.

Bar the occasional twat, St Matthews Road is already a pretty safe ride - and there are absolutely no obstacles to walking. There are pavements on both sides and it is simply not a busy street for pedestrians. Anyone wanting an even more quiet alternative already has the leafy paths of Rush Common which run the full length of St Matthews Road (I often choose it both walking and cycling just because it is green). It is simply not an emergency which justifies ignoring local knowledge.




Winot said:


> And incidentally I have asked two of the major critics on these threads for their positive suggestions and they have gone strangely quiet.


You are a very smart chap who has been thinking and debating the general principles for a while. It seems a little naive to put people on the spot who do not yet even have more than the most basic details of the proposal they are worried about and be surprised that they don't reel out a list of solutions for you to pick at. Walking away seems pretty sensible to me.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think you're exaggerating. I just checked the post counts on this thread - which is one I started, so obviously I'm going to be active on it. The largest number of posts (96) is from me. Then it's 76 posts from newbie who has been one of the most extensive critics who I've obviously been responding to, along with others. It doesn't seem disproportionate to me.
> 
> You're right that an over-persistance with the same points can put some people off. The way I see it, when these issues come up on multiple threads on multiple topics, each one with some different people making similar objections, objections that I see come up over and over again, and which I see as misguided, then inevitably I'm going to end up countering them many times with similar arguments. That's no doubt irritating for you, because you also follow multiple subjects but I know you well enough that I'll not lose too much sleep over it.
> 
> ...


I'm not asking you to lose sleep. I am suggesting that you leave a little breathing room for people to express ideas which you deem misguided.

By absolutist I mean that you have adopted a seemingly "whatever is put forward by the council should be not be questioned and should be adopted as proposed and without exception" approach, possibly as a reaction to your disappointment after the LJ scheme outcome. Pretty sure that you even said something along those lines in one of your recent posts. But instead of looking it up I am going to grab a beer and take a trimmer to my hedge.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2020)

Rushy you are correct of course that it is valuable to information gather from locals/interested parties in order to perfect a scheme. I am less worried about this here because we are talking about cheap quick fixes that can be reversed easily (though of course they may not be). Agree too that it is clearly wrong to involve cyclists only - I didn’t know anything about that.

Ironically cyclists are very good at getting involved with and influencing formal consultations - they tend to ‘lose’ when they come up against the big guns like the barristers of St John’s Wood who scuppered the CS11 scheme to stop cars using the Regent’s Park Outer Circle as a rat run. Or when the council (RBKC) just lie about the consultation results as they did with the west London cycle route. Basically consultations favour those who are well organised/funded or who shout loudest - at least the way they are set-up. Hence my scepticism (oops I said it again I’ll get in trouble). 

Anyway I’m not going to defend Lambeth who are clearly arrogant/incompetent. But equally I’m afraid I’m not going to turn down a gift horse when for once the (general) outcome is one I favour.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's really not my proposals we're discussing here, it's what Lambeth are currently planning that matter.
> 
> I'm not going to duck the question, I can but try to answer, but I'm not part of a group with a rehearsed position, and temperamentally I'm far more comfortable with deconstructing than I am with blue sky thinking. So I suspect I'm about to dig myself a hole, but here goes. I hope no-one can be bothered to read it.
> 
> ...



Lots of good stuff there. Not going to nit-pick over the details - basically I’d happily sign up to most of that.

However, that’s the theory. I suspect where you and I differ is that you are politically on the purist end of the spectrum whereas I am on the pragmatist end. So (roughly speaking) I think society progresses through multiple grubby compromises whereas I‘m guessing you’re a revolution kind of chap - no? Hence I will take a stumble forward rather than waiting for the great leap that never happens.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2020)

Winot said:


> Rushy  I’m afraid I’m not going to turn down a gift horse when for once the (general) outcome is one I favour.


I understand that. We all do it. It's not a very sexy argument but it can't be argued with!

Anyway, I'm glad I got the 4 bulk bags of soil and compost for my raised veg beds delivered whilst the crane lorries could still drive straight through!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2020)

I went around the area today. Shakespeare road , St Matthews road and the entrance to Brockwell park on Brixton Water lane.

Here is Shakespeare road

St Matthews



Firstly this is pretty standard way to filter traffic off side roads into main roads. Its been done in De Beauvoir area years ago. Traffic can still access area but can't use it as through route. Not that controversial imo.

However this has nothing to do with the pandemic and need for social distancing.

So Im not happy Council is using pandemic as reason for implementing this. This is what I was told by Cllrs.

The entrance to Brockwell park has widened pavements 

This I support. Its in line with need for extra space for pedestrians for social distancing.

There is one of these in LJ.

I do think that the actual pavement should have been widened out as was done in Brixton road by Boots.

Just putting bollards means two different levels. People don't often step off kerb into the extra space. People who have mobility issues/ pushing pram won't be able to use extra space.

So instead of spending money on blocking off the two roads the money could have been put into raising and extending the pavement.

Looking at that entrance to Brockwell park and its so heavily used I think more action should be taken. Stopping car parking on that section of the street for example and widening pavement more would be justified.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2020)

Winot said:


> Lots of good stuff there. Not going to nit-pick over the details - basically I’d happily sign up to most of that.
> 
> However, that’s the theory. I suspect where you and I differ is that you are politically on the purist end of the spectrum whereas I am on the pragmatist end. So (roughly speaking) I think society progresses through multiple grubby compromises whereas I‘m guessing you’re a revolution kind of chap - no? Hence I will take a stumble forward rather than waiting for the great leap that never happens.



Not what you said few days ago. You dont sound pragmatic in these recent posts. What made you change tack?

post 382



> If they involved residents it wouldn't happen.



and post 402:



> Frankly I am tired of decades of mealy-mouthed inaction and consultations that slow down progress. Fuck it - a revolution is needed.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 14, 2020)

> However this has nothing to do with the pandemic and need for social distancing.


It does though, public transport will not be able to cope with the same numbers and social distancing, that’s why we need alternatives.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 14, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> However this has nothing to do with the pandemic and need for social distancing.


You’re right.  Nothing directly to do with social distancing but rather to address how people can move around when social distancing means a 90% reduction in public transport capacity. A single decker bus now has a capacity of 8-10 passengers.

refer this Guardian piece

And the Lambeth covid plan


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It does though, public transport will not be able to cope with the same numbers and social distancing, that’s why we need alternatives.



I see the point of putting in wider pavements.

I dont see how filtering the two roads - Shakespeare and St Matthews is relevant to this.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 14, 2020)

But I agree with you on the pavement widening. Brixton Road works well, the “road works” style plastic barriers on BWL and Herne Hill much less so.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You’re right.  Nothing directly to do with social distancing but rather to address how people can move around when social distancing means a 90% reduction in public transport capacity. A single decker bus now has a capacity of 8-10 passengers.
> 
> refer this Guardian piece
> 
> And the Lambeth covid plan




I havent got time to read alll these links. I was posting about two specific streets- can u explain how they fit into thiis?

I have supported asking the  Council to make Coldharbour lane a Frew way- no parking on either side of the street from Brixton  to Kings. This  is route to hospital, major bus route and space is needed for pavement widening. 

So free way would make it easier for buses ,  cyclists, pedestrians and emergency vehicles to get around.

That imo would be justified alteration.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 14, 2020)

Gramsci you cycle as part of your job right? So I imagine you are very confident cycling in traffic. 

People who have not cycled much in london (or in urban environments generally) before find cycling amongst traffic very intimidating and it puts them off doing it. So providing as many quiet through routes as possible makes a big difference to the number of people you can persuade to use bikes to commute. And that's totally relevant to the current situation. 

A lot of people new to cycling would not be comfortable cycling along coldharbour lane for example - whether or not it were made a freeway. 

Contrary to what some might assume, I've never actually cycled much in London. I've never commuted by bike. I've done loads more cycling in London during this lockdown than I had in the 20 previous years I've lived here. It's prompted me to seek out the different routes into town from around here (i'd never really bothered before), and it's highlighted how different it is when you can follow a series of quietways, compared to making your route along the main roads (whether or not they have cycle lanes). I've done a fair bit of this cycling with someone less confident than I am (and I'm not even all that super confident in traffic myself). So see it through their eyes too.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Gramsci you cycle as part of your job right? So I imagine you are very confident cycling in traffic.
> 
> People who have not cycled much in london (or in urban environments generally) before find cycling amongst traffic very intimidating and it puts them off doing it. So providing as many quiet through routes as possible makes a big difference to the number of people you can persuade to use bikes to commute. And that's totally relevant to the current situation.
> 
> ...



I lost my job. I did pick up a little evening job near Regents Park so have been going there and back every day. First of all no traffic. Ive been cycling through West End and its been a dellght. Nothing- just a few Deliveroo guys.

There is less traffic in West End than in Brixton. 

Al traffic is going up Park Lane or Marylebone road. Through traffic not stopping in London. Even then its was initially empty. 

It was so quiet.

Traffic is coming back to Park Lane and Marylebone now.

Mayor has widened pavements and put in extra cycle lanes in last few weeks.. Park lane is now one lane for traffic, bus lane and cycle lane. 

Im pretty confident in traffic but its tiring. Ive noticed with no traffic its so much easier. And less stressful.

I dont think lockdown is going to end that soon. Major companies have people on home working. People arent going to go to shops in West End if they can get goods delivered to home. 

London is going to change. Home working in particular is not going to end soon. Central London depended on these workers to fill shops and bars. 

I see the "suburbs" areas like Brixton becoming more important for shopping and busier. Tescos in LJ is now aways busy. 

What does surprise me is why Atlantic road was not "filtered". Its a main shopping area. Socially distancing is difficult. Early on in Liveable neighbourhood idea was to make it for buses and cycles only. This would imo have been good idea to do now. 

Park lane now

Regent street today. Wide pavements for all those shoppers - if they come back in numbers.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I was quite careful not to say "anyone" and I gave some examples of issues raised that do need to be seriously considered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LJ isn't my patch, I didn't folllow what happened there, nor can I picture which junction you mean. 

I'm generally in favour of people being able to cross roads and cycle safely, funnily enough. Zebras, lights, light phasing, pavement shaping. TfL has loads of experience of micromanaging problematic junctions to promote better road use.  tbh I'd prefer not to try to start looking at maps and try to work out my tuppence worth about the longterm consequences of that particular Victorian railway alignment.. 

There are too many places in south London where traffic is squeezed onto a  single route without any available alternative.  Other than massive rebuilding of the embankments to create greater permeability we're stuck with it.  Reducing permeability elsewhere exacerbates the problems for far, far more people than it benefits.  



> Your anecdotal lady - she was on the bus.


I wasn't clear, she was outside Woolworths looking for a bus when the whole of central Brixton was traffic free.  She didn't know how far she'd have to walk to find one, nor if they were actually running.  She just looked defeated. It's stayed with me.


----------



## happyshopper (Jun 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I miss the acre lane tank, complete with large pink pig in police hat Iirc


(As I might have mentioned before) It wasn’t a tank, it was a self-propelled gun.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

Winot said:


> And incidentally I have asked two of the major critics on these threads for their positive suggestions and they have gone strangely quiet.


I struggle to slowly find words that work   I also fit U75 around the rest of life, not the other way round.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think you're exaggerating. I just checked the post counts on this thread - which is one I started, so obviously I'm going to be active on it. The largest number of posts (96) is from me. Then it's 76 posts from newbie who has been one of the most extensive critics who I've obviously been responding to, along with others. It doesn't seem disproportionate to me.



and you wonder why i quote words like _honest _and _disingenous _back at you?


----------



## Winot (Jun 15, 2020)

newbie said:


> I struggle to slowly find words that work   I also fit U75 around the rest of life, not the other way round.



Very sensible. And you did reply, so I take it back.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> There’s been a few posts saying the traffic will just go elsewhere, but that’s not always what happens:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's part of the available evidence, sure.  You can frustrate people out of their cars, and frustrate loads of other people using cars, delivery vehicles, buses etc into the bargain.   Absolutely.  If the intention is to increase frustration, even if it's only that of young men, then you're onto a winner   Needs to be more explicit though.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> if only there were a country with a similar climate and geography (fewer hill, much more wind - very similar effect on cycling), and a large metropolitan area of a similar density to London that had spent the last 50 years experimenting and improving this approach.  We could look at what they’d done, and see whether it had positive outcomes.


sure


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Bar the occasional twat, St Matthews Road is already a pretty safe ride - and there are absolutely no obstacles to walking. There are pavements on both sides and it is simply not a busy street for pedestrians. Anyone wanting an even more quiet alternative already has the leafy paths of Rush Common which run the full length of St Matthews Road (I often choose it both walking and cycling just because it is green). It is simply not an emergency which justifies ignoring local knowledge.


QFT.  I've been using it for years, bike, foot, car and seldom have any problem at all.  Upthread there was a load of hyperbole about how bad it is which I just didn't recognise.  It's used by locals for local stuff.  It adds to the options for getting about.  The agenda for blocking it isn't clear, though tbh I didn't know about the council staff.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

Winot said:


> Lots of good stuff there. Not going to nit-pick over the details - basically I’d happily sign up to most of that.
> 
> However, that’s the theory. I suspect where you and I differ is that you are politically on the purist end of the spectrum whereas I am on the pragmatist end. So (roughly speaking) I think society progresses through multiple grubby compromises whereas I‘m guessing you’re a revolution kind of chap - no? Hence I will take a stumble forward rather than waiting for the great leap that never happens.


Well it depends what you mean by 'progress' I suppose.  I'm a revolutionary here while being restant to change somewhere upthread.     Class hasn't really entered the culture wars, because it's economic not identity. At some point perhaps institutionalised class discrimination will gain the attention it deserves.  That's not purist, it's just looking around and still finding what I see shocking.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> previous post - ....I was posting about two specific streets- can u explain how they fit into thiis?...
> Im pretty confident in traffic but its tiring. Ive noticed with no traffic its so much easier. And less stressful.
> I dont think lockdown is going to end that soon. Major companies have people on home working. People arent going to go to shops in West End if they can get goods delivered to home.
> London is going to change. Home working in particular is not going to end soon. Central London depended on these workers to fill shops and bars.
> I see the "suburbs" areas like Brixton becoming more important for shopping and busier. Tescos in LJ is now aways busy.



You're answering your own questions. Every bit of research shows that the major barrier to cycling for people who don't is fear of traffic. People are not comfortable riding a bike when they have frequent interactions with people driving cars, vans or buses.  A 'clearway' on Coldharbour Lane might make a it better for people who already ride on there but it's not going to enable lots of new people.

The Lambeth Healthy Routes plan explains what they're trying to do.  You might not agree with all the routes and there are some noticeable big gaps. And even that network is going to take some time to build.   From Lambeth Transport Strategy - Healthy Routes (Appendix A) | Lambeth Council (I googled Lambeth Healthy Routes)
"A healthy route has the right conditions to enable more people to walk and cycle. A healthy route links people with places they need to get to, such as schools, workplaces, amenities and shops. A healthy route is convenient, attractive, feels safe and is accessible to all. A healthy route could be a residential street or a main road or a combination of both. And critically motor traffic levels are low, or on busier roads there is dedicated space that is not shared with general traffic."

So the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods they're prioritising are the ones that create routes on the 'Healthy Routes' network (theres a map in document linked on that page). 

How do those specific streets help? The ones they filter don't neceesarily because you cant just do a single road without pushing the traffic onto the next parallel residential road - you have to deal with whole area so that traffic is kept to the main road network.
Brixton Water Lane is on that map - and traffic turning into St Matthews Road is to rat run from Hootananny to Brixton avoiding the lights on Effra Road is the problem. Stick the route into google before the filter and thats the way it would direct you at nearly all times of day.

Shakespeare Road - again, it's part of a neighbourhood plan, but Shakespeare itself should now be a Healthy Route linking people in the areas to the south a direct route to Loughborough Junction and, since Loughborough Road is also the map, a route onwards to the north  - presumably either linking to the A23 north of Brixton (so that people don't have to cycle through central Brixton) or carrying on up through Myatts Fields to Oval.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2020)

Rushy said:


> By absolutist I mean that you have adopted a seemingly "whatever is put forward by the council should be not be questioned and should be adopted as proposed and without exception" approach, .


No, that is not my approach.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 15, 2020)

newbie said:


> Other than massive rebuilding of the embankments to create greater permeability we're stuck with it. Reducing permeability elsewhere exacerbates the problems for far, far more people than it benefits.


There's a whole load of assumptions built into those two sentences and the evidence doesn't back them up.

Expanding the motor network simply doesn't work in any densely populated area - induced demand means you just create more driven trips.  Thats way lies the Westway, the London motorway box, elevated freeways in American cities.  That failed and they're being taken out - they didn't solve congestion.  
The other option is you restrict the room you give to most space inefficient form of transport and give more to the most efficient.  40% of driven trips in London are under 2 miles, few of them are carrying passengers or luggage.  Most tradesmen don't need a transit sized van to drive to site (or at least only rarely).  Freight can be consolidated with 'last mile' deliveries by cargo bike not diesel van. 

'exacerbates the problems for far more people than it benefits'.  H/H car ownership is well below 50% borough wide, closer to 30% in some parts. Commute to work by car is less than 10%.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Looking at that entrance to Brockwell park and its so heavily used I think more action should be taken. Stopping car parking on that section of the street for example and widening pavement more would be justified.


It's a horrible bit of road, that, narrow, straight, lights to aim at and slow cyclists puffing up the slope.  I'd like proper cycle space, wider pavements and speed reduction chicanes or humps.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It does though, public transport will not be able to cope with the same numbers and social distancing, that’s why we need alternatives.


That's also why we need arteries that aren't clogged as well. Impervious locals routes will put some (agree, not 100%) displaced traffic onto arteries, just at the time there are more buses and delivery vehicles.  I'm pushed to see how it helps.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's really not my proposals we're discussing here, it's what Lambeth are currently planning that matter.
> 
> I'm not going to duck the question, I can but try to answer, but I'm not part of a group with a rehearsed position, and temperamentally I'm far more comfortable with deconstructing than I am with blue sky thinking. So I suspect I'm about to dig myself a hole, but here goes. I hope no-one can be bothered to read it.
> 
> ...


Same as Winot, I'd happily sign up to pretty much all of this, as soon as it's on the table, which it's currently not, unlike the liveable neighbourhood schemes.

As you acknowledge, it would be a hard sell. I am pretty pessimistic about persuading people, especially in outer London, to accept things like road rationing or schemes that would result in some people losing parking space or starting to pay for it. On the other hand, the liveable neighbourhoods do not require people to change very much at all in the short term. We disagree about the displaced traffic problem, which seems to be your main objection. If they are implemented, and there is evidence that it _does_ become a problem (after the schemes have been allowed sufficient time to settle in) then I would change my opinion.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> A lot of people new to cycling would not be comfortable cycling along coldharbour lane for example - whether or not it were made a freeway.


They'd be right.  Some of the new (and hirebike) cyclists I've seen recently aren't safe in an empty carpark, let alone on a road like that.  Cycling education is atrocious in this country, ( <offthread>and that includes teaching the lycra brigade about not trying to intimidate the rest of us out of their way </offthread>)  While i absolutely welcome the huge increase in cyclists I'd really like to see proficiency courses being much more widely available.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> London is going to change. Home working in particular is not going to end soon. Central London depended on these workers to fill shops and bars.
> 
> I see the "suburbs" areas like Brixton becoming more important for shopping and busier. Tescos in LJ is now aways busy.
> 
> ...


That's a very good point.  We've disagreed about the workability of restricting AR in the past, but the changes will bring about different patterns of use which will need to catered for.  We'll see what happens.


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> There's a whole load of assumptions built into those two sentences and the evidence doesn't back them up.
> 
> Expanding the motor network simply doesn't work in any densely populated area - induced demand means you just create more driven trips.  Thats way lies the Westway, the London motorway box, elevated freeways in American cities.  That failed and they're being taken out - they didn't solve congestion.
> The other option is you restrict the room you give to most space inefficient form of transport and give more to the most efficient.  40% of driven trips in London are under 2 miles, few of them are carrying passengers or luggage.  Most tradesmen don't need a transit sized van to drive to site (or at least only rarely).  Freight can be consolidated with 'last mile' deliveries by cargo bike not diesel van.
> ...


more hyperbole. FTR I wasn't suggesting tearing south London to bits to build more roads for cars.  I'm trying to encourage you and others to discuss permeabilty, resilience, redundancy, bus journey times, local peoples access and so on in terms that aren't entirely from the inside looking out, to at least give passing consideration to those who will not benefit from gentrification, those who live and breathe on the main arteries, those who think very differently from single issue campaigners, and those who actually think that authoritarian imposition is not a good look and will possibly end in tears.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 15, 2020)

For those worried about the traffic/pollution displacement effects - one of the best recent examples of the _principle_ of reducing car permeability is Ghent. They have an inner ring road, and they split the area within it into 6 zones. You can move freely by car within each of these zones but if you want to get from one to the other, you have to go via the ring road.



Of course, Ghent is not London, and also, they introduced this in one go, rather than neighbourhood by neighbourhood. There are lots of things that aren't directly comparable.

However - I think many people would look at their plan and worry what this meant for those who live along the ring road. Intuitively - you'd expect traffic to increase. I've tried to find information on what actually happened. I haven't found a lot of detail  in English - but it seems that they did take measurements along the ring road as well as in the newly designated zones and as far as I can see these are the results:



Blue is before, green is after, purple is the difference.

The first five measurements are along the ring road, and the rest are from the area within.

You can see that their experience is not one of an increase in NO2 pollution along the ring road.

Anyone who can read Dutch may be able to find info within this document which shows that the picture is not as straightforward - I don't know.


Edit - and in the reports linked on this page









						Assessment of Gent’s traffic circulation plan  - Transport & Mobility Leuven
					

traffic circulation plan, Gent




					www.tmleuven.be


----------



## newbie (Jun 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Same as Winot, I'd happily sign up to pretty much all of this, as soon as it's on the table, which it's currently not, unlike the liveable neighbourhood schemes.
> 
> As you acknowledge, it would be a hard sell. I am pretty pessimistic about persuading people, especially in outer London, to accept things like road rationing or schemes that would result in some people losing parking space or starting to pay for it. On the other hand, the liveable neighbourhoods do not require people to change very much at all in the short term.


  I'm not a campaigner, I burnt out and don't have it in me.  So I haven't spend years pushing against campaigns going in the wrong direction.  So yeah, we are where we are, we have a gentrifier led policy being imposed without consultation, and are being guilt tripped into supporting it because apparently the only other alternative is to do nothing. Have I missed the modelling of various transport, equalities, economic and social metrics for what is being currently discussed, or hasn't there been any?



> We disagree about the displaced traffic problem, which seems to be your main objection.




 Well unless you can demonstrate that 100%  of previous traffic doesn't end up being displaced onto the main arteries, then I'm afraid you'll have to accept that that is precisely where these schemes will send some of it.  At the same time as they reduce resilience by removing redundancy.  It really doesn't make sense unless you're on the inside looking out or (I'm not smearing you personally) stand to benefit from local area gentrification.



> If they are implemented, and there is evidence that it _does_ become a problem (after the schemes have been allowed sufficient time to settle in) then I would change my opinion.


Ok, good.  But obviously, since the start of lockdown no previous transport metrics will have much meaning, so there'll be endless scope for arguing about statistics. Great.  IIn the meantime the burdens of pollution, noise safety and so on will be relieved in some places and increased in others.  How  that will reflect in the stats will depend on the input assumptions of the model, and traffic free areas are very likely to be assumed to be a good idea..  

exploding head, enough for now


----------



## co-op (Jun 15, 2020)

newbie said:


> So yeah, we are where we are, we have a gentrifier led policy being imposed without consultation, and are being guilt tripped into supporting it because apparently the only other alternative is to do nothing.



Apologies if I've missed something but how is this a gentrifier led policy? In a borough like Lambeth where a minority of households have access to a car, it's wealthy outsiders who have dominated road traffic policy by using Lambeth's roads as access to London and it's much poorer locals who suffered the consequences to health and to the safety of their children.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 15, 2020)

co-op said:


> Apologies if I've missed something but how is this a gentrifier led policy? In a borough like Lambeth where a minority of households have access to a car, it's wealthy outsiders who have dominated road traffic policy by using Lambeth's roads as access to London and it's much poorer locals who suffered the consequences to health and to the safety of their children.



It isn't, but it's one of the generic smears that certain people drop in as an accusation when they've can't argue on evidence.  Just call it oppression of the working class or gentrification and you'll probably get away with it. If somethings going to make the area better and you want to argue against it - gentrification.  Bloody gentrifiers, choosing to live their lives in an area and wanting to make it better, pulling up the drawbridge. Pah - keep it shit.



newbie said:


> i'm trying to encourage you and others to discuss permeabilty, resilience, redundancy, bus journey times, local peoples access



In turn -

Permeability is improved for people walking and cycling whilst intentionally restricted for those driving to discourage car use. Evidence from overseas (Netherlands), and London (Waltham Forest) is that this is effective and the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. Traffic drops and air quality improves overall.
Resilience. Assuming you don't want to maximise capacity and make every minor road busy I assume your idea is that that the minor roads create a pressure relief valve and give traffic somewhere  to go if a main road is blocked. this just doesn't work as the capacity of the back streets is far less than the main roads so they whole area just rapidly gridlocks anyway.  This happened when Brixton Hill was blocked because a speeding driver had crashed into a bus at 5am on a Sunday morning a few years back.  All the roads to either side of Brixton Hill blocked up with drivers trying to find their way around and with drivers behaving like arseholes there was a serious hit and run on a child on New Park Road.
Bus Journey Times.  Usually they improve.  Cutting the volumes turning off main roads into side roads actually makes the main roads run more smoothly - there are fewer collisions and less instances of buses being held up by turning traffic.  The bus on Railton/Atlantic Road will run a lot better when the other traffic is cut
Local peoples access.  Every house is still accessible by car. Some trips, in some directions, will take a bit longer but maybe they'll be made in another way.  (cross ref with household car ownership/income etc).


----------



## happyshopper (Jun 15, 2020)

Waze knows about St Matthews Road and, now that the Railton Road ratrun doesn't work any more, it will send a lot more cars, trucks and lorries that way. Or at least it would, if it's not closed off as well.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 15, 2020)

newbie said:


> sure
> View attachment 217728



I looked at this earlier.  I've looked at it again and I know what a Gini co-efficinet is, but I have no idea what point you think this makes.


----------



## T & P (Jun 15, 2020)

co-op said:


> Apologies if I've missed something but how is this a gentrifier led policy? In a borough like Lambeth where a minority of households have access to a car, it's wealthy outsiders who have dominated road traffic policy by using Lambeth's roads as access to London and it's much poorer locals who suffered the consequences to health and to the safety of their children.


I believe that is indeed true, but surely the problem is that if you are correct, then this measure will not deliver any measurable benefits to the local community? Certainly as far as pollution is concerned, which likely is the biggest killer and seems to be the biggest concern among those commenting on this issue.

If the great majority of passing motor traffic isn’t local residents, then this measure is going result in a bugger all overall reduction of motor traffic in the wider area. Nobody who currently sees fit to drive a car through London is going to abandon driving suddenly because they can no longer use Railton Road as part of their route.

So the Railton Road area residents will undoubtedly benefit, but only at the expense of residents of the nearby streets where the motor traffic will have been displaced to, and where pollution will now be worse than it used to be.

Bottom line is IMO that isolated initiatives like this will result in an almost non-existent number of drivers switching to cycling or public transport as a direct result of it. And while I’m sure the intention is not to pass on the hot potato to another neighbourhood, that’s almost certainly what will happen here.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 15, 2020)

T & P said:


> Bottom line is IMO that isolated initiatives like this



It's not an isolated initiative. 









						£4m transport plan to make Lambeth roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists
					

By Grainne Cuffe, Local Democracy Reporter A string of main roads through Lambeth will be made safer for cyclists and pedestrians as part of an emergency £4m town hall transport plan. Pavements wil…




					londonnewsonline.co.uk
				




_Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) will include Oval Triangle, Railton, Ferndale, Streatham Hill, Streatham Wells, Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill, as well as five more, which have yet to be identified.

The council is planning eight ‘healthy routes’ for safer walking and cycling, including Cycleway 5, Loughborough Road, Kennington Road, Barrington Road, Atlantic Road, Streatham to Peckham cycleway, Coldharbour Lane, and Brixton Water Lane.

Lambeth will also be increasing the number of access only roads, including Cornwall Road, St Matthew’s Road, and Windmill Drive.
_


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2020)

co-op said:


> Apologies if I've missed something but how is this a gentrifier led policy? In a borough like Lambeth where a minority of households have access to a car, it's wealthy outsiders who have dominated road traffic policy by using Lambeth's roads as access to London and it's much poorer locals who suffered the consequences to health and to the safety of their children.



This is how it was seen in LJ. That the Council were imposing on a working class community there green ideas.

Whilst an adventure playground was closed due to lack of funds and the Youth centre was struggling to stay open. Priorities for the working class around here arent roads. Its policing , provision for young peope, jobs and dealing with gangs issue. Messing about with roads comes acrosss as middle class in that context. "Prettifying" the area up whilst hidden and underlying deprivation is not dealt with. Ive been volunteering with food bank and I can say its been busy during the pandemic around LJ and Brixton.

The trouble is the Council don't just say this is about stopping people use cars. They mix it in with "improving" areas. To improve the area the issues in previous paragraph need dealing with. If not then altering roads comes across as cosmetic exercise.

The Council are mixing in the "improvements"  to central Brixton from the Good Growth Fund and this funding for the "Liveable" Neighbourhood.

There is some consultation going on about the Good Growth  Fund. The consultants hae been told that an area of concern is that these projects can end up helping gentrification.

There have been a lot of technical posts here about reducing traffic etc etc. If that is what these schemes are really about then the Council/ Mayor should just say so.

The Orwellian language that is used at recent meeting I attended is a wind up. Its now not road closures ( that is toxic phrase) its traffic "filtering"

People arent stupid they see through this use of language.

The other tack is to make out these are fluffy schemes and why dont you just accept it.

What the Council dont do is listen or engage with people.

For example the residents of the north end of Loughborough road had there own ideas to improve the roads. Where they listened to ? No.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2020)

friendofdorothy  was asking on Brixton thread about the scheme for Railton road.

I looked up Lambeth Consutation page and this comes up.





__





						Tell us where it is difficult to socially distance to help us prioritise where more space is needed | Lambeth Council
					

Neighbourhood information




					www.lambeth.gov.uk
				




Fair enough.

Then I went and looked up the old Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood commonplace website.

Its still up.








						Check out Lambeth Council’s ideas for healthier and safer streets
					

Have your say on healther and safer streets in Brixton




					brixtonstreets.commonplace.is
				




Click on the Railton bit and it now goes straight into the Covaid site.

So the Council is mixing the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme with the Covaid response scheme.










						About Creating safe distances for pedestrians & cyclists in Lambeth
					

Please tell us where it is difficult to socially distance to help us prioritise where more space is needed.




					lambethtransportcovidresponsemap.commonplace.is
				




This scheme does not make clear its link with the Liveable Neighborhood scheme.

The response commonplace gives impression that the Council are only


> asking the public to help us identify potential areas where pavement widening will help to maintain social distancing



This is a misuse of consultation.

Its clear to me that Lambeth are using pandemic to push the Railton part of the liveabe neighborhood through with minimal consultation.

People were promised at beignning of the Liveable Neighborhood consultation that lessons had been learnt from the LJ fiasco. That this time proper consultation  would happen. That a requirement  of the funding was to get community onside. Or it would not happen.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2020)

It's true, the whole website is a muddled mess, and it's never clear exactly what you are commenting on. And it's structured in such a way that it's not easy to go back through the stages of consultation and see what was presented at each date and how and so on. You never know if something that was there before has been changed, or moved, or deleted.

Actually my very first post on this thread was saying that the website for the Liveable Neighbourhoods scheme was confusing because it wasn't even clear who was running it - whether it was a Lambeth thing or not.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

co-op said:


> Apologies if I've missed something but how is this a gentrifier led policy? In a borough like Lambeth where a minority of households have access to a car, it's wealthy outsiders who have dominated road traffic policy by using Lambeth's roads as access to London and it's much poorer locals who suffered the consequences to health and to the safety of their children.


Well yes, I think you've missed something. That's far too glib an answer to the most basic social question of all, "in whose interests...?"

Here's my take on insiders and outsiders, who wins what in this genteel version of the teenagers postcode divisions.

Demographically there's a longterm pattern of churn that shows people arriving in this area in their twenties, and then progressively leaving through their 30s and 40s, as their locally born kids approach either primary or particularly secondary school age. That's when they sell up (those that have bought homes) and take their property windfall elsewhere, to be replaced by younger reproductions of themselves, rinse and repeat.  Over time those incomers have become perhaps a bit older and certainly a lot wealthier than in previous decades. Looking around this is reflected in the age groupings you can see on most streets, large numbers of younger in the rented flats, tapering with age but increasingly likely to be owner occupiers, not so many older faces.  Plenty of little kids, few teens. Now that's not everybody, of course, and the social housing population is somewhat different, with plenty of teens and their parents and grandparents, no disproportionate 20's group- possibly the opposite because unless they can price/wealth match the incomers there's little in Foxtons for them,  so they leave unless they go through the trauma of temporary accomodation and into the rinse/repeat of multigeneration social housing (or longterm poverty, as you might say). It's perhaps worth noting that there's interspersed social housing on the desirable Victorian streets and that, IMO, is one of the great strengths of the area.  There are other groups of course but I think that outlines the majority, at least in the areas we're talking about, rippling out from Brixton and apparently clamouring for change.

Why do the first group come to the area?  There are plenty of places in London with good transport, entertainment, parks, architecture, sense of community but for this area the characteristic word '_vibrant_' has been emblematic for 20 years or more. '_Edgy_' crops up too, Anyone local who can't deconstruct that, this week of all weeks, is living in the wrong place.  I guess we've all looked at the property pages, know how this area has been marketed for the last while.  Why are the second group here... because they live here and have somewhat more limited opportunity to go somewhere else should they wish to.

Who is it demanding secluded postcodes, accessible by motor only to Uber, Amazon, ambulances and Bishops Move, with drivers allowed in briefly and then expected to quickly sod off back out the way they came in. That's got to be pretty clear, hasn't it? 

Of course, everybody on foot or cycle will be allowed through (at least for the time being) but it's not hard to see who that's tended to be (at least pre covid, now everything's changing and it doesn't have to be like that).  Even so, it's an interesting position the demanders are putting themselves in.  I don't think many people have huge sympathy for those who buy close to a church or pub and then campaign to silence the bells or restrict opening hours.  Yet here we have a popular campaign which is pretty analogous while also busily signalling moral high ground.   I digress.

Who wins from this push towards turning a'_vibrant_', '_edgy_' area into some sort of green vision that sounds awfully like suburbia? Up to a point let's take the gist of the claims at face value and presume they'll be delivered. Everybody will benefit, we've been told, so if it doesn't deliver improved air quality everywhere (except perhaps close to the sacrificial arteries) it will have failed completely, same with levels of the other metrics we're promised from wellbeing to obesity, from cycling safety to mental health.

So everybody wins, but here in the real world some win more than others.

It's pretty obvious that buying into a not-quite-gated us and them postcode community, where _vibrant _and _edgy _is kept at arms length but which otherwise has all the advantages the area offers, is going to be a popular proposition, not with everybody for sure, but we can all watch the forthcoming property page writeups. Popular enough to interest those who wouldn't otherwise consider the area? Enough to mirror the school catchment price bands? Well we won't properly understand the changes for a decade or so, but it's a reasonable guess and I suspect we'll get earlier indications.  I hope academics are studying the differential changes in property price, health outcomes, wellbeing & alienation between permeable and impervious neighbourhoods, estates and arteries. I doubt it, fwiw, but you never know.

So in whose interests is it to pressure the council, using whatever arguments are to hand, to create these idylls?  I'm not particularly questioning motivation here, social housing occupants on the street may have exactly the same concerns and views as their neighbours about all the pollution, danger etc and put their pin on the map with the same tags.  I'm certainly not accusing anyone of explicitly seeking to foster division or being entirely motivated by greed. But I would suggest that intent is not always the same as anticipation, and that's without considering unintended consequences and all the known and unknown unknowns.

So outcome, if the prize is realised?  An even greater property windfall when kids approach secondary cannot be ignored. The entire economy revolves around property prices, it's nonsensical to pretend that there can be no effect, or that there couldn't possibly be any motivating effect.  The chosen few owner occupiers stand to make real material gains. As do, incidentally, the landlord class who own such large amounts of Victorian street housing and can leech off increased rents and eventual capital gains.  Others, much less so.

 I don't personally see so much in it for people who live on the estates, or live in the neighbourhoods that don't get the proclaimed benefits of an impervious postcode, or whose home or work means they spend a lot of their life breathing on the arteries.  Or indeed those in the chosen areas who work for the upkeep and prosperity of their landlord, secure in the knowledge they'll never get a deposit together themselves.  Maybe others can indicate the personal benefits for those people that I'm just not seeing?

So everybody wins, but some will see themselves, and those like them, excluded from gains that others, not so much like them, are making. Day by day I think they'll see effects that haven't been promised on the glossy, some might say misleading, BLN outreach, increased motor journey times, whether bus, Uber, Zip or private, restrictions on people who want to carry on doing what other, better positioned, people disapprove of, increased congestion at pinch points, loss of resilience, and intentionally increased harm for some identifiable people who will do most of the pollution breathing.

How will those who don't specifically, personally, materially gain view this process and the outcomes?  We'll see, but there's plenty of experience of institutional discrimination and the various mechanisms of social cleansing.   Is it far fetched to see this as creating an entirely unnecessary, counter productive and longterm quite scary *us *and *them*, delineated on what are pretty clear class terms.



Now I don't know how others want to define gentrification, but as structural processes go, that's all pretty clear, isn't it?




,


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> Who is it demanding secluded postcodes, accessible by motor only to Uber, Amazon, ambulances and Bishops Move, with drivers allowed in briefly and then expected to quickly sod off back out the way they came in. That's got to be pretty clear, hasn't it?



That's not what's being demanded, nor what's being offered.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> It isn't, but it's one of the generic smears that certain people drop in as an accusation when they've can't argue on evidence.  Just call it oppression of the working class or gentrification and you'll probably get away with it. If somethings going to make the area better and you want to argue against it - gentrification.  Bloody gentrifiers, choosing to live their lives in an area and wanting to make it better, pulling up the drawbridge. Pah - keep it shit.


yeh



> In turn -
> 
> Permeability is improved for people walking and cycling whilst intentionally restricted for those driving to discourage car use. Evidence from overseas (Netherlands), and London (Waltham Forest) is that this is effective and the benefits outweigh the disbenefits. Traffic drops and air quality improves overall.
> Resilience. Assuming you don't want to maximise capacity and make every minor road busy I assume your idea is that that the minor roads create a pressure relief valve and give traffic somewhere  to go if a main road is blocked. this just doesn't work as the capacity of the back streets is far less than the main roads so they whole area just rapidly gridlocks anyway.  This happened when Brixton Hill was blocked because a speeding driver had crashed into a bus at 5am on a Sunday morning a few years back.  All the roads to either side of Brixton Hill blocked up with drivers trying to find their way around and with drivers behaving like arseholes there was a serious hit and run on a child on New Park Road.
> ...



I get what you're saying about bus journey times.  I hope you're right.  I simply doubt it.

I'll pick up on resilience, because I've been hoping someone would address it.

You're right, the backstreets clog when the arteries seize, but it's still instructive to consider how it works.  An unexpected blockage on Acre Lane by Lidl, for example.  Doesn't matter what, collision, burst water main, whatever.  Traffic can easily divert to Brixton Hill via Branksome and Lambert Roads. It's messy, it's slow, it clearly doesn't replace the main road, but it helps.
A blockage in a similar place on Brixton Hill has no available redundant route, except way up the hill there's the long way round via Kings Avenue.  

That's an outcome, intended or otherwise of a previous creation of a relatively impervious area.   As planned there was a gate outside the church on Lambert Road, but someone took an angle grinder to it a couple of times and the council gave up.  Interestingly people from within the impervious heart complain about traffic almost as much as those elsewhere campaigning for their street become one. Human nature I guess.

Reducing the resilience, by gating the AL to BH through route as has been demanded on the consultation, will help how?  All the pressure will be on Kings Avenue.  < anecdata: During lockdown I walked along there.  There were some little kids playing in the tiny front yard of a flat, separated from the pavement/road by a low wall topped by a bit of what looked like bamboo beach mat.   I've never noticed them when the traffic was normal.>.  A consequence of the demand to reduce permeability here is refelected elsewhere, on someone else.

If, as planned the other side of Brixton Hill is also closed to through traffic, the unplanned blockage pressure can only be relieved by Water Lane and the S Circular. Same with Ferndale.

I see nobody winning in this except those who live inside the impervious areas, but then my explicit aim is not to force people to behave the way I tell them to by a mixture of frustration and alienation.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That's not what's being demanded, nor what's being offered.


Well alright, add in the residents and their mates, tradespeople and so on.  I took all that for granted, I didn't mean to imply an exclusive list.  

What unconnected outsiders will venture past the No Through Road by motor, unless they're looking for a pay parking spot, and I doubt there'll be many of those. Why would they?


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I looked at this earlier.  I've looked at it again and I know what a Gini co-efficinet is, but I have no idea what point you think this makes.


Oh.  Outcomes depend on assumptions as well as starting points, stuff like that.

You can concentrate on hyping the stats that bolster your position if you want, it's clearly a specialist subject and I'm not going to bicker about the detail of their applicability to a different place in a different time with different social conditions, especially given how little I know about any of the realities behind the glossy claims in Holland (or Ghent come to that).  It's pointless. I want a much more rounded, consideration, at least noticing the priorities I mentioned previously. 

TBH your blanket insistence that material economics have nothing to do with any of this means we start from such distant positions I think it's unlikely we'll agree on very much of this specific debate. But please keep on with the stats, i learn from them even if I don't give them the decisive prominence you do.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> I don't personally see so much in it for people who live on the estates,



Just looking our local estates, whats really noticeable is that they were built without through routes so that they don't suffer from rat running.  Nearly all built as a series of cul-de-sacs (or in the case of Blenheim and Cressingham, almost car free in the areas around peoples homes.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> Well alright, add in the residents and their mates, tradespeople and so on.  I took all that for granted, I didn't mean to imply an exclusive list.
> 
> What unconnected outsiders will venture past the No Through Road by motor, unless they're looking for a pay parking spot, and I doubt there'll be many of those. Why would they?


Hopefully very few - because that's the whole point - to reduce motor traffic that isn't necessary.

On the other hand, I would hope to see an increase in unconnected outsiders passing through on foot or on bike, because these quietened streets will be more attractive to those people than parallel routes on main roads. And any bus routes continue to operate as before.

You are portraying it as some kind of gated community, to make it sound like something it is not. There are no gates - no one at all is prevented from entering the area.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> An unexpected blockage on Acre Lane by Lidl, for example. Doesn't matter what, collision, burst water main, whatever


That seems an easy problem to solve.  Use lockable gates/removeable bollards that the Police can remove when necessary.  No rat running, and a lower volume of traffic overall so that when that capacity is needed for a diversion it's not already full.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Just looking our local estates, whats really noticeable is that they were built without through routes so that they don't suffer from rat running.  Nearly all built as a series of cul-de-sacs (or in the case of Blenheim and Cressingham, almost car free in the areas around peoples homes.


And?  You're right but what's that got to do with anything I said?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> And?  You're right but what's that got to do with anything I said?


This isn't a new idea.  We have known for many decades that through routes in residential areas are undesirable so those estates were built without them.  if rat running traffic is so great, why is no-one ever campaigned for increasing permeability to motor vehicles on those estates? Not possible everywhere but easy at Tulse Hill estate by the park?

The people on the estates already have the benefit of low traffic areas to live in.  The fact they already have that isn't a reason not to extend those benefits.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That seems an easy problem to solve.  Use lockable gates/removeable bollards that the Police can remove when necessary.  No rat running, and a lower volume of traffic overall so that when that capacity is needed for a diversion it's not already full.


So rather than immediate, organic relief it's dependent on the police putting in Diversion signs and making clear that fines won't apply.  It's not as resilient, is it? 

The proposals for the east of BH don't include gates, lockable, modal or otherwise, they involve planters.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> This isn't a new idea.  We have known for many decades that through routes in residential areas are undesirable so those estates were built without them.  if rat running traffic is so great, why is no-one ever campaigned for increasing permeability to motor vehicles on those estates? Not possible everywhere but easy at Tulse Hill estate by the park?
> 
> The people on the estates already have the benefit of low traffic areas to live in.  The fact they already have that isn't a reason not to extend those benefits.


ok, it's true but the housing density is so much higher it's a benefit few who live on the Victorian streets aspire to*, not so sure about the other way round.

e2a ... or they'd presumably have gone there, they can obviously afford it ...


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> the housing density is so much higher it's a benefit few who live on the Victorian streets aspire to*,


Is it though?  Most of the Victorian houses across Brixton have been badly converted into flats way below the room size standards that the post war estates were built to.   

The actual housing density of the 'high rise' estates wasn't that high - which is one of the arguments against them. The spaces left between the blocks, and servicing space etc meant they were no denser than the Victorian housing they replaced.   (which is precisely why there are now moves to knock many down and rebuild - as at Clapham South - to a higher density but generally lower height)


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> So rather than immediate, organic relief it's dependent on the police putting in Diversion signs and making clear that fines won't apply.  It's not as resilient, is it?
> 
> The proposals for the east of BH don't include gates, lockable, modal or otherwise, they involve planters.


No, because where this has been tried elsewhere it's been found not to work. the whole idea of resilience through rat running doesn't work, however you describe it.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> Well alright, add in the residents and their mates, tradespeople and so on.  I took all that for granted, I didn't mean to imply an exclusive list.
> 
> What unconnected outsiders will venture past the No Through Road by motor, unless they're looking for a pay parking spot, and I doubt there'll be many of those. Why would they?


That's the exact problem with St Matthews Road North end. It's a parking free for all for anyone associated with the Car Free Town Hall. They come and go all day and manage to fill every inch of resident parking bay,  yellow line and even over driveways (when the town hall is operational) . Free of enforcement. They are banned in Acre Lane and Porden. This is the next closest spot. The restrictions will make it an enclosed car park requiring every vehicle to do a several point turn in a packed and narrow road before leaving, unless the ban is extended to here. Not pretty for a safe cycle route.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Hopefully very few - because that's the whole point - to reduce motor traffic that isn't necessary.
> 
> On the other hand, I would hope to see an increase in unconnected outsiders passing through on foot or on bike, because these quietened streets will be more attractive to those people than parallel routes on main roads. And any bus routes continue to operate as before.
> 
> You are portraying it as some kind of gated community, to make it sound like something it is not. There are no gates - no one at all is prevented from entering the area.


I'm presenting it the way I see it.  In tune with them and us 21st century populism, if you like, although I suspect many proponents would be horrified at the thought. Part of top down class war, ditto.  Authoritarian do gooders telling the rest how to live.  Material advantage and disadvantage baked in now, this week, to create a longterm future.   I'm not saying this is conscious or intended, but as with an awful lot of social policies of the past, who has the sharpest elbows matters and subsequent unpicking of institutional assumptions and bias takes a very long time, especially if you never get round to asking those most affected.

There are things I am absolutely trying to neither say nor imply here, because I am not equipped to speak for or in place of those to whom it matters most.  Nobody wants this to turn into a future #MeToo or BLM style catharsis, but the possibilites exist, surely?   In the way teenagers see postcode gates that I don't, because they don't really affect me, I'm not sure anyone can or should try to describe the gates seen by others who walk in different shoes.  Does anyone ever ask them.  Maybe in future they will.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> No, because where this has been tried elsewhere it's been found not to work. the whole idea of resilience through rat running doesn't work, however you describe it.


I've watched it work.

'rat running' is a very value laden term.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Is it though?  Most of the Victorian houses across Brixton have been badly converted into flats way below the room size standards that the post war estates were built to.


Most?  Really?  Not what I see, which is a lot of houses with one doorbell intersperced by those with many as well as the social housing.


> The actual housing density of the 'high rise' estates wasn't that high - which is one of the arguments against them. The spaces left between the blocks, and servicing space etc meant they were no denser than the Victorian housing they replaced.   (which is precisely why there are now moves to knock many down and rebuild - as at Clapham South - to a higher density but generally lower height)


Is that a statistical perception or an 'ask people who live there' perception of density?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> Is that a statistical perception or an 'ask people who live there' perception of density?


It's fairly well known. 
The relatively low density of many post war housing estates is part of what explains the current pressure to rebuild many of them at a higher density, through demolition, infill or additional storeys.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

Rushy said:


> That's the exact problem with St Matthews Road North end. It's a parking free for all for anyone associated with the Car Free Town Hall. They come and go all day and manage to fill every inch of resident parking bay,  yellow line and even over driveways (when the town hall is operational) . Free of enforcement. They are banned in Acre Lane and Porden. This is the next closest spot. The restrictions will make it an enclosed car park requiring every vehicle to do a several point turn in a packed and narrow road before leaving, unless the ban is extended to here. Not pretty for a safe cycle route.



Oh, great, i use that.  

I guess there are specific problems around parking in most places, eg proximity to churches matters a lot at some points in the week (er, used to, before the virus). I wonder what the future of parking will be?  Once the impermeable zones are in place, and given how low car ownership is, there'll be relatively little demand for residents permits.  Would I be wrong in guessing there will be demand to get rid of the pay and business spaces, after all, that encourages unwanted traffic inside the area.  I've seen the visions of roads with cabbages or tabletennis in the spaces that used to be for parking, and i can see many finding that attractive.  

Fits the winner takes most, frustrate/alienate model perfectly.

I've no idea what the prognosis for SMR is but I wish the locals well if they decide to fight rather than simply do as they're told.  I'll keep my eyes open.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's fairly well known.
> The relatively low density of many post war housing estates is part of what explains the current pressure to rebuild many of them at a higher density, through demolition, infill or additional storeys.


that doesn't even attempt to answer my quoted question.  Pressure from who?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 16, 2020)

The filters don't appear to be on the north end of Railton yet, does anyone know when they're going in?


----------



## co-op (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> Well yes, I think you've missed something. That's far too glib an answer to the most basic social question of all, "in whose interests...?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a really long and detailed post, same with Gramsci 's one further up - I haven't really got the time to do a detailed reply that does these justice. But thanks for taking the time.

I should also declare my (non) interest in that I used to live in LJ for a long time in a "short life" co-op (in commas because it lasted decades) and a hard-to-let council flat on the LE but for all the usual reasons I got ousted from the area by exactly the process you describe, something which really saddened me and I'm still nostalgic for that time and place. That happened in 2013, so I'm a bystander really but I did live there from 1984-2013 so I saw a lot of those processes under way - way back in the 1980s we used to joke about Railton Rd being the shortest route between the Front Line and the muesli belt in London (even using "muesli" as a symbol for gentrification seems a bit quaint to me now).

My general reply would be yes, everything you say is happening, but I'd also say it's happening anyway and will happen with or without the whole area being a giant rat run - this is the curse of property prices. And while genteel traffic-free streets with super-expensive street food will exacerbate that process in those victorian streets, they are all already way way out of the range of anyone except those who are inheriting huge amounts of capital or are on huge incomes, and they have been for decades. Possibly the only way that those streets provide any benefit at all for people who aren't in that category is as places that allow them to get way they need to go without being relegated to the absolute margins.

I remember being vaguely involved in putting together some lobbying for better cycling provision when they built the Evelyn Grace Academy on Shakespeare Rd and we had a survey that showed that, when asked, 35-40% of the children said they wanted to cycle to school - that would have been 300-400 children. They were installing bike racks for 20 bikes. They were right of course, most of those children would never cycle, it's far too dangerous (or would be seen as so by parents) - and I couldn't in all conscience disagree with the parents. But what a tragedy for the health and well-being for those children and what a shame for the area that this can't happen. No it won't reverse the financialisation of the UK economy and the de facto role of London property market as a global reserve currency. But the idea that it'll only benefit the rich seems just plain wrong to me.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> that doesn't even attempt to answer my quoted question.  Pressure from who?


Pressure from developers and cash starved councils mainly. I'm not advocating estate redevelopment or saying it's a good thing. Just offering it as an illustration that it's true that it's not really "high density" housing as is often assumed. And yes, I agree that technical density and percieved density are not the same. I think we are going off on some kind of extended tangent here though.


----------



## co-op (Jun 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Pressure from developers and cash starved councils mainly. I'm not advocating estate redevelopment or saying it's a good thing. Just offering it as an illustration that it's true that it's not really "high density" housing as is often assumed. And yes, I agree that technical density and percieved density are not the same. I think we are going off on some kind of extended tangent here though.



It is a tangent but re density, definitely the post-war estates in Lambeth were built to relatively low densities compared to what is done now, half the point of them was to provide green spaces on peoples' doorsteps. At that time Lambeth had one of the lowest (maybe the lowest? Can't remember) amount of green space per person of any borough in London, in fact quite a lot of the house demolitions that were being done then were to clear space for a series of small parks like Larkhall, Max Roach, Slade Gardens etc. Famously this brought the council into conflict with squatters in places like Villa Rd. The borough had a falling population until the 1990s.


----------



## newbie (Jun 16, 2020)

co-op said:


> That's a really long and detailed post, same with Gramsci 's one further up - I haven't really got the time to do a detailed reply that does these justice. But thanks for taking the time.
> 
> I should also declare my (non) interest in that I used to live in LJ for a long time in a "short life" co-op (in commas because it lasted decades) and a hard-to-let council flat on the LE but for all the usual reasons I got ousted from the area by exactly the process you describe, something which really saddened me and I'm still nostalgic for that time and place. That happened in 2013, so I'm a bystander really but I did live there from 1984-2013 so I saw a lot of those processes under way - way back in the 1980s we used to joke about Railton Rd being the shortest route between the Front Line and the muesli belt in London (even using "muesli" as a symbol for gentrification seems a bit quaint to me now).
> 
> ...


Most longterm residents have seen it happening, but as time passes it becomes the norm, which is why I thought it owrth going into detail.  Also there may be people reading this who've not bee round here long enough for perspective.

But no, I reject the  'it's happening anyway' argument for such a significant structural change on the local scaleas  we're promised.  It's not, though there's plenty of less far-reaching central plans and an awful lot of incremental development happening anyway, but this is quantitatively and qualitatively different.

Yes, onstreet homes are now mostly for the extraordinarily wealthy,  but that's no reason to reward the current crop of owners/landlords or their successors.



> Possibly the only way that those streets provide any benefit at all for people who aren't in that category is as places that allow them to get way they need to go without being relegated to the absolute margins.



I could have saved a lot of typing if I'd said that at the start.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 16, 2020)

newbie said:


> Possibly the only way that those streets provide any benefit at all for people who aren't in that category is as places that allow them to get way they need to go without being relegated to the absolute margins.
> I could have saved a lot of typing if I'd said that at the start.



I'm guessing you don't mean by being low traffic streets where they can walk or cycle safely and in comfort to get to work/school/shop/park and generally get around the borough?


----------



## newbie (Jun 17, 2020)

You've messed up your post to make it appear I said something I merely quoted approvingly.
oh, and the needle's stuck.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 17, 2020)

There is a large amount of social housing, HA properties and coop owned homes in Herne Hill too.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 17, 2020)

Plenty of cars and vans driving straight through the modal gate on St Matthews Road this morning.

Checked with the warden and they remain under instruction to allow Lambeth vehicles to park without enforcement. I noticed that Southwark council permit holders also appear exempt from enforcement. 

It has made such a huge difference in the street since the town hall has been largely locked down. When they open back up there will be the usual parking mayhem and ten less places, occupied by the modal gate.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2020)

I went through the Shakespeare road one yesterday evening and saw two cars go straight through it.


----------



## Winot (Jun 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Checked with the warden and they remain under instruction to allow Lambeth vehicles to park without enforcement. I noticed that Southwark council permit holders also appear exempt from enforcement.



You really should tip off Brixton Blog about this. It'd make a great story.


----------



## newbie (Jun 17, 2020)

Get the timing right, though, and take a leaf out of the playbook.

This is (still) on Lambeth's entirely unloaded 'Have Your Say' page, with a click through for a bigger version. It shows the roundabout on Palace Road during roadworks. Undeniably stuff like that happens, but anyone who uses that stretch knows that it's nothing like representative of normal conditions, which might be why Mr hi vis is directing traffic. It sets the tone for the conversation to produce the desired outcome though.


What I'm saying is, choose your photographic evidence for maximum hyperbolic impact and don't worry about minor details like trying to be reasonable.


----------



## newbie (Jun 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I went through the Shakespeare road one yesterday evening and saw two cars go straight through it.


Have Lambeth said anything about a period of grace before fines start to be issued?  Most new introductions seem to have that.  I'm just wondering how far _intentionally create frustration_ is being pushed.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 17, 2020)

I’ve read the grace period somewhere - probably one of Claire Holland’s tweets. Warning letters for a couple of weeks and then fines from memory - will try to hunt it out. 

Railton Road gate - they’ve put up the posts for the cameras etc but done nothing else


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I went through the Shakespeare road one yesterday evening and saw two cars go straight through it.


I've went through this morning on my way out and back.  Seemed to be about 50/50 at the moment  - half turning back and the others having a peer around, not being able to see any cameras and going through anyway.  That will soon stop when the camera enforcement starts - likewise the ones on St Mathews Road. But it already seemed much quieter than a few weeks ago at the same time

The people driving through do give a clear indication of why the 'just share the road' argument is a nonstarter  - drivers who ignore road closure signs probably don't think speed limits apply to them and close pass cyclists as well.  The uptick in Police speed enforcement over lockdown shows that many drivers who break one law also break others so they've picked up loads of illegally modified vehicles, drivers without insurance, drug driving etc etc

The skips are bloody noisy when they leave - pretty sure those  chains are supposed to have  sleeves on to stop them clanking like that.

Can understand why the residents would want rid of the site. But it's also a source of unskilled working class employment and if it goes house prices are sure to rise (helped by the skip site being  replaced by luxury flats with a minimum allocation of 'affordable' housing) .  Also at the north end there was an older lady out with a dustpan and broom clearing up some litter along the fence to the railway.  I'm not sure of the U75 approved thoughts on this - wanting your street to be clean and not covered in shit - that's gentrification isn't? Same as wanting not to live opposite an industrial site?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> The skips are bloody noisy when they leave - pretty sure those  chains are supposed to have  sleeves on to stop them clanking like that.



Remarkably they are not. Only one major company - O'Donovan - uses them as standard that I know of. 






						O’Donovan reduces noise levels by 20% with skip chain covers - UPDATED
					

London construction and demolition waste management firm O’Donovan Waste Disposal has introduced skip chain covers to its fleet of skip lorries, resulting in a 20% decibel reduction in noise levels.



					www.transportengineer.org.uk
				



They reduce the noise from 85dB to 65dB which is a lot more than it sounds (as I understand it, 10db is a doubling in noise level so 85 is roughly 4x louder than 65dB). So the headline underplays the improvement.


It costs about £80 to fit a lorry. I actually offered to pay for them to be fitted to two trucks which park close to my home and leave very early in the morning but the owners were not interested. Should be compulsory in London.


----------



## newbie (Jun 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I've went through this morning on my way out and back.  Seemed to be about 50/50 at the moment  - half turning back and the others having a peer around, not being able to see any cameras and going through anyway.  That will soon stop when the camera enforcement starts - likewise the ones on St Mathews Road. But it already seemed much quieter than a few weeks ago at the same time
> 
> The people driving through do give a clear indication of why the 'just share the road' argument is a nonstarter  - drivers who ignore road closure signs probably don't think speed limits apply to them and close pass cyclists as well.  The uptick in Police speed enforcement over lockdown shows that many drivers who break one law also break others so they've picked up loads of illegally modified vehicles, drivers without insurance, drug driving etc etc
> 
> ...


I'm loving the last para ....



I also went to check out Shakespeare Road.  So I'm pedalling along enjoying the peace and quiet, thinking about the benefits of the scheme, when someone hurtled past me, legs whirling.  To my shame I burst out laughing as I twigged that this has created the longest, widest and straightest carfree, flat, safe racetrack for miles around. The perfect place for stretching lycra clad legs and for timetrials or racing...  There's even a decent circuit for those prepared to risk the broken glass in the foottunnel.

The shame is because I'm well aware that a couple of the pins on the map were plaintively pointing out that without SR the only way out of that triangle is onto CHL.  They were ignored, of course.

I would be very grateful for notification if anyone spots resident complaints about bikes (pedal, motorbike, electric or indeed scooter, skateboard, gokart...) zooming along there far too fast.  Not that there's likely to be a glossy consultation about the outcomes, so i dunno where such complaints might be posted.


----------



## Winot (Jun 17, 2020)

Yes there probably will be complaints about cyclists going too fast, from the same people that complain about cyclists holding them up when they are in their cars.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> I'm loving the last para ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what your point is - that making it into an exceptionally safe road is going to make things worse for residents because it will become more dangerous for them, because they will get run over by cyclists instead of cars, which is in some way worse, maybe because of the way the cyclists are clothed?

(And what triangle do you mean?)


----------



## newbie (Jun 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'm not sure what your point is - that making it into an exceptionally safe road is going to make things worse for residents because it will become more dangerous for them, because they will get run over by cyclists instead of cars, which is in some way worse, maybe because of the way the cyclists are clothed?
> 
> (And what triangle do you mean?)


point?  it's more of an observation but I suppose there's something about irony and unintended consequences.   I didn't say anything about 'more dangerous' although I had no idea anyone was approaching very fast from behind me, but it's never struck me as an especially dangerous bit of road.  The triangle formed by the railways.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> I'm loving the last para ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If only there was something to prevent that - like speed bumps or a speed table. 

London’s most popular training circuit is Regents Park as you can do laps (which make far more sense than a straight but short 1.2km SR) and most importantly it’s good, smooth, flat, speed bump free tarmac generally free from glass and other road debris with less traffic. 

None of those characteristics are there in Shakespeare Road so I don’t think you need to worry about it turning into a race track. Also - speed limits don’t apply to cycles. 

Also idiots are idiots whether they are on a cycle, motorbike or car.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 17, 2020)

Well, for a motor vehicle, without shakespeare road being closed at its S end the only way out of Shakespeare road is via CHL. For the remainder of the triangle, you have to use CHL to get to Shakespeare Rd whether or not it's closed off.

If you're not in a motor vehicle, the your exit points from the triangle are exactly the same with or without the modal gate.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 17, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> None of those characteristics are there in Shakespeare Road so I don’t think you need to worry about it turning into a race track. Also - speed limits don’t apply to cycles.
> Also idiots are idiots whether they are on a cycle, motorbike or car.



and by definition the sort of sports cyclists Newbie is suddenly worried about are already happy to ride on the road - if Shakespeare was part of the perfect training run they'd be on it now, 3600 vehicles a day or not.  The Sunday club riders who head out to Kent have to put up with a lot worse that Shakespeare.


----------



## co-op (Jun 17, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> There is a large amount of social housing, HA properties and coop owned homes in Herne Hill too.



Also quite a large group of house-owners who bought their houses or flats back in the 70s, 80s and 90s when it was genuinely one of the cheapest places to buy in London and who don't fit the wealthy incomers group at all. I used to canvass for Labour and Green parties at different times in the area (not something I'd bother do now) and I was always quite surprised at some of the people who were owners - people doing working class jobs who'd bought their own homes.


----------



## newbie (Jun 18, 2020)

of course I recognise that but I don't think it changes anything I've said does it?  In terms of attitudes and pins on maps about transport policy the exact nature and length of housing tenure isn't a great determinant is it?  Week by week income is obviously a consideration, but so many other factors affect mobility that social, co-op or private tenants and long- and short-term owner occupiers aren't likely to be that divergent in their views about their own street, are they?  However, the material rewards are to be spread unevenly, rewarding owner occupiers and landlords far more than tenants.  I'm not sure it matters whether someone has owned their home (or been a landlord) for 40 years or 4, they still stand stand to gain as insiders where similar people in a similar position in a similar but non-designated area simply don't benefit in the same way.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2020)

As friendofdorothy brought up consultation on Herne Hiill thread. ( the discussion of this is going over several threads. Which makes it difficult without repeating oneself.) I looked up the online consultation which runs on the "commonplace" platfrom.

Commonplace works for developers and public authorities. It provides a service platform to aid consultation.

More than just that though it says it can help overcome public resistance to schemes planned by private developers or a Council.

This is where it moves from a neutral service platform for comments to a service that aids overcoming resistance from Joe Public.

Its a technocratic approach that is an aid for senior decision makes.

It has case studies from public and private sector.

From the one on the Walthamstow Mini Holland it says this:




> This was beneficial because it prevented any campaigning group from gaining traction.Commonplace enabled the Council’s leaders to understand
> the extent of support and objection, beyond headline-grabbing actions and petitions. This made it possible to fine-tune plans to meet specific local objections
> and observations, rather than getting swept into a war of attrition with vocal protest group.......A strategic tool for senior decision makers.Not only did the project team use Commonplace, but senior decision-makers in the Council, including the deputy leader, also used the analytics to make strategic decisions.









						Customer Stories - Commonplace
					

Meet some of our customers and discover the impact of using Commonplace has made.




					www.commonplace.is
				




The private developer case study was to aid a developer that has planned a high tower which had got a lot of local opposition.

So this is not a straightforward platforn that one can comment on. The organisation using it can access the "analytic" "dashboard".

So Commonplace service is to help manage dissent.

Particulary of the traditional kind found in local democracy - petitions, lobby groups, action groups.

Online consultation is going to increase but its not a neutral tool.

Action groups, petitions and lobby groups require people working together. Its part of local democracy.

What a platform like commonplace does is individualise politics. Its a hollowing out of democracy.

I can see why it could appeal to senior officers/ senior Council leaders. Its technocratic approach to local democracy. One of managing local populations.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As friendofdorothy brought up consultation on Herne Hiill thread. ( the discussion of this is going over several threads. Which makes it difficult without repeating oneself.) I looked up the online consultation which runs on the "commonplace" platfrom.
> 
> Commonplace works for developers and public authorities. It provides a service platform to aid consultation.
> 
> ...


From what I have seen it is terribly cluncky and, more so, it is only effective if people know about it and it is clear what is being consulted on. That said, I have no problem with the general principle of reducing resistance by fine tuning plans to overcome objections and observations. That, to my mind, is the whole purpose of consultation and how consent is achieved.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

Interesting, I should have realised this was going on across other threads but I don't think I'm obsessive enough to start looking them out. Are Facebook and Twitter buzzing too?

Much earlier in this one I read around various Lambeth/Commonplace consultations and came to the conclusion they're deliberately engineered to produce or reinforce a desired policy outcome.  The Palace Road picture is just an example of how blatant that is.

Whether that amounts to legitimate fine tuning or stacking the deck is a matter of perspective, I suppose.  Had the council deployed similar tactics over, eg closure of libraries or monetising the parks I suspect there'd be howls of outrage, often from the very people who are happy to promote BLN results they agree with.

Even so, now that people not on U75 or the LambethCyclists mailing list or whatever are commenting on the Railton scheme, it seems I'm not the only one prepared to veer off message. A pin from someone saying, among other well considered things, that they'd just bought an electric car and are now the wrong side of modal gates from any charging points has been endorsed 28 times, and loads of other red pins have sprouted with plenty of likes.   

For the avoidance of doubt- none are from me, I'm not a campaigner, it's not my patch, I haven't commented or liked at all. Can the evangelists say the same?

Consultation by counting likes is pretty silly anyway, unless we the public get to see the detail in the database- how many logins go round liking every green or red pin, how many pins mention anything other than traffic in one specific street (and whether the IP address is actually located in that street), and so on.  Only the technocrats see that level of detail sfaik, only the politicians see their distillation of the results.  The rest of us have to click pin after pin to try to build up an impression.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> Much earlier in this one I read around various Lambeth/Commonplace consultations and came to the conclusion they're deliberately engineered to produce or reinforce a desired policy outcome.  The Palace Road picture is just an example of how blatant that is.
> 
> Whether that amounts to legitimate fine tuning or stacking the deck is a matter of perspective, I suppose.  Had the council deployed similar tactics over, eg closure of libraries or monetising the parks I suspect there'd be howls of outrage, often from the very people who are happy to promote BLN results they agree with.




You are absolutely right - the surveys are heavily loaded. The surveys themselves should not be used to fine tune responses but that is exactly what is being done here.

Consultations should be designed to achieve broad and genuine understanding of a neighbourhood's reaction to a proposal. I have no problem then with the responses being used to fine tune the proposal itself in order to deal with those issues.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

Even so, some of the pins are fascinating, like the SE24 residents used to a 5 minute journey by car to their local center at HH now facing 20 mins each way; it's a shame there no way of commenting directly on such pins, or the evangelists on this thread could explain that preventing them doing that by increasing frustration is the explicit aim, not some sort of byproduct.  I'm sure that would go down well, but I guess heads are being kept down. There's one that claims the headteacher of Evelyn Grace didn't know about the SR gates and, more predictedably, phrases like '_more affluent Poets Corner_' and '_taking away my freedom of choice_' are being deployed.      e2a '_virtual gated community for a privileged few_'

Of course, as well as presenting the cover for imposing the scheme, the virus also provides the perfect excuse to not hold public meetings, a time honoured form of consultation where anyone can turn up- the horror!  It's easy to ignore me on here saying that the intention to to reproduce the suburbs, keep 'vibrant' at bay and improve conditions for precious children who will be whisked away to real 'burbs before they really have to mix with kids from the estates at secondary school.  Harder to ignore or dismiss in person in a meeting that doesn't have anything like such a predictable outcome.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 20, 2020)

I’m confused by these people driving five minutes to Herne Hill where most of the area is CPZ. Where do they park?


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

Sainsburys at a guess, or outside a school?  I dunno  There's no way to hold a conversation on there.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> it's a shame there no way of commenting directly on such pins,



Some of the angrier pins read like they are quoting other pins. It's very confusing!


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 20, 2020)

And again - under the act they don’t need to do ANY consultation to implement the LTN only to make it permanent. 

The commonplace site is full of anti remarks - and you can see the clear split of opinions literally across the tracks.

One answer seems to be to open the Shakespeare modal gate to residents and blue badge holders only via ANPR but that’s probably quite complicated


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> And again - under the act they don’t need to do ANY consultation to implement the LTN only to make it permanent.
> 
> The commonplace site is full of anti remarks - and you can see the clear split of opinions literally across the tracks.



who'd of thought!  It's almost like people perceive themselves to be winners or losers.


> One answer seems to be to open the Shakespeare modal gate to residents and blue badge holders only via ANPR but that’s probably quite complicated



Sure, but that defeats the object, because it enables people to make the 5 minute journeys that are so strongly disapproved of, while reducing 20 min journeys that are an inevitable consequence.  It's also the thin end of an unattractive wedge, as more and more areas are made impermeable, more and more people will plead for special case exemption, and that will never do.  Or maybe it will, as rewarding insiders to the detriment of outsiders is so central, perhaps all modal gates will be programmed to allow area residents through while barring all others.  I can see Lambeth getting that working without any problems at all.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Some of the angrier pins read like they are quoting other pins. It's very confusing!


That was the case in the original consultations as well.  Maybe they do, or perhaps restate their own point, we can't tell.  I'm less inclined to think that the recent ones quote from a script than previously,


----------



## Rushy (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> That was the case in the original consultations as well.  Maybe they do, or perhaps restate their own point, we can't tell.  I'm less inclined to think that the recent ones quote from a script than previously,



I mean ones like this:

​​​​
​​


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> Sainsburys at a guess, or outside a school?


Also of course HH is a gateway to other places, so 5 mins to HH en route to somewhere much further away.

At the moment Google maps is still showing all car routes from SRN to eg Streatham via the bridge, because obviously it'd be bonkers to go via LJ.  Currently 20-23 minutes.  I'd be massively surprised to discover anyone at Lambeth has a computer designed to scrape comparison journey times before and after the fines are in operation, for more objective measurement of outcomes than angry frothing


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I mean ones like this:


don't agree. They have a perfect right to a view.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 20, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I mean ones like this:


I’m starting to recognise the posters by their comments on commonplace and social media. Hat person was outraged they couldn’t drive from poets corner where they live to heir mums house in Shakespeare


----------



## teuchter (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> the intention to to reproduce the suburbs, keep 'vibrant' at bay and improve conditions for precious children who will be whisked away to real 'burbs before they really have to mix with kids from the estates at secondary school.


You're cranking up the provocation levels a little higher today, I see.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You're cranking up the provocation levels a little higher today, I see.


I've said all of that in the past with little followup from those who clearly care little about such minor matters.  No-one on this thread has really agreed with me, so I've been less than confident about pushing the points.  All I've done today is say the same things with less explanation and padding, because the recent pins show that it's not just me thinking along those lines.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> don't agree. They have a perfect right to a view.


What don't you agree with? You said it was a shame that there is no way of commenting on others' pins. I've simply quoted someone else attempting to do so?


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

> I've never owned a car and I'm tired of being a victim of those that do drive.....
> 
> This comment is flabbergasting to me. If you have never owned a car THAT IS YOUR CHOICE. Car owners have cars for a reason and if you don’t know people’s circumstances you don’t get to judge.


apologies.  I was answering back to the second sentence quoted here, but on reflection that's pretty futile.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> apologies.  I was answering back to the second sentence quoted here, but on reflection that's pretty futile.


I mean, on the second sentence, Brixton has terrible pollution where was our choice on that?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> I've said all of that in the past with little followup from those who clearly care little about such minor matters.  No-one on this thread has really agreed with me, so I've been less than confident about pushing the points.  All I've done today is say the same things with less explanation and padding, because the recent pins show that it's not just me thinking along those lines.


I'm not sure what the options for followup are.
If you talk about things like displacement of traffic and increased pollution on main roads, well I can come back with some examples from other places that seem to show it isn't necessarily a big concern, and I can also take your point and acknowledge it and recognise that it shouldn't be ignored, and agree that it should be monitored and so on. And I can recognise issues with the skip lorries on North Shakespeare road and if it's really true that this thing will make traffic worse for people on North Shakepseare Rd and it's really true that most people living on that road don't want it then maybe Shakespeare should be kept open as a through route - it seems like the rest of the scheme could still function.
But once you're talking about the intentions of those pushing for the scheme, and saying that their _real_ intentions are to suburbanise Brixton and shield the children of the wealthy, and using semi-coded references to reducing "vibrancy" and whatever else, well they are largely unfalsifiable claims. All I can say is that I don't think that is the intention, and the reailty of what the measures involve does not support it, and that I think those kind of suggestions are well designed to (a) be difficult to pin down and argue with directly and (b) deliberately lead people to think that the scheme includes things that it doesn't and (c) press certain buttons. And it often works.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> The shame is because I'm well aware that a couple of the pins on the map were plaintively pointing out that without SR the only way out of that triangle is onto CHL.  They were ignored, of course.



Ive noticed more traffic on CHL. Going to have to see how this pans out.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> Interesting, I should have realised this was going on across other threads but I don't think I'm obsessive enough to start looking them out. Are Facebook and Twitter buzzing too?
> 
> Much earlier in this one I read around various Lambeth/Commonplace consultations and came to the conclusion they're deliberately engineered to produce or reinforce a desired policy outcome.  The Palace Road picture is just an example of how blatant that is.
> 
> ...



As my post 555 says Commonplace own sales pitch to public authorities and private developers is that one good aspect of this tool is that the Council has access to the database/ analytics. Which Joe Public dont. Commonplace say that its use for consultation is to smooth away opposition.

Joe Public is at disadvantage as the database/ analytics is not in public domain. Its the Council who have access to the "dashboard"

It does make me think twice before commenting.

Even then I also see people veering off message.

A selling point for Commonplace is that its meant to avoid the pesky "usual suspects" who turn up to meetings to scrutinise  undermine Council plans.  The "vocal" people. Who as one of my local Cllrs says aren't on message  representative.

As Commonplace or similar platforms become more widely used I can see the same "problem" happening.

Talking to someone I know in LCC they put comments on these Commonplace consultations. They make it their business to know when these online consultations are active. I have no problem with that. Any well organised group is going to look at new forms of consultation and see how to influence them. But its going to defeat the selling point. Unless the analytics can be used to circumvent this/ see when its happening. 


I been looking a bit at the reasoning behind Commonplace. There is discussion in academic circles about "deliberative" democracy. Consensus building. What Rushy was posting about. The idea is that people might support an idea ( reducing traffic) but oppose a particular way its planned.  There is somethng to be said for deliberative democracy. This however needs to be embedded in the Council not treated as something to be used to just "fine tune" a plan the officers have decided on.

That was the idea behind the now aborted Liveable Neighbourhood consultation- more deliberative.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I mean, on the second sentence, Brixton has terrible pollution where was our choice on that?


It's a filthy, crime ridden innercity, with clearly evident poverty and social problems.  By no means everyone was born here, and for the rest it wasn't compulsory to move here, and history indicates most won't stay for the longterm.  Not everyone has the economic option to move, but at least some of the pins represent those who could choose to live in the burbs or more rural if that's what they want.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'm not sure what the options for followup are.
> If you talk about things like displacement of traffic and increased pollution on main roads, well I can come back with some examples from other places that seem to show it isn't necessarily a big concern, and I can also take your point and acknowledge it and recognise that it shouldn't be ignored, and agree that it should be monitored and so on. And I can recognise issues with the skip lorries on North Shakespeare road and if it's really true that this thing will make traffic worse for people on North Shakepseare Rd and it's really true that most people living on that road don't want it then maybe Shakespeare should be kept open as a through route - it seems like the rest of the scheme could still function.



When did 'rat run' become 'through route'?   Come to that, when did the interests of people on a through route feature before, except as stats from elsewhere picked to show minimal impact?  

What about other through routes, eg Milkwood Road?

It's almost like it wasn't properly thought through and all the affected people weren't asked, despite the consulation predating covid.

Railton is the first scheme to be implemented.  It's emblematic. You've been trumpeting the universal benefits for months.  Abandoning the principle at the first sign of resistance will have knockons, as i said earlier, when other people on other bits of the overall scheme also demand changes.  




> But once you're talking about the intentions of those pushing for the scheme, and saying that their _*real*_* intentions* are to suburbanise Brixton and shield the children of the wealthy, and using semi-coded references to reducing "vibrancy" and whatever else, well they are largely unfalsifiable claims. All I can say is that I don't think that is the intention, and the reailty of what the measures involve does not support it, and that I think those kind of suggestions are well designed to (a) be difficult to pin down and argue with directly and (b) deliberately lead people to think that the scheme includes things that it doesn't and (c) press certain buttons. And it often works.


I've tried hard to talk about unintended consequences and caveat those points in my longer posts, while also recognising the benefits of the schemes and paying attention to the economic realities.  Rather than reproduce the script with a bunch of stats about why it's evenly, universally beneficial.

As for 'vibrancy', I'm absolutely not wanting to push any buttons.  I used the word as it's featured so heavily in property marketing and nightlife reviews and all the rest over many years.  As i said.  

brixton property vibrancy


You've picked me up today because I typed a sentence not a tract,. Should I really write out all the caveats, explanations and qualifications each time I use a word?  

If your complaint is that I'm suggesting that part of this is to suburbanise the home bit of innercity while retaining all the fantastic lifestyle opportunities the innercity will continue to offer near someone else's home, then you're right, I am.  For caveats and that, see above.  I find it hard to imagine anyone wants me to provide yet more words of detailed exploration of what strikes me as pretty obvious, I'll try.  Perhaps your inability to deconstruct is that it is so plain.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I been looking a bit at the reasoning behind Commonplace. There is discussion in academic circles about "deliberative" democracy. Consensus building. What Rushy was posting about. The idea is that people might support an idea ( reducing traffic) but oppose a particular way its planned.  There is somethng to be said for deliberative democracy. This however needs to be embedded in the Council not treated as something to be used to just "fine tune" a plan the officers have decided on.


Good post.  To what extent covid has interrupted planned nudging and consensus building we'll never know, but Commonplace certainly deserve scrutiny.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 20, 2020)

Let's focus on one thing at a time then. When you say people want to use these schemes to 'keep vibrant at bay', what does that mean exactly?

Is the implication that agressive/dangerous driving is part of Brixton's "vibrancy" and wanting to rid residential streets of it is problematic for that reason? Or is excessive car commuting part of Brixton's "vibrancy"?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 20, 2020)

[QUOTE="newbie, post: 16603121, member: Railton is the first scheme to be implemented.  It's emblematic. You've been trumpeting the universal benefits for months. [/QUOTE]

It’s the second or third. Oval was the first a few weeks ago. There are many other London and UK examples of implementation. Mini Holland being the most famous London one. It’s less than minimum practice in at least three other countries I could list.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's a filthy, crime ridden innercity, with clearly evident poverty and social problems.  By no means everyone was born here, and for the rest it wasn't compulsory to move here, and history indicates most won't stay for the longterm.  Not everyone has the economic option to move, but at least some of the pins represent those who could choose to live in the burbs or more rural if that's what they want.


So let’s not try and make it any better.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2020)

I was looking at the old Brixton Liveable neighbourhood docs. In them the main Street for change was Atlantic road. In Brixton yesterday and it was ,as usual, full of traffic and parked cars. Making shopping impossible to social distance. 



I don't understand why this section of Brixton Liveable neighbourhood was not used as temporary scheme for the pandemic. 

Instead of Railton


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Let's focus on one thing at a time then. When you say people want to use these schemes to 'keep vibrant at bay', what does that mean exactly?
> 
> Is the implication that agressive/dangerous driving is part of Brixton's "vibrancy" and wanting to rid residential streets of it is problematic for that reason? Or is excessive car commuting part of Brixton's "vibrancy"?



Again?   I did my best in this post

An attitude that suggests actively wanting the rest of the area to be as vibrant as it likes, but rather than the barrier being my front door it's the end of my street.  I've been struggling to find better words and failing, I'll come back to it if I can think of a way to express what seems pretty plain.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> So let’s not try and make it any better.


better for whom according to what metrics?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2020)

From the orginal docs:


OUR SUCCESSFUL BID
At the heart of our proposal are improvements to Atlantic Road to make it more people friendly.

Atlantic Road is an important and historic street in Brixton town centre with over 55 businesses on
the road itself and entrances into Brixton’s distinctive covered shopping streets and Brixton rail
station. It should be a great street for walking and cycling, but in practice the opposite is true, with
motor traffic dominating the space. Approximately 6,000 vehicles travel on the road each day and the
footways are inadequate for the number of people using them.

Our ideas for Atlantic Road include:

Removing general traffic while maintaining access for goods vehicles
Full access for cycles, buses and emergency services
Extended footways, safer crossing points and junctions
Refurbished and de-cluttered public realm
Rationalised loading and servicing with incentives for low emissions vehicles
A ‘zero emissions zone’ to tackle air quality issues









						About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood
					

We need your help to make the Brixton area a healthier place, with a thriving town centre, less traffic, cleaner air, more space for people and great for walking and cycling.




					brixtonlnmap.commonplace.is
				




This could have been done first rather than a section of the scheme area that is not at centre of the scheme. Also is highly residential so going to get more local opposition from residents. Whereas the Atlantic road is justifiable as needed for socially distanced shopping. It was busy today.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> better for whom according to what metrics?


Better for the people who won't have a busy, dangerous, polluting road running through their neighborhood. 
Shouldn't we be trying to reduce motor traffic?. Is your objections to this based purely on where its happening?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> Again?   I did my best in this post
> 
> An attitude that suggests actively wanting the rest of the area to be as vibrant as it likes, but rather than the barrier being my front door it's the end of my street.  I've been struggling to find better words and failing, I'll come back to it if I can think of a way to express what seems pretty plain.


Yes but what aspects, exactly, of 'vibrant' are barred by some modifications to what vehicles can pass through certain points? 

I read your previous post and it failed to actually make explicit what you mean. It was also full of terms like "not-quite-gated" and talk of delivery drivers being expected to "sod off where they came from" and similar. It was all entirely premised on the proposed scheme being something different from what it actually is. 

So, which aspects of 'vibrancy' specifically are you talking about?


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Better for the people who won't have a busy, dangerous, polluting road running through their neighborhood.
> Shouldn't we be trying to reduce motor traffic?. Is your objections to this based purely on where its happening?


I've written far, far too much on this thread and covered all of that and a lot more umpteen times.


----------



## newbie (Jun 20, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I read your previous post and it failed to actually make explicit what you mean. It was also full of terms like "not-quite-gated" and talk of delivery drivers being expected to "sod off where they came from" and similar.



That is exactly what the servant class- cab and delivery drivers, etc- and a few others- NHS, emergency services, BT etc-  are being told to do.  The only other motorised users allowed in are residents and their invitees, plus the odd random looking for somewhere to park, but that'll be heavily discouraged.

If that's wrong tell me what other motor users will pass the No Through Road signs.  Take your time ast I'm going to watch the football now.



> It was all entirely premised on the proposed scheme being something different from what it actually is.



That's exactly what impermeable neighbourhoods are. impermeable to motor users.



> So, which aspects of 'vibrancy' specifically are you talking about?


the desire of some people who live in the inner city to use motorised transport (including electric) to get about the area in which they live, despite the fact that other people disapprove of their behaviour.  And all the stuff I've already written about alienation, economic winners and losers, gentrirfication and insiders and outsiders. If you don't equate any of that with 'vibrancy' then fine, that's up to you, I've run out of steam for today.


----------



## Winot (Jun 20, 2020)

Anyway.

This may have been covered already, but does anyone know how the ANPR is going to decide who to fine for coming into the zone?

I had assumed that it was working off a DVLA database of where people’s cars were registered and not fining them. Plus a database of commercial vehicles. But it’s been pointed out to me that this is probably against GDPR regulations.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 20, 2020)

Winot said:


> Anyway.
> 
> This may have been covered already, but does anyone know how the ANPR is going to decide who to fine for coming into the zone?
> 
> I had assumed that it was working off a DVLA database of where people’s cars were registered and not fining them. Plus a database of commercial vehicles. But it’s been pointed out to me that this is probably against GDPR regulations.



assume you have to register your number plate as a resident, then there is probably an exclusion for short stays with no long stops  - eg if you are in and out in 60m no charge To deal with delivery drivers, etc.

I’m sure that using number plate recognition is fine for data protection as long as you know what you are doing.

Alex


----------



## Winot (Jun 20, 2020)

alex_ said:


> assume you have to register your number plate as a resident, then there is probably an exclusion for short stays with no long stops  - eg if you are in and out in 60m no charge To deal with delivery drivers, etc.
> 
> I’m sure that using number plate recognition is fine for data protection as long as you know what you are doing.
> 
> Alex



Yes I can see that if you specifically register for that purpose then it’s fine. But has anyone seen any announcements to do so?

Wouldn’t your ‘in and out’ exclusion mean that it wouldn’t catch drivers who drove straight through? Unless there was a separate database of delivery drivers.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2020)

alex_ said:


> assume you have to register your number plate as a resident, then there is probably an exclusion for short stays with no long stops  - eg if you are in and out in 60m no charge To deal with delivery drivers, etc.
> 
> I’m sure that using number plate recognition is fine for data protection as long as you know what you are doing.
> 
> Alex



But not if you are an incompetent Council/police force










						Daily Mail — “ANPR remains dangerously unregulated” — Big Brother Watch
					

Defending Civil Liberties, Protecting Privacy




					bigbrotherwatch.org.uk
				







> Details of 8.6 million car journeys were exposed on the internet, making it one of the biggest data breach Britain has ever seen.
> 
> The breach was from an unprotected database of the network of Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR).
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 20, 2020)

This scheme is being brought in very quickly. ANPR should require an assessment being done to justify it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> That is exactly what the servant class- cab and delivery drivers, etc- and a few others- NHS, emergency services, BT etc-  are being told to do.  The only other motorised users allowed in are residents and their invitees, plus the odd random looking for somewhere to park, but that'll be heavily discouraged.
> 
> If that's wrong tell me what other motor users will pass the No Through Road signs.  Take your time ast I'm going to watch the football now.
> 
> That's exactly what impermeable neighbourhoods are. impermeable to motor users.


It's not impermeable or banned though, is it?. If you want to get in you can, this is closing it as a through route for people going somewhere else.



newbie said:


> the desire of some people who live in the inner city to use motorised transport (including electric) to get about the area in which they live, despite the fact that other people disapprove of their behaviour.  And all the stuff I've already written about alienation, economic winners and losers, gentrirfication and insiders and outsiders. If you don't equate any of that with 'vibrancy' then fine, that's up to you, I've run out of steam for today.


At the end of the day (I think) the area will be improved by this. I would question exactly how much edgyness is brought by a busy road.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> That is exactly what the servant class- cab and delivery drivers, etc- and a few others- NHS, emergency services, BT etc-  are being told to do.  The only other motorised users allowed in are residents and their invitees, plus the odd random looking for somewhere to park, but that'll be heavily discouraged.
> 
> If that's wrong tell me what other motor users will pass the No Through Road signs.  Take your time ast I'm going to watch the football now.



I don't get what you mean. At the moment, a delivery driver shows up at an address. They deliver. They carry on somewhere else. I guess they can hang about in the area if they want; no one is going to stop them except maybe their employer. So, what changes? All that changes is that they might take a different route in and out. They are no more or less able to hang about, if they want to do that. There are no motorised users at all who are not "allowed in". Have you misunderstood how the thing works, or have I?





newbie said:


> the desire of some people who live in the inner city to use motorised transport (including electric) to get about the area in which they live, despite the fact that other people disapprove of their behaviour.




It's news to me that a commonly understood meaning of "vibrancy" includes the ability to go around freely in motorised transport. So, when you said that the people in favour of these schemes want to "keep 'vibrant' at bay" all you meant is that they want to restrict people's ability to go around freely in motorised transport?






newbie said:


> And all the stuff I've already written about alienation, economic winners and losers, gentrirfication and insiders and outsiders. If you don't equate any of that with 'vibrancy' then fine, that's up to you, I've run out of steam for today.



None of that stuff gave any specifics on what these proposals actually put a limit on. The only specific we have established is that the proposals limit the free movement of motor traffic, which doesn't seem like a great revelation.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not impermeable or banned though, is it?. If you want to get in you can, this is closing it as a through route for people going somewhere else.



You've lost me. 

'impermeable' = 'closing it as a through route for people going somewhere else'        That's how the word is being used, in line with the dictionary definition. 

I said nothing about 'banned'.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> Even so, some of the pins are fascinating, like the SE24 residents used to a 5 minute journey by car to their local center at HH now facing 20 mins each way;





newbie said:


> At the moment Google maps is still showing all car routes from SRN to eg Streatham via the bridge, because obviously it'd be bonkers to go via LJ. Currently 20-23 minutes



You know you can drag the route around if you use Google Maps on a computer - so you can see how long an alternative route would take?

 I know it's Sunday morning so it's quiet but it seems very unlikely any trip to Herne Hill would get longer by anything like 15 minutes in each direction.  Somewhere around 5 minutes seems far more likely.  

Same as Streatham - it's a single digit number of minutes longer.  If you're going out, say, shopping for a few hours a few minutes at either end doesn't seem much.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't get what you mean. At the moment, a delivery driver shows up at an address. They deliver. They carry on somewhere else. I guess they can hang about in the area if they want; no one is going to stop them except maybe their employer. So, what changes? All that changes is that they might take a different route in and out. They are no more or less able to hang about, if they want to do that. There are no motorised users at all who are not "allowed in". Have you misunderstood how the thing works, or have I?



I hope neither of us have misunderstood but '_allowed in_' was a very poor choice of phrase on my part, implying a 'No Entry' sign rather than the 'No Through Road' sign I mentioned immediately afterwards.  So I hope we both agree the schemes will maintain a legal entitlement to enter but ensure that for the vast majority there's absolutely no point.  Sorry for causing confusion.

As for the delivery drivers, you're confirming they'll enter and do their drop(s) then have to leave the way they went in, which is exactly what I've said loads of times.  Drop at the south end of Shakespeare Road, then drive all the way round to Loughborough Junction and along SRN to somewhere that is in reality a short distance from the first drop.  As now, they can't really hang about without risking a ticket, unless you're suggesting parking restrictions will be lifted.

I think most people get what I'm on about, but in order to head off further somewhat unnecessary nitpicks, I'll point out that while it's likely Waitrose or whoever will reorganise their routes to avoid that precise situation, I'm using it because I'm keen to avoid another long, boring essay on some other example, using maps and exact details of each road sign.




> It's news to me that a commonly understood meaning of "vibrancy" includes the ability to go around freely in motorised transport. So, when you said that the people in favour of these schemes want to "keep 'vibrant' at bay" all you meant is that they want to restrict people's ability to go around freely in motorised transport?


fine.  You appear to want to treat my figure of speech as though it's a legalistic or academic term used by someone with far better language skills, and in a far more formal context, than me posting on a forum.  Carry on if that sort of thing amuses you, you'll grind me down soon enough.  But bear in mind it's not me, tring to describe some of the implications of this policy that matters, it's how it's interpreted by the local population.  As it's further rolled out we'll get a clearer idea, see whether the majority embrace the script you've written for them or whether, as i suspect, they'll have ideas all of their very own.




> None of that stuff gave any specifics on what these proposals actually put a limit on. The only specific we have established is that the proposals limit the free movement of motor traffic, which doesn't seem like a great revelation.


absolutely.  That's all it is and all that matters.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You know you can drag the route around if you use Google Maps on a computer - so you can see how long an alternative route would take?
> 
> I know it's Sunday morning so it's quiet but it seems very unlikely any trip to Herne Hill would get longer by anything like 15 minutes in each direction.  Somewhere around 5 minutes seems far more likely.
> 
> Same as Streatham - it's a single digit number of minutes longer.  If you're going out, say, shopping for a few hours a few minutes at either end doesn't seem much. View attachment 218715View attachment 218716View attachment 218717View attachment 218718


yes, 9 o'clock on a sunday morning isn't remotely representative.  The overall journey time you're showing from SRN to Streatham is more than 10 minutes shorter than I saw yesterday afternoon, despite yours going via both LJ and Brixton.  That has nothing to do with real world conditions when people actually travel, but even so, on what you're showing me, extending a journey time from 9 minutes to 13 amounts to a 50% increase.  Thanks, that's a handy rule of thumb.


As to what you obviously looked up but aren't showing, you're crowing about extending a journey time from 1 minute to 9.


----------



## Winot (Jun 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's a filthy, crime ridden innercity, with clearly evident poverty and social problems.  By no means everyone was born here, and for the rest it wasn't compulsory to move here, and history indicates most won't stay for the longterm.  Not everyone has the economic option to move, but at least some of the pins represent those who could choose to live in the burbs or more rural if that's what they want.



Are you really suggesting that because well-off locals have the means to move away that removes their right to complain about lethal pollution?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 21, 2020)

Winot said:


> Anyway.
> 
> This may have been covered already, but does anyone know how the ANPR is going to decide who to fine for coming into the zone?
> 
> I had assumed that it was working off a DVLA database of where people’s cars were registered and not fining them. Plus a database of commercial vehicles. But it’s been pointed out to me that this is probably against GDPR regulations.



I don't think residents are allowed to go through the gates at all. No one is apart from emergency services and selected utilities.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

Winot said:


> Are you really suggesting that because well-off locals have the means to move away that removes their right to complain about lethal pollution?


Yes, that's exactly, precisely, unambiguously what I'm suggesting and what I wrote had nothing whatsoever to do with the question i was asked, ' _Brixton has terrible pollution where was our choice on that_? '

In any event this isn't anything to do with some notional '_right to complain_' for the well off.

There's plenty of stuff you- and other advocates- have been virtually silent about.  teuchter has at least attempted to engage on some of it. Why not actually explore the imposition of far-reaching social policy with the sparse consultation so heavily loaded?  The material rewards for groups of (what I'm calling) 'insiders' (many very well off, many unlikely to be here for very long) and lack of reward for others.   The increased burden along the arteries. The express intention of excluding 'outsiders' unless they behave in approved ways.   How economic, social and culural class is played out in these schemes.  How desirable policy outcomes are to be achieved by explicitly reducing transport network resilience and increasing traveller frustration, alienation and marginalisation. There's even the climate change implications of turning a 1 minute car journey into 9 minutes at a time when the roads are naturally quiet.

There's plenty I've tried to raise for discussion, yet most of what I'm getting back is nitpicking my words rather than any concerted attempt to analyse or explore the actual schemes.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 21, 2020)

I can’t find the comment now but someone made a point along the lines of “if you want to live in suburbia or somewhere rural then go live there” which completely misses the point of why some (many?) of us choose to live in Brixton / zone 2 London.

the further you go from zone 2 London the worse your transport options become. Worse public transport, even less provision for cycling and walking . It’s one of the few places in the UK where there is real potential to live and very very rarely need to use a car. The opposite is true - if you want to live somewhere that requires you to drive even sub 1mile trips and where no one will think that’s unacceptable move to the country.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 21, 2020)

Yes, it's weird to call it suburbanisation.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> You've lost me.
> 
> 'impermeable' = 'closing it as a through route for people going somewhere else'        That's how the word is being used, in line with the dictionary definition.
> 
> I said nothing about 'banned'.


I took it to mean along with your talk of gated communities etc and only certain motorists invited in that there was some restrictions on who could drive in or what parts they can get to. There isn't.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I can’t find the comment now but someone made a point along the lines of “if you want to live in suburbia or somewhere rural then go live there” which completely misses the point of why some (many?) of us choose to live in Brixton / zone 2 London.
> 
> the further you go from zone 2 London the worse your transport options become. Worse public transport, even less provision for cycling and walking . It’s one of the few places in the UK where there is real potential to live and very very rarely need to use a car. The opposite is true - if you want to live somewhere that requires you to drive even sub 1mile trips and where no one will think that’s unacceptable move to the country.


The only reason people move to Brixton is because they can get about without a car.  Gosh, I learn something new every day.  

The half million hits on 'brixton property vibrant' are no doubt dwarfed by searches along the lines of _'where can I live in the UK without a car'_ or '_where in zone 2 has good public transport and is more expensive than elsewhere_' and '_where in the UK can I live and be most judgemental about other people using cars_'.


ps, what's this '_very very rarely need to use a car_' about? You don't mean that 'need' is subjective do you?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't get what you mean. At the moment, a delivery driver shows up at an address. They deliver. They carry on somewhere else. I guess they can hang about in the area if they want; no one is going to stop them except maybe their employer. So, what changes? All that changes is that they might take a different route in and out. They are no more or less able to hang about, if they want to do that. There are no motorised users at all who are not "allowed in". Have you misunderstood how the thing works, or have I?



"Filtering" roads is increasing drop off times for delivery drivers I know. They arent paid more to compensate for this.

Its why impact assessment needs to be done. The reality of this country is a lot of delivery jobs are paid per drop not per hour.

"hanging about" is not something the drivers I know do. Most dont even get a proper time for lunch.


----------



## happyshopper (Jun 21, 2020)

Making car journeys take longer is a feature, not a bug.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> "Filtering" roads is increasing drop off times for delivery drivers I know. They arent paid more to compensate for this.
> 
> Its why impact assessment needs to be done. The reality of this country is a lot of delivery jobs are paid per drop not per hour.
> 
> "hanging about" is not something the drivers I know do. Most dont even get a proper time for lunch.


The solution to delivery companies not paying their drivers properly is not to design streets around what allows the maximum drop offs per hour.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The solution to delivery companies not paying their drivers properly is not to design streets around what allows the maximum drop offs per hour.



This is where I agree with newbie. The impact of schemes like this on section of the less well off population aren't considered.

Its not considered relevant.


----------



## Winot (Jun 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> There's plenty of stuff you- and other advocates- have been virtually silent about.  teuchter has at least attempted to engage on some of it.


OK brief thoughts below:



> Why not actually explore the imposition of far-reaching social policy with the sparse consultation so heavily loaded?



I agree that the consultation could have been better. Hopefully consultation after the event will be helpful to ironing out any implementation problems. 



> The material rewards for groups of (what I'm calling) 'insiders' (many very well off, many unlikely to be here for very long) and lack of reward for others.



Disagree with your premise. Air pollution kills thousands a year in London and disproportionately effects low income households. 



> The increased burden along the arteries.



Not inevitable. See traffic evaporation discussion. I know you are sceptical. We will have to see.



> The express intention of excluding 'outsiders' unless they behave in approved ways.



Hyperbolic nonsense. The scheme effects drivers of motor vehicles not 'outsiders'. The ANPR camera cannot distinguish between the barrister from Dulwich and the decorator from Sydenham.



> How economic, social and culural class is played out in these schemes.



Well that is a huge topic and I cannot hope to do it justice here. Suffice to say that I do not believe that a solution to the structural problems of society that is dependent on maintaining present inner city motor vehicle usage is either sustainable or equitable.



> How desirable policy outcomes are to be achieved by explicitly reducing transport network resilience and increasing traveller frustration, alienation and marginalisation.



As noted above, it's a feature not a bug. We need to make (some) car journeys unattractive in order to reduce car usage.



> There's even the climate change implications of turning a 1 minute car journey into 9 minutes at a time when the roads are naturally quiet.



See traffic evaporation point above. Also Lambeth needs to plan for what happens when lockdown eases.


----------



## Winot (Jun 21, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I don't think residents are allowed to go through the gates at all. No one is apart from emergency services and selected utilities.



Ah OK I understand - thanks.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 21, 2020)

All this talk of 'outsiders' and 'insiders'. There is a whole bunch of stuff that non drivers are excluded from, whether in terms of space or activities. It's quite acutely on display at the moment where people with cars can enjoy day trips to the country and seaside and those without are literally confined to places within walking or cycling distance of their doorstep and indeed are "frustrated" in doing so by rapidly increasing levels of traffic and pollution. If you don't have a car you are excluded from many spaces and activities. There is nowhere you are excluded from if you have a car. You are not excluded from any pedestrian zones for example. It is your car that is excluded, not you. And absolutely no one is excluded from anywhere as a result of these liveable neighbourhood schemes.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2020)

Been looking at some of the comments on the Railton commonplace.

Looks like changes to Railton road are generally supported. Its had speeding traffic for years. So reducing cars using it as through route gets more support.

Shakespeare road- this is not supported.

Its divided the road. What is now termed Shakespeare road north has a lot of negative comments.

Like this:


> Particularly disgusted by Claire Holland in particular, and the other local councillors to a lesser extent, gleefully celebrating this on Twitter, arrogantly and insensitively ignoring the pain, anxiety and feelings of expulsion, disruption and lack of access this has caused us residents of the newly dubbed Shakespeare Road North. You have separated this community and increased social dislocation. For a LABOUR council, the complete disregard for its poorer members’ opinions and the effects it has on them is staggeringly arrogant and disappointing. You have the support of the millionaires row on Shakespeare Road south, so who cares about the scum on the north side eh?



On Shakespeare road north complaints about the skip lorry and Veolia depots. If the Council really wanted to do something these would be moved.

People in SRN don't feel they have been consulted. This scheme was put in place quickly with little notice.

So reducing traffic in Railton road is good idea. The Council didnt think about doing something to temporarily reduce traffic on Atlantic road  where more space is needed for shoppers as part of this. This is imo a mistake. Given that reason for road alterations with little consultation is the pandemic and need for social distancing. This would be extension of the Railton road filtering through Atlantic road to junction with Brixton road.

Shakespeare road didnt need to be done at this time. Should have been left as it is. Until more time for consultation with Shakespeare road residents.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 21, 2020)

How did my “some (many?)” become 


newbie said:


> The only reason



?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> All this talk of 'outsiders' and 'insiders'. There is a whole bunch of stuff that non drivers are excluded from, whether in terms of space or activities. It's quite acutely on display at the moment where people with cars can enjoy day trips to the country and seaside and those without are literally confined to places within walking or cycling distance of their doorstep and indeed are "frustrated" in doing so by rapidly increasing levels of traffic and pollution. If you don't have a car you are excluded from many spaces and activities. There is nowhere you are excluded from if you have a car. You are not excluded from any pedestrian zones for example. It is your car that is excluded, not you. And absolutely no one is excluded from anywhere as a result of these liveable neighbourhood schemes.



There are outsiders and insiders. Outsiders want to get through the area. Insiders (which include motorists and non motorists) want the area to be more livable. As much as cyclists quote livability, they seem generally happy with through cycle routes. Interest on these boards does seem to stop there. It is notable that none of the posters arguing against consultation actually live in the areas affected.

The St Matthews project does not deliver on livability. I think sleaterkinney mentioned streets being safe for children to play and busy polluting roads being stopped as big advantages of these schemes. On pollution, St Matthews homes remain sandwiched between two main arterial roads - Effra Road and Brixton Hill. The reduction in pollution from through traffic on St Matthews will be entirely negligible. Yes I think those rat runners will be forced onto the main roads but they are so small in number that it will make bugger all difference to the main roads. On kids playing in streets, the remaining roads service over 300 homes. They are 200m long straight stretches. Council officers use it as a free car park and there are no turning areas. It is possible that a handful of nuisance through vehicles will have been got rid of but it is no closer to achieving some sort of safe family friendly zone. So we have a scheme to aid cyclist passing through which really does not deliver all that much for the people who live in it. And it could have done. If locals had been properly consulted.



Winot said:


> I agree that the consultation could have been better. Hopefully consultation after the event will be helpful to ironing out any implementation problems.



Hopefully. But the evidence suggests otherwise. Consultation has not improved in years. It has only become worse. Lambeth will have the usual lack of resources and skills and focus will be on the next big project. I'll be delighted to be proven wrong in the near future.


----------



## Big Bertha (Jun 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> This is where I agree with newbie. The impact of schemes like this on section of the less well off population aren't considered.
> 
> Its not considered relevant.


It will have a positive impact on their ability to breathe.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2020)

Big Bertha said:


> It will have a positive impact on their ability to breathe.



Go away. Dont need your trolling here.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> Making car journeys take longer is a feature, not a bug.



for sure, that's simply another way of putting what I said yesterday " increasing frustration is the explicit aim, not some sort of byproduct. "


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2020)

Winot said:


> OK brief thoughts below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whe you say iron out problems of implementation what do you mean?  Looks to me the Shakespeare road part of project is not supported. The Railton road part is. So would it be fair to say that after this trial period that if the Shakespeare road is stil not supported then its dropped?

Air pollution is better controlled by bringing ULEZ. Move to electric vehicles. If that is main aim of Liveable Neighbouurhood. Especially apply this to the Skip lorries and dustcarts on Shakespeare road.

I live on CHL this scheme is likely to put more traffic on my road. There are going to be winners and losers on these schemes.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

Winot said:


> OK brief thoughts below:


Thankyou.  You're right, brief,  in fact so brief there's little to grasp, but I'll pick up on the bits I've quoted.



> Air pollution kills thousands a year in London and disproportionately effects low income households.



Air pollution is indeed very important.  So too, I suggest is personal mobility.  Seeking to curb the latter to cure the former, right now, when electric vehicles are coming onstream in bulk, well, it's baby and bathwater isn't it, unless you're ideologically committed to stopping other people doing their thing for reasons other than air quality.

You'd have far more impact on air quality by banning, or restricting, SUVs (something like 40 times as many sold last year as EVs, despite being more expensive).  Round here there's little or no excuse for them, except as status symbols and because their wide wheelbase negotiates humps in comfort.  So put in humps with a single central gap rather than one either side.  Or chicanes. Or width restrictions.  Increase parking fees for vehicles over a certain footprint, increase incentives for EVs.  

Low income households don't tend to own SUVs, but living directly on the main artery streets is not something people with better economic choices tend to do, it's more likely to be those on limited resources..  




> Hyperbolic nonsense. The scheme effects drivers of motor vehicles not 'outsiders'. The ANPR camera cannot distinguish between the barrister from Dulwich and the decorator from Sydenham.


The trades class are of course allowed in, because, like delivery drivers, they provide a useful service.  Do barristers do home visits?  Or are they the friends and peer group of residents I've mentioned a number of times.  Outsiders aren't residents, invited or useful, they're those who have no direct reason to be driving in a particular street, they're simply using it as a thoroughfare.  




> Well that is a huge topic and I cannot hope to do it justice here. Suffice to say that I do not believe that a solution to the structural problems of society that is dependent on maintaining present inner city motor vehicle usage is either sustainable or equitable.



This scheme will increase structural inequality, materially reward fortunate homeowners and landlords, disadvantage various identifiable groups I've already mentioned, unevenly spread air quality benefits andincrease marginalisation and alienation of for those caught in the feature not bug aspect.  it doesn't have to be like that.  The scheme proponent starting assumptions take no account of widespread social factors, concentrating on narrowly defined benefits which just happen to contribute to gentrification. Pure chance, of course.



> As noted above, it's a feature not a bug. We need to make (some) car journeys unattractive in order to reduce car usage.


Dealt with above, but which 'we' defines 'some'?   Please unpick that one for me, or the similar  '_very very rarely need to use a car_' question above that @thebackrow has ignored.


> See traffic evaporation point above.


Is this back to pretending evaporation is close to 100%?



> Also Lambeth needs to plan for what happens when lockdown eases.


They do, widening pavements, better segregated cycling provision, more buses (and probably, a major bus redesign if this goes on for long) and other measures will all contribute. 

 How does forcing traffic out of gentrified backstreets and onto arteries combat the virus?


----------



## alex_ (Jun 21, 2020)

Winot said:


> Yes I can see that if you specifically register for that purpose then it’s fine. But has anyone seen any announcements to do so?
> 
> Wouldn’t your ‘in and out’ exclusion mean that it wouldn’t catch drivers who drove straight through? Unless there was a separate database of delivery drivers.



is it possible to drive straight through though ?


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The Council didnt think about doing something to temporarily reduce traffic on Atlantic road  where more space is needed for shoppers as part of this. This is imo a mistake. Given that reason for road alterations with little consultation is the pandemic and need for social distancing. This would be extension of the Railton road filtering through Atlantic road to junction with Brixton road.


We've disagreed about this loads of times and I'm very, very reluctant to delve into AR yet again, because it's always been so intractable.  But I've been working on the assumption that one of the objectives (and positives) of the RR scheme is that it will reduce, possibly even remove, the pressure on AR.   It's certainly bold... I've always said there's no realistic alternative to the market stretch of AR for traffic coming along Railton. ISTM that solving that problem is part of the logic behind forcing all through traffic onto the Dulwich/Effra roads route or onto Milkwood.  

Better (or some) traffic forecast modelling and impact assessments would have helped illustrate all this of course.  We'll see what happens but I really intend not to get drawn into the details of AR/top of CHL yet again.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 21, 2020)

alex_ said:


> is it possible to drive straight through though ?


Yes. It's just a narrowed road with no entry signs. Cars have been driving through the St Matthew's one all week. There is no ANPR yet. The Railton ones need to be large enough to allow the bus to go through.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 21, 2020)

No sign of the Railton closures yet. It was chaos out there earlier today.


----------



## newbie (Jun 21, 2020)

Rushy said:


> So we have a scheme to aid cyclist passing through which really does not deliver all that much for the people who live in it. And it could have done. If locals had been properly consulted.


As one of those cyclists I feel for you, as I've seldom had (or I hope caused) any problem there, that's why I like it.  I'm curious though, apart from the parking problem, what else would residents have hoped for?

ps the dead space gap between the two sets of signs is really odd.  has anyone explained why they'd do that in a street with parking pressure?  I really can see why you're aggrieved.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 21, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Yes. It's just a narrowed road with no entry signs. Cars have been driving through the St Matthew's one all week. There is no ANPR yet. The Railton ones need to be large enough to allow the bus to go through.



that’s ridiculous if it’s a through route people will drive through it


----------



## happyshopper (Jun 21, 2020)

Overstating a case doesn't help. A sense a community doesn't depend on the ability to drive a car down a particular road.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> We've disagreed about this loads of times and I'm very, very reluctant to delve into AR yet again, because it's always been so intractable.  But I've been working on the assumption that one of the objectives (and positives) of the RR scheme is that it will reduce, possibly even remove, the pressure on AR.   It's certainly bold... I've always said there's no realistic alternative to the market stretch of AR for traffic coming along Railton. ISTM that solving that problem is part of the logic behind forcing all through traffic onto the Dulwich/Effra roads route or onto Milkwood.
> 
> Better (or some) traffic forecast modelling and impact assessments would have helped illustrate all this of course.  We'll see what happens but I really intend not to get drawn into the details of AR/top of CHL yet again.



i know their is a discussion to be had. Its that on the grapevine Ive heard plans for Atantic road have been scaled back.

Im surprised that this stretch of Atlantic road has not be tested during the pandemic.

This is the photo of how Atlantic road would look like:

This is the original ideas:

About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood



Removing general traffic from Atlantic Road while maintaining local access
Priority access for cycles, buses and emergency services
More space for walking with widened pavements, safer crossing points and junctions

First stage of consultation has taken place for Loughborough, Railton and Ferndale. I cant see any updates on the Town Centre area.

Its partly me thinking Brixton BID is going to get the say on Town Centre. Without a lot of consultation with residents.

Initially the Atlantic road section of the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood was the cornerstone of the project. 

My interest is also that the consultation on the Good Growth Fund for Brixton Station road and Rec is sort of being done now. And that one aspect of the Town Centre bit of the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood was that there should be some joined up thinking on these separately funded projects.


----------



## Winot (Jun 21, 2020)

alex_ said:


> that’s ridiculous if it’s a through route people will drive through it



Well they are turning it into a no-through route. Once the cameras are working drivers will be fined.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 21, 2020)

On Atlantic rd there was massive kickback about reducing car parking so taking the car out of it altogether will not go down well.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> On Atlantic rd there was massive kickback about reducing car parking so taking the car out of it altogether will not go down well.



I heard something like that on the grapevine.

I can't find anything about scaling it down or any info on what consultation has been done on that section of the scheme on the commonplace website. After all it was going to be the centre piece of the overall scheme. It was a reason the Council BID to TFL was successful.

So my concern is that unofficially Brixton BID and Council have decided this.

If it is the case the Council should be be straignt up with people and say if it has been scaled down.

Its my problem with Council schemes. There is consultation and unofficial consultation/ decision making. This was supposed to be transparent consultation process with everything on the common place website.

The Council may surprise me and Im wrong. Its that past experience gives me a bad feeling about this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> On Atlantic rd there was massive kickback about reducing car parking so taking the car out of it altogether will not go down well.







__





						Interesting comment on Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood
					

Street. This is an awful stretch of road. The priority seems to be to get cars from A to B as fast as possible.   The pavements are too narrow with shoppers, traders, commuters etc jostling for space and having to step into oncoming traffic. The underpass towards the rec is dark, smelly and...




					brixtonlnmap.commonplace.is
				




I went back to the original commonplace consultation and found a load of comments on the stretch of Atlantic road in the market area.

Nearly all say pavements to narrow, the bus is held up in the traffic, lot want it to be car free. With space for bus, pedestrians and cyclists.

A lot of comments on the poor interchange between the overground and underground at peak times.

This chimes with what I think of that stretch of road.

These were comments by people who use the street.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 22, 2020)

alex_ said:


> that’s ridiculous if it’s a through route people will drive through it



Something similar was done at Stockwell by the Tube entrance. Drivers get the message after a while and stop entering it.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's strange what they have chosen to use their emergency powers to push through. Surely Atlantic would have been an obvious choice with real and immediate benefits compared to St Matthews.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's actually dangerous, that stretch of road, but if you want arguments about edgyness and gentrification etc then changing that road would do it x 10.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 22, 2020)

I'd like to come back to newbie's post here from a week or so back, because I didn't have the time then to respond to it properly. And I'm going to try and do this without quoting bits of it and getting bogged down in specific points too much.

Perhaps we can start out on what we agree - that pollution, noise, congestion and danger are problems that need to be solved, and they need to be dealt with quite urgently. And I think we both think this should be done through methods that try to address inequality rather than make it worse.

newbie's view seems to be that the livable neighbourhood concept exacerbates structural inequality by creating a preferable environment for those living inside one of those zones compared to those outside of it.

A point about terminology - I am not going to go along with calling them "impermeable" neighbourhoods because that's not what they are. They have reduced permeability for motor traffic but increased permeability for pedestrians and cycles. The correct technical term, I think, is "filtered permeability". But I am going to go with "livable neighbourhood" for the purposes of this post. And what that means is: no part of the neighbourhood becomes inaccessible by car, but the routes through it are restricted, and the aim is to reduce the amount of traffic using streets within the zone to get between places outside of the zone.

So, back to the inequality issues. One is that traffic is displaced to main roads, and that the people who live on those roads are likely to the less well off. My answer to that doesn't just rely on the "traffic evaporation" theory, it is that by progressively adding more and more livable neighbourhoods, the overall amount of motor traffic in the city drops, and in the longer term that means improvements for everyone including those who live on the main roads.

Another is the idea that making somewhere a livable neighbourhood improves living conditions within that neighbourhood, at the expense of other neighbourhoods. Well, the point is to make living conditions better in that neighbourhood. If people see that people living inside one of these zones have things better, then surely the right response is to ask that their neighbourhood can have the same - not reject the concept. Of course there would be a problem if these schemes were only being applied to well-to-do neighborhoods, but I don't think that's the case. The "Railton" neighbourhood, for example, is not the only neighbourhood that is included in this batch of Brixton-based ones.

Then there is what I find the most hand-wavy of newbie's objections, which is to do with what seems to be a notion that the traffic controls disproportionately affect the least economically privileged. This is something to do with frustrating the desire of working class people to be able to drive around their local area freely. I find it hard to reconcile this with what statistics we have, which shows that car ownership in London is pretty strongly correlated with wealth. Basically I don't really accept it.

But anyway, I can attempt to understand newbie's proposed alternative approach in that context. That alternative approach involves things like extending the CC and low emission zones, road rationing, restrictions on engine size, a different way of allocating parking. In fact I'd agree with nearly all of these things - but I am not sure they would work on their own. I think the basic idea here is that you apply a strategy to London overall, one that is focused on somehow reducing car usage overall, but one that doesn't do the thing which the livable neighbourhoods do, which is dis-incentivising those short-medium range journeys between adjacent or nearly-adjacent neighbourhoods.

Because the strategy has to reduce overall traffic levels, in order to achieve the outcomes that we can both agree on, it must have to rely on massively reducing some other kind of journeys instead. What are they? Are they people commuting from outer London into the centre or near-centre? There's some level of that goes on, after all the livable neighbourhoods try and stop those kind of journeys using residential streets by removing those tempting cut throughs that avoid main roads and traffic lights and so on. But what proportion of the traffic is this, actually? (that statistic might be out there sonewhere, I'm not sure)

My basic question is, if certain types of journeys must not be "frustrated" for fear that they disproportionately disadvantage London's working class population, then what are the journeys that do need to be targetted instead and how do the alternative proposals achieve that? How, for example does extending the CC zone target these journeys without putting restrictions on the ones that must not be "frustrated"? Is the idea that if you're inside the CC zone, you can do what you want, and the restrictions are heavily weighted onto people who want to drive into that zone from outside? How do we know this would have any significant effect? Is there data that shows most of the traffic going up and down Brixton Hill is in fact people who have driven in from outside London, rather than people making internal journeys? That's not my understanding of London's traffic patterns - my understanding is that a substantial chunk of traffic is made up of people making relatively local journeys and journeys which would be perfectly feasible by other means.

It seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it - you want to reduce traffic and pollution and danger but without putting any restriction on the kind of journeys that make up that traffic.

It just simply does not work, to try and reduce traffic levels without restricting people in what journeys they can make.

The only alternative is to change the infrastructure so that everyone can have a car and use it as they wish - you can make sure that everyone, of every economic class has somewhere affordable to park that car and use it freely, and you can attempt to make sure that they can use it without causing too much local pollution. So you have low density housing, you have sprawling residential areas and then you have some main roads which you try and shield from the housing areas, you make them dual carriageways to make sure there's plenty of capacity and maybe have wide areas of land each side of them as buffer zones for noise and pollution. This is a kind of town planning we've already tried of course - it's called suburbia. This is why it's bizarre to describe these livable neighbourhoods as suburbanisation.

It just doesn't work somewhere like Brixton - it's literally impossible to let everyone have freedom to drive as they wish, unfrustrated by restrictions (unless you knock down a load of housing, which is what would have happened had the inner ring road gone ahead some decades ago).

As far as I can see, it's inevitable that you have to target local and semi-local car journeys if you want to reduce traffic levels.

The livable neighbourhood idea can achieve that. It has in its favour that (a) it is politically on the table at the moment and (b) you can implement it incrementally. Those two things make it pragmatically viable right now. That's why I support the concept in principle.

I don't see any alternatives on offer just now, and I also don't really see any theoretical alternatives that on their own would (a) reduce traffic sufficiently and (b) not involve "frustrating" local or semi-local car journeys.

For example, I quite like a lot of aspects of the "road rationing" concept. You decide the amount of overall traffic you want on the roads and then you divide that up between everyone equally. And then people who decide not to use their allowance can sell it to others. However people end up distributing it amongst themselves, in theory at least you know there's a maximum level of traffic that will result. But looking at this from a structural equality point of view, how does it produce a better outcome than what we have at the moment or what might be produced by a widespread livable neighbourhoods implementation? I don't see how it would be much different - the bulk of the allowance would end up in the hands of the better off, because they could afford to buy it up. Maybe you could make it non-tradeable - you get your allowance and you either use it or you don't. But then you are giving away something that only certain people can benefit from - the people who can afford to own a car, and the people who are able to drive in the first place. You are giving away a public good (street space or air quality for example) but you are not sharing it out equally - only the people that can use a car benefit from them. Which is much what we have at the moment - the people that mostly benefit from them are both a minority of the resident population and a portion of it heavily skewed to the most wealthy.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's actually dangerous, that stretch of road, but if you want arguments about edgyness and gentrification etc then changing that road would do it x 10.



Why would I want arguments about edginess and gentrification?


----------



## Winot (Jun 22, 2020)

You've touched on this in your final paragraph, but just to underline that well-off drivers can buy their way out of all of the things listed below as part of the alternative approach: 



teuchter said:


> extending the CC and low emission zones, road rationing, restrictions on engine size, a different way of allocating parking.



by paying the congestion charge, paying for a new low emission car (e.g. an EV), buying a second smaller car for urban driving and paying high parking charges.  

The beauty of schemes which restrict access is that the rich cannot just pay extra to avoid them. They are far more progressive than the other approaches listed.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'd like to come back to newbie's post here from a week or so back, because I didn't have the time then to respond to it properly. And I'm going to try and do this without quoting bits of it and getting bogged down in specific points too much.
> 
> Perhaps we can start out on what we agree - that pollution, noise, congestion and danger are problems that need to be solved, and they need to be dealt with quite urgently. And I think we both think this should be done through methods that try to address inequality rather than make it worse.
> 
> ...



So what happens when a local community decides it does not want to be part of a "liveable neighborhood". 

Or it wants parts of it and not others? As is looking likely in Railton?

What you haven't dealt with is how its decided.

If this is to be done incrementally through the Liveable neighbourhood concept using consultation its imo likely that some but not all road "filtering" will be accepted.

Getting community engagement and agreement is big part of how Council/ TFL say they want to do this.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Why would I want arguments about edginess and gentrification?


I was speaking generally.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So what happens when a local community decides it does not want to be part of a "liveable neighborhood".
> 
> Or it wants parts of it and not others? As is looking likely in Railton?
> 
> ...


It'll get implemented in a patchy and messy way, like the way most things happen in practice. That in my view will still be better than basically nothing of substance changing in the near future, which is the realistic alternative.

There may be some places where there is sufficient opposition and/or sufficient council incompetence that it fails, like what happened in LJ. There will be some places that it succeeds. In many ways I think the best way to persuade people that it's a good idea is to let them see what other neighbourhoods, the early adopters if you like, are actually like post implementation. I think that is one way to reduce fears about what will actually happen as a result.

The 20mph limit got implemented throughout London in a haphazard way - it certainly wasn't ideal at all, but eventually we have got to a point where it'll be London-wide. Getting there that way was better than never getting there at all.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> What you haven't dealt with is how its decided.



Indeed.  One approach would be to see who shouts the loudest (while I'm not denying there are definitely some very unhappy people on Shakespeare Road north of the Railway Bridge, none of us have any real way of knowing if there is unanimity of all the residents in opposition or if it's just a  small, but very vocal, minority).*

Another would be for an 'expert' to look at the borough as a whole and determine what the function of each road should be so as to provide safely for all traffic types and create a network that works best for the borough as a whole.  That seems to be the intention of Lambeth's Low Traffic Neighbourhood Plan (Looks like a final version but who knows given can't find the outbound link) - https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/streathamhilllowtrafficneighbourhoodproposals/TSIP Appendix B Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Plan.pdf  where theres a grid of different street types.

That seems to tie up with them defining 'Healthy Routes' where walking and cycling are prioritised.  If you're going to say that Shakespeare Road IS NOT going to be the healthy route between Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction, and the residents there have overwhelmingly decided that they instead they want to live on the 'main' route for motor traffic, then I suppose Lambeth could look at swapping some of the functions.

There seemed to be some of that sort of choice offered to Loughborough Junction in the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood pages.  eg along the lines of "We need to make it safe for walking and cycling through the Loughbourough Estate.  You could have a low traffic neighbourhood with lots of improvements across the area OR we could put protected cycle tracks on Barrington Road (which would eat up all the budget so there wouldn't be an improvements made more widely)".

COVID has detroyed TFLs finances so who knows if any of the fancy schemes will ever be funded now.  At the moment 'quick and cheap' is all thats on offer.

* general rule seems to be that for  most things the majority pretty much shrug their shoulders and are fairly 'whatever' and then a minority strongly in favour and another strongly opposed.  Council elections typically have a turnout of less than 30%. Make of that what you will


----------



## Big Bertha (Jun 22, 2020)

Quick & cheap is better than endless consultations followed by no action


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 22, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Indeed.  One approach would be to see who shouts the loudest (while I'm not denying there are definitely some very unhappy people on Shakespeare Road north of the Railway Bridge, none of us have any real way of knowing if there is unanimity of all the residents in opposition or if it's just a  small, but very vocal, minority).*
> 
> Another would be for an 'expert' to look at the borough as a whole and determine what the function of each road should be so as to provide safely for all traffic types and create a network that works best for the borough as a whole.  That seems to be the intention of Lambeth's Low Traffic Neighbourhood Plan (Looks like a final version but who knows given can't find the outbound link) - https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/streathamhilllowtrafficneighbourhoodproposals/TSIP Appendix B Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Plan.pdf  where theres a grid of different street types.
> 
> ...



This does comes across as saying society would be better if it was run by experts. A Technocracy. Not corrupt but a civil service educated to run and plan society.  Most people would shrug their shoulders and accept it. People don't vote and aren't that interested as long as things tick along.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In many ways I think the best way to persuade people that it's a good idea is to let them see what other neighbourhoods, the early adopters if you like, are actually like post implementation. I think that is one way to reduce fears about what will actually happen as a result.



I don't disagree with this. All the more reason to make sure the early schemes are models of cooperation and consent, reflecting local needs and ambitions rather than something dreamed up in an office as being good for the ungrateful and unsophisticated residents.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 22, 2020)

newbie said:


> As one of those cyclists I feel for you, as I've seldom had (or I hope caused) any problem there, that's why I like it.  I'm curious though, apart from the parking problem, what else would residents have hoped for?
> 
> ps the dead space gap between the two sets of signs is really odd.  has anyone explained why they'd do that in a street with parking pressure?  I really can see why you're aggrieved.


Interestingly, St Matthews is pretty self sufficient parking-wise. The estates as well as a number of the privates homes have a lot of off street parking. It could cope with far less on road parking space if it were not for becoming the car park for Your New Car Free Town Hall. Apart from ending the use of the residential street as a car park for Your New Car Free Town Hall (and others), I would actually welcome a scheme which genuinely improved livability. I'd be happy for cars to be deprioritised and slowed and separated from pedestrians and other pedestrian uses (such as playing). What has been proposed does not do that at all. Even a one way single lane street with small areas of perpendicular parking (for example). Actually I think something like the dead space between the gates could be a positive feature outside the residents hall, if properly thought through. Given that some residents no longer have any option but to use a sometimes dangerous junction onto a red route, I'd improve that junction. Or close that junction instead of the middle of the road. All illustrations to answer your question, rather than concrete ideas.

More than aggrieved, I am fed up. Having been a real enthusiast for working with the council when I first moved here, I am utterly jaded. Does it show?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 22, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I don't disagree with this. All the more reason to make sure the early schemes are models of cooperation and consent, reflecting local needs and ambitions rather than something dreamed up in an office as being good for the ungrateful and unsophisticated residents.


I'm all ears for the things we can do that will result in Lambeth engaging in a meaningful process of consultation that takes proper account of local needs and ambitions. Me I've attended and tried to contribute to various consultation evenings the results of which never appear. I've voted for councillors who aren't part of the sitting administration. I try and post up info about any of these schemes on here so that as many people as possible get to see them and express their toughts, which is why I started this thread. I've no idea really what can be done to change what seems to be an embedded organisational culture of incompetence and inaccountability. I do have some faith that somewhere in the system there are people who have done their homework and have genuine intentions to improve stuff, transport wise, for all sections of the population. I don't assume they hold residents' opinions as unsophisticated or irrelevant. I imagine they are trying to do stuff in spite of Lambeth's clunking processes, not exploiting those processes to push ill considered agendas. Maybe that's just because I'm naively biased in my judgements as a result of the general driving principle being one that I think is the right one. 

I don't have any doubt that the St Matthews one could be much better implemented - I've not made any comment on the specific design of it. It's a bit of an oddball one as you point out, and in terms of the details of what would work best, your opinion will be much better informed than mine. 

As for the dead spaces between the gates there and anywhere else... An obvious use that ocurred to me would be to stick in a bunch of those cycle hangars which provide very affordable storage space and are completely oversubscribed with waiting lists of hundreds or thousands of local residents. But also, as this is supposedly at a trial stage I can see why you might want to put anything too fixed yet.


----------



## newbie (Jun 23, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'd like to come back to newbie's post here from a week or so back,






Thanks for an interesting post.  I can't quote it in full, too many characters, even so  I'm not sure I've done it justice.  There are points of agreement, there are points of terminology, and there are points where we diverge.

It is indeed the only plan on the table, and that matters.  In a different context the Hostile Environment is the only...   Point being about input assumptions and outcome objectives, whose interests are served, who gets to choose and who has that choice inflicted on them.   Implementing a poor plan, with neither proper consideration nor adequate scrutiny, and without properly consulting those at the sharp end isn't a great idea, whether it's the only plan on offer or not.  I'm not going to labour the point, today is Windrush Day I hope a simple but imprecise analogy isn't going to cause a huge side track..

I'm sure "livable neighbourhood" is a preferred term, from the perspective of the inside resident as well as campaigners and consultants, ; it's only those seeking motorised mobility who'll see the area as impermeable.  'Livable' is necessarily viewed from the resident perspective... somewhere upthread Blenheim Gardens estate was offered as an example of livable, car free conditions.  It occurred to me afterwards that of course some years after it was built up popped these signs.

So 'livable' is defined by and for those on the inside, and can change over time.  For motorised outsiders "_the right response is to ask that their neighbourhood can have the same_",  rather than notice that planters or No Through Road signs plonked on the streets make them impermeable. Or perhaps unwelcoming. The genteel postcode gang analogy isn't that far off.  Terminology matters.



It's perfectly good to describe the suburbs in terms of dual carriageways, buffer zones and sprawling low density housing, until you start to wonder if those are the aspects of suburban living that some access restrictions might introduce into the innercity. Was that really what you think I meant in contrasting the vibrant innercity with suburbia?   Bizarre indeed. Another perception of the suburbs might be of peaceful, quiet dormitory streets more or less unused except during the daily migrations, interspersed with bustling arteries that all traffic inevitably oozes onto.    'Peace and quiet' is the predominant sentiment from the Victorian streets, as expressed on the pins- the complaints are about speed, noise, danger, the proposed solution less traffic. The clear vision is 'peace and quiet', buffered from the vibrant bustle. If 'suburban' isn't an adequate description, You could suggest something better.

I can't prove it but I have a notion the same charge, attempted suburbanisation, was made in one of the church bell/noisy pub disputes where strident incomers tried to change old local habits.  In cases like that most people laugh at them.

Pollution- the benefit for all most often cited on this thread- is certainly mentioned on the pins, but it's almost as background as climate change in the hierarchy of resident complaints. I'm hesitant to suggest that pollution is being used as cover, but in the campaigning it's a far more prominent argument than on the pins.  Interestingly this is happening just as electric cars are coming of age and diesel is much less of a factor.  In a few years time the pollution argument will have significantly less force.

Car ownership keeps being mentioned.  Am I the only one who notes that outside the rush hour the clear majority of cars moving around the backstreets have cab stickers in the window? I guess most car owners have moral highground, non car owning mates who twitch if their cab takes more than 3 minutes to arrive.  The whole point of me repeatedly mentioning Uber and Zip is that ownership isn't particularly meaningful any more. Peer to peer carhire is growing too, they don't have stickers I don't think.




> my understanding is that a substantial chunk of traffic is made up of people making relatively local journeys and journeys which would be perfectly feasible by other means.



The short journey chunk: sure y'all want to stop them, yet my repeated questions about who defines which journeys don't 'need' to be made remains unanswered.  You just restate that they're all '_perfectly feasible by other means_'.

Is taking kids out acceptable, even if taking them to/from school isn't?  Or the elderly?  Going to and from work? Dropping off stuff?  Visiting someone? Running someone home or to the tube?  Carrying tools, equipment, materials for work? Travelling laterally across South London?  What about supermarket shopping, you want to frustrate people from using their own car, so should they use a cab or or book a delivery truck slot instead, or is everyone supposed to walk or cycle?  Everyone, undifferentiated by age, ability, confidence?  Who decides this stuff? You, apparently, by blanket increase in frustration. Because you don't approve and you know that the journey would be perfectly feasible by other means.

Yet despite my prompting you don't mention enormous SUVs with huge engines, and only in passing note those who choose to work tens of miles from where they live, taking advantage of both higher London wages and cheaper country/suburban living and who drive through where we live twice a day. Commuters are a 'chunk' of London traffic for wehich, IMHO, there is little excuse.   You also don't mention all the vans delivering online purchases either, Amazon, Waitrose, vegbox, ebay or Tesco they're such an obvious 'chunk' that's relatively recent and keeps increasing year on year.



> As far as I can see, it's inevitable that you have to target local and semi-local car journeys if you want to reduce traffic levels.



I'm not sure which 'you' that is, but it's not me. The whole point about backstreets like St Matthews Rd is that, parking aside, they're of no use or interest to the vast majority of commuters, they're used by and for  locals as thoroughfares, to get about when the arteries are in use by heavier and/or longer distance users and buses.

So no, the scheme doesn't 'have' to target locals.

You're fairly honest that your fundamentalist objective is to ban cars, that personal mobility isn't something you personally value and you don't think others should either (despite clear evidence that they do).  That your personal age, health and interests can be accommodated without a car so everyone else's should too. I get that, it's a reasonable if extreme position, but I'm not clear why it's just the local 'chunk' of the overall traffic you want to target.



> *Of course there would be a problem if these schemes were only being applied to well-to-do neighborhoods*



Of course there would.  We are agreed.



> but I don't think that's the case.


Oh!  There are BLN neighbourhoods that aren't well to do?  Where are they?

That's the closest you get to mentioning gentrification.  It's like when thebackrow accused me of '_generic smears_' for daring to mention that this might reward current genteel owner occupiers and give landlords an opportunity to put rents up. It's like you want to pretend it's possible to discuss any aspect of social policy in Brixton over the last couple of decades without referencing gentrification and social cleansing.


----------



## newbie (Jun 23, 2020)

Rushy said:


> More than aggrieved, I am fed up. Having been a real enthusiast for working with the council when I first moved here, I am utterly jaded. Does it show?


I'm shocked and surprised.  I've known plenty of people dip their toes into local politics and/or try to influence the council, and they've all been entirely unscathed by the experience.  Entirely.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 23, 2020)

newbie said:


> I'm shocked and surprised.  I've known plenty of people dip their toes into local politics and/or try to influence the council, and they've all been entirely unscathed by the experience.  Entirely.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 23, 2020)

I've had to split this over three posts:



newbie said:


> Thanks for an interesting post.  I can't quote it in full, too many characters, even so  I'm not sure I've done it justice.  There are points of agreement, there are points of terminology, and there are points where we diverge.
> 
> It is indeed the only plan on the table, and that matters.  In a different context the Hostile Environment is the only...   Point being about input assumptions and outcome objectives, whose interests are served, who gets to choose and who has that choice inflicted on them.   Implementing a poor plan, with neither proper consideration nor adequate scrutiny, and without properly consulting those at the sharp end isn't a great idea, whether it's the only plan on offer or not.  I'm not going to labour the point, today is Windrush Day I hope a simple but imprecise analogy isn't going to cause a huge side track..



Put bluntly, I just don't have the energy to write out why I think it's an invalid analogy.



newbie said:


> I'm sure "livable neighbourhood" is a preferred term, from the perspective of the inside resident as well as campaigners and consultants, ; it's only those seeking motorised mobility who'll see the area as impermeable.  'Livable' is necessarily viewed from the resident perspective... somewhere upthread Blenheim Gardens estate was offered as an example of livable, car free conditions.  It occurred to me afterwards that of course some years after it was built up popped these signs.


View attachment 218965


- Nowhere will you find me saying that there are no problems with bicycle/pedestrian interaction. Anyone designing something like Blenheim Gardens (where motor vehicles and pedestrians are completely segregated) needs to think about providing routes for cyclists so that they do not have an excuse for using routes that are intended for pedestrians. But a zone of Victorian streets converted to a "livable neighbourhood" is completely different - you already have a segregation between road and pavement. Why do many cyclists go on the pavement? Because they don't feel safe on the road. Remove the busy motor traffic from the roadway and they no longer have an excuse nor motivation to go on the pavement.



newbie said:


> So 'livable' is defined by and for those on the inside, and can change over time.  For motorised outsiders "_the right response is to ask that their neighbourhood can have the same_",  rather than notice that planters or No Through Road signs plonked on the streets make them impermeable. Or perhaps unwelcoming. The genteel postcode gang analogy isn't that far off.  Terminology matters.



- You misquote me. I said: _If people see that people living inside one of these zones have things better, then surely the right response is to ask that their neighbourhood can have the same - not reject the concept. _There is a crucial "if" at the start of the sentence. Nor do I say anything about "motorised outsiders". I am talking about people living in other areas, whether they are car users or not, who think that a livable neighbourhood scheme seems to have improved things for people inside it. If they think that planters or no through signs look "unwelcoming", then that's what they think. I don't think most people have that reaction. Maybe I am wrong, and a lot of people find some plants, and a street without loads of speeding cars on it threatening and unwelcoming.




newbie said:


> It's perfectly good to describe the suburbs in terms of dual carriageways, buffer zones and sprawling low density housing, until you start to wonder if those are the aspects of suburban living that some access restrictions might introduce into the innercity. Was that really what you think I meant in contrasting the vibrant innercity with suburbia?   Bizarre indeed. Another perception of the suburbs might be of peaceful, quiet dormitory streets more or less unused except during the daily migrations, interspersed with bustling arteries that all traffic inevitably oozes onto.    'Peace and quiet' is the predominant sentiment from the Victorian streets, as expressed on the pins- the complaints are about speed, noise, danger, the proposed solution less traffic. The clear vision is 'peace and quiet', buffered from the vibrant bustle. If 'suburban' isn't an adequate description, You could suggest something better.



I don't think that this will create "dormitory streets more or less unused except during the daily migrations". Yes, that may be what you see in suburbia, where people's routines are much more likely to be car centric, and much more likely to separate where they come home largely to sleep, and where they go for work, entertainment or socialising. Somewhere like Brixton is not like that at all - people are much more likely to be walking to the shop or the bus stop or the tube or the pub or the cinema. Reducing motor traffic does not stop people doing this - if anything it encourages them to do this. Honestly, I don't see how anyone who knows Brixton can believe it's likely that somewhere like Railton Road is going to become some kind of dead zone as a result of a reduction in traffic. I've said it elsewhere, but one of the really visible things during "peak lockdown" was that more people were doing things like sitting out on their doorsteps. In my immediate locality there are people that I now recognise because I've nodded hello to them in passing them sitting in their front garden. Now the traffic is back, a lot of this has stopped again.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 23, 2020)

newbie said:


> I can't prove it but I have a notion the same charge, attempted suburbanisation, was made in one of the church bell/noisy pub disputes where strident incomers tried to change old local habits.  In cases like that most people laugh at them.


Whatever - I don't think it's analogous.



newbie said:


> Pollution- the benefit for all most often cited on this thread- is certainly mentioned on the pins, but it's almost as background as climate change in the hierarchy of resident complaints. I'm hesitant to suggest that pollution is being used as cover, but in the campaigning it's a far more prominent argument than on the pins.  Interestingly this is happening just as electric cars are coming of age and diesel is much less of a factor.  In a few years time the pollution argument will have significantly less force.



It gets a focus in campaigning because it's one of the things that you can get almost anyone to agree is a problem. For me it's important but not the only reason to reduce motor dominance. If people are mentioning other things, like social effects and misallocation of space, then that's good news, because these other more insidious effects are the ones that can be harder to persuade people are things that can be improved. EVs and reduction of diesel vehicles will help to reduce pollution, yes. They won't solve it, because internal combustion engines aren't the only source of pollution - it's been argued that they aren't even the main cause. And a reduction in pollution doesn't invalidate any of the other arguments for reducing car use.




newbie said:


> Car ownership keeps being mentioned.  Am I the only one who notes that outside the rush hour the clear majority of cars moving around the backstreets have cab stickers in the window? I guess most car owners have moral highground, non car owning mates who twitch if their cab takes more than 3 minutes to arrive.



Not something I especially notice about the cars round me. If I'm a moral highground person, well, I'd like to see more regulation of Uber et al, because excessive use can undermine public transport, especially when it is priced below cost because it's being subsidised by venture capital in a long-game effort to do exactly that - undermine public transport. I refuse to have the Uber app on my phone. Ubers etc are known to cause a congestion problem in central London in particular.



newbie said:


> The whole point of me repeatedly mentioning Uber and Zip is that ownership isn't particularly meaningful any more. Peer to peer carhire is growing too, they don't have stickers I don't think.



That's not really true - if you own a car, you make very different journey choices compared to someone who doesn't own a car but has access to something like Zip. That's why I think Zip in principle is a good thing - it encourages people to not own a car.



newbie said:


> The short journey chunk: sure y'all want to stop them, yet my repeated questions about who defines which journeys don't 'need' to be made remains unanswered.  You just restate that they're all '_perfectly feasible by other means_'.
> 
> Is taking kids out acceptable, even if taking them to/from school isn't?  Or the elderly?  Going to and from work? Dropping off stuff?  Visiting someone? Running someone home or to the tube?  Carrying tools, equipment, materials for work? Travelling laterally across South London?  What about supermarket shopping, you want to frustrate people from using their own car, so should they use a cab or or book a delivery truck slot instead, or is everyone supposed to walk or cycle?  Everyone, undifferentiated by age, ability, confidence?  Who decides this stuff? You, apparently, by blanket increase in frustration. Because you don't approve and you know that the journey would be perfectly feasible by other means.



No, everyone is not supposed to walk or cycle. Haven't we gone through all this before? By changing the relative convenience of modes, you shift the proportion of journeys made on them - you do not make anything impossible. All of the journey types you mention, can still be done by car, by those who have that option. Yes, they will be deliberately "frustrated" in doing so. Someone who wants to drive to the supermarket will have the frustration that they have to spend 5 more minutes in their warm car listening to the radio. In return, the person who has to walk to the local shop because they don't have a car, gets a little less frustrated by the time they have to spend standing in the rain waiting to cross multiple busy roads to get there and back. 

You ask me _what all these people are supposed to do. _The answer is dead simple - what they want.
My question is about all the people who don't and can't have a car. What are they _supposed to do, _in the world where we must not dare "frustrate" those using cars? Stand meekly waiting for the green man at the traffic lights? Tramp across the car park that's in front of the supermarket, which they must cross to get from the shop door to the bus stop?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 23, 2020)

newbie said:


> Yet despite my prompting you don't mention enormous SUVs with huge engines,



What do you want me to say about SUVs? I'd be rid of them yesterday if I could. Like you, I would like to frustrate their owners.



newbie said:


> and only in passing note those who choose to work tens of miles from where they live, taking advantage of both higher London wages and cheaper country/suburban living and who drive through where we live twice a day. Commuters are a 'chunk' of London traffic for wehich, IMHO, there is little excuse.



Right then, I'll get out the statistics, to the extent that I can find relevant ones. Here.
A selection:

About 83% of car trips in London are made by people who live in London.
66% of trips made by Londoners are under 5km in length.

So, yes, there is a chunk of traffic caused by people who don't live in London. I would like to remove that chunk too. I would like to understand (a) what proportion of traffic somewhere like Brixton comes from these people and (b) what proportion can be persuaded to stop doing so by pricing them out. Any more info on this would be very welcome. My feeling is that the profile of traffic coming through Brixton will see rather less than 17% of journeys being made by people driving in from outside town, because my understanding of what people who do that do, is they drive into outer London to somewhere they can park near a station (which is generaly further out than here), and do the remainder by public transport. I would like to understand this better. Maybe digging into the source info for that technical paper would produce some answers. But it would seem like maybe a 10% reduction might be a realistic best case scenario. Is that enough? I don't think so.

I don't think you can ignore that huge chunk - 66% of London resident journeys - which are less than 5km.




newbie said:


> You also don't mention all the vans delivering online purchases either, Amazon, Waitrose, vegbox, ebay or Tesco they're such an obvious 'chunk' that's relatively recent and keeps increasing year on year.



Yes, they need to be dealt with sensibly. I don't think they should be totally discouraged, because they do provide a useful service for those who can't do their shopping on foot or by public transport, and don't have access to a car or someone who can drive them around. The fewer unnecessary journeys there are, the more space there is for necessary ones and I think there is a good argument that delivery services should be counted in the latter category. Some cities have a strategy of allocating specific delivery spots on all streets - which can be done by re-allocating space given over to parking of private vehicles. This helps reduce double-parking of delivery vehicles which can cause various problems. I am certainly interested in any schemes which consolidate deliveries into a minimal number of vehicles, and which provide local hubs which people can collect parcels etc from on foot.




newbie said:


> I'm not sure which 'you' that is, but it's not me. The whole point about backstreets like St Matthews Rd is that, parking aside, they're of no use or interest to the vast majority of commuters, they're used by and for  locals as thoroughfares, to get about when the arteries are in use by heavier and/or longer distance users and buses.
> 
> So no, the scheme doesn't 'have' to target locals.



I think it does. I think the statistics show that it does, if you want to achieve a substantial change. I dunno about the specific example of St Matthews Rd, as I said above, it's a bit of an oddball one.




newbie said:


> You're fairly honest that your fundamentalist objective is to ban cars, that personal mobility isn't something you personally value and you don't think others should either (despite clear evidence that they do).  That your personal age, health and interests can be accommodated without a car so everyone else's should too. I get that, it's a reasonable if extreme position, but I'm not clear why it's just the local 'chunk' of the overall traffic you want to target.


No, that's all complete nonsense, and rubbish like this makes me feel it's a waste of time typing out patient replies. I don't see how you can write this if you have made a genuine attempt to understand my position, and aren't trying to deliberately misrepresent me in a dishonest manner.
Personal mobility is something that I absolutely value - that's the whole reason I care about this. My view is that car dependence reduces personal mobility, and it disproportionately reduces mobility for the less privileged. You might disagree about that, but that doesn't mean you can decide that I therefore do not value personal mobility. Nothing I have written on this supports that. I also have never said that just because my interests can be accommodated without a car, everyone else's should be too. I have repeatedly explained how - in my opinion - people who do not have my privileges of health and age are disadvantaged by car dominance. I have also never said it's "just the local chunk of overall traffic" I want to target.

So would you like to apologise for what you have said?




newbie said:


> Oh!  There are BLN neighbourhoods that aren't well to do?  Where are they?



I don't think of what has been designated as the "Loughborough Neighbourhood" as particularly well to do. Do you?



This is after all the neighbourhood where the previous attempts at road changes were criticised as beeing imposed on a working class area by gentrifying outsiders.



newbie said:


> That's the closest you get to mentioning gentrification.  It's like when thebackrow accused me of '_generic smears_' for daring to mention that this might reward current genteel owner occupiers and give landlords an opportunity to put rents up. It's like you want to pretend it's possible to discuss any aspect of social policy in Brixton over the last couple of decades without referencing gentrification and social cleansing.



No, I don't think it's possible to ignore the phenomenon of gentrification in Brixton, and I don't ignore it.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2020)

Interesting.  Both the BID and the Market Traders appear to be pushing for a large part of central Brixton to be pedestrianised.  So they don't seem to think that the "vibrancy" that attracts people to the area comes from the presence of lots of motor vehicles 








						The revolution will be pedestrianised – the commercial argument for closing roads in Brixton
					

July the 4th is the date when those of us in hospitality are told that with proper safety procedures in place we can throw the doors open. For Brixton, this is immense with the wealth of pubs, bars…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




Theres a lot of micro level analysis going on in this thread. Is 'north Shakespeare Road" poorer than south Shakespeare? Ward by ward analysis suggests the assumptions about well-to-do areas are kind of splitting hairs. North Shakespeare may be marginally less well off than Herne Hill but it's only in the next band here and that's likely mostly influenced by it being grouped with the Southwyck estate (which is no different to Tulse Hill, Brixton Hill at a ward level). 



Source - which might also give some context.  These first changes are not happening in isolation.  They're not the only LTNs that are coming.  


			http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-b-strategic-neighbourhoods-analysis-v1.pdf


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 23, 2020)

I mentioned his new tfl data uothread



			http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-a-supplementary-guidance-ltns-v1.pdf
		




			http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-b-strategic-neighbourhoods-analysis-v1.pdf
		


Which thebackrow has just posted


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 23, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Interesting.  Both the BID and the Market Traders appear to be pushing for a large part of central Brixton to be pedestrianised.  So they don't seem to think that the "vibrancy" that attracts people to the area comes from the presence of lots of motor vehicles
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Im not micro analysing. Im looking at the comments on the Commonplace website.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 23, 2020)

The revolution will be pedestrianised – the commercial argument for closing roads in Brixton
					

July the 4th is the date when those of us in hospitality are told that with proper safety procedures in place we can throw the doors open. For Brixton, this is immense with the wealth of pubs, bars…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




This article is saying buses will have to be re routed for the convenience of business. 

Sorry but Im not having this. 

The original Atlantic road proposals were for Atlantic road to be for buses and cycles. 

This article is for the benefit of business in the entertainment / bar / restuarent sector. 

Which is the group of business that dominate Brixton BID. 

I dont see how this proposal is going to benefit those who need to use public transport.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 23, 2020)

The revolution will be pedestrianised – the commercial argument for closing roads in Brixton
					

July the 4th is the date when those of us in hospitality are told that with proper safety procedures in place we can throw the doors open. For Brixton, this is immense with the wealth of pubs, bars…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				





> Although a couple of buses would have to be re-routed it is a small price to pay to keep business alive and flag a commercial revolution… but before imagining dining alfresco in spacious avenues, let’s not forget how red-tape, the mechanics of local town centre planning, the expectantly delayed TfL lobbying and plain legalistic lethargy can smother dreams



Where do I start?

This is neo liberal libertarianism. Comes across as Ayn Rand.

If only the plebs could be stopped using democratic means to frustrate business then all would be well.

Which has now been added to my concerns about the ideology behind the BID idea.

Does Brixton need buses? No it need the new demographic who can't wait for alfresco dining to restart. 

How a pandemic can be used to change society- more al fresco dining. Get rid of buses. I despair.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

Thanks for taking the time.  There's no point in more slabs of repetitious text, so just a couple of the points.


teuchter said:


> No, that's all complete nonsense, and rubbish like this makes me feel it's a waste of time typing out patient replies. I don't see how you can write this if you have made a genuine attempt to understand my position, and aren't trying to deliberately misrepresent me in a dishonest manner.
> Personal mobility is something that I absolutely value - that's the whole reason I care about this. My view is that car dependence reduces personal mobility, and it disproportionately reduces mobility for the less privileged. You might disagree about that, but that doesn't mean you can decide that I therefore do not value personal mobility. Nothing I have written on this supports that. I also have never said that just because my interests can be accommodated without a car, everyone else's should be too. I have repeatedly explained how - in my opinion - people who do not have my privileges of health and age are disadvantaged by car dominance. I have also never said it's "just the local chunk of overall traffic" I want to target.
> 
> So would you like to apologise for what you have said?


I apologise if you're hurt, or feel misrepresented, by what I wrote.  I don't want to cause offence or personalise anything.  I confess I probably rolled up your individual attitudes with those of other campaigners working from a similar script.  'You' was more of a composite than the specific individual behind the screenname.

I can't tell how other people read what I write, but I was attempting to characterise how attitudes have been conveyed* to me*, across this and other threads, but with no intention of misrepresenting you personally.

That said, I don't recall ever before seeing you mention, promote or defend widespread availability of general personal mobility, merely of specific methods, walk, cycle, bus.  I've seen you write many times about restricting mobility, both by method, private car, and specific type, short motor journeys undertaken by Londoners. I've seen endless promotion of how much better so-called livable streets would be for residents without such journeys being undertaken by others.  I've seen many explanations of how car dominance creates disadvantage but very little mention of the practical dynamics of how people should undertake the sorts of short journeys I asked about (btw I forgot churches, they generate loads of traffic).  I've seen many attacks on car owners making short journeys but noticed you mention Uber and deliveries only when prodded repeatedly. 

If that overall impression should actually have amounted to "_car dependence reduces personal mobility, and it disproportionately reduces mobility for the less privileged_" then I've clearly misapprehended, and I apologise.

Meanwhile you feel free carry on accusing me (and anyone else who doesn't share your vision) of dishonesty and disingenuous posting, as you've done across many threads and many years.




> I don't think of what has been designated as the "Loughborough Neighbourhood" as particularly well to do. Do you?
> 
> View attachment 219010
> 
> This is after all the neighbourhood where the previous attempts at road changes were criticised as beeing imposed on a working class area by gentrifying outsiders.



Well now.  Lambeth's website is dreadful, so maybe I've missed something but my understanding is that these are the schemes under discussion/ being implemented right now, under cover of the Covid response.



So what has a neighbourhood that isn't part of that got to do with anything?  People living there are among those for whom you previously suggested  "_the right response is to ask that their neighbourhood can have the same_".

Let's try again, which of those schemes won't disproportionately benefit 'well to do' owner occupiers and landlords?



> No, I don't think it's possible to ignore the phenomenon of gentrification in Brixton, and I don't ignore it.


Good.   I'm sure you've explained many times how central to your thinking is the differential impact of these schemes on the interests of landlords, business owners and owner occupier on the one hand and private tenants  or those at risk of social cleansing on the other.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> That said, I don't recall ever before seeing you mention, promote or defend widespread availability of general personal mobility, merely of specific methods, walk, cycle, bus.  I've seen you write many times about restricting mobility, both by method, private car, and specific type, short motor journeys undertaken by Londoners. I've seen endless promotion of how much better so-called livable streets would be for residents without such journeys being undertaken by others.  I've seen many explanations of how car dominance creates disadvantage but very little mention of the practical dynamics of how people should undertake the sorts of short journeys I asked about (btw I forgot churches, they generate loads of traffic).  I've seen many attacks on car owners making short journeys but noticed you mention Uber and deliveries only when prodded repeatedly.



Well here's just one example from another thread.



teuchter said:


> I should swiftly exterminate this red herring too. It is easy to provide reserved parking spaces, and easy to allow exceptions to "car-free" rules for those with disabled badges. It's just not an issue.
> 
> And use the opportunity to point out that many people have disabilities which mean they _can't_ drive (whether they can afford it or not). The better the public transport provision, the more freedom and independence this group of people can have. Much of the same applies to the elderly.
> 
> Look at the progress we've made in London with wheelchair accessible buses. Lots of people can now make journeys where previously they would have been dependent on family or friends. And the more wheelchairs we see on buses, the more normalised it can become and the less of an issue it needs to be.




In terms of how people should make the kinds of journeys you asked about - the answer is not very complicated. If we were talking about a scheme that actually stopped cars from getting to certain places, they would need very careful consideration. But we're not. All of the journeys can still be made - the difference is that in some cases they will take a bit longer. Clearly we disagree about whether it is acceptable to make them take a bit longer, because we disagree about the benefits that are gained in return.

But asking the question "what are these people supposed to do" seems to ignore the fact that loads of people already have to do all this stuff without a car. In London the majority of people. Certain the majority of people in the most disadvantaged circumstances. If you looked at the figures in the document I posted yesterday, you'll notice that as well as access to private vehicles correlating with wealth, if you have health problems or disabilities you are much less likely to have access. So if we are talking about, say, elderly people, or wheelchair users, (or even healthy kids) why are we focusing on the ones who already have the best access to mobility solutions? The ones that already have access to a car? Why is the spotlight on them, and the fact that their journey may take somewhat longer? Why are we not looking at those who do not have that privilege - who generally will be the majority of people? Because things like less traffic, designated quiet walking routes and things like that are to these people's advantage.


I can't spend loads of time on this today. Maybe I'll come back to it another time.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'd like to see more regulation of Uber et al, because excessive use can undermine public transport, especially when it is priced below cost because it's being subsidised by venture capital in a long-game effort to do exactly that - undermine public transport. I refuse to have the Uber app on my phone. Ubers etc are known to cause a congestion problem in central London in particular.



Uber is an example, other cabfirms are available, a few years ago Addison Lee would have been more pertinent.  Back then the no car = material disadvantage equation had a lot more force than it does now, despite the number of times it's trotted out.




> That's not really true - if you own a car, you make very different journey choices compared to someone who doesn't own a car but has access to something like Zip. That's why I think Zip in principle is a good thing - it encourages people to not own a car.


Sure, but let's not separate Zip, Uber etc into different categories. The internet has changed things.

Taken together they emphasise that every single time someone tells me car ownership round here is low they're, deliberately or otherwise, missing the salient point that the convenience and lower annual cost of modern options encourage people to not own a car. Unless they spell it out of course, but funnily enough no-one seems to. The supermarket delivery model feeds into that as well, .

You're right though, the easy availability, and low cost, of such options really does affect journey choices though it's two edged. Before Zip availability, car hire had real difficulties built in, occasional drivers were more likely to buy, park and drive their own car.   Very few people drive their own car to the tube, but plenty get an Uber (other companies are available), especially when it's raining; anecdotally i know a number of women who won't walk the streets, particularly quiet ones after dark, but have always had cabfirms on speeddial.  Without such -motor car- options they'd either have their lifestyle options restricted or have the greater financial expense of car ownership and time expense of circling round looking for parking space.  Widespread take-up of online ordering has decreased the 'need' for car ownership.

sfaics it's dead easy to write glib one-liners without bothering to unpick what is actually happening, especially if you don't notice cab stickers.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> Uber is an example, other cabfirms are available, a few years ago Addison Lee would have been more pertinent.  Back then the no car = material disadvantage equation had a lot more force than it does now, despite the number of times it's trotted out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your correct that instead of owning a car the future is car clubs and apps to hire car for short trips. Its unlikely in my opinion that car ownership will last. 

Which is my acquaintance who is all for road " filtering" would like to see these options restricted in the future.

To that person road "filtering" is first step to removing cars whether they are car clubs or hire apps. They aren't keen on electric vehicles either.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2020)

Let's not start talking about uber as an "affordable" option. Firstly it's currently artificially cheap and this is not sustainable in the long term. Secondly, even at these artificially low prices, it is still substantially more expensive than a bus unless, perhaps, you are travelling in a group.

It's quite affordable for the "gentrifier" demographic, for sure. People who previously would be contributing to the revenue take for london's public transport.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> Let's try again, which of those schemes won't disproportionately benefit 'well to do' owner occupiers and landlords?



Trying to process this again. So - we mustn't improve any area by lowering traffic volumes because it may increase the capital assets of property owners and people renting or in social housing don't see a capital gain (though the may well have secure long tenancies or choose to rent in the area long term so still get the benefits of cleaner quieter streets).  Where do the (many?) owner occupiers who bought homes under right to buy figure in this - it definitely mixes up the clean lines that separate areas.  Quick google - Right to buy started in 1980 so we've had 40 years of it. A 2017 council report says 425 council homes sold in 2015/2016 but I think the incentives were far higher at other times which suggests there are many 1000's of private homes mixed amongst the council owned properties  (currently at about 24k)

Does that apply to other sorts of improvements to an area - because they all affect desirability and by implication house prices. Adding a bus route. Improving tube frequency. Planting trees. Even just repairing the pavements. What about improving teaching or management of local schools?





newbie said:


> So what has a neighbourhood that isn't part of that got to do with anything?


Perhaps one of the other  five unspecified,  low traffic neighbourhoods they want to create in the next 6 months? or following later?


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Let's not start talking about uber as an "affordable" option. Firstly it's currently artificially cheap and this is not sustainable in the long term. Secondly, even at these artificially low prices, it is still substantially more expensive than a bus unless, perhaps, you are travelling in a group.
> 
> It's quite affordable for the "gentrifier" demographic, for sure. People who previously would be contributing to the revenue take for london's public transport.


Shifting sands, the discussion was not about people who would otherwise walk to a bus stop, it was about the behaviour of those who might otherwise own cars.

Affordability is calculated by users on a case by case basis.  While you, I or TfL might recognise why venture capitalism is prepared to subsidise Uber fares, for the person who wants to make a journey that's just an advantage.  Whether you like me saying it or not, Uber has made cab travel more affordable than it was when dominated by black cabs, phone-up minicab firms, Addison Lee type accounts or whatever else.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Your correct that instead of owning a car the future is car clubs and apps to hire car for short trips. Its unlikely in my opinion that car ownership will last.
> 
> Which is my acquaintance who is all for road " filtering" would like to see these options restricted in the future.
> 
> To that person road "filtering" is first step to removing cars whether they are car clubs or hire apps. They aren't keen on electric vehicles either.


I agree with you, direct ownership was already reducing as rent to buy/ contract purchase has become more popular, and with the economic models for EVs involving battery rental it look to me like it's going to be only the bottom end of the 2nd hand market that will survive.

I too have friends who'd ideally like all motor vehicles removed.  Siberia is experiencing temperatures in the 30s, it's a clear position that makes a huge amount of sense.  It's not terribly useful in working out what to do in the next three months or so, though.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Trying to process this again. So - we mustn't improve any area by lowering traffic volumes because it may increase the capital assets of property owners and people renting or in social housing don't see a capital gain (though the may well have secure long tenancies or choose to rent in the area long term so still get the benefits of cleaner quieter streets).  Where do the (many?) owner occupiers who bought homes under right to buy figure in this - it definitely mixes up the clean lines that separate areas.  Quick google - Right to buy started in 1980 so we've had 40 years of it. A 2017 council report says 425 council homes sold in 2015/2016 but I think the incentives were far higher at other times which suggests there are many 1000's of private homes mixed amongst the council owned properties  (currently at about 24k)
> 
> Does that apply to other sorts of improvements to an area - because they all affect desirability and by implication house prices. Adding a bus route. Improving tube frequency. Planting trees. Even just repairing the pavements. What about improving teaching or management of local schools?
> 
> ...


well, I suppose you've moved on a bit from a blanket denial that any of this is gentrifier led, but I haven't the slightest idea why you want to discuss right to buy or schools on this thread.  The direct answer to the direct question is 'yes' but tbh I'm more interested in whhether you'd find something more to say about the increases in journey time of between 50% and 9 times that you highlighted earlier.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> Shifting sands, the discussion was not about people who would otherwise walk to a bus stop, it was about the behaviour of those who might otherwise own cars.
> 
> Affordability is calculated by users on a case by case basis.  While you, I or TfL might recognise why venture capitalism is prepared to subsidise Uber fares, for the person who wants to make a journey that's just an advantage.  Whether you like me saying it or not, Uber has made cab travel more affordable than it was when dominated by black cabs, phone-up minicab firms, Addison Lee type accounts or whatever else.



I think I've lost track of what argument is being made about what.

Are we saying that because things like uber have made private hire more affordable, therefore it's invalid to say that London's non-car owning, and disproportionately less wealthy, majority benefit from restrictions on car travel, because in fact even though they are not car owners they are in fact uber users, and the liveable neighbourhoods are going to make their uber journeys home take five minutes longer, which means it is disadvantaging them. Or something like that?

Or are we saying that uber use should be encouraged as a way of discouraging car ownership? And that by making those uber journeys take five minutes longer, this will be compromised?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2020)

By the way newbie I forgot to ask yesterday.

There are various measures that have been in place for some years that are, as I understand it, aimed at stopping people using Ferndale Rd in place of Acre Lane or other "main roads" as an east/west route as part of journeys to and from central London. Likewise to stop people cutting through on Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens. All this achieved by a mixture of blocking certain roads (like Tunstall Rd and Dorrel Place) to vehicles where they meet Brixton Rd, and making eg sections of Ferndale Road one way only.

In many ways this is a kind of mirror image of the "Railton" zone where Railton Rd is the parallel route to Dulwich Rd. There is already a sort of "livable neighbourhood" bounded by acre lane, Bedford rd, Brixton Rd and the railway line. It's even similar in that one edge is defined by a railway line with very through routes through (just that one footbridge).

So by your logic should these restrictions, these restrictions that deliberately frustrate drivers, be removed? By your logic, would this not be a good thing because it would restore some equality to residents of Ferndale Rd and Acre Lane, by moving some of the pollution and noise from Acre Lane to Ferndale Road? And Ferndale Rd probably has a higher level of the "gentrifying" demographic on it that you describe. So would you positively support a removal of those existing restrictions?

Further up Brixton Hill, how about the block on Strathleven Road, which stops cut-through journeys between Brixton Hill and Kings Ave / Acre Lane. Should we also remove that?


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think I've lost track of what argument is being made about what.
> 
> Are we saying that because things like uber have made private hire more affordable, therefore it's invalid to say that London's non-car owning, and disproportionately less wealthy, majority benefit from restrictions on car travel, because in fact even though they are not car owners they are in fact uber users, and the liveable neighbourhoods are going to make their uber journeys home take five minutes longer, which means it is disadvantaging them. Or something like that?
> 
> Or are we saying that uber use should be encouraged as a way of discouraging car ownership? And that by making those uber journeys take five minutes longer, this will be compromised?


You said you have limited time today, I don't want to take it up, and we're going round in circles anyway.  TBH I'm happy to see what happens for a few days and revisit this when the facts have progressed a bit, but I'll carry on if you'd prefer.

As to where we are, I mentioned being told, as though decisively, that locally car ownership is lower than elsewhere, and discussed the effect of Uber, Zip and supermarket deliveries on that bald stat.  Then you told me that Uber journey cost is artificially low, so I pointed out that users prefer that. That's in a context of discussing what traffic is actually on the road, now in 2020, and how the imposition of impermeable neighbourhoods is affected by that.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> By the way newbie I forgot to ask yesterday.
> 
> There are various measures that have been in place for some years that are, as I understand it, aimed at stopping people using Ferndale Rd in place of Acre Lane or other "main roads" as an east/west route as part of journeys to and from central London. Likewise to stop people cutting through on Brighton Terrace/Trinity Gardens. All this achieved by a mixture of blocking certain roads (like Tunstall Rd and Dorrel Place) to vehicles where they meet Brixton Rd, and making eg sections of Ferndale Road one way only.
> 
> In many ways this is a kind of mirror image of the "Railton" zone where Railton Rd is the parallel route to Dulwich Rd. There is already a sort of "livable neighbourhood" bounded by acre lane, Bedford rd, Brixton Rd and the railway line. It's even similar in that one edge is defined by a railway line with very through routes through (just that one footbridge).


There's loads of through routes (unless something's been closed recently and I haven't noticed?).  As anyone who uses that stretch of Brixton Road knows, lots of vehicles turn into Brighton Terrace, despite there being little parking and the route to Ferndale (and the rest of the planet) being a splendid wriggle round.  For those that can be bothered there's a link route to Stockwell as well as towards Clapham.  When resilience is required, in the event of a blockage on Acre Lane say, it provides a release.



> So by your logic should these restrictions, these restrictions that deliberately frustrate drivers, be removed? By your logic, would this not be a good thing because it would restore some equality to residents of Ferndale Rd and Acre Lane, by moving some of the pollution and noise from Acre Lane to Ferndale Road? And Ferndale Rd probably has a higher level of the "gentrifying" demographic on it that you describe. So would you positively support a removal of those existing restrictions?


Didn't someone say something about overplaying the hand?  I haven't suggested anything should be changed, merely drawn on the outcomes of previous schemes to consider what is currently under discussion.


> Further up Brixton Hill, how about the block on Strathleven Road, which stops cut-through journeys between Brixton Hill and Kings Ave / Acre Lane. Should we also remove that?


I did discuss this block in the context of reslience.  Although the Lambert Road gate was abandoned it's a relatively impervious area, with a single, one way artery piercing it.  There are pins on the map claiming that area has too much outsider traffic, demands to shut Branksome or make it a cycle route and so on.  Not so different from the areas we're concentrating on.  You could say that, as with Blenheim Gardens, the insiders are never satisfied, but they're probably not the same individuals as when the schemes were introduced.  I do know that area gentrified fast and early, but some of that was the Sudbourne catchment effect I think.

While a quick glance shows resilience would be improved if the Strathleven gate was opened, no I am not suggesting that or any other changes.  I'm trying to get people thinking about the effects of the current impositions.


----------



## Winot (Jun 24, 2020)

I live in the Sudbourne/Branksome/Bonham Rd area (and no, we didn't manage to get our kids into Sudbourne).

My wife used to be on the Acre Lane Residents email list. There were apparently a number of long-standing complaints about the inconvenience of reaching Clapham by car from the area (because Branksome Rd is one way south and because of the Strathleven gate you have to drive south along Branksome/Bonham then east onto Brixton Hill, then north to the Town Hall and then west along Acre Lane). The flip side is that the roads around here are relatively quiet with no through traffic and I know this is appreciated by local residents (even those who own cars and are inconvenienced when they want to drive west).

IMO we are lucky that we have those closures. We are already a low traffic area. I'd like to see the same benefits afforded to others.

Although there are plenty of owner occupiers, there are also plenty of housing association places and a number of low-rise blocks of social housing. The last time I checked, Sudbourne School was 33% free school meals.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> I haven't suggested anything should be changed,


I know. But why not, if according to your criteria it would provide an improved outcome? Why don't you want to reduce air pollution experienced by people living on Brixton Hill or Acre Lane, by dispersing traffic onto other routes? It would also reduce driver frustration, which as I understand it, you do not like to see.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

Winot said:


> I live in the Sudbourne/Branksome/Bonham Rd area (and no, we didn't manage to get our kids into Sudbourne).
> 
> My wife used to be on the Acre Lane Residents email list. There were apparently a number of long-standing complaints about the inconvenience of reaching Clapham by car from the area (because Branksome Rd is one way south and because of the Strathleven gate you have to drive south along Branksome/Bonham then east onto Brixton Hill, then north to the Town Hall and then west along Acre Lane). The flip side is that the roads around here are relatively quiet with no through traffic and I know this is appreciated by local residents (even those who own cars and are inconvenienced when they want to drive west).
> 
> ...


yes, i can't recall the details but str the housing co-op was absorbed into a housing association.  I guess it's still a patchwork of various sorts of social housing, owner-occupiers, private rental flats or maybe whole houses?  As i said above i see no reason to doubt the various residents share attitudes to traffic and peace and quiet, irrespective of their tenure.  So yes, you (collectively ) are lucky, though it's many years now and I'm going to guess the majority of residents, except perhaps those in social housing, have subsequently moved into that specific area because of the peace and quiet.  

You have my sympathy about the school, that must have been really irritating., especially as Ashby Mill was closed and turned into flats, so a short walk turns into a long one.


----------



## newbie (Jun 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I know. But why not, if according to your criteria it would provide an improved outcome? Why don't you want to reduce air pollution experienced by people living on Brixton Hill or Acre Lane, by dispersing traffic onto other routes? It would also reduce driver frustration, which as I understand it, you do not like to see.


because I'm reacting to what's being done on quite a large scale, not seeking to push ideas of my own onto others.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 24, 2020)

These arguments go around and around. 

What I want is people being told what this is really about.

Stopping people using cars. 

What I object to dressing it up as "Liveable Neighbourhoods" or "road filtering"

If that is the aim it should be clearly put to people.

And newbie is right about gentrification being an issue. 

teuchter  brought up Reclaim the streets a while back.. Thing about there protest was that it was as much against Capitalism as Cars. Cars were seen RTS as the prime example of capitalism. Which is correct. RTS ideology was reclaiming the "commons". Supporting striking Tube Workers etc.

The "Liveable Neighbourhood" idea is pale watered down version. 

Or worse the Brixton BID version which is a neo liberal co option of a radical idea.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think I've lost track of what argument is being made about what.
> 
> Are we saying that because things like uber have made private hire more affordable, therefore it's invalid to say that London's non-car owning, and disproportionately less wealthy, majority benefit from restrictions on car travel, because in fact even though they are not car owners they are in fact uber users, and the liveable neighbourhoods are going to make their uber journeys home take five minutes longer, which means it is disadvantaging them. Or something like that?
> 
> Or are we saying that uber use should be encouraged as a way of discouraging car ownership? And that by making those uber journeys take five minutes longer, this will be compromised?



Taking out Uber employment practises my get rid of cars friend does not want private cars or hire cars. They see "Liveable Nieghbourhoods" and "road filtering" as the thin edge of the wedge to gradually get rid of all transport based around cars. Whether they are privately owned or on demand app. Or electric.

They are quite open about it.

Im just not prepared to go that far. I dont want to see my neighbour who does painting and decorating lose his parking space on my street.

I dont object to people having to take five more minutes to get home.

But going on behind some of the conflict Ive seen is people with hard line views on either sides. The car nut I know how to drive type and the remove all cars on the other side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The revolution will be pedestrianised – the commercial argument for closing roads in Brixton
> 
> 
> July the 4th is the date when those of us in hospitality are told that with proper safety procedures in place we can throw the doors open. For Brixton, this is immense with the wealth of pubs, bars…
> ...


no one who talks of alfresco dining should be allowed to do it


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> What I want is people being told what this is really about.
> 
> Stopping people using cars.



It's not "really" about "stopping people using cars".

In order to achieve the stated aims of the schemes, you need to reduce the number of motor vehicle journeys, and to do that, you need to do things to disincentivise people using cars. In practice that means making certain journeys less convenient. Not impossible. No-one's car is being taken away. No one is being told that they can't use their car to get to any particular place.

What your friend does or doesn't want is a different question.

It's like objecting to an increase in social housing, because you heard that your mate's brother says that all private property should be confiscated, and he also supports an increase in social housing, therefore the idea that social housing provision should be improved is extremist politics in disguise and the next thing you know, we'll be living under communism.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's not "really" about "stopping people using cars".
> 
> In order to achieve the stated aims of the schemes, you need to reduce the number of motor vehicle journeys, and to do that, you need to do things to disincentivise people using cars. In practice that means making certain journeys less convenient. Not impossible. No-one's car is being taken away. No one is being told that they can't use their car to get to any particular place.
> 
> ...



Im not objecting to all measures to reduce car use. Despite what some may think here.

I am objecting to the misuse of language. I also object to the idea that "experts" should run society. 

If the Council just said what you have about the reasons for it I would be happier.

Your  analogy is incorrect. The way I see it its different sections of the middle class arguing with each other over this.

RTS- the example you brought up a while back- in comparison have a coherent message. Get rid of Capitalism , take back the Commons and have a cheap public transport system where the workers get decent pay and conditions.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If the Council just said what you have about the reasons for it I would be happier.



At risk of repeating myself... I am not going to try and defend the way in which the council has managed consultation.

However - here is the introductory info to what the scheme is. The same link I put on the very first post of this thread.









						About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood
					

We need your help to make the Brixton area a healthier place, with a thriving town centre, less traffic, cleaner air, more space for people and great for walking and cycling.




					brixtonlnmap.commonplace.is
				




I don't think it's a bad summary. Do you think that there is something that it's not saying, something about the basic principle of the scheme that it is hiding from people?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I also object to the idea that "experts" should run society.



You make it sound like you object to the idea of decisions being made by people with training and experience in general - is that really the case?

When you're sick presumably you just ask some random neighbour rather than a Doctor. If you ever had to go to court you'd shun solicitors and you'd just find some random at the pub to wire your house rather than using an electrician.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If anything I'd argue that the problem with our government is that, in contrast to a number of successful (and generally more left leaning countries) we don't require our politicians to have any background in their briefs.


----------



## Big Bertha (Jun 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im not objecting to all measures to reduce car use. Despite what some may think here.
> 
> I am objecting to the misuse of language. I also object to the idea that "experts" should run society.
> 
> ...



Objecting to experts is a bit weird imo


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2020)

Big Bertha said:


> Objecting to experts is a bit weird imo



Can you just stop trolling this site.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You make it sound like you object to the idea of decisions being made by people with training and experience in general - is that really the case?
> 
> When you're sick presumably you just ask some random neighbour rather than a Doctor. If you ever had to go to court you'd shun solicitors and you'd just find some random at the pub to wire your house rather than using an electrician.
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> ...



Its what you said earlier. I've already replied to that post of yours. 

Go back and look at your post 647 and my reply 649

Experts imo should be under the control of the people in a democracy.

I don't want a Technocracy. Which would be the end result of what your saying.

I've made that clear in previous posts.

I know you want to make out I'm being unreasonable.

The opposite is the case.

I've been repeatedly saying democratic ways need to be used. That people need a say and should be listened to.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2020)

Heard one of the local Cllrs say last night that Cllrs have been getting loads of emails objecting to Shakespeare road part of Railton scheme.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Its what you said earlier. I've already replied to that post of yours.
> 
> Go back and look at your post 647 and my reply 649
> 
> ...


Not sure it's necessarily a technocracy.

It's (supposedly) a representative democracy.

People vote the mayor in, and the mayor's office makes strategic decisions on stuff like transport. That gets fed down to councils. In this case they bid for funding to implement bits of mayoral strategy. I guess the enthisuasm they pursue that with is up to them to some extent...but after all, they are supposedly voted in by the residents of the borough, although it seems that in Lambeth's case it doesn't matter what they do, people keep voting them back in.

Even when they say claim are a co-operative council, and then fail to live up to that, the same administration seems to get re-elected.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Heard one of the local Cllrs say last night that Cllrs have been getting loads of emails objecting to Shakespeare road part of Railton scheme.


I'm sure they have. But that doesn't mean it's a majority or even that it's local people objecting.

You're clear you're not in favour of a "technocracy".  Are you also against representative democracy - you want direct democracy instead? 

How granular?  Would we have a referendum on the overall Transport Strategy and plan or individual low traffic neighbourhoods?
Or smaller parts of a scheme (like north Shakespeare Road). Although that's a bit difficult because you'd expect the scheme is designed as a whole so taking one part out probably breaks everything.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I'm sure they have. But that doesn't mean it's a majority or even that it's local people objecting.
> 
> You're clear you're not in favour of a "technocracy".  Are you also against representative democracy - you want direct democracy instead?
> 
> ...



You've made to your position clear previously. I refer you back to my previous posts.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Not sure it's necessarily a technocracy.
> 
> It's (supposedly) a representative democracy.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying it is I was replying to previous post of thebackrow


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 25, 2020)

Cycling up Railton Road today I saw the new ANPR cameras and signs installed. I was going to stop and take a photo but had to go and assist another cyclist.

He’d been pushed into the curb and onto the pavement as an SUV couldn’t wait for him to go around the corner so got annoyed, honked his horn and then drove at him to get him to move out of the way. 

Having cycled around town today and driven around a lot last week my two observations are that there are hundreds of new cyclists and that the standard of driving has plummeted from its low level pre lockdown. 

I’m off to report 4 drivers for being on their phone - 6points and a £200 fine should be coming their way.

What’s been missing amongst the class based debate here is that if you give someone a heavy metal box which moves quickly just by moving your foot, it changes many people into fucking psychopaths


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You make it sound like you object to the idea of decisions being made by people with training and experience in general - is that really the case?
> 
> When you're sick presumably you just ask some random neighbour rather than a Doctor.


Interesting analogy. To be fair, in my experience, doctors don't generally make the decisions. They are encouraged not to. They provide their expert opinions and present options and you are expected to make, or at least be involved in making, decisions about your treatment, often using advice you have learned from other doctors and from sources such as the internet (which can be helpful or not). In my own fairly extensive but individual experience, you get much better care if you follow what is going on and remain involved. Doctors have a lot of other priorities and it is up to you to make sure that your own needs are being adequately met. Also, some of the worst doctors are those who become complacent and fail to listen properly to the individual patient. Collaboration is a good way forward.

NICE guidelines on Shared Decision Making.

*



			Benefits of shared decision making
		
Click to expand...

*


> Both people receiving and delivering care can understand what's important to the other person.
> People feel supported and empowered to make informed choices and reach a shared decision about care.
> Health and social care professionals can tailor the care or treatment to the needs of the individual.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 25, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Cycling up Railton Road today I saw the new ANPR cameras and signs installed. I was going to stop and take a photo but had to go and assist another cyclist.
> 
> He’d been pushed into the curb and onto the pavement as an SUV couldn’t wait for him to go around the corner so got annoyed, honked his horn and then drove at him to get him to move out of the way.
> 
> ...



How do you report drivers for speaking on the phone whilst driving? Did you video them or something?

Cars still steaming through St Matthews modal gate.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I'm sure they have. But that doesn't mean it's a majority or even that it's local people objecting.
> 
> You're clear you're not in favour of a "technocracy".  Are you also against representative democracy - you want direct democracy instead?
> 
> ...



I would have thought being against a "technocracy" is not extreme idea.  You are sliding it to other issues I notice.

Im not an armchair philosopher. I base a lot of my views on what I see around me. Im involved in local community so I see democracy, or attempts at it,  in practise. 

I was at a meeting yesterday, A Cllr said they had a lot of emails about Shakespeare road. The officer urged people to comment on the Commonplace  website as officers were analysing the comments and resullts.

The local Cllrs , elected as representative for the area, will hopefully be looking at results and supporting altering the scheme were needed.

This Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood idea has been done by dividing the area into different sections.

So its the Council who have been making this "granular". They have set up separate commonplace for comments on that section of the scheme. 

So in practise its a mixture of representative ( Cllrs) along with the Counci encouraging locals to say what they think of this particular scheme. With Cllr taking the final decision on altering it. 

Has had been said more than once here this Labour run Council is a Coop Council. Its aim is to further local democracy by having more input by local people on services and policy. Its not my idea. 

So what I do is try to make that mean something. I work within the system.

Reminds me a long time ago I was representing tenants at a licensing committee meeting. Afterwards one of the sympathetic Cllrs said to me she saw her role as not to be an expert on every technicality of licensing. But to listen to resident and use her power as a Cllr to question and scrutinise what the "experts" , the officers, do. 

Meeting I went to yesterday was appaling . The other Cllr had yet another go at anyone who disagreed / complained. 

Im questioning my involvemnt in local issues. I dont need a leading Cllr have a go at me for just taking part in local community. I have enough problems to deal with now with the pandemic.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2020)

I was out in the community last night, talking to residents of St Matthews Rd and Shakespeare Rd. I would say that the overwhelming majority did not have any big objection to the Livable Neighbourhoods.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 26, 2020)

Rushy said:


> How do you report drivers for speaking on the phone whilst driving? Did you video them or something?
> 
> Cars still steaming through St Matthews modal gate.


Depends - Roadsafe website when I don’t have footage.

Report a road traffic incident | The Met when I do


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Depends - Roadsafe website when I  footage.
> 
> Report a road traffic incident | The Met when I do


Do you reckon anything actually happens as a result of making a report?


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So its the Council who have been making this "granular". They have set up separate commonplace for comments on that section of the scheme.



I's almost as if the whole presentation is designed to facilitate nimby '_this junction is awful_' pins without providing coherent space for any wider consideration pins about displacement, resilience, social consequences or anything else.

I'm not at all surprised you feel dejected, I've been admiring your tenacity for years.


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I was out in the community last night, talking to residents of St Matthews Rd and Shakespeare Rd. I would say that the overwhelming majority did not have any big objection to the Livable Neighbourhoods.


Insiders prefer peace & quiet because traffic is elsewhere isn't a surprise.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 26, 2020)

Someone on this thread was had an idea about controlling traffic volumes by giving everyone an 'allocation' of tradable miles each year.  Personal carbon trading

This city in Finland is taking a similar idea but thinking beyond just 'driving' and looking at carbon emissions of all transport and giving a carbon allocation.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2020)

newbie said:


> because I'm reacting to what's being done on quite a large scale, not seeking to push ideas of my own onto others.


No different really to expressing your opinion on whether the proposed schemes should go ahead. You were happy to make some suggestions about alternative ways to deal with excessive traffic - extending the CC zone, road rationing, banning SUVs and so on. So why the reluctance to say that you think removing already existing livable neighbourhood type schemes would be a good idea?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Someone on this thread was had an idea about controlling traffic volumes by giving everyone an 'allocation' of tradable miles each year.  Personal carbon trading
> 
> This city in Finland is taking a similar idea but thinking beyond just 'driving' and looking at carbon emissions of all transport and giving a carbon allocation.


I note it's voluntary. Would be interesting to see how it plays out over time, and whether users work out ways to game it.


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You were happy to make some suggestions about alternative ways to deal with excessive traffic - extending the CC zone, road rationing, banning SUVs and so on. So why the reluctance to say that you think removing already existing livable neighbourhood type schemes would be a good idea?


No I wasn't!  I made it very clear that while I wasn't running away from being questioned about alternatives to what's being imposed, it's not my proposals under discussion and specifically said that I hoped no-one would read the post in which I set out some other possibilities.




newbie said:


> It's really not my proposals we're discussing here, it's what Lambeth are currently planning that matter.
> 
> I'm not going to duck the question, I can but try to answer, but I'm not part of a group with a rehearsed position, and temperamentally I'm far more comfortable with deconstructing than I am with blue sky thinking. So I suspect I'm about to dig myself a hole, but here goes. I hope no-one can be bothered to read it.




How on earth can that be described as 'happy'?


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> So why the reluctance to say that you think removing already existing livable neighbourhood type schemes would be a good idea?


 Is this the 3rd or 4th time you've tried to goad me to say _make London a free for all for drivers_?  Each time I've rejected what you're trying to push me into you come back with another attempt.

I'm hoping I'm not the only one on this thread who recognises how desperate you're getting.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Do you reckon anything actually happens as a result of making a report?



Cycling Mikey has quite a few convictions to his name.... (131 videos in that playlist alone)


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Someone on this thread was had an idea about controlling traffic volumes by giving everyone an 'allocation' of tradable miles each year.  Personal carbon trading
> 
> This city in Finland is taking a similar idea but thinking beyond just 'driving' and looking at carbon emissions of all transport and giving a carbon allocation.


In the same way that a voluntary and small scale Universal Basic Income trial is going to be interesting but not decisive, this is a good initiative.  I think something similar is part of one or more of the proposals in the Smart City process that's been going on in India for the last couple of years.   Please report back if you come across any outcomes conclusions.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2020)

newbie said:


> Is this the 3rd or 4th time you've tried to goad me to say _make London a free for all for drivers_?  Each time I've rejected what you're trying to push me into you come back with another attempt.
> 
> I'm hoping I'm not the only one on this thread who recognises how desperate you're getting.



I'm not asking you to say "make London a free-for-all for drivers".

I'm simply wondering whether you agree that the logic you apply to your objections to the current proposals, would also apply to similar schemes that have already been implemented.

You've been pretty clear that it's your view that designing neighbourhoods to discourage through journeys is highly problematic because it concentrates traffic on main routes.

It seems to me that therefore, places where this has already happened are actively causing high levels of pollution on main roads nearby. You are clear that this pollution could be reduced if some of that traffic could be dispersed. So I wonder why you are refusing to even discuss this.


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

And again   

Keep poking, you never know I might get bored enough to indulge your ridiculous little game.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 26, 2020)

newbie said:


> And again
> 
> Keep poking, you never know I might get bored enough to indulge your ridiculous little game.



It’s not a silly little game when five people are killed by cars and car drivers everyday in the uk


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

Their game is a player not ball attempt to set me up for a charge of hypocrisy.   I presume there's something up their sleeve yet to be revealed.

I don't much like picking over stats tbh but '_killed by_' implies causality, so is that a measure of convictions or something?  It's very high, is it really the number of deaths involving cars and car drivers on 20mph backstreets in the inner city?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2020)

Here's Lambeth Cyclists' current take on things.









						We’ve come a long way baby!
					

This page has links and details of schemes from the last few years. Click map to get to interactive site with photos Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Oval Railton Ferndale Streatham Hill Tulse Hill Moved…




					lambethcyclists.org.uk


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 26, 2020)

newbie said:


> I don't much like picking over stats tbh but '_killed by_' implies causality, so is that a measure of convictions or something?  It's very high, is it really the number of deaths involving cars and car drivers on 20mph backstreets in the inner city?



Causality - yes,  pedestrian dies when hit by a motor vehicle. I think it's fairly safe to say the motor vehicle (or more accurately the driver) is the cause of death.  Unless you're about to enter a whole world of pain perhaps do a bit of searching.  There's a whole load of victim blaming in Police reports - eg Contributary factor - Dangerous action in carriageway (e.g. playing).  Damn those kids wanting to play in the street, they brought it on themselves. Even allowing for that it's a very small proportion of collisions where the vulnerable party is judged to be at fault. 

Pedestrian pavement deaths



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834585/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2018.pdf


----------



## Rushy (Jun 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I was out in the community last night, talking to residents of St Matthews Rd and Shakespeare Rd. I would say that the overwhelming majority did not have any big objection to the Livable Neighbourhoods.


Good job . Would you say on balance that the individuals you interrogated were broadly representative of the Railton / St Matthews community? 🤨


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Causality - yes,  pedestrian dies when hit by a motor vehicle. I think it's fairly safe to say the motor vehicle (or more accurately the driver) is the cause of death.



I'm sure you do, and those sorts of glib overstatement is why non-professionals bickering about stats gets no-one anywhere.  It's dead easy to make a claim, like 5 a day, but can take days of pointless back and forth to actually unpick real meaning.



> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834585/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2018.pdf



It's blatantly obvious that a great many road deaths and casualties are caused by car drivers. Had that been said no comment would have been needed.

but here we go, I don't want to do this at all 

Just to be clear, the claim "_five people are killed by cars and car drivers everyday_" is not supported in that document. It would be much more accurate to say "_five people were killed in reported road traffic accidents everyday_" as the number of 'accidents' (not a word I like) involving cars, lorries, motorcycles etc is not differentiated, nor is legal determination of which driver (or other) bears responsibility. So the initial claim was outright wrong, but it takes far longer to deconstruct than to make.

More to the point of this thread, of that 5 per day, actually about 1.8 were apparently on (all types of) urban road, a figure that doesn't seem to have changed that much despite the introduction of 20mph on backstreets across some urban areas.  That's far too many, as are the casualty figures for urban roads (which are actually much more concerning to my mind).  But there's no breakdown, nothing to show whether the high numbers of deaths on two wheels, particularly motorbikes, are mostly urban.  Nothing to show the distribution of urban road deaths and injuries between urban clearways (typically 40mph), 30mph arteries, regularly used 'ratruns' and ordinary backstreets, many now 20mph.  

Without that level of detail I'm not sure how that report helps this discussion.  If you have decent stats about Lambeth, with breakdown by road type, they may provide illumination.

Otherwise I don't think this sort of nitpicking is useful, so you're welcome to the last word on this.



.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 26, 2020)

newbie said:


> as the number of 'accidents' (not a word I like)


So don't use it.  The Police haven't for some years - they're collisions or crashes.  
20mph didn't make a lot of difference and hasn't been in place long enough. Average speeds dropped only by about 1mph. Need much more enforcement and much harsher penalties to actually get people driving at 20 and not at 30mph ("it's not a limit, the police won't do you if you're going less than 30" as I've been told by a speeding driver  is indicative of how speed limits are treated)


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> So don't use it.  The Police haven't for some years - they're collisions or crashes.



did you actually read the report you linked?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 26, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Good job . Would you say on balance that the individuals you interrogated were broadly representative of the Railton / St Matthews community? 🤨


As I was carrying out this somewhat laborious work on a voluntary and unpaid basis I think my sampling methods should be immune to questioning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 26, 2020)

newbie said:


> did you actually read the report you linked?
> 
> 
> View attachment 219538


That's a department of transport report not a police report. Although I suspect if I looked I'd find thebackrow is wrong about copspeak


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> That's a department of transport report not a police report. Although I suspect if I looked I'd find thebackrow is wrong about copspeak


Yes, I did actually read it.  But then I didn't introduce it or the police into this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Someone on this thread was had an idea about controlling traffic volumes by giving everyone an 'allocation' of tradable miles each year.  Personal carbon trading
> 
> This city in Finland is taking a similar idea but thinking beyond just 'driving' and looking at carbon emissions of all transport and giving a carbon allocation.



This sounds a good idea. Its not punitive but rewards those with low carbon footprint.

I prefer schemes that give people positive incentive to lower carbon footprint.

I reckon I would do well out of this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2020)

I got this email today. It has links to the commonplace website for comments. So its saying the scheme will be altered after more communit consultation. They are depending a lot on emails to Cllrs and the Commonplace. As the pandemic limits face to face discussion. So its important for people to do this. 





I'll  Railton low-traffic neighbourhood begins this weekend

Works to begin in Railton Road
Free Dr Bike check ups available
Better fairer Brixton
As part of our response to the current pandemic we are creating low traffic neighbourhoods across Lambeth. From this weekend, the area around Railton will become the latest neighbourhood to go low traffic and feet friendly!

What does this mean?
Put simply, vehicles can drive to and from the area, but you cannot drive through. This means that every single property can be accessed by motor vehicle but the streets are no longer suitable as a traffic cut through.


You may have noticed that work has already taken place to implement the closure at Shakespeare Road and St Matthews road and work has begun on installing bus gates along Railton Road itself.

There are a several important facts that we want to make sure everyone is aware of;

The whole area will be fully accessible for vehicles to travel to and from. Whether driven by residents, businesses, deliveries, or visitors to the area from elsewhere, nothing being introduced will stop people from driving to and from the area. Their route may change but no vehicles will be stopped from accessing the area.
Every single street within the area will be fully accessible by vehicle, some will be accessible to drive in and out from one end only. Routes may change but no vehicles will be stopped from accessing any section of any street.

We are working with the community to listen to residents’ feedback and we are monitoring the way traffic and air quality changes. We will refine and improve the layout of these changes based on the combination of technical data and community feedback.
Go to Check out Lambeth Council’s ideas for healthier and safer streets in the Railton Neighbourhood to have your say or text/call 07860180545 to learn more about the project and how you can be involved.
Less traffic passing through the area creates much needed space to support businesses and customers, particularly on Atlantic Road, to enable more space to safely distance. In addition to business support grants, we are working with local businesses to enable them to use this space to ensure their survival through this time.

Providing road works are not delayed the changes will take effect on the 27th June
The changes are enforceable as soon as the signs are in place. A police officer can issue a fine to a vehicle if seen going through the closure.
The council will begin actively issuing warning notices for vehicles passing through the restriction on the 11th July.
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) will start being issued for vehicles travelling through the restrictions from 25th July. This will help people with time to adjust to the changes and allow much needed conversations to take place with the community.

Dr Bike Surgeries

Our professional bike mechanics set up stations in the Railton Area offering free cycle maintenance checks and advice.

Check locations and timetable below :

Marcus Garvey Way

27/06/2020 - Saturday 12:00 - 15:00

01/07/2020 - Wednesday 16:00 - 19:00

Shakespeare Rd / Coldharbour Lane

04/07/2020 - Saturday 12:00 - 15:00

08/07/2020 - Wednesday 16:00 - 19:00

Finally our new “Feet Friendly Street” campaign is about to hit the streets of Railton. Watch out for it!
Feet Friendly


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 27, 2020)

Looks great. I don't understand these "Bus Gates" though. Do the flower beds/signs shrink into the ground when an ambulance or 322 appears?

That was what went wrong in the Loughborough junction trial, ambulances got stuck if I recall.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 27, 2020)

There's a wide gap, they just drive through. 
It's a myth that ambulances were getting stuck in the lj one.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 27, 2020)

newbie said:


> I'm not at all surprised you feel dejected, I've been admiring your tenacity for years.



Thanks,

I was reminded that Starmer told Boris that he is confusing "Srutiny for Attack". Boris told Starmer his constant questioning was undermining public trust in govenment.

This is how some of the Labour Cllrs go on. Anyone who asks questions is attacking the Labour Council. 

A problem with the One Party state that runs Lambeth is that I would have thought that Labour group would feel confident enough to give Ward Cllrs more leeway to question officers/ council decisions.

Especially as a Cabinet was introduced to replace committee system.

What happened to Cllr Rachel shows the Labour Cllrs are still micro managed. Or chosen on basis they won't argue. 

This leaves scrutiny of Council down to local residents. Which is not how it should be. Leaves one open to attack from Cllrs as Boris did to Starmer.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 27, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks,
> 
> I was reminded that Starmer told Boris that he is confusing "Srutiny for Attack". Boris told Starmer his constant questioning was undermining public trust in govenment.
> 
> ...


But it suits the council to be in essence unaccountable


----------



## editor (Jun 27, 2020)

Update Work on Railton Road low traffic neighbourhood starts this weekend between Brixton and Herne Hill, 27th-28th June 2020

The accompanying graphic has images labelled 'Modal Filter.' Yeah, people are really going to understand.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 30, 2020)

> The accompanying graphic has images labelled 'Modal Filter.' Yeah, people are really going to understand



Well, these drivers in Lewisham don't.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 30, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well, these drivers in Lewisham don't.



This is the kind of vibrancy we are dealing with.


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is the kind of vibrancy we are dealing with.



Outsiders doing their best to become Insiders.


----------



## newbie (Jun 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is the kind of vibrancy we are dealing with.



define 'we'.

The clip appears to show people driving round a blockage, with (apparently) no other way out.  It's unclear why it's described as a modal filter.  Maybe there's a coherent plan for one sometime in the future, but in the meantime whatever plank created that mess should be out of a job.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 30, 2020)

newbie said:


> define 'we'.
> 
> The clip appears to show people driving round a blockage, with (apparently) no other way out.  It's unclear why it's described as a modal filter.  Maybe there's a coherent plan for one sometime in the future, but in the meantime whatever plank created that mess should be out of a job.



Unless it's a one way street of course there's a way out. Regardless of whether whatever it is was implemented by a plank, no one should ever be driving onto the pavement like that. Hope they all get done.


----------



## newbie (Jun 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Unless it's a one way street of course there's a way out. Regardless of whether whatever it is was implemented by a plank, no one should ever be driving onto the pavement like that. Hope they all get done.


I don't know Lewisham, but I'm obviously misunderstanding something.  Perhaps you could explain how I should be reading that clip.

and you forgot a definition of 'we'.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 30, 2020)

newbie said:


> define 'we'.
> 
> The clip appears to show people driving round a blockage, with (apparently) no other way out.  It's unclear why it's described as a modal filter.  Maybe there's a coherent plan for one sometime in the future, but in the meantime whatever plank created that mess should be out of a job.


When I’ve seen these things before there have been signs at junctions, which these drivers have driven past. They are then mounting the pavement to get on a closed road.


----------



## newbie (Jun 30, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> When I’ve seen these things before there have been signs at junctions, which these drivers have driven past. They are then mounting the pavement to get on a closed road.


Indeed.  When you've seen them before have you seen a stream of drivers pouring like lemmings into a properly signed closed off cul de sac with no apparent way out, no room to turn round and a long line behind?  Or is that somehow specific to this mess?  As for calling it a 'modal filter', what's that about?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 30, 2020)

A modal filter means that only certain modes of transport are allowed through. In this case, clearly only bicycles and pedestrians are allowed through.

This is what I watched happen in Loughborough Junction 5 years ago. People drove past multiple advance signs and then onto the pavement to get round barriers. Eventually someone just rammed the barrier out of the way, so it blocked one of the pavements instead.

"We" is everyone who lives in London.


----------



## newbie (Jun 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> A modal filter means that only certain modes of transport are allowed through. In this case, clearly only bicycles and pedestrians are allowed through.
> 
> This is what I watched happen in Loughborough Junction 5 years ago. People drove past multiple advance signs and then onto the pavement to get round barriers. Eventually someone just rammed the barrier out of the way, so it blocked one of the pavements instead.



clearly




> "We" is everyone who lives in London.


self evidently it's not.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 30, 2020)

Last year, after a car had barrel rolled down Railton as he was going too fast and clipped another car before crashing, I complained to our local councillor and asked about why there were no speed cameras. I was told that there was no point as they would be damaged all the time. Given the main enforcement on these LTN schemes is ANPR cameras, I’ll be interested to see if the same happens to them


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 30, 2020)

ha. The BID are going big on their 'pedestrianise Brixton' plans.  
Brixton BID - Brixton Playground 

I'm not sure that calling it a 'playground' and putting Brewdog front and centre is going to win over hearts and minds here.....


----------



## teuchter (Jun 30, 2020)

newbie said:


> clearly
> 
> 
> 
> self evidently it's not.


There's a conflict over how space is used. As it's public space, by definition we are all involved. 

And that means dealing with differing opinions. 

Clearly one opinion is that access to this public space should not be determined by the conditions under which a driving licence is granted.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 2, 2020)

Someone spent a lot of time last night moving the social / spatial distancing traffic cones off the road and onto the pavement in the Herne Hill railway stretch.

That bit hasn’t even been that busy with traffic.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 2, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Someone spent a lot of time last night moving the social / spatial distancing traffic cones off the road and onto the pavement in the Herne Hill railway stretch.
> 
> That bit hasn’t even been that busy with traffic.


I would be amazed if they weren't caught by CCTV somewhere around that junction.  Must have been a few people to do all that?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2020)

Are they being put back?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Are they being put back?


They were there just now.

Still no modal gate at the Herne Hill end of Railton Road. Signs saying road is closed from 27 June but nothing there. Traffic as normal.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Still no modal gate at the Herne Hill end of Railton Road. Signs saying road is closed from 27 June but nothing there. Traffic as normal.


in theory the signs are all that's needed.  Based on Shakespeare Road it looks like it will only be effective for a lot of drivers when the fines start getting sent out.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> in theory the signs are all that's needed.  Based on Shakespeare Road it looks like it will only be effective for a lot of drivers when the fines start getting sent out.


It's the big yellow signs rather than the no entry traffic signs. I don't think those are enforceable as it is not clear where ahead the road is closed.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> They were there just now.
> 
> Still no modal gate at the Herne Hill end of Railton Road. Signs saying road is closed from 27 June but nothing there. Traffic as normal.


Another Lambeth botch-job then.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> It's the big yellow signs rather than the no entry traffic signs. I don't think those are enforceable as it is not clear where ahead the road is closed.


it's the 'no motor vehicles' signs on posts that mean motors legally cant drive though and they are in place.  The yellow signs are just information


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> it's the 'no motor vehicles' signs on posts that mean motors legally cant drive though and they are in place.  The yellow signs are just information


Yep - and there are none.

Not that they are stopping much traffic where they have been installed on St Matthews Road, anyway.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Yep - and there are none.



You might want to go and have another look - they have been in place since the weekend in the places the website said they would be


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 2, 2020)

Fines start 27th July I think.

Traffic has reduced (or at least that’s my anecdata from looking out of the window for the last few days).  

waze is updated so far fewer private hire cars. 

Better signs are needed on Hurst Street as most drivers turning off Dulwich Road onto Hurst and then left on to Railton to get to Brixton and generally don’t bother following the give way sign or white lines. This means they get outside 198 gallery and then u-turn.

Loads more pedestrians and cyclists.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Yep - and there are none.



Signs? There’s 4! 2 facing either direction (flying motorcycle / no access to motor vehicle ones)


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You might want to go and have another look - they have been in place since the weekend in the places the website said they would be


I just walked past it specifically to see if it was there. I will be heading back there later with a desk I've been having lovingly repaired later and will check again!


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Signs? There’s 4! 2 facing either direction (flying motorcycle / no access to motor vehicle ones)



Oh .

Maybe I was distracted watching the skip lorry .


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 2, 2020)

In front of the house of the older lady which now has scaffolding up and then opposite by the phone box.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 2, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> In front of the house of the older lady which now has scaffolding up and then opposite by the phone box.


Yep - I totally missed them. I may even have been stood right under one! They're quite tall. Much less conspicuous than the St Matthews Road ones which are set into the road itself rather than the pavement, narrowing it. And there are no planters. It would appear that drivers are not noticing them either. It was pretty much traffic as usual.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 4, 2020)

ANPR camera installed now on Railton Road at the Herne hill modal


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 5, 2020)

Noticeably quieter too.


----------



## lordnoise (Jul 6, 2020)

While the council undemocratically sows seeds of division within the Railton community we see flowerings of democracy from the residents of Shakespeare Rd north of the bridge ...


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2020)

Blimey  😬


There is a Zoom meeting of representatives from each street this evening. Not sure how they were chosen.
The organisers have made a survey to gather opinions from people who live and work in the zone.




__





						Free Online Survey Software by SurveyMonkey: Closed Survey
					

This survey is currently closed.  Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance.




					www.surveymonkey.co.uk
				




I think it is just to inform the meeting so responses would presumably need to be in by this afternoon.

Not sure whether there is a representative from St Matthews Road - the road is not actually mentioned in the survey.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 6, 2020)

I just noticed something in the scheme description which is different to what I'd understood:



> Railton Road and the surrounding side roads will be fully accessible by vehicle from one direction or the other but most vehicles will not be able to drive through, end to end. Essential vehicle movements such as; emergency services, 322 bus, blue badge holders, dial-a-ride (including other mobility support services) and refuse collection will still be able to use the street as they do now.



Hadn't realised that blue badge holders will be able to pass through the 'gates' too.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 6, 2020)

Guy’s & St Thomas’ have just come out in support of Lambeth’s transport strategy.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 6, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Guy’s & St Thomas’ have just come out in support of Lambeth’s transport strategy.


Is that surprising? Isn't Lambeth one of their designated "test bed" boroughs for researching different ideas?

(That's not an argument against it - just like well ... duh!  )


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2020)

Some lively chat here


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 6, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Guy’s & St Thomas’ have just come out in support of Lambeth’s transport strategy.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 7, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Guy’s & St Thomas’ have just come out in support of Lambeth’s transport strategy.



Thats the managers of Guys and St Thomas. Not the workers.

I heard the workers at Guys were not happy about introduction of CPZ zones nearby. 


All these green measures need to take into account that workers bear the brunt of this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 7, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> View attachment 221204



Measures like hiking up the congestion charge:









						'Congestion charge hike is stab in the back,' says nurse
					

A distraught nurse from Kent, who works at a busy London hospital, says the congestion charge increase is "getting beyond stupid".




					www.kentonline.co.uk


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 7, 2020)

I'd hate to have to do a shift as a nurse then still have to cycle home.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2020)

I thought NHS staff were exempt from it for now.

But anyway, why are we worrying about the NHS workers who own a car instead of all the ones who don't?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 7, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I thought NHS staff were exempt from it for now.
> 
> But anyway, why are we worrying about the NHS workers who own a car instead of all the ones who don't?



Thought nurses were all heroes we should support?

Boris deal that he forced on TFL and Mayor meant exemptions went.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 7, 2020)

Still a few cars driving through the Herne Hill end gate. But it is bloody peaceful otherwise!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 7, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> I'd hate to have to do a shift as a nurse then still have to cycle home.


How about if you do a shift then have to get on a bus or a tube?.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 8, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Thought nurses were all heroes we should support?
> 
> Boris deal that he forced on TFL and Mayor meant exemptions went.


It seems you can get a reimbursement for journeys to and from work if you are dealing with the coronavirus outbreak (however that is defined):





__





						Amendments and refunds
					

See if you're eligible for a refund or remibursement on your Congestion Charge payment




					tfl.gov.uk
				




I don't really know why NHS staff should get special treatment to be honest; there are lots of other people doing essential work who have to travel in and out of central London and many of them will not be as well paid. It simply doesn't work if everyone tries to drive.


----------



## Big Bertha (Jul 8, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Thought nurses were all heroes we should support?
> 
> Boris deal that he forced on TFL and Mayor meant exemptions went.



interesting article you may find informative?









						Why we shouldn't be calling our healthcare workers 'heroes' | Charlotte Higgins
					

They’re doing a fantastic job, but the language of heroism can be used to silence complaints, says Charlotte Higgins, the Guardian’s chief culture writer




					www.google.co.uk


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 8, 2020)

Big Bertha said:


> interesting article you may find informative?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So what is your opinion?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It seems you can get a reimbursement for journeys to and from work if you are dealing with the coronavirus outbreak (however that is defined):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The nurse is article reckons she does not get it.

My underlying point is that when someone says something like Guys support such and such. its the management who are saying this.

One of the thing about the pandemic is that workers are important and needed. They should be treated with more respect.

The workers should get more of a voice.

It was posted that Guys and Thomas support Lambeth transport plans. Turns out this is management. Goes unremarked.

If clapping for nurses or calling them heroes is to mean anything in the future things are going to have to change.


----------



## newbie (Jul 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't really know why NHS staff should get special treatment to be honest; there are lots of other people doing essential work who have to travel in and out of central London and many of them will not be as well paid. It simply doesn't work if everyone tries to drive.


I don't really see why evangelical single issue obsessives get special treatment, but the way this whole process has been stitched up leaves little room for doubt that that's what's happening.

Of all the ways to respond to Covid gentrifying a few Victorian streets is a lot less obvious than trying, however imperfectly, to show some love to those who've risked death daily.  But it's alright, you're getting your way, the exemption will end.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 8, 2020)

newbie said:


> I don't really see why evangelical single issue obsessives get special treatment, but the way this whole process has been stitched up leaves little room for doubt that that's what's happening.
> 
> Of all the ways to respond to Covid gentrifying a few Victorian streets is a lot less obvious than trying, however imperfectly, to show some love to those who've risked death daily.  But it's alright, you're getting your way, the exemption will end.


That's parking, not congestion charge.
I'll continue to argue the case for all the people who risk death daily at work, and who don't have the option to isolate themselves in their own vehicle on their way there and back.


----------



## newbie (Jul 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That's parking, not congestion charge.
> I'll continue to argue the case for all the people who risk death daily at work, and who don't have the option to isolate themselves in their own vehicle on their way there and back.


Yes I'm sure you will,  you're well practiced at wearing down and isolating any opposition.  Thinking about something else entirely I nosed into the Herne Hill thread last night, and discovered a parallel conversation  with you and your mates throwing around your standard scripted responses and carefully picked stats at anyone daring to dissent.


----------



## Winot (Jul 8, 2020)

newbie said:


> Yes I'm sure you will,  you're well practiced at wearing down and isolating any opposition.  Thinking about something else entirely I nosed into the Herne Hill thread last night, and discovered a parallel conversation  with you and your mates throwing around your standard scripted responses and carefully picked stats at anyone daring to dissent.



Bloody hell newbie, lighten up. It’s not 1930s Russia and you’re not a political dissident.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 8, 2020)

Hamilton’s (often cited as being negatively affected by the changes by online critics) just told me that they support the scheme.

They’re handing out the leaflets from the Low Traffic Action Group that Rushy mentioned. 

I’ll photo them and load them into here later. 

The leaflet outlines the support and opposition.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 8, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> I'd hate to have to do a shift as a nurse then still have to cycle home.


but you're not worried about someone who you think is too tired to cycle controlling a 2 tonne motor vehicle?


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2020)

Local update: 















						Residents demand disabled access for Brixton/Herne Hill low traffic neighbourhood scheme, July 2020
					

Two home made banners have appeared on Shakespeare Road in response to the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme which was introduced last month.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## teuchter (Jul 8, 2020)

newbie said:


> Yes I'm sure you will,  you're well practiced at wearing down and isolating any opposition.  Thinking about something else entirely I nosed into the Herne Hill thread last night, and discovered a parallel conversation  with you and your mates throwing around your standard scripted responses and carefully picked stats at anyone daring to dissent.


Don't worry, I don't have total freedom to express my views, here on this public discussion board, on something that I feel is important.

I'm banned on these boards from commenting on anything that's written on a local online news/listings site that I'm banned from mentioning. So if that site were to publish an article highlighting a campaign claiming that the scheme prevented access for a certain group of people, and if I thought this was promoting a misleading or accurate picture of how the scheme worked, I'd not be allowed to say so


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 8, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> but you're not worried about someone who you think is too tired to cycle controlling a 2 tonne motor vehicle?


Maybe it's just me  but I think driving a car is a lot less  strenuous than cycling.

I also have concerns about overworking people  but  comparatively  yeah I think you can be too tired  to cycle  but okay to drive.


----------



## newbie (Jul 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Don't worry, I don't have total freedom to express my views, here on this public discussion board, on something that I feel is important.
> 
> I'm banned on these boards from commenting on anything that's written on a local online news/listings site that I'm banned from mentioning. So if that site were to publish an article highlighting a campaign claiming that the scheme prevented access for a certain group of people, and if I thought this was promoting a misleading or accurate picture of how the scheme worked, I'd not be allowed to say so


There's probably history there that I neither know nor care about, but yes, I'm sure you love to challenge any '_misleading or accurate_' journalism that somehow conflicts with your anti-car ideology.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 8, 2020)

Just rolled down from the Herne Hill end. It says the road is closed but there weren't any barriers so the car in front of me just went down Railton Road anyway.

Has the whole thing fallen apart?
Is the disabled access for 'access' or just passing through?  Seem to be alot of aggresive speedy drivers around recently, is it a post-lockdown thing?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 8, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Just rolled down from the Herne Hill end. It says the road is closed but there weren't any barriers so the car in front of me just went down Railton Road anyway.
> Has the whole thing fallen apart?
> Is the disabled access for 'access' or just passing through?  Seem to be alot of aggresive speedy drivers around recently, is it a post-lockdown thing?



There are signs that show 'no motor vehicles'.  Passing those signs is an offence.  There are ANPR cameras (I think I heard some are now installed) and they'll get a fine of £130 (might be a couple of weeks of warning letters).

I think that info about disabled access is just wrong - blue badge is registered to a person not a car so can't see how ANPR cameras could deal with it reliably and I'm sure I'd seen a clear statement that it was buses, bin lorries and emergency services only that are allowed to pass the signs.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 8, 2020)

editor said:


> Some lively chat here




Yes that is lively.

I get confused about what are Council social media and what are started by individuals.

Look ike this is individual who supports the scheme. Nothing wrong with that. But not clear


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 8, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Yes that is lively.
> 
> I get confused about what are Council social media and what are started by individuals.
> 
> Look ike this is individual who supports the scheme. Nothing wrong with that. But not clear


I don’t think there is any ambiguity based on the twitter bio.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 8, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I don’t think there is any ambiguity based on the twitter bio.



I do. Where is the twitter bio? All I see is one person Berry who manages it.

Nothing else.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 8, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I do.


But you’re a contrary bugger who will disagree with anything I post. The bio says what it’s for and who runs it. Her own bio says who she is and what groups she’s involved in. Coming from an anonymous avatar who refused any attempts from me to meet in person when I tried last year that’s a bit rich.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 8, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> But you’re a contrary bugger who will disagree with anything I post. The bio says what it’s for and who runs it. Her own bio says who she is and what groups she’s involved in. Coming from an anonymous avatar who refused any attempts from me to meet in person when I tried last year that’s a bit rich.



No Im not a contrary bugger. This is just abusive. By

I find this post threatening. What are you implying ? That Im a coward?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 8, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No Im not a contrary bugger. This is just abusive. By
> 
> I find this post threatening. What are you implying ? That Im a coward?


Of course not but it’s somewhat ironic someone anonymous complaining about the identity of a Twitter account that has made an unusual effort at full disclosure


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 8, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Of course not but it’s somewhat ironic someone anonymous complaining about the identity of a Twitter account that has made an unusual effort at full disclosure



Your implying Im a hypocrite.

You post up vaguely threatening post and when challenged roll back.

This is unacceptable posting behaviour.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 8, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Of course not but it’s somewhat ironic someone anonymous complaining about the identity of a Twitter account that has made an unusual effort at full disclosure



Im here posting my own opinions. I dont set up twitter sites.

In fact I post a lot of stuff about myself. Compared to other posters here I say a lot of stuff about myself.

Yet you pick on me. Im supposed to sort out differences of opinion with you in person.

You keep bringing this up.

Its threatening behaviour.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> But you’re a contrary bugger who will disagree with anything I post. The bio says what it’s for and who runs it. Her own bio says who she is and what groups she’s involved in. Coming from an anonymous avatar who refused any attempts from me to meet in person when I tried last year that’s a bit rich.


There's no obligation for people to post up any personal information here at all, and I'm not sure what a poster's refusal to meet you in real life has to do with the debate about restricted car access in Herne Hill. Sorry!


Gramsci said:


> Its threatening behaviour.


I think you may be reading more into this than is actually meant, unless I've missed some earlier posts. 

Either way, I'd be grateful if both of you could keep this discussion on topic, please...


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 9, 2020)

the leaflet from the low traffic action group. Their contact details are on the last page


----------



## Winot (Jul 9, 2020)

Good leaflet.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 9, 2020)

Cant get the website to work yet though


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> Good leaflet.



If you define 'good' as views of some insiders welcome, outsiders not. 

I guess that's to be expected for a local Action Group that operates a clearly campaigning  website and runs a survey for some  insiders only with a prize draw inducement for participation.

Everyone can see that there are well organised interests at play, some institutional, some ideological and some nakedly self-interested.  No outsiders are going to produce an equally 'good' leaflet or website, fund prizes or do much more than individually bleat. 

In the old days there might have been a proper public meeting, traditionally in the Assembly Rooms but that's apparently now an expensive wedding venue and anyway the virus means that's unlikely.  So we'll have to see how the outsiders express themselves.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> Good leaflet.


Except that whilst they refer to the Railton Road scheme they appear to have redefined the parameters of the official scheme so as to exclude the St Matthew's Road interventions, which are officially treated as being within the Railton Road area. The gate is not shown on their map. The meeting of street reps also did not include anyone from St Matthew's Road area. I don't think it is yet clear to the council that this group only represents residents in one part of the scheme.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 9, 2020)

There’s been quite a lively discussion on Nextdoor about it all with some really quite robust arguments on both sides. The gist of counter arguments is that the research model that the LTN’s are based on was written before smartphones and google maps came along, rendering it out of date. Navigation apps reroute vehicles around the LTN so overall traffic remains the same, just quieter or busier depending where you live in relation to the LTN. There’s loads more about stuff like some of the data sets are from the 70s and that some stats have been cherry picked but who knows. If it reduces the speedsters who seem to treat Railton and the surrounding streets like it’s the Monaco GP then it will be a success (cameras are the key though, not planters).


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Except that whilst they refer to the Railton Road scheme they appear to have redefined the parameters of the official scheme so as to exclude the St Matthew's Road interventions, which are officially treated as being within the Railton Road area. The gate is not shown on their map. The meeting of street reps also did not include anyone from St Matthew's Road area. I don't think it is yet clear to the council that this group only represents residents in one part of the scheme.



Oops sorry, I've edited my post above to say _some _insiders...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2020)

There are some outsiders on the case down in oval.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> Oops sorry, I've edited my post above to say _some _insiders...


----------



## Winot (Jul 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Except that whilst they refer to the Railton Road scheme they appear to have redefined the parameters of the official scheme so as to exclude the St Matthew's Road interventions, which are officially treated as being within the Railton Road area. The gate is not shown on their map. The meeting of street reps also did not include anyone from St Matthew's Road area. I don't think it is yet clear to the council that this group only represents residents in one part of the scheme.



(((St. Matthew’s Road)))


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Except that whilst they refer to the Railton Road scheme they appear to have redefined the parameters of the official scheme so as to exclude the St Matthew's Road interventions, which are officially treated as being within the Railton Road area. The gate is not shown on their map. The meeting of street reps also did not include anyone from St Matthew's Road area. I don't think it is yet clear to the council that this group only represents residents in one part of the scheme.


Seems unlikely they'd have a problem with someone in the st matthews rd area getting in touch and asking if it can be included their scope?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> (((St. Matthew’s Road)))


Cute. But it's actually pretty shit.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> If it reduces the speedsters who seem to treat Railton and the surrounding streets like it’s the Monaco GP then it will be a success (cameras are the key though, not planters).



Agree.  I do a lot of off road cycling and a long held gripe is the number of gates and barriers designed to prevent kids on motorcycles which actually obstruct  buggies, mobility scooters and laden touring cycles.  There's a fundamental question about restricting legitimate use to prevent a few non-legitimate users.

As for cherry picked stats, who'dathought?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Seems unlikely they'd have a problem with someone in the st matthews rd area getting in touch and asking if it can be included their scope?


Ask for permission not be excluded?

I'm already doing this and they are open. But I've only just moved back at the beginning of lock down so can only represent my own, and a small number of others', views.

 I don't blame the residents group. More of a case of this kind of confusion is what is to be expected when there is a lack of proper organised consultation by the council. Which is exactly the point I've been making all along.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There are some outsiders on the case down in oval.



I have a lot less time for the views of a conservative association than I do for the stuff you lot obsess about, so if one of the (presumably unintended) consequences of this is to push people into their arms then these schemes are even worse than I thought.

That said, it's fundamentally dishonest to claim that everything on the pictured leaflet is made up, irrespective of the single point about emergency services which is not one I would personally make.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2020)

Who's "you lot" at the moment?


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Who's "you lot" at the moment?



"there are well organised interests at play, some institutional, some ideological and some nakedly self-interested."

take your pick


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 9, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> The gist of counter arguments is that the research model that the LTN’s are based on was written before smartphones and google maps came along, rendering it out of date. Navigation apps reroute vehicles around the LTN so overall traffic remains the same, just quieter or busier depending where you live in relation to the LTN.


That's an interesting view - I've always thought that the need for LTNs is in part driven directly by smartphones and satnavs.  'Rat runs' used to require some local knowledge and people wouldn't bother using them at night when the main roads were quiet.  Now Google/Waze will redirect drivers down rat runs to save seconds at any time of day - my own road has definitely got busier outside old peak hours in the last 10 years while overall traffic levels have supposedly fallen.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's an interesting view - I've always thought that the need for LTNs is in part driven directly by smartphones and satnavs.  'Rat runs' used to require some local knowledge and people wouldn't bother using them at night when the main roads were quiet.  Now Google/Waze will redirect drivers down rat runs to save seconds at any time of day - my own road has definitely got busier outside old peak hours in the last 10 years while overall traffic levels have supposedly fallen.


Yeah that's my understanding too.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> "there are well organised interests at play, some institutional, some ideological and some nakedly self-interested."
> 
> take your pick


If only we could act without ideology or naked self-interest.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There are some outsiders on the case down in oval.



I love tories fighting against their own government policies


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's an interesting view - I've always thought that the need for LTNs is in part driven directly by smartphones and satnavs.  'Rat runs' used to require some local knowledge and people wouldn't bother using them at night when the main roads were quiet.  Now Google/Waze will redirect drivers down rat runs to save seconds at any time of day - my own road has definitely got busier outside old peak hours in the last 10 years while overall traffic levels have supposedly fallen.


I sort of agree with your point if not the conclusion.  Sometimes it's seconds on an individual journey, sometimes more but the nature of those two rather different algorithms is to reduce the cumulative time all drivers spend travelling by spreading traffic across all the available routes.  No AI will approach the overall problem by deliberately funneling all traffic onto the same routes and through the same pinchpoints.  The growth of satnav use has directly led to lower congestion and shorter journey times, both good things.  The imposition of LTNs will reverse that.

I'm also going to highlight "_overall traffic levels have supposedly fallen_" because the use of stats is getting beyond silly. That's a good thing, isn't it, so why not celebrate it rather than cast doubt on it? Same as upthread you cast doubt on the effectiveness of the 20mph limit. Didn't you strongly advocate that before it was introduced? Now you're downplaying the effect in order to continue to pursue the overall no-car vision you seek to impose.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If only we could act without ideology or naked self-interest.


No particular reason why either of those is a bad thing, so long as they're clearly signposted and playing fields are reasonably level.  My post was because none of that was apparent in the 'good leaflet'.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> I sort of agree with your point if not the conclusion.  Sometimes it's seconds on an individual journey, sometimes more but the nature of those two rather different algorithms is to reduce the cumulative time all drivers spend travelling by spreading traffic across all the available routes.  No AI will approach the overall problem by deliberately funneling all traffic onto the same routes and through the same pinchpoints.  The growth of satnav use has directly led to lower congestion and shorter journey times, both good things.


Woaahh.  Firstly - any evidence for your claims of lower congestion and shorter journey times?  Anecdotally I hear of complaints that traffic speeds are slowing and congestion increasing - it certainly seems to be what the cabbies claim. 

Your own ideological position seems to be fundamentally pro-car -  that we should seek to maximise the capacity of the road network for motor vehicles (not for _people to move_ - private cars are a very space inefficient way of moving people around as average occupancy is below 1.5 people).  All the evidence from studies of induced demand says that motor traffic will expand to fill the available space - widen the ring road and suddenly people start driving to the supermarket on the other side of town and congestion doesn't reduce.  (can provide evidence links if you need them) 



newbie said:


> I'm also going to highlight "_overall traffic levels have supposedly fallen_" because the use of stats is getting beyond silly. That's a good thing, isn't it, so why not celebrate it rather than cast doubt on it? Same as upthread you cast doubt on the effectiveness of the 20mph limit. Didn't you strongly advocate that before it was introduced? Now you're downplaying the effect in order to continue to pursue the overall no-car vision you seek to impose.


You're putting words in others mouths again. I've never talked about a "no-car vision" and that's in no way what a low traffic neighbourhood is - they don't place any restrictions on ownership or use (you can still drive to any property)

I'd like to see a city that doesn't discriminate against people who either don't own cars or choose to make trips without them. I'd like to see cars used more appropriately and safely and for trips where they are really necessary. Your position seems far more ideological than mine. 

Overall traffic levels _have_ fallen, but complaints about congestion don't seem to have gone away and anecdotally (perhaps as a result of satnavs) the couple of roads I've lived on in the last decade are all now busier _for more of the day_ than they were before.  There isn't a research paper to show it but it seems very likely that part of the reason things don't _feel_ better is because cars have got larger.  Oversized SUV's are now a big part of car sales.  The street is the same width but if the cars parked on either side and the two trying to pass each other are all 50cm wider than they were 10 years ago you've 'lost" 2metres of width.  You're going to get a lot more standoffs (and for that matter close passes of people riding bikes), or cars mounting pavements. 

As I've said before, yes, completely support 20mph limit but its' the start of slowing people down.  By itself it doesn't have much effect - needs a serious effort at enforcement (which is only now starting), proper penalties and really mandatory speed limiters.  It seems utterly ridiculous that society faffs around putting limiters on electric assist bikes and worries about electric micro scooters but is quite happy to let someone drive a 400hp 150mph 4 second 0-60 capable car on busy London streets (and let them keep driving it even if they've been found doing so unsafely).


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> No particular reason why either of those is a bad thing, so long as they're clearly signposted and playing fields are reasonably level.  My post was because none of that was apparent in the 'good leaflet'.


It was implying that the opposition wasn't encumbered by that.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 9, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> the leaflet from the low traffic action group. Their contact details are on the last page


these are interesting. If you're a resident living off Railton Rd can you go down Railton Road? It's not clear from those leaflets. Can someone disabled drive down Railton Rd?
It says the trial lasts 9+mths so plenty of time to see how it works I guess.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 9, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> these are interesting. If you're a resident living off Railton Rd can you go down Railton Road? It's not clear from those leaflets. Can someone disabled drive down Railton Rd?
> It says the trial lasts 9+mths so plenty of time to see how it works I guess.


Basically you can't go through those gates unless you have a disabled badge. Any place is still accessible by car, you would just have to take a longer route.


----------



## Winot (Jul 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Cute. But it's actually pretty shit.



I can understand your frustration and annoyance at Lambeth, I really can. But is the substance of this LTN really going to make a significant difference to your life?


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Woaahh.  Firstly - any evidence for your claims of lower congestion and shorter journey times?  Anecdotally I hear of complaints that traffic speeds are slowing and congestion increasing - it certainly seems to be what the cabbies claim.


Anecdata, I leave mastery of stats to you.  Are you seriously saying that falling overall traffic, and increased use of satnavs has resulted in greater congestion and longer journey times?  That's not my perception, but then I think overall speed has dropped noticeably since the 20mph limit was introduced, are you sure you'e not mixing up two separate effects?    As for cabbies, well I'm not aligning myself with their interests.


> Your own ideological position seems to be fundamentally pro-car -  that we should seek to maximise the capacity of the road network for motor vehicles (not for _people to move_ - private cars are a very space inefficient way of moving people around as average occupancy is below 1.5 people).  All the evidence from studies of induced demand says that motor traffic will expand to fill the available space - widen the ring road and suddenly people start driving to the supermarket on the other side of town and congestion doesn't reduce.  (can provide evidence links if you need them)


No it's not, it's against the imposition of gentrification for the benefit of the current crop of insider homeowners and landlords with scant regard for others.  I've explained that many times.  The current discussions spring from that and the narrow range of points on the prevailing script.  If you make claims, as you did, you invite discussion.  I know I've come to different conclusions to you about the introduction of LTNs but that does not make me pro-car, as I've said plenty of times.  I'm not suggesting expanding the road network, I've said that too.


> You're putting words in others mouths again. I've never talked about a "no-car vision" and that's in no way what a low traffic neighbourhood is - they don't place any restrictions on ownership or use (you can still drive to any property)


Have you not? Apologies, I thought that was you.  Your points about SUVs are similar to ones I've made.  Their ridiculous size certainly affects perception of traffic, but the busyness of the streets you live on is, I'm suggesting, a good thing because traffic filters, or permeates, more efficiently since satnavs.  Preventing through traffic on minor thotoughfares will reverse that.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Basically you can't go through those gates unless you have a disabled badge. Any place is still accessible by car, you would just have to take a longer route.


someone pointed out earlier that Blue Badges go with people not cars and there's nothing on the signs to exempt holders.   I don't get how that's supposed to work?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Basically you can't go through those gates unless you have a disabled badge. Any place is still accessible by car, you would just have to take a longer route.


no, you can't go through the gate EVEN IF YOU have a disabled badge - Is my reading of the leaflet


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> No it's not, it's against the imposition of gentrification ..... I'm not suggesting expanding the road network, I've said that too.


The use of  "gentrification" as if its some kind of joker card is just....

If, as you seem to claim, satnavs have increased traffic on residential streets then surely taking it back out isn't gentrification - its just returning to the state it was previously?  you're suggesting that pushing maximum traffic down every road through use of technology is desirable - well that _is_ effectively expanding the road network .

More to the point, do you _really_ think thats desirable? The famous research on impact of traffic is from Appleyard - and it's massively negative for community cohesion.  Is a better community gentrification? Noisier more polluted streets that are less open for children to walk and play in? 

Maybe your ideology isn't strictly pro-car I don't see how it's pro people or pro community and seeing it only through the lens of  property values is similarly myopic.  Yes, there is a need to deal with inequality and inequity of opportunity but I don't think keeping the streets busy with motor traffic is the way to get to a more equal society.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> I can understand your frustration and annoyance at Lambeth, I really can. But is the substance of this LTN really going to make a significant difference to your life?


I actually think you are out of order. You've made it quite clear that you're happy with the decision because it fits with your big picture, even though you are not local to it and probably won't have cause to use it all that often. Let people in the immediate areas have their say on the execution. Sorry but ... FFS.


----------



## Winot (Jul 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I actually think you are out of order. You've made it quite clear that you're happy with the decision because it fits with your big picture, even though you are not local to it and probably won't have cause to use it all that often. Let people in the immediate areas have their say on the execution. Sorry but ... FFS.



Mate - really didn't mean to offend you - probably badly worded post on my part. I'm absolutely not trying to stop you and others having a say and as I've said I can see why you are so annoyed about Lambeth's usual crap.

I'm genuinely mystified though as to why people are getting so exercised about having to drive a different route. My post was an attempt to find out whether it was the principle you were annoyed about (not being consulted; top down decisions etc) or whether it was the practice (the day-to-day effect of the modal closure). I realise it didn't come across like that. Sorry


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2020)

I see the Railton LTN group are keen on the Brixton Playground idea. Not impressed that they can't see the difference. One comment below the Twitter points out the problem with it.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Yes, there is a need to deal with inequality and inequity of opportunity but I don't think keeping the streets busy with motor traffic is the way to get to a more equal society.


horses and carts.  Stop pretending I'm trying to promote some agenda.  I'm not. 

I have nothing to push, but I think it's worth trying to highlight the negative effects of what the council is seeking to impose and you're busy championing. 

The LTN schemes have not been designed to move towards 'a more equal society', though they should have been.  Just the opposite, they're about property owner self interest and they will further entrench inequality as a predictable consequence.  If your intention really is _to deal with inequality and inequity of opportunity_ there are an awful lot of initiatives much higher up any list of ways to achieve it.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> Mate - really didn't mean to offend you - probably badly worded post on my part. I'm absolutely not trying to stop you and others having a say and as I've said I can see why you are so annoyed about Lambeth's usual crap.
> 
> I'm genuinely mystified though as to why people are getting so exercised about having to drive a different route. My post was an attempt to find out whether it was the principle you were annoyed about (not being consulted; top down decisions etc) or whether it was the practice (the day-to-day effect of the modal closure). I realise it didn't come across like that. Sorry




You haven't offended me. I just find your approach on this particular issue annoying. I will still let you buy me a pint from time to time (we are overdue). 

I've touched on the reasons way back and none are about driving different routes. I accept that inconveniencing motor traffic is the purpose, even though I now have to negotiate four lane Brixton Hill to get to the end of my own road (obviously not just going to the end of my road!).The only complaint for me personally as a motorist is being forced every time I drive from the street to use a junction which I would often avoid because I find it dangerous. But these inconveniences should be balanced by significant improvements, and they are not in this case. No possible improvement in air quality, barely any improvement in traffic movements or pedestrian /cyclist safety (and I am both far more frequently than I am a motorist). In fact I think they are potentially made worse on one end of the street.

So I can't really help you as to why folk are bothered about driving a different route. But they also deserve to be heard.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> horses and carts.  Stop pretending I'm trying to promote some agenda.  I'm not.


You are, you've been seeking to make this a debate about gentrification from the start.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> horses and carts.  Stop pretending I'm trying to promote some agenda.  I'm not.
> 
> I have nothing to push, but I think it's worth trying to highlight the negative effects of what the council is seeking to impose and you're busy championing.
> 
> The LTN schemes have not been designed to move towards 'a more equal society', though they should have been.  Just the opposite, they're about property owner self interest and they will further entrench inequality as a predictable consequence.  If your intention really is _to deal with inequality and inequity of opportunity_ there are an awful lot of initiatives much higher up any list of ways to achieve it.


You pretend that there's no benefit to anyone except property owners. Which is rubbish.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> You are, you've been seeking to make this a debate about gentrification from the start.


my objection is the pretense that it's not


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> horses and carts.  Stop pretending I'm trying to promote some agenda.  I'm not.
> 
> I have nothing to push, but I think it's worth trying to highlight the negative effects of what the council is seeking to impose and you're busy championing.
> 
> The LTN schemes have not been designed to move towards 'a more equal society', though they should have been.  Just the opposite, they're about property owner self interest and they will further entrench inequality as a predictable consequence.  If your intention really is _to deal with inequality and inequity of opportunity_ there are an awful lot of initiatives much higher up any list of ways to achieve it.


Just why would walking cycling and air quality groups campaign for them if they’re all about property owner self interest?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> my objection is the pretense that it's not



You were complaining about anecdata earlier - what do you to support that?

I live in a LA managed housing estate in the LTN. I’ve not met a neighbour who is against it (yet), most have been saying that they’ve been badgering Jim Dickson about this for a few years (some since the No 3 bus route was diverted from its old route down Rymer Road if you remember that) and wanted to expand it to include Hurst Street into it too.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> You were complaining about anecdata earlier - what do you to support that?
> 
> I live in a LA managed housing estate in the LTN. I’ve not met a neighbour who is against it (yet), most have been saying that they’ve been badgering Jim Dickson about this for a few years (some since the No 3 bus route was diverted from its old route down Rymer Road if you remember that) and wanted to expand it to include Hurst Street into it too.


I've argued this is about insiders and outsiders, so I'm not too surprised residents around the edges would prefer to be inside.  I've also said that I see no reason to doubt the various residents share attitudes to traffic and peace and quiet, irrespective of their tenure.   None the less, in terms of material benefits insider owner occupiers and landlords will benefit more than tenants.  

People who bought a home on a street with through traffic campaign to remove that through traffic, then they reap a clear material benefit when they come to sell.  Pretty clear gentrification in action.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> People who bought a home on a street with through traffic campaign to remove that through traffic, then they reap a clear material benefit when they come to sell.  Pretty clear gentrification in action.


so don't improve anywhere because it will make some places better than other places?  Keep Brixton Shit!  

Every street must be equally polluted. If theres anywhere that's nice at the moment that's historic privilege - we should find a way to open it up to heavy motor traffic so it becomes shit too. 

It's not really a positive manifesto, is it?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 9, 2020)

It’s all about self interested gentrification


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 9, 2020)

This image seems to sum it up pretty well -


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2020)

I live on Coldharbour lane. So the introduction of Liveable Neighbourhood will make my bit of Brixton more "shit". As road Im on is considered to be a main road. That traffic will use more once LTNs/ Liveable Neighbourhoods are set up.

My bit of CHL is likely to be more polluted with these Liveable Neighbourhood schemes.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> so don't improve anywhere because it will make some places better than other places?  Keep Brixton Shit!



I don't think of Brixton like that and I can't see why those who do would want to live here.  I recognise some people have little or no choice, and would dearly love to get a transfer elsewhere, but of the rest I've seen plenty conclude that while they once thought it was great it's no longer really what they want, and so they move away. 

I might need a better explanation of why nice, apparently prosperous Victorian streets are the most deserving parts of the borough to be _improved._



> Every street must be equally polluted. If theres anywhere that's nice at the moment that's historic privilege - we should find a way to open it up to heavy motor traffic so it becomes shit too.
> 
> It's not really a positive manifesto, is it?



Once again you're trying to imply I seek to '_open it up to heavy motor traffic_' which is a nonsense slur I've rejected every time you've tried it on.

I don't have a manifesto, I'm reacting to organised social engineering that you and others are fronting on this thread, and that Lambeth are imposing in the real world.  It's plain you don't like me identifying that it bolsters gentrification and will reward insider property owners. 

See if your campaign had suggested that as some sort of recognition of the gain insiders would receive all owner occupier or private rent properties within the LTNs should go up a Council Tax band, then maybe I'd think differently about these aspects of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2020)

Looking at the Railton LTN twitter and they love Jim Dickson. This is the Cllr who is New Labour party loyalist. Supported turning libraries into gyms.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2020)

In my LJ neighbourhood the things required to make it less "Shit" are properly funded youth services.

There is an agreed plan with local community for improving the Loughborough road /CHL junction. One that all the community support.

This would improve LJ. Make it less "shit" in way that community support.

Now community has been told it wont happen. So stuck with Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood bollocks.

Apparently the scheme was to "expensive".

Despite being what the community wants.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2020)

Pollution and reducing traffic are getting mixed up here.

There is experimental scheme in the City- only electric vehicles can use it.

Pollution can be reduced by making zero emssion vehicles mandatory in certain areas.

This is different issue to traffic reduction.

A zero emission zone is not about road closures/ road filtering.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> In my LJ neighbourhood the things required to make it less "Shit" are properly funded youth services.
> 
> There is an agreed plan with local community for improving the Loughborough road /CHL junction. One that all the community support.
> 
> ...


wow! I didn't know that.  Puts it all in perspective.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 9, 2020)

newbie said:


> wow! I didn't know that.  Puts it all in perspective.



After the LJ road closure debacle a whole new round of detailed consultation/ planning went on and then the Council sat on their hands and didnt do the agreed scheme.

Its infuriatating

Some thing with LJ works. Not finished yet. Been dragging on for months.

Louughborough Park- Council spent thousands on security to keep the community building empty. Local pressure and they have found a group to manage it.

Im sick of it. Was acccused by local Labour Cllr at recent meeting of being "unrepresentative" of the community and being "one of the same old faces" who turn up to criticise Council.

Im still livid about that.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 9, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> In my LJ neighbourhood the things required to make it less "Shit" are properly funded youth services.
> 
> There is an agreed plan with local community for improving the Loughborough road /CHL junction. One that all the community support.
> 
> ...



You seem to be saying that because Lambeth have failed to deliver other things, therefore we shouldn't have this thing. It doesn't follow, as far as I can see.

As I think you know, the funding for the LN stuff comes from TfL. So I don't think it's exactly the case that money is being spent on this instead of other things. Abandoning the LN schemes would not suddenly make a load of cash available for other stuff.

The LN schemes should be judged on their own merits. As someone who lives here, we are stuck with Lambeth Council. We can all complain about Lambeth. I myself resent Lambeth for making a hash of the earlier LJ scheme, and various other things. Nothing can ever happen if people oppose something because Lambeth are involved. Because nothing like this can happen through any other means. The alternative is simply for nothing to happen - that is the pragmatic view. 

Some people might be of the view that it would be better for nothing to change. That these schemes are so terrible, that they will create something worse than doing nothing. Fair enough if they think that, in which case, say that. But talking about how things could be better if they were better, ie if we were in some hypothetical parallel universe where Lambeth were marvellously competent and there was decent funding for everything, doesn't get anyone anywhere, and seems just serve as a diversion from discussing what's actually on the table. 

Isn't there a lot of whataboutery going on here? What about if Lambeth funded the adventure playground properly (from a different funding pot)? What about if this scheme involved something even more politically contentious and basically nuts like increasing council tax bands for houses within LNs?

Also, when arguments against are relying on Lambeth's bad implementation of these schemes - that's reasonable to criticise their implementation, I've no problem with that, but also worth bearing in mind that what is being "imposed" is not actually some hairbrained project thought up by Lambeth - it's implementation of London-wide, long term transport planning policy, developed by the Mayor's office and TfL. I fully expect various aspects of the way it is put in place to be messed up by lambeth but the basic principles are fairly well thought through and documented in TfL policy. And NB that the funding from TfL seems to be conditional on the actual results of the changes being monitored and reviewed.


----------



## newbie (Jul 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What about if this scheme involved something even more politically contentious and basically nuts like increasing council tax bands for houses within LNs?


I fully accept it's contentious but what makes it nuts exactly?   

Please explain in detail why some property owners should be given not only an _improved_ environment or quality of life but also free money as extra capital gains.  When others, as Gramsci has said, get worse traffic and no such gain?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You seem to be saying that because Lambeth have failed to deliver other things, therefore we shouldn't have this thing. It doesn't follow, as far as I can see.
> 
> As I think you know, the funding for the LN stuff comes from TfL. So I don't think it's exactly the case that money is being spent on this instead of other things. Abandoning the LN schemes would not suddenly make a load of cash available for other stuff.
> 
> ...



I dont now where to start with this.

Lambeth are presenting this Liveable Neighbourhood project as their project. 

So this is not about local schemes?

Its part of London wide project that is well thouught out by TFL and Mayor and the Council are just the contractors getting it done?

So why the pretence of consultation if that is the case?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You seem to be saying that because Lambeth have failed to deliver other things, therefore we shouldn't have this thing. It doesn't follow, as far as I can see.
> 
> As I think you know, the funding for the LN stuff comes from TfL. So I don't think it's exactly the case that money is being spent on this instead of other things. Abandoning the LN schemes would not suddenly make a load of cash available for other stuff.
> 
> ...



BTW Im not saying "we shouldnt have this thing"

A whole lot of debate here had been one side saying the other are opposing all measures.

From what Ive seen this is not the case. 

I keep saying Im CRITICALLY SUPPORTIVE of some aspects of this scheme and not others. 

This appears to be taken as opposing the scheme.

Or its put as if one does not support all of it then a amended scheme is just as bad as it will not filter the traffic effectively. As the "experts" have worked out plan in its entirety.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 10, 2020)

newbie said:


> I fully accept it's contentious but what makes it nuts exactly?
> 
> Please explain in detail why some property owners should be given not only an _improved_ environment or quality of life but also free money as extra capital gains.  When others, as Gramsci has said, get worse traffic and no such gain?


Because council tax ought to be based on ability to pay (using house value as a proxy for this, in theory). If you are someone who bought their house in Brixton 30 or 40 years ago, then a change in value of your house only really affects your wealth if and when you sell it and move to a different area. If you cash in on this increase in value, then that's what capital gains tax is for. You are suggesting that someone like that should suddenly be taxed more, when none of their financial circumstances have changed, and because some improvements have been made to their local environment. If anything that sounds like accelerating gentrification - make some improvements, then crank up the cost of living there through increasing taxes.
Of course in your caricature version of gentrification Brixton, all houses within LNs are owned by blow-in yuppies who've bought them with loands from their wealthy parents, and everyone living outside of them is... something else, so these concerns wouldn't arise.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Its part of London wide project that is well thouught out by TFL and Mayor and the Council are just the contractors getting it done?


Pretty much yes.



Gramsci said:


> So why the pretence of consultation if that is the case?


Because it's part of the policy to carry out consultations as part of the process.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Pretty much yes.
> 
> 
> Because it's part of the policy to carry out consultations as part of the process.



So the consultation is bollox really.

TFL and Mayor Sadiq have asked Labour Council to get there plans for transport done. 

TFL and Mayor really want the scheme ( which is part of london wide plan) put in place. 

Kind of makes local democracy redundant.


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Because council tax ought to be based on ability to pay (using house value as a proxy for this, in theory). If you are someone who bought their house in Brixton 30 or 40 years ago, then a change in value of your house only really affects your wealth if and when you sell it and move to a different area. If you cash in on this increase in value, then that's what capital gains tax is for. You are suggesting that someone like that should suddenly be taxed more, when none of their financial circumstances have changed, and because some improvements have been made to their local environment. If anything that sounds like accelerating gentrification - make some improvements, then crank up the cost of living there through increasing taxes.
> Of course in your caricature version of gentrification Brixton, all houses within LNs are owned by blow-in yuppies who've bought them with loands from their wealthy parents, and everyone living outside of them is... something else, so these concerns wouldn't arise.


There isn't any capital gains tax on main homes, as you well know, nor are Council Tax bands based on ability to pay, as you also know.  So apart from some pointless distraction about a tiny subset of the local owners, the ones who've bucked all the trends and stayed around for a long time, you haven't said anything.  

Do you want to try again and explain why some property owners should get both publically funded environmental improvements and enhanced capital gains yet not pay any extra Council Tax?  

It's not me caricaturing:  the proposed Victorian street LTNs are a patchwork of social housing, private landlords (who are by definition wealthy) and owner occupiers the majority of whom are well off people who did not grow up in the area.  I've said all this before. That's how it is and has been for a long time.  Other parts of the borough, of London, of the country have very different profiles.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 10, 2020)

newbie said:


> There isn't any capital gains tax on main homes, as you well know, nor are Council Tax bands based on ability to pay, as you also know.  So apart from some pointless distraction about a tiny subset of the local owners, the ones who've bucked all the trends and stayed around for a long time, you haven't said anything.
> 
> Do you want to try again and explain why some property owners should get both publically funded environmental improvements and enhanced capital gains yet not pay any extra Council Tax?
> 
> It's not me caricaturing:  the proposed Victorian street LTNs are a patchwork of social housing, private landlords (who are by definition wealthy) and owner occupiers the majority of whom are well off people who did not grow up in the area.  I've said all this before. That's how it is and has been for a long time.  Other parts of the borough, of London, of the country have very different profiles.



My mistake on Capital Gains Tax, I'm no tax expert.

And I know that council tax is based on a supposed value in 1990 or whatever, which is a crude way of relating it to the likely wealth of the occupier, and it doesn't seem like a very good way to me, but it's never been micro-managed according to take into account specific changes in the way you suggest. That would just open a massive can of worms; there'd be endless arguments about whether this or that affected value and whether it affected certain people more than others, and how would you ever quantify that value? Would council tax be adjusted when a bus route was changed or a new station opened or a hospital closed or a school built? It would be completely impractical and no-one would ever agree on what was fair. That's why I think it's nuts.

I don't disagree that if people make huge financial gains through property increasing in value, whether through the luck of the market or through public investment in local infrastructure, then this should be taxed. But this is not even easy to do fairly at point of sale, because of the massive disparities between areas. Someone who's lived in Brixton all their life might find themselves in posession of a property with a very high value, but they can only really benefit from that if they move out of the area, cashing it in and buying somewhere cheaper. There's all sorts of problems related to property value, and I'd support all sorts of things like discouraging buy-to-let, and maybe rent controls, but fiddling with council tax on a hyper-local level seems completely unworkable to me.

And if I think about the various houses I've lived in in and around Brixton, who the landlords were, and who the neighbours were, it doesn't match your picture where the majority of owners are recent arrivals and wealthy. I can't provide any hard evidence, but I doubt you can either. I think your picture is massively over-simplified.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So the consultation is bollox really.
> 
> TFL and Mayor Sadiq have asked Labour Council to get there plans for transport done.
> 
> ...



I think the TfL conditions include something about the schemes having sufficient local support.

But yes, that's generally how planning policy operates - you have wider strategies which are implemented at a local level, by local authorities, tailored to some extent to the particulars of the area. And (ideally) you have consultation which takes into account local preferences and is used to implement the policy in the best way. But throughout the planning system, larger scale policy can't be entirely over-ridden by local opinion. That always causes problems and there's always development that people don't like, but it also wouldn't work if everything was simply decided locally (for example, pretty much nobody wants mass housing built next door to them, yet mass housing needs to be provided somewhere). Well, I guess there are people who would disagree with that, but that's the way most stuff works and the implementation of this particular transport strategy follows that pattern.


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't disagree that if people make huge financial gains through property increasing in value, whether through the luck of the market or through public investment in local infrastructure, then this should be taxed.


Right.  And yet, you're pushing forward a plan that clearly rewards some already wealthy insider property owners for doing nothing except put me me me pins on a map,  and that makes no provision for any sort of mechanism by which anyone other than those property owners gains any material benefits, though some outsiders will lose, both materially and environmentally..  And you and your fellow campaigners have pushed back against any mention of gentrification, inequality and so on.  Benefits are for all you've kept saying because that's what's in the script, when it's obviously not so.



> And if I think about the various houses I've lived in in and around Brixton, who the landlords were, and who the neighbours were, it doesn't match your picture where the majority of owners are recent arrivals and wealthy. I can't provide any hard evidence, but I doubt you can either. I think your picture is massively over-simplified.


Of course it's simplified, but it's well established.

I didn't say recent, you did.


Lambeth
Look how few teenagers there are, how many in their 20s and 30s, how few elderly.  This has been the repeat pattern in census figures.


I did say wealthy, which you seem to be doubting, which is a bit strange. 


Rightmove, current 




Yahoo November 2109


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So the consultation is bollox really.



Not really - but it's not going to be a 'do you like this or not' consultation.  There is a strategic objective that Lambeth need to deliver against - increasing walking cycling and public transport and reducing private car use.  There is flexibility in how they achieve that but theres a general consensus about what works and that's what TfL will give money for - cycle tracks on main roads, Low traffic neighbourhoods.  Some councils put in bids for stuff that was crap - we're going to paint some white lines and call it a cycle route  - and TfL and the DfT nationally rejected those. 

There can be consultation about details of schemes - has this thing been put in the right place, are there any local considerations that might have been missed.  Not 'we still want to be able to drive short trips to Herne Hill' but maybe 'this is the route the kids walk to school on - it needs a crossing here'.

edit [missed Tuechter's post which basically says the same thing]


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 10, 2020)

Talking of which, new crossings are going into Milkwood Road, where Jessops school already has phased : timed road closures.


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So the consultation is bollox really.


looks like it. Both the replies have patted you on the head and told you that it's going to happen whether anyone likes it or not.  

There also won't be any follow-up or detailed understanding of the effects before the next few LTNs are rolled out under cover of 'Covid response'.  Isolating the effects of the Railton LTN will be too complex anyway since Network Rail have closed half of central Brixton because they're too incompetent to look after their station properly.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 10, 2020)

newbie said:


> makes no provision for any sort of mechanism by which anyone other than those property owners gains any material benefits,


You are for whatever reason focused on material benefits. I am focused on all the other benefits, which apply to loads more people than the property owners you keep going on about. Those other benefits are more important in my opinion. You keep claiming that the driving force behind the scheme is primarily monetary gains for property owners who happen to be inside the LNs. I do not believe that is what is motivating this. Clearly we'll never agree on that. I don't deny that an effect of some of these schemes may be that some people make an (unquantifiable) monetary gain. I don't have a problem in principle with things that might try to adjust that - although I don't really have any workable ideas for quite how you achieve that.

It seems that even if you didn't think these things were driven by the material interests of property owners, you'd still object to them on the grounds that they had side effects that might include some already privileged people having their property values increased. You'd write off the whole thing because of this. That doesn't make sense to me. You have to look at the wider benefits (and obviously we don't agree about those). Through this kind of approach, it seems that you can do virtually nothing to make people's general environment better, because there are not many things you can do at an urban planning level that can be so specifically targeted that they only have an effect on one section of the population. I did the Keeping Brixton Crap thread on this subject a few years ago. A city is not something you can just tidily section up and then do things that have no effects that extend beyond the thing you are primarily trying to deal with. There are certain aspects of gentrification that I would accept arguments against. If there is some proposal that wants to use public money to do something that really only provides a benefit for people that are already well off, then there is a case there. Things like reduced congestion, road danger and air pollution benefit pretty much everyone. I don't accept your picture of these schemes where the benefit is purely to "insiders" and where you pretend there are "outsiders" who are virtually barred from the areas in question. I look at the bigger picture and transport strategy that they are part of, and that bigger picture is of something that doesn't limit the benefit to those living inside the LN areas. And you don't accept that, I know.


----------



## Winot (Jul 10, 2020)

Not really paying attention but have we got to the stage on the thread yet where we aren’t allowed to put in a planter until we have achieved full communism?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> Not really paying attention but have we got to the stage on the thread yet where we aren’t allowed to put in a planter until we have achieved full communism?


The opposite!. Cleaner air = rampant capitalism.


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You are for whatever reason focused on material benefits. I am focused on all the other benefits, which apply to loads more people than the property owners you keep going on about. Those other benefits are more important in my opinion. You keep claiming that the driving force behind the scheme is primarily monetary gains for property owners who happen to be inside the LNs. I do not believe that is what is motivating this. Clearly we'll never agree on that. I don't deny that an effect of some of these schemes may be that some people make an (unquantifiable) monetary gain. I don't have a problem in principle with things that might try to adjust that - although I don't really have any workable ideas for quite how you achieve that.


this is the point I've been making, over and over again.  You, other campaigners, Lambeth have developed these plans without incorporating any workable ideas for ensuring equity.  If the amount of denial on this thread is widespread it's not even been thought about.    What might be called social justice should be central.  Instead it's not even peripheral, it's lacking altogether.



> It seems that even if you didn't think these things were driven by the material interests of property owners, you'd still object to them on the grounds that they had side effects that might include some already privileged people having their property values increased. You'd write off the whole thing because of this. That doesn't make sense to me. You have to look at the wider benefits (and obviously we don't agree about those).


My objection is as above, that the exact opposite of social justice is baked in, is an intrinsic part of these LTN schemes, widening social division, marginalisation, alienation and so on.  



> Through this kind of approach, it seems that you can do virtually nothing to make people's general environment better, because there are not many things you can do at an urban planning level that can be so specifically targeted that they only have an effect on one section of the population. I did the Keeping Brixton Crap thread on this subject a few years ago. A city is not something you can just tidily section up and then do things that have no effects that extend beyond the thing you are primarily trying to deal with.


I remember the thread even if your link doesn't work, but I don't accept that basic premise, Brixton isn't crap.  Policy stemming from an approach which prioritises the affluent inevitably further disadvantages those already less well off.



> There are certain aspects of gentrification that I would accept arguments against.


If you mean there are arguments in favour of gentrification as a process, why not say so openly and honestly.  



> If there is some proposal that wants to use public money to do something that really only provides a benefit for people that are already well off, then there is a case there.



There is such a proposal right here, of exactly that.  

I asked above, on this page for an "_explanation of why nice, apparently prosperous Victorian streets are the most deserving parts of the borough to be improved._" You haven't even attempted to answer it.


> Things like reduced congestion, road danger and air pollution benefit pretty much everyone.


Yeah, yeah.   That lovely video above of delightful children being taught to cycle in the middle of leafy Dulwich roads creates such a warm rosy glow.   No such video for the kids who live or go to school on the arteries because they're just collateral.




> I don't accept your picture of these schemes where the benefit is purely to "insiders"


Why do you keep doing this?  I've not said 'purely' you've made it up.  I've said, over and again, that material gains from these schemes accrue to insider property owners but environmental gains- peace and quiet, pollution and so on, are more general.  They are not, however, universal because displaced traffic will create an additional burden of noise, pollution and danger on those who live, work or are active on the main arteries, will increase congestion and slow down journeys and will reduce transport network resilience. These are design objectives, not by-products because the most acclaimed widespread benefit, reduction in the overall quantity of motor journeys is to be accomplished by explicitly frustrating people out of their cars.  I've said all this many times.




> you pretend there are "outsiders" who are virtually barred from the areas in question.


And again, that's not even remotely accurate, you've made it up.  It's not me putting forward the idea that car driving outsiders aren't welcome.  I've said, quite clearly, that drivers will be "_allowed in briefly and then expected to quickly sod off back out the way they came in_", which is accurate, there will be no through routes for motor traffic. Meanwhile your fellow campaigner saw fit to post this, on this page and after all the back and forth, as a rather revealing indicator.

It's quite clear what the big picture longterm agenda is, despite all the denials.




> I look at the bigger picture and transport strategy that they are part of, and that bigger picture is of something that doesn't limit the benefit to those living inside the LN areas. And you don't accept that, I know.


That's made up too.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 10, 2020)

newbie said:


> No such video for the kids who live or go to school on the arteries because they're just collateral.


I don't know - Baylis Road - kids, BAME rider (was on Lambeth Cyclists page recently).  I'm sure you'll just assume it was staged but I was riding at Vauxhall this morning and  was passed by a woman riding her kids on a cargo bike so not just leafy backstreets in Dulwich   









						Jeremy Corbyn: Safe cycling infrastructure "a matter of social justice"
					

Pedalling politician was speaking to local cycling campaigners in Islington




					road.cc
				



"..Jeremy Corbyn has said that providing safe infrastructure for people who walk or cycle is “a matter of social justice.... 
He said: “In the most deprived wards [of the borough], such as Finsbury Park, up to 73 per cent of households do not have access to a car.
“It’s a matter of social justice to provide safe, healthy routes for those on foot and bicycle.“By creating high quality, low-trafficked routes, we can ensure that the health benefits of active travel are extended to all residents, not just those currently bold enough to ride amongst traffic.” He said that measures needed to be taken to address the issue of rat-running motorists, "
Socialist enough for you?


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2020)

No, I'm sure the photo is real.  It's missing the point I was making, but still...

As for Corbyn, so what?

Anyway, I've read the sneers and the points made to Gramsci about how pointless all this charade is, so I'm going to withdraw and we'll what happens in the real world.  I doubt this over, but time will tell.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 10, 2020)

newbie said:


> this is the point I've been making, over and over again.  You, other campaigners, Lambeth have developed these plans without incorporating any workable ideas for ensuring equity.  If the amount of denial on this thread is widespread it's not even been thought about.    What might be called social justice should be central.  Instead it's not even peripheral, it's lacking altogether.
> 
> 
> My objection is as above, that the exact opposite of social justice is baked in, is an intrinsic part of these LTN schemes, widening social division, marginalisation, alienation and so on.
> ...


I've not got time to try and answer this all at the moment. I think it's pretty much all been answered already though, and we're just going round in circles.

By the way, I've had no part in "developing" these plans, I've had no involvement in the consultation for them and I've not a member of any formal campaigning group that's had anything to do with them. I'm not a cycling commuter, and normally I hardly cycle in London. I've lived in the general Brixton area for most of my adult life, but do not live inside any of the currently proposed zones. I live on a road that is busier than Railton Rd or Shakespeare Rd, one that is very unlikely ever to be inside one of these zones, and one that arguably could carry displaced traffic as a result of the Railton/Shakespeare Rd plans. I say all this just in case anyone reading might misinterpret some things you might have _accidentally_ implied in your comments.


----------



## newbie (Jul 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I've not got time to try and answer this all at the moment. I think it's pretty much all been answered already though, and we're just going round in circles.
> 
> By the way, I've had no part in "developing" these plans, I've had no involvement in the consultation for them and I've not a member of any formal campaigning group that's had anything to do with them. I'm not a cycling commuter, and normally I hardly cycle in London. I've lived in the general Brixton area for most of my adult life, but do not live inside any of the currently proposed zones. I live on a road that is busier than Railton Rd or Shakespeare Rd, one that is very unlikely ever to be inside one of these zones, and one that arguably could carry displaced traffic as a result of the Railton/Shakespeare Rd plans. I say all this just in case anyone reading might misinterpret some things you might have _accidentally_ implied in your comments.


Fair enough, let's see where the dust settles.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> Not really paying attention but have we got to the stage on the thread yet where we aren’t allowed to put in a planter until we have achieved full communism?


I think it's now at the stage where a bunch of hyper-polarised "outsiders" who were originally arguing that consultation of local residents should reasonably be avoided until later because it might delay implementation of the Grand Scheme are still pilling in on top of eachother to silence local critique of aspects of the scheme even after it has been well and truly implemented.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 10, 2020)

Double post.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 10, 2020)

Planters are so middle class, dirty big concrete bollards, that what you want, an eyesore to offset the rise in house prices


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Not really - but it's not going to be a 'do you like this or not' consultation.  There is a strategic objective that Lambeth need to deliver against - increasing walking cycling and public transport and reducing private car use.  There is flexibility in how they achieve that but theres a general consensus about what works and that's what TfL will give money for - cycle tracks on main roads, Low traffic neighbourhoods.  Some councils put in bids for stuff that was crap - we're going to paint some white lines and call it a cycle route  - and TfL and the DfT nationally rejected those.
> 
> There can be consultation about details of schemes - has this thing been put in the right place, are there any local considerations that might have been missed.  Not 'we still want to be able to drive short trips to Herne Hill' but maybe 'this is the route the kids walk to school on - it needs a crossing here'.
> 
> edit [missed Tuechter's post which basically says the same thing]




When the leading officer of the Liveable Neighbourhood scheme attended a local meeting at LJ he said ( and this is pre pandemic) that the the scheme would not go ahead if public support was lacking.

So the first round of consultation was to see if support was there.

He said to get the next part of the money from TFL the Council had to prove local support was there.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2020)

Winot said:


> Not really paying attention but have we got to the stage on the thread yet where we aren’t allowed to put in a planter until we have achieved full communism?



Im not clear why you have made this statement.

What point are you making? Are you referring to certain posters on this thread? 

Can you clarify please.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2020)

newbie said:


> looks like it. Both the replies have patted you on the head and told you that it's going to happen whether anyone likes it or not.
> 
> There also won't be any follow-up or detailed understanding of the effects before the next few LTNs are rolled out under cover of 'Covid response'.  Isolating the effects of the Railton LTN will be too complex anyway since Network Rail have closed half of central Brixton because they're too incompetent to look after their station properly.



When I attend Council consultations now I ask for Council to make clear what has been decided by Council and what is up for discussion.

They hate being asked this.

Im actually not trying to have a go at the Council. I just think they should be straightforward and transparent on what say those who contribute to consultations have.

What one gets is powerpoint presentations and guided table "discussions".


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 10, 2020)

.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 11, 2020)

Amended as Snowy deleted post Ive deleted this quote.


The reason the discussion here appears parochial is because the Council has framed this Liveable Neighbourhood idea in that way. Splitting up the designated area into different LTNs. So its hardly surprising if discussion becomes parochial. That is how the Council are pursuing this.

If this is top down decision then the Council should say so.

I said in post above (882) I think the Council should be straightforward and transparent on what say those who contribute to consultations have.

So if its as you say above then the Council should just tell people this is how its going to be.

The government is getting local Councils to do this. So its going to be local Councils who get the flack from pissed off residents.

I think they are doing Railton first as it links into central Brixton. I still think the BID plan - amended - is under discusssion with Council. I was in Soho earlier and the business have the whole streets for tables and chairs. Its doable and cheap to do.

Im not at all happy with the way all this is undermining local democracy. People are cynical enough about politicians already without Covid being used as excuse by politicians to push through there schemes without debate. I can see it happening and I dont like it.

The next in line for this government imo is weakening planning. On excuse that we must build to get economy going. Brixton BID proposal is let business have what they want and get rid of the red tape. They are quite open about this. It all fits in with this governments right wing agenda for post Brexit Britain.

All of this starts to add up to undermining gradually of local democracy. Its not gentrification its local democracy that is my main concern in this instance. Local democracy is far from perfect but it should be defended and deepened. People have little say over there lives so the little they have in local democracy should not be hollowed out.

The Labour Cllrs have sense of entitlement born of years in power. This pandemic is giving them more power to do what they want in some areas. Without having to deal with people like me.

I agree the pandemic is only the start of this.


----------



## newbie (Jul 11, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> .


As quoted that's probably the best post on the thread, I've no idea why you've withdrawn it.  It's certainly the most thought provoking.



> Flouncing has meant that I can’t ask newbie whether the 20’s Plenty campaign is also gentrification in action, whether a London wide TfL / Will Norman strategy for active travel is also a gentrification conspiracy, why blue boroughs are so actively against LTNs given newbies argument that they have the most to gain and most importantly what newbie would do to manage this better - given social distancing and it’s subsequent stopping of physical meetings.




I haven't flounced, just got bored with me and a couple of others going round and round repeating ourselves.  And, let's face it, you've had plenty of time to ask me questions, although quite why everyone is so keen on my proposals when all I've been seeking to do is scrutinise what's actually being implemented is a bit beyond me.  I said, when I was first asked, that my personal inclination is not blue sky thinking.  The argument _it's this or nothing_ is flawed, as is _it's up to you to come up with something better or you can't criticise_.

Since you asked....

As - in order of use- cyclist, pedestrian, car driver/passenger, bus passenger I think 20mph is much better than before. To my mind it's made a much more dramatic difference than was portrayed upthread. It's taken a while to settle in but now the biggest problem with it, for me and I suspect others, is crossing borough boundaries and having to readjust to local expectations.  I'm not aware of any research showing an effect on the main indicators of gentrification, house prices, rents etc and I haven't really viewed it in those terms.  I'm happy to be better educated if there is such an argument.

However, it's broken down somewhat since everything changed during lockdown.  People accelerate into empty space, which is scarier than when they're pootling along.  Note I said 'people' not 'drivers'.  Rye Lane in Peckham has been closed to through traffic, so delivery vans now carve out space by accelerating and scattering pedestrians.  So too do cyclists and electric scooters, but they're silent, they weave mercilessly, many don't take prisoners and coming from behind they are really quite alarming.  You can see pedestrians looking around nervously, not sure where the next threat  one is coming from.  I'm glad I'm not visually impaired.  So I'm identifying a people* problem not a vehicle problem.



A London wide active travel strategy makes sense to me.  I'll have to believe that LTNs are the best way to achieve that.  That said, TfL obviously have a far better appreciation of transport network resilience than I have, I only know my local streets and how they work, and what happens when collisions, water mains, cranes etc block arteries or junctions..  If they say that London wide resilience should be reduced to prioritise the other benefits I can't argue, but that has not been explicitly said about the local schemes and frankly, my oft expressed doubts have been met with sfa in the way of counter arguments other than 'my street...'.

Lambeth's response is being implemented to prioritise and reward the property owners of prosperous Victorian streets,  and well yes, I have reservations.  I'm nothing like as well read as you, I've no idea of the London-wide criteria used by councils to determine priority neighbourhoods, either before or since the virus.  There are plenty of Zone 3+ 'rat runs' through far less salubrious areas where kids could play, cycle to school and so on, where people want to breathe fresher air, enjoy peace and quiet, where the NHS is just as burdened by obesity and so on for all the claimed benefits.  Exactly the same parochial arguments about gentrification might apply, or they might not and 'regeneration' might be a better term.  I may or may not understand properly transparent area selection documentation but I'd certainly be reassured if I thought it existed and was based with social equity at it's heart.


I'm afraid I know nothing about Tory boroughs being against LTNs.  I presume they're appealing to their voter base just as Lambeth Labour appear to be seeking to enhance their vote at the expense of the Greens.


I don't know how to manage this (or indeed anything), better or otherwise, and I've never wanted to.  I don't think it's a reasonable question.  If I thought I had answers I too could campaign, write a manifesto, become a councillor, aspire to world domination.  As it is I write rather pointless posts on a local discussion board for my own amusement.


And yes, they're parochial posts, why not?  Closing St Matthews Road and Shakespeare Rd affects me, both positively, as cyclist & pedestrian and negatively.  The most recent time I drove I had to use CHL in place of SR and get there on Brixton Hill instead of SMR and yes, I resented it.  Next time, with Atlantic closed (and continuing no right turn into CHL?), it'll be more frustrating.  If the proposed LTNs are all implemented the physical geography of where I live will change dramatically, for both better and worse.  And with it the social geography. And let's face it, the points I've been making, allbeit repetitively, haven't been put in any of the one-sided campaigning, the shoddy consultation or in many other posts. It's clear some people find any mention of gentrification or equity dull and inappropriate, but that's a shameful problem of both modern Brixton and this forum.  Scrutiny of the social processes involved seems important to me, foolish though that may be.



* more specifically a young(ish) men problem, but that's a different thread.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 11, 2020)

newbie said:


> I think 20mph is much better than before. To my mind it's made a much more dramatic difference than was portrayed upthread. It's taken a while to settle in but now the biggest problem with it, for me and I suspect others, is crossing borough boundaries and having to readjust to local expectations.



I did mean to acknowledge this before. I can't find the data on a quick search but, from memory, the review about a year after 20mph went in showed a c1mph average reduction across all roads and, again IIRC commented that this was consistent with what was expected and had been seen elsewhere.

My anecdotal impression is that like you, I think speeds have dropped a bit more generally since then, probably helped by pretty much all of London apart from Westminster and K&C is now 20mph (so not much adjustment to do crossing borough Boundaries any more).  All of TfL's roads in the congestion zone are now 20mph as well I think and they're working their way out.  Green is 20. Blue 20.  map form london-digital-speed-limit-map.pdf

Should get better again when the buses get speed limiters. 





newbie said:


> I've no idea of the London-wide criteria used by councils to determine priority neighbourhoods, either before or since the virus







__





						Streetspace funding and guidance
					

Boroughs can apply for funds to carry out work under the Streetspace for London programme




					tfl.gov.uk
				



You want the Streetspace analysis - presumably that informs what TfL will fund


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2020)

I don't feel that average speed is a great measure when you're considering safety. A road with an average speed of 25, and 99% of vehicles going at less than 30, is safer to my mind than one with an average speed of 22, but 10% of vehicles going over 40. I've done quite a few speedwatch sessions and pre pandemic, the picture was much more like the latter.
Just make 20mph speed limiters mandatory on all vehicles in london. Put a 5 or 10mph limit, enforced by limiters, on all roads except those designated as through routes, and maybe livable neighbourhood schemes would no longer be necessary.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2020)

teuchter said:


> A road with an average speed of 25, and 99% of vehicles going at less than 30, is safer to my mind than one with an average speed of 22, but 10% of vehicles going over 40. I've done quite a few speedwatch sessions and pre pandemic, the picture was much more like the latter.


I agree, and that's my point about accelerating into space, it's what some people do, but no-one gets up to 40 if there's something in the way.  Lockdown created new space, so peak speeds certainly went right up and average seemed to as well.  I think it's calmed down a lot since other traffic has started to get in the way again.

That's not an argument in favour of congestion everywhere to keep speeds down, it's identifying what actually happens. TfL has a lot of experience in micro-managing stretches where higher proportions of traffic routinely break speed limits, with cameras, chicanes, humps and so on.  Obviously they haven't done everywhere, as  it's changing and evolving. Everyone can come up with bad examples from personal observation in the long- or short-term.

Makes me wonder whether the straight and now relatively clear stretches of Shakespeare and Railton will see higher average/peak speeds than before lockdown, and Dulwich Rd lower?    Otherway round perhaps, no effect, I don't know.  Is anyone likely to measure this?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2020)

Even if congestion manages to reduce speeds - usually it's only for certain portions of the day. Especially at night, otherwise congested roads are often relatively empty, so you see speeding during those times. Maybe there will periods of the day where Railton Rd sees some higher speeds than Dulwich Rd does, but if so I'd expect them to be quite limited.

But there's also the psychology thing where people are more likely to drive dangerously in areas which aren't also their home & immediate neighbourhood. I think that's part of the idea of LNs - by definition most of the traffic within them will be to or from local destinations.


----------



## newbie (Jul 12, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Even if congestion manages to reduce speeds - usually it's only for certain portions of the day. Especially at night, otherwise congested roads are often relatively empty, so you see speeding during those times. Maybe there will periods of the day where Railton Rd sees some higher speeds than Dulwich Rd does, but if so I'd expect them to be quite limited.



I hope only desirable _expected _consequences come out of this. I also hope the actual outcomes are measured and compared with pre-lockdown to get an objective view of whether eg skip lorries to/from LJ shave a few seconds off their journey by going just a couple mph faster because they can?




> But there's also the psychology thing where people are more likely to drive dangerously in areas which aren't also their home & immediate neighbourhood. I think that's part of the idea of LNs - by definition most of the traffic within them will be to or from local destinations.



I get the localism psychology, insiders might respect their postcode peergroup even if they behave differently where they're an outsider, ie everywhere else on the planet.    Not sure it's what I'd choose to promote.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 12, 2020)

Don't worry, you've made clear that you choose not to promote anything.


----------



## editor (Jul 13, 2020)

Work on the Ferndale scheme starts on Saturday 









						Work begins on the Ferndale Low Traffic Neighbourhood in Brixton and Clapham this Saturday, 18th July 2020
					

Lambeth Council has announced that it will be starting work on Ferndale Low Traffic Neighbourhood – its third such scheme – this Saturday, 18th July, 2020.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2020)

At the weekend I did a trip along Railton Rd on two wheels. It was pretty quiet. One car went through the gates at the bottom end at great speed but then had to follow the 322 so didn't get to the ones at the other end any faster than me. And then a range rover also went through the gates and did an aggressive overtake on me. I guess people know that they are not going to get fined yet, or something?


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 13, 2020)

I'm forever turning the road signs on the lampposts round to face the right direction, the hand-made ones telling motorists they face a £130 fine. Presumably pro-car nutters are stopping to twist them round, a bit like with the Detour signs in old Roadrunner cartoons. I think the signs could do with some clarification that residents are allowed through. I've seen lots and lots of drivers stopping for a ponder and then deciding to go for it when another car drives through. I've had to explain the scheme to several confused drivers, none of whom - to their credit - morphed into Mr Angry. I love the LTN so far. Can't quite get my head around the fact that Lambeth have done something I agree with.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> Presumably pro-car nutters are stopping to twist them round,


I think this happens with a lot of these schemes.
It's very common to see cycle route signs turned around too.
There's a no HGVs sign on a road near me that always seems to be turned around.
Someone needs to invent a sign attachment that can't be rotated. Can't be that difficult surely...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> I think the signs could do with some clarification that residents are allowed through.


Residents aren't allowed to drive through the filters.


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 13, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Residents aren't allowed to drive through the filters.


I'm confused. Aren't residents allowed to drive to their home if they leave the same way they came in?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 13, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> I'm confused. Aren't residents allowed to drive to their home if they leave the same way they came in?


Everyone can get to and from their home via routes that don't involve going through the filters.

Only buses and emergency vehicles can go through the filters. And of course pedestrians and bicycles.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 13, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think this happens with a lot of these schemes.
> It's very common to see cycle route signs turned around too.
> There's a no HGVs sign on a road near me that always seems to be turned around.
> Someone needs to invent a sign attachment that can't be rotated. Can't be that difficult surely...


Square posts


----------



## Jimbeau (Jul 13, 2020)

Crispy said:


> Square posts


Signfix channel is what most local authorities use on their sign plates - but they generally fit cheap torquebands that are cut to length on site rather than the proper anti rotational clips - which are pricier and come in fixed sizes. 

I promise I only know this from professional experience - rather than being unutterably geeky on such matters. Honest.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 14, 2020)

editor said:


> Work on the Ferndale scheme starts on Saturday
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought it was just a prosperous Victorian street thing?


----------



## editor (Jul 15, 2020)

Ferndale update (of sorts) 









						Ferndale Low Traffic Neighbourhood – Lambeth release more details as scheme starts this weekend
					

Like many of our readers, we’re finding it increasingly hard to nail down the specifics of Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes, much as we welcome the initiatives. This latest s…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## teuchter (Jul 15, 2020)

English councils backpedal on cycling schemes after Tory backlash
					

‘Cycling revolution’ at risk as local Conservatives lobby to remove funded cycle routes




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2020)

The Ferndale scheme may have it merits. Looking at the commonplace comments looks like a lot of rat runs that people dont like. So support some of the scheme and want it extended to deal with rat runs in residential areas.

Other comments is that if one lives in the Ferndale LN its going to long winded routes to get in and out.

Also the ( imo reasonable comments) that LN will push traffic onto what TFL/ Council define as main roads. So people on those roads will get more. As is the case with me.

Council are using the pandemic to push through the Liveable Neighbourhood scheme with minimal consultation.

That may be fine with those who support this scheme.

I don't think it is.

Cllrs twitter is going on about how great this all is. Yes it is. Finally Cllrs can get their pet schemes rolled out without having to deal with pesky voters. They are loving it.

Labour Cllrs ( the present lot) find dealing with the voters on a regular basis distasteful. Im afraid the pandemic is giving them feeling they should have free hand between elections.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2020)

comments on the Ferndale scheme 









						Comment on the temporary scheme
					

Give us your feedback on the temporary project and let us know about any specific improvements or issues by marking them on a map of the area.




					fdstreets.commonplace.is


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 16, 2020)

Looking at the Ferndale commonplace lots of coments on the Refill 24 hour takeaway in Ferndale road.

So some of these issues are around traffic and disturbance around certain businesses.

Cars with engines running etc at all hours. General disturbance for residents.

Idea of Liveable Neighbouurhood needs to address these issues that are not just about rat runs / speeding etc.

Apart from rat runs how is Council going to deal with issues like this?

They are valid comments given that Council are saying the want to create Liveable Neighbourhoods.

If residents are going to feel they can buy into a scheme the Council has imposed on them with no consultation I hope Cllrs deal with issues raised.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 17, 2020)

Even though not all the cameras are installed and there needs to better signage, Railton Road is a lot quieter. Done a lot of school runs (walking) in the past few weeks and Dulwich Road and brixton water lane are a lot busier during the day. So traffic does appear to be shifting to main roads, not convinced that there are fewer journeys being taken but it’s early days.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 17, 2020)

I notice that I am regularly having to drive the Poets Corner roads for access which I never did before. Well, not regularly, but whenever I need access.

I cycled from Brixton to Herne Hill the other day about 10ish and stuck to Dulwich Road out of habit on the way there. It was quiet as. On the way back I took Railton LTN and was sandwiched between two cars driving in front and behind me through the modal filter down near Kellett end.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> But there's also the psychology thing where people are more likely to drive dangerously in areas which aren't also their home & immediate neighbourhood. I think that's part of the idea of LNs - by definition most of the traffic within them will be to or from local destinations.


Where does this "psychology thing" come from? Is is just assumption or theory? I ask as whilst walking to Sainsbury's yesterday I saw two cars separately pull out from parking and floor it to the end of the street (still about 200-250m straight stretch). Not the first time I've seen it since through traffic was excluded. I'm really doubtful about any assumption about people not wishing to shit on their own doorsteps!


----------



## Crispy (Jul 17, 2020)

I see/hear plenty of people floor it for the 70m from my house to the end of the street where it meets the main road. I live on a cul-de-sac. I'm sure there's someting to the psychology thing, but I think some pople just don't give a fuck and find driving fast a recreational activity, regardless of where they are.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2020)

Crispy said:


> I see/hear plenty of people floor it for the 70m from my house to the end of the street where it meets the main road. I live on a cul-de-sac. I'm sure there's someting to the psychology thing, but I think some pople just don't give a fuck and find driving fast a recreational activity, regardless of where they are.


At the risk of demanding surveillance from The Man, the amount of clowns who hurtle along Coldharbour Lane in speeds waaaay in excess of 20mph is alarming. If I was in control of things, spikes would come up from the ground and trash any car travelling at dangerous speeds.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Where does this "psychology thing" come from? Is is just assumption or theory? I ask as whilst walking to Sainsbury's yesterday I saw two cars separately pull out from parking and floor it to the end of the street (still about 200-250m straight stretch). Not the first time I've seen it since through traffic was excluded. I'm really doubtful about any assumption about people not wishing to shit on their own doorsteps!


It may be an assumption, or received wisdom. I can't immediately find anything that backs it up.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It may be an assumption, or received wisdom. I can't immediately find anything that backs it up.


Or largely just bollocks?

ETA I don't mean that to sound quite so antagonistic. A convenient myth perhaps?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Or largely just bollocks?
> 
> ETA I don't mean that to sound quite so antagonistic. A convenient myth perhaps?


Well - I'd say it has plausibility in its merit at least.

I don't know if there's anything that's looked at whether this has a measurable effect on driver behaviour.

However, there is quite a lot of stuff (some of which is controversial I know) on this general theme, in sociology/urban design... how people's behaviour changes if they feel the street is "theirs" or overlooked by people living on it and so on. I think it's something Jane Jacobs wrote a lot about, and it's partly where the "broken windows" type theories came from.

A lot of that is often discussed in relation to policing - the argument being that instead of having heavy-handed policing you create an environment where motivations for anti social behaviour are removed, or where deterrents exist that don't rely on formal policing.

I don't think it's far fetched to extend that thinking to things that may influence driver behaviour.

I'm straying slightly from the original point, but if a "livable neighbourhood" scheme works well, then you ought to see residents starting to use the streets differently - more people on them, more people on bikes, more kids around perhaps. And those things do affect how people percieve the space and (hopefully) drive through it.


----------



## editor (Jul 17, 2020)

Not everyone is chuffed it seems:


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> if a "livable neighbourhood" scheme works well, then you ought to see residents starting to use the streets differently - more people on them, more people on bikes, more kids around perhaps. And those things do affect how people percieve the space and (hopefully) drive through it.



Don't forget to mention that the script promises evaporating journeys as well as frolicking children. So '_works well_' is also designed to lead to a rise in driver frustration at being forced onto already choked main routes and through pinchpoints. That's how evaporation is to be achieved. Maybe I'm also guilty of looking for confirmation bias, but my spidey senses tell me frustration is starting to rise. Let's hope it settles down before all the new happy cyclists and walkers discover what winter means to active travel and we really start to see the effects.

Observing how people have been using car free/reduced space through post-lockdown has been one life's little pleasures.  I'm not sure 0-70 takeoff in newly created cul-de-sacs was in the brochure though, was it?  Nor was using cyclists and kids as traffic calming measures.


----------



## newbie (Jul 18, 2020)

The detail of the Ferndale scheme emphasises that the design is intended to upset car using insiders, rather than keep them onside. That theme perhaps emerged in the Railton discussions but is more plain here (and will be again if the Leander/ Elm Park one goes ahead).

Having to turn left from Sandmere Rd may improve flow for outsiders on Bedford Rd but I'd be pretty miffed if every time I wanted to go to Clapham I had to go some ridiculously long way round and then have to return via Acre Lane only.   Same with Trinity Gardens, with a choice of an awkward dogleg across Acre Lane into the previously pedestrian friendly route through the Town Hall complex or all the way round St Matthews. I mean, yes it's Clapham, but people still want to go there and it's been simple until now.  

Being expected to drive or Uber from the Acre Lane side of the railway divide to the physio in Pulross via central Brixton or Landor Road seems even more punitive.  

Meanwhile, I hadn't appreciated that the westbound Ferndale rat run would remain open, but with less turning or opposing traffic.  Complaints about increased average/peak speed & decreased cyclist/pedestrian comfort won't be a surprise, will they?  

I don't know how much school run there has previously been within those few streets but looking at Google maps it's a 4 minute car journey from Sandmere Rd to Stockwell primary, increasing to 10 if forced through central Brixton.  So that traffic should be sufficiently frustrated to obediently evaporate, but only if the adults take to the active travel alternative, which looks to be walking or cycling children along Ferndale and under the bridges before looping round onto Stockwell Road. Walking 13 minutes each way, there and back twice a day is good for them, though less on streets with traffic. Improved health stats are an expected benefit.  That's not necessarily the same as popular, though, so especially when it's raining some very local school run traffic is sure to unwillingly end up in central Brixton, isn't it?  

Those currently more active insiders who don't use a car will hopefully benefit but I can't see car users being too happy.






<journey times are now, Saturday morning.  If I remember I'll do it again at school run time>


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2020)

editor said:


> Not everyone is chuffed it seems:



Hamiltons is a lot busier with the pandemic. Don’t believe that at all.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 18, 2020)

on a strictly personal note (having read some but not all of the thread): 
came across the oval traingle today for the first time.
Sum total: another 3 miles of driving to get around the restrictions now in place, all of this spewing extra fumes as it was all around the triangle and sitting in heavy traffic around it (and that did also include venturing within to find the extent of these)


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 19, 2020)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> on a strictly personal note (having read some but not all of the thread):
> came across the oval traingle today for the first time.
> Sum total: another 3 miles of driving to get around the restrictions now in place, all of this spewing extra fumes as it was all around the triangle and sitting in heavy traffic around it (and that did also include venturing within to find the extent of these)



An electric car could help with the extra fumes bit.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Well - I'd say it has plausibility in its merit at least.
> 
> I don't know if there's anything that's looked at whether this has a measurable effect on driver behaviour.
> 
> ...




I've been reading Vitale End of Policing.






						Verso
					

Verso Books is the largest independent, radical publishing house in the English-speaking world.




					www.versobooks.com
				




Its mainly about USA policing. Which is where the "Broken Windows" came in.

In short the criticism of broken windows policing is that it turned the usual critique on its head ( as Vitale puts it). Instead of increasing inequality making low level crime worse it was the low level anti social behaviour/ petty crime making neighbourhoods worse.

So the answer was fixing "broken window" not inequality.

This fiitted in perfectly with the growing acceptance as Neo Liberalism as the norm.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Jul 19, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> An electric car could help with the extra fumes bit.


I wish I could afford one of those.


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2020)

Now some of the signs are up the new comments on the Ferndale scheme make interesting reading 

this one struck me, because it proposes something that the great minds who hatched these schemes obviously considered and discounted, but which might stop most of the complaints.


> I have lived on Solon new road for over 30 years and this scheme will effectively make my journey to and from my home a nightmare. I have tested it today on the school run from Brixton and a normal 8min journey turned into 30mins. This is unreasonable.
> No consultation was received prior to the letter dated Monday 13th July and i find it disgusting to use coronavirus as a reason to force through this measure without community consultation. I can't even imagine how delivery drivers will feel when we will be effectively closed off.
> At the very least if this measure must go through, residents should be given due consideration. Why not introduce some sort of free pass where residents can register their vehicles to avoid camera enforcement tickets so that we can get to and from our homes easily while restricting those who do not live in the area from passing through. This is a win win for everyone.
> 
> ...



A win win?  The parking permit system has vehicle details so camera controlled resident only access might not be too hard to implement*. Would that be seen as a win or a defeat for the scheme?

Should allowing insiders special legal privileges be seen as strengthening the scheme concept and deliverability by reducing displaced local traffic and increasing insider popularity? Or does that water it down too much, rendering it ineffective because it won't reduce internal traffic much and doesn't challenge the behaviour of insiders, so will deliver fewer health benefits?

Another way of framing the question might be
is it better to say "_it's about reducing rat running without causing pointless displacement through improving towards a happy, cohesive neighbourhood.  It's a shame there aren't many frolicking kids_"
or
"_they weren't asked about it but make them suffer anyway because it's good for them_"


I have a lot of sympathy for those directly affected, but I'd ask why someone who lives on Solon should be allowed through specific No Motor Vehicle signs but not someone who lives the other side of Acre Lane.


* in retrospect and having thought about Lambeth council parking department, maybe that's a step too far


----------



## teuchter (Jul 19, 2020)

School run traffic is a fairly significant contributor to congestion. I wonder if there are reasons why the complainant cannot take/send their kids to school on the bus? I wonder how other people on Solon Road, or nearby, who don't own cars take their kids to school.


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> School run traffic is a fairly significant contributor to congestion. I wonder if there are reasons why the complainant cannot take/send their kids to school on the bus? I wonder how other people on Solon Road, or nearby, who don't own cars take their kids to school.


Well yes, I too can wonder about bus or more likely busses and why they might choose to drive, but doing so doesn't much clarify anything I've asked about.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 19, 2020)

I thought that part of the plan was to encourage those living within the  LTN to consider alternative forms of getting around eg walking, cycling, public transport or combination, as with less traffic it should be more appealing to do these. If it was me I'd seriously consider swapping my 30 minute car journey for walking. If it was only an 8 minute drive before (during school run hours), it can't be that far. Of course I don't know the circumstances of this person and there might be good reason why this isn't possible


----------



## teuchter (Jul 19, 2020)

newbie said:


> Well yes, I too can wonder about bus or more likely busses and why they might choose to drive, but doing so doesn't much clarify anything I've asked about.


In my opinion, a scheme without this concession to car owning residents would be better than one with it, but a scheme with this concession would be better than nothing. I wouldn't call it a 'win-win' as it would still be a 'lose' to some extent for the non car owning residents, who I don't suppose the person writing the comment took into account in their 'everyone wins' calculation.


----------



## newbie (Jul 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In my opinion, a scheme without this concession to car owning residents would be better than one with it, but a scheme with this concession would be better than nothing. I wouldn't call it a 'win-win' as it would still be a 'lose' to some extent for the non car owning residents, who I don't suppose the person writing the comment took into account in their 'everyone wins' calculation.


yes, and the kiddies can't play in the street, cyclists can't relax, pedestrians will still see cars and health outcome expectations won't be met.  The same idea has been proposed for Railton (the timeline view is more useful than the default map view) as the pro and con arguments develop.

These are all local streets used by mostly local people, what's the '_better than nothing_' justification to those who live the other side of Acre Lane and whose previous route has been deemed rat run from which they're now excluded?


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2020)

Some kickback on the Oval scheme 








						Lambeth residents voice their anger at Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

Local residents have voiced their anger at the Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme, which has been pushed through by Lambeth Council as part of emergency COVID-19 legislation. A st…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> yes, and the kiddies can't play in the street, cyclists can't relax, pedestrians will still see cars and health outcome expectations won't be met.  The same idea has been proposed for Railton (the timeline view is more useful than the default map view) as the pro and con arguments develop.
> 
> These are all local streets used by mostly local people, what's the '_better than nothing_' justification to those who live the other side of Acre Lane and whose previous route has been deemed rat run from which they're now excluded?


The justification would rely largely on the bigger picture - that these kinds of measures being gradually adopted across London are part of a strategy to encourage less driving in general.

But why do we keep talking about everything from the point of view of car-owning residents, either within the LN zone or in adjacent neighbourhoods? For a non car-owner in an adjacent neighbourhood, their car owning neighbour's rat run route now being blocked is not an issue. If their car owning neighbour uses their car for fewer journeys as a result then that's a benefit for them. And a non car owner on the "other side of Acre Lane" might well be one of the people who currently walks or cycles through the Ferndale area, and whose journey will hopefully be improved as a result of there being less traffic in that area.

Anyway, it seems that we actually agree that giving exemptions to residents within the zones is not a "win-win" solution and I would argue against it.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2020)

The tories aren't happy. The article is mostly nonsense of course. They even manage to get Oval in the wrong borough.









						Sadiq Khan is wrecking London’s revival with an ideological war on motorists
					

The mayor is squeezing drivers for cash and damaging the capital to fill the black hole in London's finances




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 20, 2020)

editor said:


> Some kickback on the Oval scheme
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a One Dulwich group set up to oppose the Dulwich LTN as well, a whole other level of entitlement going on there. I think if the Lambeth LTNs delayed a few Dulwich residents by 5 mins they would be long gone by now.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> There's a One Dulwich group set up to oppose the Dulwich LTN as well, a whole other level of entitlement going on there. I think if the Lambeth LTNs delayed a few Dulwich residents by 5 mins they would be long gone by now.


I should be publishing a counter point to this soon from some of the people behind the scheme.


----------



## newbie (Jul 20, 2020)

teuchter said:


> But why do we keep talking about everything from the point of view of car-owning residents, either within the LN zone or in adjacent neighbourhoods?


Worth remembering the schemes restrict motorcycles as well as cars and commercial vehicles.

Because it's them (along with delivery & cab drivers) and their entirely legal and reasonable behaviour that are being targetted*.  Unlawful and unreasonable driver behaviour is being used as an excuse for that, of course, but other initiatives would be deployed if bad driving was the real focus, from enforcement through traffic calming to _play nicely_ nudging.

I guess you'll have caniptions about the word 'reasonable' but while you and other ideologues may disapprove you obviously haven't persuaded everyone else you're right, plenty of other Londoners living on most London streets still decide to drive locally if they want to.





btw I looked it up.  Bearing in mind schools are shut, at school home time today Google Maps says getting back from Stockwell Primary to Sandmere Road takes 4 minutes driving the back way, which is now forbidden.  Done legally it takes 9 min via Landor Road, almost half of which is getting from the No Entry at Sandmere round to Solon to do the last bit, or 14 minutes via Brixton and round St Matthews; By foot, under the railway, is 14 minutes.  By bus to Clapham North and walk is 19 mins or it's 15 minutes round St Matthews.  On that basis it's still quicker to drive, especially if the whole length of Landor is clear (  ) but whichever way it's done the round trip is much longer.



* well and that this is part of the biggest city wide, top down, back of a fag packet social engineering experiment I've ever seen close up and I'm finding it fascinating.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> There's a One Dulwich group set up to oppose the Dulwich LTN as well, a whole other level of entitlement going on there. I think if the Lambeth LTNs delayed a few Dulwich residents by 5 mins they would be long gone by now.


Well, that's interesting that there is "One Oval" and also "One Dulwich". 

"One Oval" seem to have appeared within the last few weeks and claim to be a "network" of local residents including cyclists etc etc, and they claim to want "more cycling" and "more walking" and "cleaner air" and so on, but they can't be identified as any people in particular.

That they genuinely represent a group of residents who want things to change but just not in quite this way, would be more convincing if they could present themselves as people who've been pushing for "more cycling" and "more walking" and "cleaner air" in some way previous to all this. Otherwise they look rather like a reactionary operation just set up for this purpose. They seem to be good at their PR stuff anyway, with their professional looking website, and managing to get their views presented in several local news outlets whilst remaining essentially anonymous.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> Worth remembering the schemes restrict motorcycles as well as cars and commercial vehicles.
> 
> Because it's them (along with delivery & cab drivers) and their entirely legal and reasonable behaviour that are being targetted*.  Unlawful and unreasonable driver behaviour is being used as an excuse for that, of course, but other initiatives would be deployed if bad driving was the real focus, from enforcement through traffic calming to _play nicely_ nudging.
> 
> I guess you'll have caniptions about the word 'reasonable' but while you and other ideologues may disapprove you obviously haven't persuaded everyone else you're right, plenty of other Londoners living on most London streets still decide to drive locally if they want to*


The excuse is cleaner air in the middle of a pandemic affecting the respiratory system.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The justification would rely largely on the bigger picture - that these kinds of measures being gradually adopted across London are part of a strategy to encourage less driving in general.
> 
> But why do we keep talking about everything from the point of view of car-owning residents, either within the LN zone or in adjacent neighbourhoods? For a non car-owner in an adjacent neighbourhood, their car owning neighbour's rat run route now being blocked is not an issue. If their car owning neighbour uses their car for fewer journeys as a result then that's a benefit for them. And a non car owner on the "other side of Acre Lane" might well be one of the people who currently walks or cycles through the Ferndale area, and whose journey will hopefully be improved as a result of there being less traffic in that area.
> 
> Anyway, it seems that we actually agree that giving exemptions to residents within the zones is not a "win-win" solution and I would argue against it.



As a non car owning cyclists I also appreciate some of my neighbours need to use cars. They need to be able to park and have access. I see a real "Liveable Neighbourhood" as one where car owners and non car owners can all get along.

I don't think great my neighbour is having a hard time now. I also care about my neighbours. 

So I thiink its perfectly reasonable if the Liveable Neighbourhood is to mean anything in practise that residents living in these Council designated LNs should have exemptions.

Its not about win win or win lose its about the LN meaning somethng in practise.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As a non car owning cyclists I also appreciate some of my neighbours need to use cars. They need to be able to park and have access. I see a real "Liveable Neighbourhood" as one where car owners and non car owners can all get along.


There is no restriction on parking and any property will still be accessible as part of the LTN. Nobody is banning car ownership.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> There is no restriction on parking and any property will still be accessible as part of the LTN. Nobody is banning car ownership.



That is not what Im talking about.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> There is no restriction on parking and any property will still be accessible as part of the LTN. Nobody is banning car ownership.



What Im saying is this. 

As ANPR technology is going to be used residents in a LN should be able to register and it not apply to them.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The excuse is cleaner air in the middle of a pandemic affecting the respiratory system.


Sort of seems academic when the main shopping street in Brixton remains heavily polluted and it looks likely that this scheme will make other streets considerably busier too.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The excuse is cleaner air in the middle of a pandemic affecting the respiratory system.



The immediate legal excuse is, with political cover from the green pins on the map, although few mention cleaner air, they're mostly about too much traffic and bad driving.

How will air quality improvement in a few residential areas help combat the virus?

Bear in mind pollution isn't concentrated in relatively quiet residential streets, it's much greater on and near the busier roads.  LTNs inevitably push traffic onto those roads, it can't all evaporate.  The people who sit and breathe in buses, who walk, shop, run or cycle and particularly those who live or work on busy roads will be exposed to more pollution (and thus possible greater virus impact) as a result of these schemes.


PM10


NO2



from https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pcc-air-quality-action-plan-2017-2022.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2020)

Actually the "immediate legal excuse" is more to do with encouraging walking and cycling as modes of transport in the context of a pandemic where there's likely a benefit to keeping levels of crowding on buses and trains down as much as possible.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> The immediate legal excuse is, with political cover from the green pins on the map, although few mention cleaner air, they're mostly about too much traffic and bad driving.
> 
> How will air quality improvement in a few residential areas help combat the virus?
> 
> Bear in mind pollution isn't concentrated in relatively quiet residential streets, it's much greater on and near the busier roads.  LTNs inevitably push traffic onto those roads, it can't all evaporate.  The people who sit and breathe in buses, who walk, shop, run or cycle and particularly those who live or work on busy roads will be exposed to more pollution (and thus possible greater virus impact) as a result of these schemes.


The whole point is to reduce the amount of cars on the road, make it easier to have other forms of transport. If you want less pollution then great, lets do more on that as well.

It's not a problem where we have x number of cars and we have to plan around them, traffic and transport change all the time - congestion charge, crossrail etc.


----------



## Big Bertha (Jul 21, 2020)

Should increase congestion charge until number of cars drops to a level where pollution levels are acceptable.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Actually the "immediate legal excuse" is more to do with encouraging walking and cycling as modes of transport in the context of a pandemic where there's likely a benefit to keeping levels of crowding on buses and trains down as much as possible.



So pandemic emergency provisions have been used to hurriedly implement LTNs to reduce bus crowding?   Yet just a few posts back you proposed people take the bus to get their child to school, a 15-20 minute bus journey rather than their previous 4 minute drive, 4 times a day.  

Of course you did, the script has always proposed take the bus as an active travel ingredient, recognising that walking and cycling aren't appropriate for every person or every journey. And you're right, they will.

Insiders will hopefully walk or cycle to schools, the physio or wherever as replacements for driving within local streets.  If they don't they're advised to use a bus.  Their inside-the-zone motor journey must evaporate, though of course they'll still need to get there and back.  So in  the longer term, December say, what proportion of previously school run adults are going to walk under the bridges 4 times a day, every day?  For every hyperlocal  journey that isn't walked or cycled and hasn't conveniently not been made at all, there's going to be displacement onto the perimeter and through roads, either by car or by bus.  The same is true of journeys further afield, for non cyclists the only way to make the journey other than their car is the bus.   

Of course some journeys have to be made by vehicle.  Deliveries, Uber, trades, disabled, ferrying stuff won't evaporate much at all, and they'll all be forced back and forth round the perimeter as well.  Perimeter and through roads will take all the pressure and clog up further, leading to more idling fumes and slower buses.  

Future schemes on both sides of Brixton Hill will funnel into exactly the same road and bus pinch point at the Brixton crossroads..

So as a policy to concentrate pollution on the main roads and increase pressure on the buses this should all work well.

Is that really the most appropriate pandemic response?


----------



## alex_ (Jul 21, 2020)

Big Bertha said:


> Should increase congestion charge until number of cars drops to a level where pollution levels are acceptable.



“Roads are only for rich people” interesting strategy.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The whole point is to reduce the amount of cars on the road, make it easier to have other forms of transport. If you want less pollution then great, lets do more on that as well.
> 
> It's not a problem where we have x number of cars and we have to plan around them, traffic and transport change all the time - congestion charge, crossrail etc.


Surely the point of pandemic response should be virus related?  Or did you mean the longer term objective these LTNs were originally designed around, back when encouraging people onto buses and proper consultation and planning were normal?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> Surely the point of pandemic response should be virus related?  Or did you mean the longer term objective these LTNs were originally designed around, back when encouraging people onto buses and proper consultation and planning were normal?


What do you mean by virus related?. Is the furlough virus related?. How long do you think this pandemic response will go on for?. 

When was this normal proper consultation you are talking about happening?. Look at the rules for the upcoming emissions zone, they're meaningless - that's where consultation takes you - the status quo.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2020)

I know I keep going on about the school run from sandmere Road to Stockwell primary, but the reality of the walk bears thinking about.

Start here, walk your children and maybe push your buggy or have a toddler on reins to and from school. Hobble or drive your mobility scooter to the physio. Hurry along to or from your busy life while all that's going on, or cycle through. I don't see the brochure.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> What do you mean by virus related?. Is the furlough virus related?. How long do you think this pandemic response will go on for?.
> 
> When was this normal proper consultation you are talking about happening?. Look at the rules for the upcoming emissions zone, they're meaningless - that's where consultation takes you - the status quo.


Sorry, trying to avoid being over wordy doesn't work.

I meant that the 'whole point' right now in the pandemic, should be explicitly to impede the spread of the virus, through social distancing including less crowded buses and perhaps to increase individual ability to fight it off through cleaner air. 

Widening pavements is virus related, less crowded buses is virus related, better cycling provision where it's needed is virus related. Encouraging car use because it improves social distancing was initially a virus related response.  

I was trying to make the distinction that reducing the amount of cars on the road is a separate objective and at odds with less crowded buses.

Like cycling, driving provides better social distancing than using the bus or walking.  Reducing the amount of cars on the road will push people together.


And no, that's not a demand for more cars on the road, it's simply about the logic of claiming these LTNs are part of the pandemic response rather than a longer term political objective that's being forced through as pandemic policy.


----------



## newbie (Jul 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> When was this normal proper consultation you are talking about happening?. Look at the rules for the upcoming emissions zone, they're meaningless - that's where consultation takes you - the status quo.


Planning and consultation is about reconciling all sorts of factors and players and trying to reach objectives- in this case around climate change/traffic- in the face of reality.  Plans gets mired because there are no easy answers and no answers at all that will keep everyone happy. None the less, brochures are printed and schemes implemented. The status quo is always changing and people respond accordingly. 

This brochure was written with pre-pandemic objectives, and considered individual areas separately.  As pandemic policy it's now a much bigger proposition, and has been rolled out twice now in Brixton with two more to come aiui.  The scale of this pandemic LTN plan is wholly new, it's being done in a massive hurry, and done without much public planning and consultation. So I guess we'll find out if the perfectly understandable desire to cut through red tape and autocratically impose is a good idea or not.  It's going to be a bumpy ride, I really hope it delivers on the promises.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> I know I keep going on about the school run from sandmere Road to Stockwell primary, but the reality of the walk bears thinking about.
> 
> Start here, walk your children and maybe push your buggy or have a toddler on reins to and from school. Hobble or drive your mobility scooter to the physio. Hurry along to or from your busy life while all that's going on, or cycle through. I don't see the brochure.


That's the reality for the majority of people, who don't have a car, yes. What's your point?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> I was trying to make the distinction that reducing the amount of cars on the road is a separate objective and at odds with less crowded buses.
> 
> Like cycling, driving provides better social distancing than using the bus or walking.  Reducing the amount of cars on the road will push people together.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but there isn’t the amount of road space or parking to cope with increased driving, the place I work has about 5 spaces for example, for hundreds of people, so why think this is part of a solution?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 21, 2020)

alex_ said:


> “Roads are only for rich people” interesting strategy.



These types of measures are usually well-supported when it comes to regressive taxes.  Nice to have a change.


----------



## editor (Jul 21, 2020)

Oval LTN update: 








						Save Oval Streets – residents state their support for the Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

Yesterday, we ran a statement from the OneOval resident’s group which was highly critical of the Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. Although the article brought up many common co…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Crispy (Jul 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> I know I keep going on about the school run from sandmere Road to Stockwell primary, but the reality of the walk bears thinking about.
> Start here, walk your children and maybe push your buggy or have a toddler on reins to and from school. Hobble or drive your mobility scooter to the physio. Hurry along to or from your busy life while all that's going on, or cycle through. I don't see the brochure.


This is the same distance (~1.2km) that I live from my daughter's primary school and it's a totally reasonable walk with toddler or buggy in tow. A ridiculously short distance to drive.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2020)

Thought I'd record some of the traffic chaos caused by the Oval and Railton LN schemes, as I returned home from town this evening. They range between about 4.30 and 4.45pm so the early part of evening rush hour.

The bit between Vauxhall and Kennington (Harleyford Rd)




The junction by Oval Tube station


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2020)

Now the chaos of traffic displaced from Railton Rd:

Effra Road:



Brixton Water Lane:



Dulwich Rd:








Dulwich Rd at Herne Hill Jn:


----------



## Rushy (Jul 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Now the chaos of traffic displaced from Railton Rd:
> 
> Effra Road:
> 
> ...


I see what you mean. I don't think there is any suggestion that the LTNs are responsible for such quiet main roads. So it does rather beg the question ... are the LTNs actually necessary?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 21, 2020)

(Effra Road has been remarkably quiet this evening.)


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I see what you mean. I don't think there is any suggestion that the LTNs are responsible for such quiet main roads. So it does rather beg the question ... are the LTNs actually necessary?


No, it doesn't. 

It also doesn't prove that there will be no problems with displaced traffic. 

It's just a record of the actual situation at a certain time on a certain day. 

When we're all in our 90s and arguing about whether a liveable neighbourhood scheme should be implemented somewhere around brixton and someone says but don't you remember back in 2020 when they tried the railton road one and there was constant traffic chaos for weeks I'll quote that post and say no, it was mainly just that the anti camp won the twitter propaganda battle and lambeth bottled it before we could see the real results.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Thought I'd record some of the traffic chaos caused by the Oval and Railton LN schemes, as I returned home from town this evening. They range between about 4.30 and 4.45pm so the early part of evening rush hour.
> 
> The bit between Vauxhall and Kennington (Harleyford Rd)
> 
> ...



With home working the amount of traffic has dropped. The City is still a ghost town. So all round there is a lot less traffic going on some of these roads.

Lot more peope cycling to work. From what I saw today on Vauxhall brigde. The cycling rush hour home was busy.

IMO there is probably a lot less through traffic than before due to empty City.

Best way to stop congestion would be a move to home working. Its possible. The pandemic has shown it works.

Zoom meettings/ internet technology its all there for move to home working. Also automation of some jobs.

Way to stop a lot of traffic could be done by altering work and how its done.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> What do you mean by virus related?. Is the furlough virus related?. How long do you think this pandemic response will go on for?.
> 
> When was this normal proper consultation you are talking about happening?. Look at the rules for the upcoming emissions zone, they're meaningless - that's where consultation takes you - the status quo.



So you are saying the public should not be consulted?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So you are saying the public should not be consulted?


Yes, a radical change like this will get dragged down by nimbys until it’s meaningless.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yes, a radical change like this will get dragged down by nimbys until it’s meaningless.



I really object to this viewpoint.

In actual fact the Council has a duty to consult.

It might not do it very well. But its a democratic right for ordinary people to be able to have opportunity to voice an opinion on issue such as this.

What your are saying is that peoples democratic rights to object / comment should be taken away from them.

Its not as if consultation is a barrier to Council taking action.

It does mean their policies and proposals come under public scrutiny.

From my experience this Council and most of the Labour Cllrs hate being questioned / policies beinng scrutinised by residents.

This Pandemic has given them lot more power to shove things through without having to deal with the awkward squad. From what Ive seen they like it. 

I am not happy at this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2020)

editor said:


> Oval LTN update:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting comments at end of this article. 

Basicallly saying this was pushed by the better off residents in residents associations. They dont represent the Council tenants.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 21, 2020)

It’s funny because I have changed my views on this although there is a nagging suspicion that if you allow changes to take place without proper consultation, it’s a slippery path that could mean more things decided for you. Anyway putting that to one side, there’s no doubt that Railton is massively quieter although many neighbours (well if the debates on the normally sedate Nextdoor are anything to go by) are up in arms about it. My wife will still drive to work but not all the time as she is going to buy a bike so it is having an effect on behaviour. I now think we should wait and see how it all hangs together rather than dismiss it out of hand.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> With home working the amount of traffic has dropped. The City is still a ghost town. So all round there is a lot less traffic going on some of these roads.
> 
> Lot more peope cycling to work. From what I saw today on Vauxhall brigde. The cycling rush hour home was busy.
> 
> ...



It sounds like you are advocating a transport strategy that involves encouraging people to change their lifestyles so as to eliminate what you consider unnecessary journeys.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> It also doesn't prove that there will be no problems with displaced traffic.
> 
> ...


Quite. It doesn't prove anything. I was simply pointing out that your photos can be interpreted in any way you wish. It wasn't a serious question.

To be honest, whatever transpires, I will consider life, the universe and everything to have been an unmitigated disaster I am still discussing LTNs with you in my 90s.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> With home working the amount of traffic has dropped. The City is still a ghost town. So all round there is a lot less traffic going on some of these roads.


That might be true in the city but out in the burbs the reverse is true. Much more traffic as people use their cars to avoid public transport. Definitely the case on my street which is not a main road.
I read somewhere that sales of second hand cars are up too.

I was at a meeting last night which showed the effects of the Ulta Low Emmision Zone introduced in central London. Huge impact on pollution in ALL roads including main roads. It's being extended to the A205 next year so will cover Brixton. 
I think LTNs have to be done in conjunction with an extension of the ULEZ to all boroughs, with assistance from govt under the guise of a diesel scrappage scheme.
Then everyone will see benefits in terms of reduced pollution.

Another interesting fact was that exhaust pollution is only a part of it, tyre, brakes and road surface particles are just as dangerous. Yuck. We are all breathing this in every day.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

Just wondering how does the LTN work for the following.....
deliveries, Amazon, deliveroo etc
electric cars ?
car club vehicles vans and cars ?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> Just wondering how does the LTN work for the following.....
> deliveries, Amazon, deliveroo etc
> electric cars ?
> car club vehicles vans and cars ?


Same access as everyone else.

ETA: not sure whether Deliveroo might be classified as an emergency service?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Same access as everyone else.
> 
> ETA: not sure whether Deliveroo might be classified as an emergency service?


so you are saying they are allowed in/thru or not ( sorry not really been following the topic )


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> so you are saying they are allowed in/thru or not ( sorry not really been following the topic )


They can get everywhere. Just cannot pass through the gates so may need to use alternative points of access.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

Rushy said:


> They can get everywhere. Just cannot pass through the gates so may need to use alternative points of access.


So the denizens of trigon road are denied KFC delivery if it comes by moped ?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Quite. It doesn't prove anything. I was simply pointing out that your photos can be interpreted in any way you wish. It wasn't a serious question.
> 
> To be honest, whatever transpires, I will consider life, the universe and everything to have been an unmitigated disaster I am still discussing LTNs with you in my 90s.


I reckon the likelihood of the universe being an unmitigated disaster is relatively high then.

I don't think it's quite true that the photos don't prove anything. I think they do prove that anyone claiming traffic chaos at the moment is probably talking nonsense. Of course, things may change, and there are so many unprecedented variables currently affecting traffic that it's going to be pretty hard to untangle any contribution the LNs make.

When the LJ stuff was going on, there were quite specific claims of significant traffic piling into certain streets. Some of these were true, for a limited period of time. But I made a point of going and having a look in person at various intervals, and in many cases, it was plainly not true.

All over twitter, especially in regard to the Oval scheme, there are photos of "traffic chaos". Of course my photos are subject to some of the same criticisms that I could make of those photos - it's easy to choose your timing and position to make the street look more or less busy, to match whatever point you are trying to make, and it doesn't prove a lot in a general sense.

But I'd say to anyone who's genuinely interested in knowing whether claimed disruption really exists, go and have a look for yourself, on a couple of different occasions. Place very little value on photos you see online (yes, including mine).


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> So the denizens of trigon road are denied KFC delivery if it comes by moped ?


No. Everyone retains access to KFC deliveries. They may have to come via a different/longer route though.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No. Everyone retains access to KFC deliveries. They may have to come via a different/longer route though.


so you can drive thru as a non resident but have to go round the houses a bit ?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> So the denizens of trigon road are denied KFC delivery if it comes by moped ?


I don't know the specifics of that road but it seems unlikely. It is still access all areas. Just perhaps by a different route.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I don't know the specifics of that road but it seems unlikely. It is still access all areas. Just perhaps by a different route.


I dont get it, why do they need anpr, fines for non compliance etc if it’s access all areas. I’m asking because a woman I know walks dogs for a living and she told me it’s caused much grief because she is picking up/dropping off dogs in the oval triangle and the dogs are spending more time in the van than the park 🙃


----------



## Rushy (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> I dont get it, why do they need anpr, fines for non compliance etc if it’s access all areas. I’m asking because a woman I know walks dogs for a living and she told me it’s caused much grief because she is picking up dogs from the oval triangle and the pick ups are taking longer than the walks 🙃


If you are on one side of the gate and you want to get to the other side of the gate, you can still get there. But you mustn't go through the gate. You have to take a longer, more circuitous route. If you go through the gate in a vehicle, you will get snapped by the ANPR and be sent a fine.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

Rushy said:


> If you are on one side of the gate and you want to get to the other side of the gate, you can still get there. But you mustn't go through the gate. You have to take a longer, more circuitous route. If you go through the gate in a vehicle, you will get snapped by the ANPR and be sent a fine.


Residents too ?
how does this work with car club rentals ?
what about electrics which are theoretically cleaner than petrol, thought it was about emissions ?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> Residents too ?
> how does this work with car club rentals ?
> what about electrics which are theoretically cleaner than petrol, thought it was about emissions ?


It applies to everyone and everything except emergency access, buses and non-motorised vehicles like bikes.

It's not just about emissions (and electric vehicles don't fully solve that problem anyway).


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> I’m asking because a woman I know walks dogs for a living and she told me it’s caused much grief because she is picking up/dropping off dogs in the oval triangle and the dogs are spending more time in the van than the park 🙃


Well, here's an interesting use case that I'm sure we can all have an argument about.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

I just walked along Coldharbour Lane, heading back to Loughborough Junction from central Brixton. This is a walk I've been doing pretty regularly, at about this time of day, for several years, so I feel I know what a "normal" level of traffic looks like. Today the first time I've done it since pre-lockdown

Today I'd say that it was backing up eastwards along Coldharbour Lane in front of the barrier block, from the Atlantic Rd junction, more than normal. Of course, drivers arriving at that junction now find that they can neither go right nor left, because Atlantic Rd as well as Railton Rd is currently closed. There was some visible confusion at the junction - obviously not all drivers anticipating this, and this confusion was causing some delay in itself.

So for sure it will be interesting to see whether this changes over the next few weeks, as more drivers come to realise that they now can only go straight along Coldharbour Lane, and potentially change their journey plans accordingly.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It applies to everyone and everything except emergency access, buses and non-motorised vehicles like bikes. It's not just about emissions (and electric vehicles don't fully solve that problem anyway).


yes I understand the bit about electric vehicles, and I think they are more dangerous in some ways....silent running, problematic for the hard of hearing,excitable little kids on bikes and on foot, cyclists wearing headphones for example.


teuchter said:


> Well, here's an interesting use case that I'm sure we can all have an argument about.


think you are misunstanding my post, not for an argument I’m here to learn what this scheme entails, I was speaking to the dog walker in question and asked how it worked for her as she lives on the edge of the zone. Today I have been speaking to other people, I am being told about people going for routine hospital appointments in ambulances taking a lot longer to get there and back. And I am also hearing that there is another group who are exempt from the rules, namely people who are part of the residents associations consulted who are lucky enough to have off street parking who can get a free pass permit, is this something you can deny or confirm, it seems quite unfair, surely misinformation .


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 22, 2020)

Whereas on Nextdoor, not sure if anyone uses that (you have to use your real name which might put people off), people are going bananas about the imposition. I believe they even got a zoom chat with Helen Hayes last night. Network rail depot on Shakespeare not happy nor are non emergency nhs workers. Be interesting to see how it all pans out but now they are in place (albeit with a lack of cameras), you’ve got to give it time.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> yes I understand the bit about electric vehicles, and I think they are more dangerous in some ways....silent running, problematic for the hard of hearing,excitable little kids on bikes and on foot, cyclists wearing headphones for example.
> 
> think you are misunstanding my post, not for an argument I’m here to learn what this scheme entails, I was speaking to the dog walker in question and asked how it worked for her as she lives on the edge of the zone. Today I have been speaking to other people, I am being told about people going for routine hospital appointments in ambulances taking a lot longer to get there and back. And I am also hearing that there is another group who are exempt from the rules, namely people who are part of the residents associations consulted who are lucky enough to have off street parking who can get a free pass permit, is this something you can deny or confirm, it seems quite unfair, surely misinformation .



There is no residents permit giving them exemption from the LTN


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 22, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Whereas on Nextdoor, not sure if anyone uses that (you have to use your real name which might put people off), people are going bananas about the imposition. I believe they even got a zoom chat with Helen Hayes last night. Network rail depot on Shakespeare not happy nor are non emergency nhs workers. Be interesting to see how it all pans out but now they are in place (albeit with a lack of cameras), you’ve got to give it time.



There’s one worker for a local hospital / NHS trust who is very against it. Turns out they’re the local physical activity champion tasked with delivery a community health programme where one of its main delivery methods is promoting active travel (walking and cycling as part of an social prescription programme).


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> There is no residents permit giving them exemption from the LTN


I’ll believe you but I suspect there maybe more to this, nonetheless if it is misinformation then it is the sort of thing that will happen when entitled groups get together with those in authority to impose schemes with no transparency.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> think you are misunstanding my post, not for an argument I’m here to learn what this scheme entails,



No, I didn't mean to imply that you've come for an argument.

I just meant, that's a specific example of a "behaviour" that is going to be affected, and I'm sure some of us on here can have an argument about the implications of that.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

About the ambulance times thing - this kept coming up as an objection when the Loughborough Junction scheme was being "trialed". There were lots of claims that travel times were being extended or that ambulances were being obstructed. There was even a paramedic speaking at one of the meetings.

But when (too late) a formal statement from the ambulance service was made available, it was quite clear: they did not have any fundamental objections to the scheme and they had not noted any consequences that gave them significant cause for concern.

So, I'd be very sceptical about anything you hear. I think that what happens is that seculative fears about ambulances being delayed get turned into "actually happened" stories. And I'm sure that transformation doesn't always happen accidentally either.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No, I didn't mean to imply that you've come for an argument.
> 
> I just meant, that's a specific example of a "behaviour" that is going to be affected, and I'm sure some of us on here can have an argument about the implications of that.


yes for sure there’s a lot to go at.....


teuchter said:


> About the ambulance times thing - this kept coming up as an objection when the Loughborough Junction scheme was being "trialed". There were lots of claims that travel times were being extended or that ambulances were being obstructed. There was even a paramedic speaking at one of the meetings.
> 
> But when (too late) a formal statement from the ambulance service was made available, it was quite clear: they did not have any fundamental objections to the scheme and they had not noted any consequences that gave them significant cause for concern.
> 
> So, I'd be very sceptical about anything you hear. I think that what happens is that seculative fears about ambulances being delayed get turned into "actually happened" stories. And I'm sure that transformation doesn't always happen accidentally either.


]
i don’t see how anyone can dispute the thing about medical transport, emergency ambulances are exempt but (I’m guessing) ones used for transporting people with mobility issues to and from places, I am talking about care homes and sheltered housing....and having to go the long way round will generally mean longer time on the road, and this means more pollution or am I deluded ?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> yes I understand the bit about electric vehicles, and I think they are more dangerous in some ways....silent running, problematic for the hard of hearing,excitable little kids on bikes and on foot, cyclists wearing headphones for example.
> 
> think you are misunstanding my post, not for an argument I’m here to learn what this scheme entails, I was speaking to the dog walker in question and asked how it worked for her as she lives on the edge of the zone. Today I have been speaking to other people, I am being told about people going for routine hospital appointments in ambulances taking a lot longer to get there and back. And I am also hearing that there is another group who are exempt from the rules, namely people who are part of the residents associations consulted who are lucky enough to have off street parking who can get a free pass permit, is this something you can deny or confirm, it seems quite unfair, surely misinformation .



If you read the comments at end of the Brixton Buzz article written by supporter of the Oval LTN sounds like possible split between the Council tenants and home owners in the residents associations around Fentiman road who support scheme. Have you heard anything on that?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> yes I understand the bit about electric vehicles, and I think they are more dangerous in some ways....silent running, problematic for the hard of hearing,excitable little kids on bikes and on foot, cyclists wearing headphones for example.
> 
> think you are misunstanding my post, not for an argument I’m here to learn what this scheme entails, I was speaking to the dog walker in question and asked how it worked for her as she lives on the edge of the zone. Today I have been speaking to other people, I am being told about people going for routine hospital appointments in ambulances taking a lot longer to get there and back. And I am also hearing that there is another group who are exempt from the rules, namely people who are part of the residents associations consulted who are lucky enough to have off street parking who can get a free pass permit, is this something you can deny or confirm, it seems quite unfair, surely misinformation .



On electric vehicles.

There are a lot in the (pre pandemic) city. Uber cars run on electric in city/ West end.

Big delivery firms use them. Cargo bikes run partly in electric power.

I have got used to them as a cyclist. Just have to be more aware and keep an eye on road more. Which to be frank not a lot of cyclists do from what I see.

I think there will be growth in electric bikes and scooters. They are great to get around and quick.

And living on a busy road quiet vehicles would be an improvement.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If you read the comments at end of the Brixton Buzz article written by supporter of the Oval LTN sounds like possible split between the Council tenants and home owners in the residents associations around Fentiman road who support scheme. Have you heard anything on that?


its not that simple, for example. I know a working class council tenant who takes the view that all car owners should fill out a form, if their reasons for owning a car are not judged valid their car should be towed and scrapped, he is not big on empathy however, being a former biker who used to do 100+ on the public roads for the lols. Another guy is a former green candidate for Southwark and he thinks it’s not fit for purpose because it just moves traffic to different places, he laughed knowingly when I told him about the alleged free pass. Most people I speak to are w/c and they definitely feel the m/c TfL and council are taking the piss. I remember the Loughborough closures caused a similar divide with local long time working class “green“ sustainable transport types i know saying it was about putting up a barrier between roads north and south of coldharbour,


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> yes for sure there’s a lot to go at.....
> ]
> i don’t see how anyone can dispute the thing about medical transport, emergency ambulances are exempt but (I’m guessing) ones used for transporting people with mobility issues to and from places, I am talking about care homes and sheltered housing....and having to go the long way round will generally mean longer time on the road, and this means more pollution or am I deluded ?


Yes, there will be some (essential) journeys that are longer as a result, and there will be an increase in pollution related to those specific journeys, although generally in both cases the increase will be fairly marginal. However this is in exchange for a general overall decrease in the number of journeys made and the net effect is a decrease in pollution (and congestion, meaning that maybe some of those essential journeys actually become quicker). Not everyone believes that's what really happens, and some people think that it'll overly concentrate pollution on main roads, and that's what a lot of the argument on this thread has been about. People like me who do believe it is likely to work, are of the opinion that the net benefit makes it all worth it. That's based on the fact that variations of this kind of scheme have been being implemented across europe, the uk and london for quite some time, and most of the available evidence is that they seem to work quite well. Regardless of whether these schemes really work as intended... If anyone tries to tell you it's done kind of wacky untested new idea, that's simply not true.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 23, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> yes for sure there’s a lot to go at.....
> ]
> i don’t see how anyone can dispute the thing about medical transport, emergency ambulances are exempt but (I’m guessing) ones used for transporting people with mobility issues to and from places, I am talking about care homes and sheltered housing....and having to go the long way round will generally mean longer time on the road, and this means more pollution or am I deluded ?



Longer term thats a valid point, but at the moment and for the foreseeable future most people living in residential care are still shielded- with medical staff (GPs, SaLTs, physios) going to them, not people travelling out.

The visitor ban on residential care was only lifted this week and that’s just one family member.

Plus people with disability are statistically more likely to be injured by a road traffic incident plus have less access to independent transport as the govt just won’t fund it under care contracts or to an adequate level under PIP. Nor are there funds for transport / mobility support to allow people to be more independent.

This is cycling specific but covers wider consultation points:


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 23, 2020)

Hmm can’t seem to paste the link from wheels for all on ‘disabled people’s mobility needs during lockdown and in recovery’


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 23, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> I dont get it, why do they need anpr, fines for non compliance etc if it’s access all areas. I’m asking because a woman I know walks dogs for a living and she told me it’s caused much grief because she is picking up/dropping off dogs in the oval triangle and the dogs are spending more time in the van than the park 🙃


Dogs really are an environmental disaster.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 23, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Longer term thats a valid point, but at the moment and for the foreseeable future most people living in residential care are still shielded- with medical staff (GPs, SaLTs, physios) going to them, not people travelling out.
> 
> The visitor ban on residential care was only lifted this week and that’s just one family member.
> 
> ...


OK all points to consider, as I said I am not here for an argument,


thebackrow said:


> Dogs really are an environmental disaster.


...... well reading your past posts it seems you are the man with all the answers so no point arguing,
please let me know if this is some kind of light hearted trolling before I do the right thing and kill my dog


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 23, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> please let me know if this is some kind of light hearted trolling before I do the right thing and kill my dog


Not trolling but In a climate and air quality crisis why are peoples dogs being driven to be walked? Theres Larkhall Park to the south, Vauxhall to the NW and Kennington to the NE.  Nowhere  in the Oval triangle is more than 10 minutes walk from a green space where a dog can be exercised.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Dogs really are an environmental disaster.



Dogs have interacted with humans for thousands of years.

I have walk couple of dogs for old lady in West End. These dogs provide her as single old lady with companionship. She is devoted to them.

They are good for her pyschological health.

Dogs are part of the society we live in for thousands of years.

I don't see the problem.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Not trolling but In a climate and air quality crisis why are peoples dogs being driven to be walked? Theres Larkhall Park to the south, Vauxhall to the NW and Kennington to the NE.  Nowhere  in the Oval triangle is more than 10 minutes walk from a green space where a dog can be exercised.



Because its this persons job. From what cuppa tee says this person has worked out a round where they pick up several dogs and walk them for the owners. Good luck to them for being entreprising and sorting out a living from it. 

Looks like they are one of the losers from the LN.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2020)

Well, my instinctual reaction is that there's not something wrong with the LN but with the world we've created where dogs have to be picked up in vans to be walked by strangers. And we shouldn't be designing our infrastructure around facilitating that sort of thing, just like it shouldn't be determined by Amazon's policies for paying their delivery drivers.

However - it's also someone's means of making a living and it has to be recognised that something like this creates a sudden change in the way they are able to go about that.

I am sure there might be various logistical issues that I'm unaware of that make the van element necessary, but my optimistic view would be that maybe there could be some kind of outcome where the majority or some of the dogs are collected on foot instead; or maybe it is simply the case that the route can be re-planned in a way that it's not actually much slower, or maybe it could even become apparent that the van is not really necessary at all and they can all be collected on foot and then walked to the park together. And maybe some of the LN changes could make that easier to do than it was before.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 24, 2020)

Perhaps sorting out delivery drivers work should be part of design of liveable neighbourhoods.

Start with dealing with Amazon employment practises first then alter roads.

Or deal with these transport issues as part of the design of infrastructure. This would be a just transition.


----------



## Big Bertha (Jul 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Perhaps sorting out delivery drivers work should be part of design of liveable neighbourhoods.
> 
> Start with dealing with Amazon employment practises first then alter roads.
> 
> Or deal with these transport issues as part of the design of infrastructure. This would be a just transition.


That doesn’t make any sense


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 24, 2020)

Big Bertha said:


> That doesn’t make any sense



Go away.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2020)

Big Bertha said:


> That doesn’t make any sense


Makes perfect sense to me. Please explain what you're struggling with.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Not trolling but In a climate and air quality crisis why are peoples dogs being driven to be walked? Theres Larkhall Park to the south, Vauxhall to the NW and Kennington to the NE.  Nowhere  in the Oval triangle is more than 10 minutes walk from a green space where a dog can be exercised.


first off thank you, my dog is pleased to know she is not a problem to be solved, and does not travel in motorised transport unless absolutely necessary. Gramsci and Teuchter have covered some of the main reasons in their posts quote below.


Gramsci said:


> Because its this persons job. From what cuppa tee says this person has worked out a round where they pick up several dogs and walk them for the owners. Good luck to them for being entreprising and sorting out a living from it.....


in fact the person I spoke to is an employee rather than the business owner....before the covid there were many enterprising dog walkers who did not use vans, these have mostly vanished now, I guess because people furloughed now have more time and less cash so dog walking services are no longer required. Difficult for these guys to make a living just by dog walking, a lot are students, or topping up income from other gig economy employment or family income where partners are in low paid work, or to maintain a level of financial independence from their partner.


teuchter said:


> Well, my instinctual reaction is that there's not something wrong with the LN but with the world we've created where dogs have to be picked up in vans to be walked by strangers. And we shouldn't be designing our infrastructure around facilitating that sort of thing, just like it shouldn't be determined by Amazon's policies for paying their delivery drivers.
> 
> However - it's also someone's means of making a living and it has to be recognised that something like this creates a sudden change in the way they are able to go about that.
> 
> I am sure there might be various logistical issues that I'm unaware of that make the van element necessary, but my optimistic view would be that maybe there could be some kind of outcome where the majority or some of the dogs are collected on foot instead; or maybe it is simply the case that the route can be re-planned in a way that it's not actually much slower, or maybe it could even become apparent that the van is not really necessary at all and they can all be collected on foot and then walked to the park together. And maybe some of the LN changes could make that easier to do than it was before.


the van element means more dogs can be walked, more dogs means more income, a lot of these operations are not going to make you a millionaire,. I spoke to a dog walker about the possibility of going electric but it’s not viable, the outlay would be huge, also it would need expensIve modification because you can’t just stick a load of dogs in the back of a van and hope for the best. backrow mentions the number of parks available this ok in theory, but local issues exist Vauxhall’s looked out of commision last time I was there, Kennington is not great because it’s cramped and operating as a giant pizza plaza atm. Since I had my dog (5 years) the number of dogs has increased, i don’t know why....companionship, fashion, prestige maybe ? and the covid has seen an even greater increase in numbers. All this is before one considers the pet industry, grooming, plastic toys, fancy food and even apparel....it’s a can of worms for sure.
e2a forgot to say the dog walker in question picks up from a much wider area thanjust  the OVAl LTN.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 25, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> the van element means more dogs can be walked, more dogs means more income, a lot of these operations are not going to make you a millionaire,



It is an interesting conundrum.  just because a business exists and is profitable now doesn't mean it should necessarily be protected or encouraged.

The move away from open fires killed the chimneysweep and coal delivery businesses. Trains killed off the canal boat trade. Cars killed off all the businesses associated with looking after horses. If we shift to more people cycling then bike shops will do well, car repair places less so.  It was ever thus.

There has been (what seems like) massive growth of dog ownership in London, seemingly many by people unable to properly look after their dogs themselves because of their working patterns. I'm not sure that's good for the dogs welfare, and some of the businesses that have grown to support it seem to have a lot of negative externalities.  I see Lambeth have had to limit the number of dogs per walker  in the parks and require them to register.

and this growth has had a negative impact on me personally. I'd really rather not have dogs pissing and shitting all over the streets - it's not like bagging a turd removes all of it and many bagged turds seem to get left all over the streets and countryside in any case. someone has to empty all the litter bins and household rubbish that's now mixed with increasing amounts of dog shit as well. 

 I find people walking great packs of dogs pretty unpleasant when I'm using the parks - it's very different to an owner walking a single dog. I'm pretty sure they cant keep track of where six dogs have shat (I walk a neighbours dog occasionally as a favour and whilst I keep a close eye on him I sometimes return him without having picked up not knowing if he hasn't shat or just managed to do it without me noticing).

And the idea of diesel vans shuttling dogs short distances from home to park (or even worse - someone I heard of had their dog picked up and shuttled to Surrey each day) just doesn't seem sustainable.

This is all way off topic but "dog walkers businesses become more difficult" seems more of a benefit than a dis benefit to me.


----------



## editor (Jul 25, 2020)

Comment on the Buzz article





> See how many vehicles driving on the pavement you can count. Phase 1 of the scheme has just come into effect. Phase 2 will start soon and make the situation worse. It is also quiet now because of summer holidays, no school runs, Covid-19. It is highly unusual for there to be so many open parking spaces (or passing lanes) to be available. The objectives of this scheme are to lower traffic (fail), to improve air quality (fail — and there are a lot of pedestrians on this road) and to increase safety (well maybe, if you can avoid the motorcycles on the pavement. Was someone actually paid to come up with this scheme? Moreover it’s been foisted on residents without meaningful consultation.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 25, 2020)

Jeez, I thought the idea was to force vehicles onto main roads. That does not look like a main road.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 25, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Jeez, I thought the idea was to force vehicles onto main roads. That does not look like a main road.



I live on Coldharbour lane. Its also treated as a main road for purposes of Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood. Even though its lined with residential all the way along like Ferndale.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 25, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Jeez, I thought the idea was to force vehicles onto main roads. That does not look like a main road.


At a guess I’d say satnavs haven’t updated yet or people are ignoring signs.
It’s always “traffic chaos” for the first weeks. Same story from oval and railton.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 25, 2020)

The Liveable Neighbourhood scheme will mean more traffic on roads like mine.

No chaos in CHL but there will be more traffic.

The idea of Liveable Neighbourhood is to force traffic onto some roads away from others.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> At a guess I’d say satnavs haven’t updated yet or people are ignoring signs.
> It’s always “traffic chaos” for the first weeks. Same story from oval and railton.


Yes, it doesn't indicate a problem unless it persists beyond the initial weeks.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 25, 2020)

Not a problem. But roads like mine will have more traffic.

If that is not considered a problem.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The idea of Liveable Neighbourhood is to force traffic onto some roads away from others.



the idea of a low traffic neighbourhood is to keep traffic on the main roads where it belongs and stop satnavs filling every minor road to capacity as well.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> the idea of a low traffic neighbourhood is to keep traffic on the main roads where it belongs and stop satnavs filling every minor road to capacity as well.



So thats ok then . People who live on these roads will just have to put up with it.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I live on Coldharbour lane. Its also treated as a main road for purposes of Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood. Even though its lined with residential all the way along like Ferndale.


Unfortunately chl is the A2217 so is classed as a main road


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 25, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Unfortunately chl is the A2217 so is classed as a main road



That does not mean that all traffic has to be funneled into it. That is a political decision. 

Its not a main road so that cars due to LTN have to use it to get from one point to another in roundabout route.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> But roads like mine will have more traffic.


At this stage we don't actually know whether they will.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> the idea of a low traffic neighbourhood is to keep traffic on the main roads where it belongs and stop satnavs filling every minor road to capacity as well.


If that's the problem I wonder how difficult it would be to work with the sat nav manufacturers to create a solution. E.g. classify roads down which vehicles are not to be directed unless the journey ends there or there is no other route.


----------



## newbie (Jul 26, 2020)

Rushy said:


> If that's the problem I wonder how difficult it would be to work with the sat nav manufacturers to create a solution. E.g. classify roads down which vehicles are not to be directed unless the journey ends there or there is no other route.


It's just lag, isn't it? I've no idea how statutory road entry changes are propogated and synchronised for satnav/map updates, but I thought Google Maps was pretty quick to show the SMR & Railton restrictions. They've apparently been a bit tardy about Ferndale, but that might be how it fits with their update cycle or something..  The other players are much smaller. 

Or maybe they're swamped with brochure reading planners all over the country taking the Covid opportunity to buy lots of road signs and  add to their CV.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's just lag, isn't it? I've no idea how statutory road entry changes are propogated and synchronised for satnav/map updates, but I thought Google Maps was pretty quick to show the SMR & Railton restrictions. They've apparently been a bit tardy about Ferndale, but that might be how it fits with their update cycle or something..  The other players are much smaller.
> 
> Or maybe they're swamped with brochure reading planners all over the country taking the Covid opportunity to buy lots of road signs and  add to their CV.


I was meaning ongoing. If satnavs are keeping the side roads congested as thebackrow suggested. Then there might be less need for gates.


----------



## newbie (Jul 26, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I was meaning ongoing. If satnavs are keeping the side roads congested as thebackrow suggested. Then there might be less need for gates.


Once the software knows where restrictions are it'll stop routing that way.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 26, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So thats ok then . People who live on these roads will just have to put up with it.


Lambeth Cyclists tweeted this yesterday Climate Safe Streets Report Launch


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2020)

newbie said:


> Once the software knows where restrictions are it'll stop routing that way.


And I'm saying that the same could be achieved, without putting any gate in. By roads being designated in a new way which has to be recognised in routing software.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 26, 2020)

From yesterday. The street by the Herne Hill end was painted with the same dots as Shakespeare Road at some time in the early morning.

From watching it for an hour today - <30 cars drove through, including an ambulance and a police car and 4 buses. 10 cars u-turned.

Milk wood and Dulwich Road are quiet.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 26, 2020)

Rushy said:


> And I'm saying that the same could be achieved, without putting any gate in. By roads being designated in a new way which has to be recognised in routing software.


The whole point of satnavs (and especially Waze) is to identify ratruns. Waze even highlight police mobile speed traps do that drivers can break the law without getting caught. If one company agreed to “avoid” certain roads another would doing up with a product that didn’t


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 26, 2020)

Most sat navs identity speed camera locations tbh.

Big increase in cyclists and pedestrians on Railton this morning too.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> The whole point of satnavs (and especially Waze) is to identify ratruns. Waze even highlight police mobile speed traps do that drivers can break the law without getting caught. If one company agreed to “avoid” certain roads another would doing up with a product that didn’t


Yes - I understand that. Which is why I said that it would need to be done as a new type of road classification - which has to be recognised in satnav software. Statute has to move along with technology. It's a thought. An idea. Not just another physical barrier.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 26, 2020)

Waze is used by van drivers I know as its more accurate than google about telling one where road accidents are etc. It encourages driver input on the app. So even something that happened a few hours ago will lead to re routing.

Waze does not do cycle routes. Google does. Google uses the cycle routes in London.

I see what Rushy is getting at. Why set up all these barriers when technology can be used to do it virtually. If you are setting route to go from A to B it could be set to give route with no rat runs. ( Waze btw is very good at using rat runs. Ive seen it do it)

This would stop through traffic but allow people in local areas ability to get around.

As transport is gradually moving to part way to driverless traffic this would be way to do it.

Google cycle routes are surprisingly up to date on latest cycle routes. Even if they are long way round. I often check the car route as well as its shorter.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2020)

I don't think it would be a workable solution until we have driverless cars but it would be an attractive idea for those who are squeamish about the principle of making short local car journeys less convenient as a means of trying to reduce overall traffic levels.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2020)

Posted an article on Buzz: Ferndale Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme – resident posts video of traffic congestion


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 26, 2020)

Someone posted that Hammersmith & Fulham are doing LTNs but giving local residents with valid parking permits a borough wide free pass. The cameras recognise your VRM and don’t penalise you. You can even apply for visitor permits if you need to. Interesting approach to only fine through traffic


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't think it would be a workable solution until we have driverless cars but it would be an attractive idea for those who are squeamish about the principle of making short local car journeys less convenient as a means of trying to reduce overall traffic levels.



The problem described by thebackrow to which I was responding was:



thebackrow said:


> the idea of a low traffic neighbourhood is to keep traffic on the main roads where it belongs and stop satnavs filling every minor road to capacity as well.



If satnavs are to blame for filling all minor roads to capacity, then preventing them from doing so through the reclassification of roads and determining how routes are allowed to be treated by satnavs would clearly go a long way to solving that issue. It's an imaginative and probably workable idea. Learned behaviour would take a little longer to sort out but would ease.

I suspect that your issue is not so much with the idea but with his description of the purpose of an LTN.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 26, 2020)

Not everybody uses satnavs though.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Someone posted that Hammersmith & Fulham are doing LTNs but giving local residents with valid parking permits a borough wide free pass. The cameras recognise your VRM and don’t penalise you. You can even apply for visitor permits if you need to. Interesting approach to only fine through traffic



Seems true.









						Pioneering new SW6 traffic reduction scheme to launch 20 July
					

A pioneering new traffic reduction scheme in south Fulham to tackle rat running by out-of-borough drivers will be launch this month.




					www.lbhf.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2020)

Rushy said:


> The problem described by thebackrow to which I was responding was:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right, I don't think that's the only purpose of a LTN and I doubt that thebackrow does either.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You're right, I don't think that's the only purpose of a LTN and I doubt that thebackrow does either.



Although the description seems pretty much in line with what has been done with the H&F LTN project described in the H&F council article above. Keeping non local traffic on the main roads and scuppering non-local rat runs.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Although the description seems pretty much in line with what has been done with the H&F LTN project described in the H&F council article above. Keeping non local traffic on the main roads and scuppering non-local rat runs.


Yes, they have gone for appeasement of car owning residents. If any meaningful monitoring of these various schemes happens, then maybe it will be interesting to try and compare results in different places. If they manage to show that they have achieved modal shift in local journeys despite not really changing anything for resident car owners, then I'll be interested to know about it.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2020)

Had a look at car ownership figures for that part of Fulham by the way.

Number of households who have no car or van in Parsons Green & Walham is 42% and in Sands End 47%.

Compare that with the number of households who have no car or van in Ferndale ward (65%) Coldharbour (69%) and Herne Hill (57%).

Maybe they need an appeasement strategy whereas in Lambeth we can afford to look out more for the interests of non car owners.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Had a look at car ownership figures for that part of Fulham by the way.
> 
> Number of households who have no car or van in Parsons Green & Walham is 42% and in Sands End 47%.
> 
> ...



You've used the word appeasement twice. It really seems to bother you that their scheme was devised through cooperation with residents.  "The scheme follows numerous meetings between residents and the council, including a working party, to address the impact of the experimental closure of Harwood Terrace as well as long-standing local traffic issues."

I'm not sure that the stats you quoted translate into support levels in the way you have assumed. But Fulham's car penetration figures are indeed roughly 50% higher than in Lambeth which surely does translates into significantly more local cars on the road and more local journeys. Despite it being a bigger issue their council still appears to have managed to base their scheme on a cooperative process with the residents. If it doesn't work they can then easily start closing things down further - but they will know whether it worked or not for their particular scheme.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2020)

I don't think there's any reason to believe their consultation with residents has been any more meaningful or balanced or thorough than Lambeth's is there? I'm sure that Lambeth's press releases also talk about how they have developed their plans in cooperation with residents.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Yes, they have gone for appeasement of car owning residents.



No they haven't.

They have done an experimental scheme. Learned the lessons from that and are now doing an altered scheme.

That is not "appeasement".


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No they haven't.
> 
> They have done an experimental scheme. Learned the lessons from that and are now doing an altered scheme.
> 
> That is not "appeasement".


Does your knowledge of this scheme extend beyond what Hammersmith & Fulham council say on the one webpage linked further up?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Does your knowledge of this scheme extend beyond what Hammersmith & Fulham council say on the one webpage linked further up?



Your point being?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Your point being?


Surprised you just accept the council's line on what's happened and why.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Surprised you just accept the council's line on what's happened and why.



Good for you.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Surprised you just accept the council's line on what's happened and why.



Im not following the Councils line.

You said this was appeasement.

From what i read in the article the Council is not ditching traffic reduction altogether. It is altering the scheme.

In my opinion that is not appeasement.

If they had just ditched the whole thing you might have an argument.

In this case they didnt.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 27, 2020)

Rushy said:


> The problem described by thebackrow to which I was responding was:
> If satnavs are to blame for filling all minor roads to capacity, then preventing them from doing so through the reclassification of roads and determining how routes are allowed to be treated by satnavs would clearly go a long way to solving that issue. It's an imaginative and probably workable idea. Learned behaviour would take a little longer to sort out but would ease.



Isn't that exactly what's been done?  The classification of those roads has been changed to 'no through road' with use of signage or physical closure. There are cameras to enforce against those who ignore the classification. That information is updated on the satnavs and they no longer route drivers down those roads.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2020)

Rushy said:


> their scheme was devised through cooperation with residents.  "The scheme follows numerous meetings between residents and the council, including a working party, to address the impact of the experimental closure of Harwood Terrace as well as long-standing local traffic issues."





Rushy said:


> their council still appears to have managed to base their scheme on a cooperative process with the residents.





Gramsci said:


> They have done an experimental scheme. Learned the lessons from that and are now doing an altered scheme.



Some reading for you.





__





						www.FulhamSW6.com Frontpage
					

www.FulhamSW6.com Frontpage



					www.fulhamsw6.com
				








__





						www.FulhamSW6.com Frontpage
					

www.FulhamSW6.com Frontpage



					www.fulhamsw6.com
				












						'Pioneering' traffic scheme to keep non-residents out of Fulham to begin in July
					

Some residents predict "teething problems", others say they have been "ignored"




					www.mylondon.news
				






> Local campaigners fighting  H&F Council's closure of Harwood Terrace in Fulham have enlisted the help of celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, or 'Mr Loophole'. The Evening Standard reports that the lawyer, who gained his nickname by helping rich clients avoid motoring convictions, described the closure  as 'perverse' and 'poorly conceived'.



I'm going to have to try and resist getting into all the details of this scheme but it looks like they actually did some monitoring of traffic during their experimental period. And it showed an increase on certain streets - but also a decrease on what appear to be parallel streets to the one that was closed. In other words, not as simple as traffic just increasing on the routes you'd expect to be taken instead. It doesn't seem obvious that the revised scheme is directly addressing these issues - it seems to be more a case of retaining a compromised version of the original one. So, some traffic returns to the previously closed street - but not quite as much as before. Is that the solution to the measured increase on certain other streets - just put things back to sort-of how they were before? It doesn't look to me like a very sophisticated response. It looks to me like they faced vociferous opposition and backed down on the original intention. In ote the "Mr Loophole" lawyer has also been on talk radio complaining about vigilante cyclists who film traffic offences.


----------



## newbie (Jul 27, 2020)

The scheme started in October.  Last November


> But On October 21, Hammersmith and Fulham Council took the controversial decision to close 90 metres of the road for six months, as a trial run to see the effect on local traffic.
> 
> The street’s inhabitants are universally in favour. They say the closure will end the many collisions and road rage incidents that have unfolded on their doorsteps for years.
> 
> ...





> Property surveyor Charles Walker, 54, led the calls for Harwood Terrace to be closed, and praised Labour councillor Wesley Harcourt for making it happen.
> 
> “About 15 months ago I contacted Wesley to talk about this.
> 
> ...



I don't know that area well enough to have an opinion on the roads detail, but the process seems familiar.  To be fair to Lambeth the H&F online consultation seems very poor (this one is historic but look at a live one to see how it works). The experiment obviously failed yet Covid was used as cover to extend it. Now they're looking at a borough localist scheme which no doubt someone will test to see if it's even legal.

Does anyone think conditional access to borough roads based on parking permit is a good idea?  

In some ways it's just an extension of the Congestion Charge, which isn't paid by those living inside it. Or of the little toll house in Dulwich collecting a few pence from each car.  But in other ways it's wholly new, paying to access routes along public streets which are denied to others.

Two immediate consequences spring to mind, firstly that for affected routes most H&F car owners will be paying for an enhanced level of access which those residents with off street parking will get free, while outsiders are barred and can be penalised.  That's not healthy, is it? Presumably in future the permit cost will go up because so much more is included, and residential & trade off street parking will become even more desirable.

Secondly, this scheme failed because displaced traffic clogged the through routes, caused pollution and slowed down buses (who'd have thought?).  We're told it's mostly traffic from outside the borough getting to/from pinchpoints, the bridges over the river, and that the road network has not coped properly since the area was made less permeable (ie there's reduced resilience in the event of holdups).  Those outsiders have shown they're not prepared (or perhaps able) to either be frustrated out of their cars or to change their route via the pinchpoints (ie the alternatives are worse). The new scheme will make it easier for locals to get about their immediate area and take some pressure off the perimeter roads. Minicabs, Uber, deliveries, Zips and trades servicing those affected will still have to use the perimeter unless the vehicle has a borough parking permit, so not all local displacement will be alleviated. Overall it seems unlikely to reduce the perimeter traffic hugely but might reduce congestion and through journey times compared with the failed scheme.


The claim that "_The scheme will reduce traffic to below what it was before the experimental closure of Harwood Terrace._" is pretty dubious, isn't it?  Well, unless you notice that they're still a long way down anyway, so the claim is pretty meaningless.


Tom Tom


I also wonder how it will scale if it's judged successful- or even if evaluation matters.  Surely all car owning H&F residents will demand the same 'Except Permit Holders ' signs for all comparable rat run/LTN etc areas with access restrictions that are currently universal.  Why not? Maybe the idea will be taken up elsewhere, not only as the effects of other LTNs become apparent, but also because increasing permit charges and fining the confused is an obvious cash cow for councils and ought to pacify huge amounts of local (voter) opposition to traffic restrictions.    No-one outside the borough matters, obviously, although differentially affected business outsiders might take the market distortion angle seriously.

Does this herald a time when borough residents have a wholly different set of routes available than outsiders?  (with satnavs somehow knowing what's what or the chaos will be unbelievable! )  Why not replicate that across all boroughs, then gang together to amplify it, so as a Lambeth resident I can sail all the way along Shakespeare without restriction but a H&Ffer will get fined £80 and someone from Surrey £160 for doing the same journey?


----------



## Rushy (Jul 27, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Isn't that exactly what's been done?  The classification of those roads has been changed to 'no through road' with use of signage or physical closure. There are cameras to enforce against those who ignore the classification. That information is updated on the satnavs and they no longer route drivers down those roads.


Just to clarify - are you still sticking you the point to which I originally responded? Or agreeing with mind reader Teuchter that you meant something other than what was posted? It's getting very confusing.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 27, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Just to clarify - are you still sticking you the point to which I originally responded? Or agreeing with mind reader Teuchter that you meant something other than what was posted? It's getting very confusing.


I've no idea. I think _your_ idea was that someone would ask the satnav makers nicely and they'd stop routing drivers down backstreets and I suggested that wouldn't work because someone would just launch a competing satnav product that continued to send drivers down rat runs.  

Of course even if it did work (maybe legislation to ban satnav use) all it would do is take us back to pre-sat nav days when rat runs required a bit of intuition or local knowledge and anyone who drove a route on a regular basis would still find and use them.

(Edit - though I do see your confusion - it does look like I quoted the wrong post entirely. Sorry)


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2020)

newbie said:


> Secondly, this scheme failed because displaced traffic clogged the through routes, caused pollution and slowed down buses (who'd have thought?).



Actually, no, it doesn't look like it was as simple as that. I have not been able to find the actual report with results of the experiment; all I have is this comment on it



> Survey data presented to the Working Party by the council showed that congestion in Bagleys Lane had increased by 25 per cent due to Harwood Terrace closing. While New King's Road, King's Road and Imperial Road had seen a combined average reduction of 21 per cent.


 from here.

Look at the map. Bagleys Lane is not a perimeter road and it's not designated as a main through route, like New King's Road and Wandsworth Bridge road are. It looks like the rat-running traffic was displaced to another rat-running route (which is also a bus route), whilst traffic on at least some of the perimeter roads actually decreased. So, is the solution to that not to block that alternative rat run route as well? Indeed this seems to be what they have done in the implemented scheme.

However - what they have also changed in the implemented scheme is to provide this exemption for residents. Does this measure address the problems of increased traffic on alternative rat-run routes? I don't see how it does. I think it is an independent modification of the scheme, the intention of which is to appease resident motorists who have obviously mounted a campaign with the assistance of their expensive pro-motorist lawyer.



As for the rest of your post, yeah I agree there are a lot of things about this approach that are problematic.

I don't think it's a good solution at all. I'm undecided on whether it's a "better than nothing" solution or not.

Like I said in an earlier post, I'll be interested to see if they can demonstrate a modal shift in local traffic which is one of the things the TfL funding is supposed to be contingent upon. If I had more time on my hands and if I lived in that area I'd be doing some FOIs I reckon.


----------



## editor (Jul 27, 2020)

Petition launched Petition launched to ‘stop the road closures’ in the Ferndale Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme


----------



## Rushy (Jul 27, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I've no idea. I think _your_ idea was that someone would ask the satnav makers nicely and they'd stop routing drivers down backstreets and I suggested that wouldn't work because someone would just launch a competing satnav product that continued to send drivers down rat runs.
> 
> Of course even if it did work (maybe legislation to ban satnav use) all it would do is take us back to pre-sat nav days when rat runs required a bit of intuition or local knowledge and anyone who drove a route on a regular basis would still find and use them.
> 
> (Edit - though I do see your confusion - it does look like I quoted the wrong post entirely. Sorry)



I'm not proposing either of those things. Our road classification system is an archane thing dating back to way before satnavs, GPS or even internet. Different road classifications allow different things; these can be reflected in the satnav routing (e.g. satnav knows you can do 70 on motorways), but they do not actually relate to the use of Satnav. There is no reason why road classifications could not be updated so that their classification governs how all roads can be used in routing technology. For instance (and I'm not being terribly specific here but just trying to illustrate my point) local roads classified LTN cannot be used in the planning of routes which do not start or end in or close to that road / zone. Maybe rather than reclassifying roads, LTNs are simply superimposed on top of them. Maybe it could be voluntary but I would imagine that it would need to be a statutory thing. I don't think it is really any more complicated than current route planning which calculates routes differently for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles according to road restrictions. In fact now that I think about it, I think it is unlikely that something like this _will not_ happen.


----------



## Winot (Jul 27, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I'm not proposing either of those things. Our road classification system is an archane thing dating back to way before satnavs, GPS or even internet. Different road classifications allow different things; these can be reflected in the satnav routing (e.g. satnav knows you can do 70 on motorways), but they do not actually relate to the use of Satnav. There is no reason why road classifications could not be updated so that their classification governs how all roads can be used in routing technology. For instance (and I'm not being terribly specific here but just trying to illustrate my point) local roads classified LTN cannot be used in the planning of routes which do not start or end in or close to that road / zone. Maybe rather than reclassifying roads, LTNs are simply superimposed on top of them. Maybe it could be voluntary but I would imagine that it would need to be a statutory thing. I don't think it is really any more complicated than current route planning which calculates routes differently for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles according to road restrictions. In fact now that I think about it, I think it is unlikely that something like this _will not_ happen.



One way of achieving this would be to use geofencing to control vehicle behaviour. It could be a really good solution and far more sophisticated than the blunt instruments discussed on this thread. LA has applied this technology to electric scooters to control speed and there’s no technological reason why it can’t be applied to motor vehicles. It could also be used to introduce road-user pricing, which is another good option to limit congestion.

There are however huge political barriers to introducing this kind of scheme. In a world in which speed cameras are controversial it’s unlikely to happen. Politics Is the art of the possible, and sometimes all that Is possible is a half-baked solution.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2020)

Winot said:


> One way of achieving this would be to use geofencing to control vehicle behaviour.


Yeah, as soon as this would be permitted politically, you could remove all sorts of physical infrastructure and visual clutter from the streets, that only has to be there because of motor vehicles.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 27, 2020)

Winot said:


> One way of achieving this would be to use geofencing to control vehicle behaviour. It could be a really good solution and far more sophisticated than the blunt instruments discussed on this thread. LA has applied this technology to electric scooters to control speed and there’s no technological reason why it can’t be applied to motor vehicles. It could also be used to introduce road-user pricing, which is another good option to limit congestion.
> 
> There are however huge political barriers to introducing this kind of scheme. In a world in which speed cameras are controversial it’s unlikely to happen. Politics Is the art of the possible, and sometimes all that Is possible is a half-baked solution.


Yes - I really would like road user pricing. Not just because I drove barely over 1,000 miles last year and nearly all of that was off peak and about 99% outside London. Bit gutted that my campervan is going to cost £12.50 every time I move it in the ULEZ next year. Because I use it infrequently but for longer journeys it does not make financial sense to sell it.

The geofencing will surely come in with automated cars? and as young users get used to the idea on things like scooters. And even perhaps being tracked for insurance policies. But I can see that it would be a hot potato before then, as you say. I think my suggestion would be far less controversial in the meantime - it does not control you. It just stops satnavs sending traffic into smaller roads and zones in order to avoid busy main roads.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Yeah, as soon as this would be permitted politically, you could remove all sorts of physical infrastructure and visual clutter from the streets, that only has to be there because of motor vehicles.


Yes, great idea.  GPS controlled speed limiters as well to make it impossible for vehicles to speed while your at it and also move to 'parking in marked bays only'.  Could then remove all of the yellow lines and vast amount of other visual clutter that goes with it.


----------



## Winot (Jul 27, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Yes - I really would like road user pricing. Not just because I drove barely over 1,000 miles last year and nearly all of that was off peak and about 99% outside London. Bit gutted that my campervan is going to cost £12.50 every time I move it in the ULEZ next year. Because I use it infrequently but for longer journeys it does not make financial sense to sell it.
> 
> The geofencing will surely come in with automated cars? and as young users get used to the idea on things like scooters. And even perhaps being tracked for insurance policies. But I can see that it would be a hot potato before then, as you say. I think my suggestion would be far less controversial in the meantime - it does not control you. It just stops satnavs sending traffic into smaller roads and zones in order to avoid busy main roads.



I‘ve got no problem with your objective. I just think it might be tricky to achieve legally.

You wouldn’t be able to stop Google Maps (for example) showing routes along the roads you wanted to exclude, because people would still be able to cycle/walk down them. So you’d end up with Google publishing a route with a disclaimer saying ‘not to be used by motor vehicles’. Motorists would use it anyway and you’d be back to the problem of enforcement.

Ever bought NO2 capsules? You used only used them to whip cream, right


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2020)

editor said:


> Petition launched Petition launched to ‘stop the road closures’ in the Ferndale Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme



Its nearing its target of 500.

Lot of comments on the petition complaining of lack of consultation. That the Council are using the powers they have under Pandemic to push this through without consultation.


Be interesting to see how Council deal with the petition.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 27, 2020)

I take it if Lambeth decide to alter any of the Lambeth LTN in response to comments / opposition  this will be appeasement of the motorist.

Whilst if Lambeth ignore criticism of these schemes/ feedback that is critical it will that will be ok.

And Im not talking about abandoning these schemes like in LJ.

Im talking about modifying them if needed following full consultation once Covid emergency is over.

Any modification is now to be considered appeasement.

Whether it involves expensive lawyers is not the issue.

Just want to get this clear as someone who has said I critically support these LTN.

Im therefore an appeaser.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 27, 2020)

Winot said:


> I‘ve got no problem with your objective. I just think it might be tricky to achieve legally.
> 
> You wouldn’t be able to stop Google Maps (for example) showing routes along the roads you wanted to exclude, because people would still be able to cycle/walk down them. So you’d end up with Google publishing a route with a disclaimer saying ‘not to be used by motor vehicles’. Motorists would use it anyway and you’d be back to the problem of enforcement.
> 
> Ever bought NO2 capsules? You used only used them to whip cream, right



You could certainly search travel by other means but I don't think it would be a particularly practical. Walking / cycling routes take you through parks, alleys, pedestrian zones, contraflows, one way roads, etc.. So you couldn't confidently use that to plan a longer driving route (we're talking through traffic, not little local journeys which folk don't use a satnav for anyway). Loads of rat runs are longer in distance but quicker because you miss lights or traffic - e.g. avoiding Effra Road via St Matthews Road (apparently). So even choosing bike or foot on google you would not necessarily be shown another route. And much of the rerouting which diverts cars into side streets is automatic changes, mid journey to avoid traffic. So yeah, I agree people could get around it by spending time dissecting a route. Even just by looking at a good old fashioned A-Z. But it would not be very practical.

Either satnavs are responsible for sending people into these areas or they are not. If that is true, as some have argued, then I think this might make quite a big difference.

Let's face it. There's always a way around everything. I've met more than one driver who claimed to have successfully used invisible IR film over their number plates to prevent them being read by ANPR cameras.

Anyway - this is just a fun little digression from the main topic, which I think I am going to step away from (the main topic) as I am not actually sure what the point is.


----------



## Rushy (Jul 27, 2020)

OK - well I'll step away from the discussion after putting this here, which I stumbled across immediately after posting:









						Residents to get new decision-making powers in England cycling 'revolution'
					

Measures include watchdog to ensure quality and safety of walking and cycling routes




					www.theguardian.com
				




Not really sure what it means but ... Power to the Residents!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 27, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Any modification is now to be considered appeasement.



Not by me.


----------



## madolesance (Jul 28, 2020)

Some other news related to the road closers around Ferndale and other streets the foot bridge between Dolman Street and Hubert Grove is currently closed to pedestrians and folks that could be bothered to carry their bicycle/ pram over the tracks. Not sure how users of motor vehicles will feel about this apart from complain to anyone who might listen to them.


----------



## newbie (Jul 28, 2020)

The bridge is having a £1m refit apparently. I'd hope that includes lifts.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2020)

You’d struggle to get 2 lifts in that budget.

Lots of new LTN planning guidance released today as part of the wider cycling national plan. I’ll post later


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2020)

LTN design guidelines:

‘Cycle infrastructure guide’



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904088/cycle-infrastructure-design-ltn-1-20.pdf


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2020)

And the national Gearing Up for Change document:



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904146/gear-change-a-bold-vision-for-cycling-and-walking.pdf
		


The titles’ pun is laboured as it’s a walking guide too.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Those documents seem detailed and full of sensible stuff. Let's hope some of it actually translates into reality.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

> There will be less rat-running and many more low-traffic neighbourhoods .
> 
> Residential side streets across the country can be blighted by rat-running. Low-traffic neighbourhoods will be created in many more groups of residential streets by installing point closures – for example, bollards or planters – on some of the roads. It would still be possible to access any road in the area, but motor traffic would not be able to use the roads as through routes. Streets within low traffic neighbourhoods will provide clear, direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians promoting walking and cycling. Accidents, pollution and noise will be dramatically reduced for residents.
> 
> We will consult on creating a community right to close side streets and create low-traffic neighbourhoods, with groups of residential side streets able to petition local authorities for rat-run closures.






> We will create more “Mini-Hollands”
> 
> In London, three outer boroughs with low levels of cycling were chosen through competition as “Mini-Hollands,” with intensive, transformational spending on their roads and streetscapes to make them, over time, as cycle and pedestrian-friendly as their Dutch equivalents. Segregated lanes were installed on main roads, low-traffic neighbourhoods were put in, and pedestrians were given thousands of metres of extra space.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Interesting graph


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2020)

1/3rd of London commuting now by bike too


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 28, 2020)

Wife went to buy a bike from Evans. Not one bike except electric in the shop due to demand. Have to look at alternative retailers


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

There are plus and minuses to segregated cycle lanes. 

I don't want cyclists to feel obliged to use them. Cyclists still need right to use the road. Needs to be made clear to drivers that is the case. As starting to get you should not be here from minority of drivers. 

The roundabout south of Chelsea bridge is one example. Takes ages to get round that on the cycle lanes/ lights which segregate cycles and cars. So I don't use them. Its painful trying to get around that one if follow all the lights. 

I do see a lot of cyclists now skipping between cycle lanes and road. I can see why. Some are busy cycle lanes now and to overtake its necessary to skip out onto the road and back in. ( Mile End road).


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Wife went to buy a bike from Evans. Not one bike except electric in the shop due to demand. Have to look at alternative retailers



Harbour cycles ( on holiday at moment) often has reconditioned bikes.






						Harbour Cycles | Servicing | Refurbs | Sales
					

An independent bicycle shop offering servicing and sales of refurbished and new bicycles. Our focus is on serving the local community.




					www.harbourcycles.co.uk
				




Decathlon in Wandsworth is cheap and cheerful. Depends what you want









						Bikes help build communities – Sadegh’s Story – The Bike Project
					






					thebikeproject.co.uk
				




I have got a bike from Bike Project. Reconditioned bikes.

Problem with Covid is not being able to test ride bikes. Some retailers are online only now. Unless you know exaclty what you want you need test ride and advice.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Harbour cycles ( on holiday at moment) often has reconditioned bikes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Apart from Brixton Cycles and Harbour, are there any other independent bike shops within a couple of miles of Brixton? 
I want to update this article - is there anything I'm missing? 








						A cyclists guide to Brixton – local bike shops, repairs, support groups, racing tracks and cycling clubs…
					

In response to a few queries we’ve had recently, we thought we’d post this short helpful guide to Brixton for all our fellow cyclists featuring local bike shops, repairs, support groups…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 28, 2020)

No idea if these are independent.

Herne hill bikes: Herne Hill Bicycles - Everything for the commuter and leisure cyclist
Bon Velo: Bon Velo
Balfe's Bikes: Balfe's Bikes | About us

Cadence Crystal Palace: Homepage (Chain)


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> No idea if these are independent.
> 
> Herne hill bikes: Herne Hill Bicycles - Everything for the commuter and leisure cyclist
> Bon Velo: Bon Velo
> ...


Thanks. I need to include Dr Bike as well and maybe local groups like the Grosvenor Cycling Club. All suggestions welcome!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Wife went to buy a bike from Evans. Not one bike except electric in the shop due to demand. Have to look at alternative retailers



Try this:

Try Before You Bike | PeddleMyWheels

Seen them pre covid in the market. Seem ok.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2020)

Rat Race in Nunhead too


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> There are plus and minuses to segregated cycle lanes.
> 
> I don't want cyclists to feel obliged to use them. Cyclists still need right to use the road. Needs to be made clear to drivers that is the case. As starting to get you should not be here from minority of drivers.
> 
> ...



Some of that is in the new Highway Code review, including the hierarchy of road users.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Any modification is now to be considered appeasement.



That's a bit of a sweeping statement.  As I've said before on this thread, doing these quickly and putting in a proper trial over a period long enough for people to adapt (or at least to understand how the road system has changed) and then consulting based on real world evidence rather than theoretical models seems like a sensible idea. The old way obviously didn't work as shown by the 'Our Streets' programme - loads of consultation ending up with schemes so watered down nothing changed. 

I'd hope that there is modification. Some of these closures might not be in the right place - they can be moved and try a different location.  If traffic has been pushed by SatNavs through an estate road (as it has at Oval) then get that estate road closed to through traffic. 

However, I'd also hope that the modifications don't lose sight of the objectives of the schemes and we don't see changes that allow through traffic back on any of the roads within a Low traffic neighbourhood.  Looking at some of the comments on the commonplaces there are a load of 'my 10 minute drive now takes 20 minutes', 'I need to get my child to school less than a mile away, that's too far to walk', 'Shakespeare Road residents can't drive to Brockwell Park any longer'.  Those people shouldn't be appeased and they're likely to stay unhappy about it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's a bit of a sweeping statement.  As I've said before on this thread, doing these quickly and putting in a proper trial over a period long enough for people to adapt (or at least to understand how the road system has changed) and then consulting based on real world evidence rather than theoretical models seems like a sensible idea. The old way obviously didn't work as shown by the 'Our Streets' programme - loads of consultation ending up with schemes so watered down nothing changed.
> 
> I'd hope that there is modification. Some of these closures might not be in the right place - they can be moved and try a different location.  If traffic has been pushed by SatNavs through an estate road (as it has at Oval) then get that estate road closed to through traffic.
> 
> However, I'd also hope that the modifications don't lose sight of the objectives of the schemes and we don't see changes that allow through traffic back on any of the roads within a Low traffic neighbourhood.  Looking at some of the comments on the commonplaces there are a load of 'my 10 minute drive now takes 20 minutes', 'I need to get my child to school less than a mile away, that's too far to walk', 'Shakespeare Road residents can't drive to Brockwell Park any longer'.  Those people shouldn't be appeased and they're likely to stay unhappy about it.



It was in reference to several posts here containing the word "appeasement". I notice you didnt take issue with previous uses.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's a bit of a sweeping statement.  As I've said before on this thread, doing these quickly and putting in a proper trial over a period long enough for people to adapt (or at least to understand how the road system has changed) and then consulting based on real world evidence rather than theoretical models seems like a sensible idea. The old way obviously didn't work as shown by the 'Our Streets' programme - loads of consultation ending up with schemes so watered down nothing changed.
> 
> I'd hope that there is modification. Some of these closures might not be in the right place - they can be moved and try a different location.  If traffic has been pushed by SatNavs through an estate road (as it has at Oval) then get that estate road closed to through traffic.
> 
> However, I'd also hope that the modifications don't lose sight of the objectives of the schemes and we don't see changes that allow through traffic back on any of the roads within a Low traffic neighbourhood.  Looking at some of the comments on the commonplaces there are a load of 'my 10 minute drive now takes 20 minutes', 'I need to get my child to school less than a mile away, that's too far to walk', 'Shakespeare Road residents can't drive to Brockwell Park any longer'.  Those people shouldn't be appeased and they're likely to stay unhappy about it.



you are saying certain modifications are still to be categorised as appeasment.

Shakespeare road is a case in point. Could be that in that neighbourhood some compromise is needed on Shakespeare road. For example allowing residents to drive through. 

Options for change should not be limited.

This is being done on a Neighbourhood basis so the Neighbourhoods should have say.


----------



## RoyReed (Jul 28, 2020)

editor said:


> Apart from Brixton Cycles and Harbour, are there any other independent bike shops within a couple of miles of Brixton?
> I want to update this article - is there anything I'm missing?
> 
> 
> ...


You could add Apex Cycles on Clapham High Street. (There's an Evans as well about 200m down the road, but I doubt they count as independent).


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2020)

RoyReed said:


> You could add Apex Cycles on Clapham High Street. (There's an Evans as well about 200m down the road, but I doubt they count as independent).


Thanks. I'll add Evans too  just to be complete, I guess.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> It was in reference to several posts here containing the word "appeasement". I notice you didnt take issue with previous uses.


I use the word to describe modifications to a scheme that compromise its basic aim. Changes that are made to placate objectors who do not support the basic aim of the project.

Adjustments to a scheme that help it function better, without significantly compromising its basic aim or purpose - these adjustments i would not describe as appeasement.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2020)

editor said:


> Thanks. I'll add Evans too  just to be complete, I guess.



Owned by Mike Ashley though


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I use the word to describe modifications to a scheme that compromise its basic aim. Changes that are made to placate objectors who do not support the basic aim of the project.
> 
> Adjustments to a scheme that help it function better, without significantly compromising its basic aim or purpose - these adjustments i would not describe as appeasement.



So might as well not consult people. Its gives them the idea they have a say when they don't.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's a bit of a sweeping statement.  As I've said before on this thread, doing these quickly and putting in a proper trial over a period long enough for people to adapt (or at least to understand how the road system has changed) and then consulting based on real world evidence rather than theoretical models seems like a sensible idea. The old way obviously didn't work as shown by the 'Our Streets' programme - loads of consultation ending up with schemes so watered down nothing changed.
> 
> I'd hope that there is modification. Some of these closures might not be in the right place - they can be moved and try a different location.  If traffic has been pushed by SatNavs through an estate road (as it has at Oval) then get that estate road closed to through traffic.
> 
> However, I'd also hope that the modifications don't lose sight of the objectives of the schemes and we don't see changes that allow through traffic back on any of the roads within a Low traffic neighbourhood.  Looking at some of the comments on the commonplaces there are a load of 'my 10 minute drive now takes 20 minutes', 'I need to get my child to school less than a mile away, that's too far to walk', 'Shakespeare Road residents can't drive to Brockwell Park any longer'.  Those people shouldn't be appeased and they're likely to stay unhappy about it.


On the ferndale petition someone is complaining that it takes too long to drive to visit their elderly relative because there are too many pedestrian crossings in the area and also the 20mph limit.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So might as well not consult people. Its gives them the idea they have a say when they don't.


That doesn't follow from what I said.


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Owned by Mike Ashley though


He's a piece of shit but if I don't put it in, I'll just get loads of comments pointing out the omission. I'll add a sarky remark to the listing to even things out.


----------



## RoyReed (Jul 28, 2020)

There's also 





__





						Cyclopolis Bicycle shop and Workshop in Balham - Home
					

Independent Bicycle shop and Workshop in Balham, London, SW12 9AQ we stock Cannondale Bianchi Pashley Bicycles.




					www.cyclopolis.co.uk
				








						Psubliminal Balham / Clapham bike shop  with services road and hybrid bikes | As recommended by Time Out
					






					www.psubliminal.com
				




both between Clapham South and Balham. Never used either, but I think they're both independent.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That doesn't follow from what I said.



Its saying that certain kinds of feedback are valid and others are to ignored.

I remember when this Liveable Neighbourhood idea was first presented at a meeting. Pre Covid. The officer said the scheme would not go ahead if the public support was not behind it. The Council were going to do a lot of consultation and work to get that support.

Now with Covid the Council have introduced these schemes under powers during the Pandemic.

Told fulll onsultation of whether to make schemes permanent would be done later.

Im getting the feeling you are assuming the goalposts have changed. This Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme is here for good and only comments that are valid are those that those that can tweak the scheme in ways deemed to be  in what you think are in keeping with it.

The Council have not said that yet to my knowledge.

Im assuming Council are going to keep full consultation once the temporary period ends and treat all comments as valid.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 28, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Wife went to buy a bike from Evans. Not one bike except electric in the shop due to demand. Have to look at alternative retailers


We have a bike. From Herne hill bicycles. Technically 2nd hand but the original owner only had it 3 weeks and decided they didn’t like it. So bought through the shop but from the person.  Shop charged no commission to the person which is commendable. Bought some accessories so they were getting some business too but they were really busy. Short of work, open a bike business it would seem.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Its saying that certain kinds of feedback are valid and others are to ignored.


No it's not - it's me saying that there's a difference between feedback which basically says "we don't really want this in principle" and feedback that says "we want to give the principle a go, but think these details should be changed".

I'm not saying either is valid or invalid. It's valid to say you basically don't buy into the LN concept, so you don't want them. I do buy into it in principle, so I will disagree with those people. I disagree with them, I am not saying their feedback is "not valid".

Why did I deliberately introduce the word "appeasement" with regard to what's happened in Hammersmith & Fulham? Because I think that the changes to that scheme are not about making the basic LN concept work better; they are about getting through some kind of watered-down version, by making concessions to car owning residents who want their streets cleared of rat-runners, but don't want to accept any change to their own travel habits in return. That's not what the LN concept is about, in my opinion. The changes are to appease those people, who might otherwise manage to trash the whole thing. The changes do not help the LN concept work properly. In my opinion.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im getting the feeling you are assuming the goalposts have changed.



As a separate point to what I'm saying above:

Well it seems like maybe the goalposts _have_ changed. Previously the LN schemes were being led by TfL with London boroughs bidding for funding for a certain number of implementations. I'm not sure how much was happening in other parts of the UK - my impression was that it was mainly London where such concepts were being pushed.

Then there was the emergency covid legislation which allowed councils nationwide to bring that sort of stuff forward.

Now (rather surprisingly) there's the announcements yesterday/today on a nationwide, government promoted policy to encourage more walking and cycling, which appears to have money behind it (let's see what happens) which seems to move a lot of this stuff much more into the mainstream, as it were.

To me, this is transport policy that should have been enacted already over the last couple of decades, and it's a welcome move towards something that isn't hopelessly out of date.

I expect that to a substantial portion of the traditional Tory voter base, it's newfangled radical eco hippy communist nonsense so it's going to be interesting to see how it goes down.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No it's not - it's me saying that there's a difference between feedback which basically says "we don't really want this in principle" and feedback that says "we want to give the principle a go, but think these details should be changed".
> 
> I'm not saying either is valid or invalid. It's valid to say you basically don't buy into the LN concept, so you don't want them. I do buy into it in principle, so I will disagree with those people. I disagree with them, I am not saying their feedback is "not valid".
> 
> Why did I deliberately introduce the word "appeasement" with regard to what's happened in Hammersmith & Fulham? Because I think that the changes to that scheme are not about making the basic LN concept work better; they are about getting through some kind of watered-down version, by making concessions to car owning residents who want their streets cleared of rat-runners, but don't want to accept any change to their own travel habits in return. That's not what the LN concept is about, in my opinion. The changes are to appease those people, who might otherwise manage to trash the whole thing. The changes do not help the LN concept work properly. In my opinion.



That is where we differ.

As the Council have introduced the idea of a liveable neighourhood with traffic reduction then the communities in those areas have a right imo to to say how it wull work.

It might in your opinion not what you think a LN should deliver. It might be what you think is watered down scheme. It however might get backing across the community.

It certainly should not be dismissed out of hand as appeasement.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> As a separate point to what I'm saying above:
> 
> Well it seems like maybe the goalposts _have_ changed. Previously the LN schemes were being led by TfL with London boroughs bidding for funding for a certain number of implementations. I'm not sure how much was happening in other parts of the UK - my impression was that it was mainly London where such concepts were being pushed.
> 
> ...



I did think that was what you thought.

Its mission creep.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> That is where we differ.
> 
> As the Council have introduced the idea of a liveable neighourhood with traffic reduction then the communities in those areas have a right imo to to say how it wull work.
> 
> ...


Well, the TfL funding is for "Livable Neighbourhoods" and they define to some extent what the objectives are. In that context, if the scheme we end up with doesn't meet those objectives then I think it's fair to say that what we are getting is not a "Livable Neighbourhood".

Whether whatever we end up with has "backing across the community" we'll probably never know.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Doesn't entirely count as local but the secondhand bike place at elephant is quite good









						ReCycling at Elephant
					

ReCycling at Elephant, London, United Kingdom. 225 likes · 45 were here. One of London’s largest retailers of reconditioned bicycles




					www.facebook.com


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Whether whatever we end up with has "backing across the community" we'll probably never know.


And that's the point.  The council has some objectives around traffic/air quality/climate/emissions.  These schemes are part of them. 

There isn't a hope in hell that everyone is going to approve.  My dad's response to climate change/recycling was "I don't care, I'll be dead before its a problem".  He was right (he's dead, and it didn't affect him) but his attitude had a negative effect on other people - it wasn't a view that should have been given much weight in decision making.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

Going back to what residents actually experience here is example from the most recent "Liveable Neighbourhood"




> Lambeth should rename this the Ferndale High Traffic Neighbourhood as that has been the consequences for those of us on Ferndale Road. Like other people, we have never had a major problem with traffic round here but pushing all local traffic through Ferndale Road has resulted in gridlock on numerous occasions, worse air quality and heavier traffic which is MORE dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. Please reverse this unilateral decision as soon as possible.








__





						Supporter comments · Residents of Brixton: Please help stop the road closures in the ferndale Ward Sw47qq · Change.org
					






					www.change.org
				




Lot of comments like this on effect on Ferndale road and lack of consultation.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> And that's the point.  The council has some objectives around traffic/air quality/climate/emissions.  These schemes are part of them.
> 
> There isn't a hope in hell that everyone is going to approve.  My dad's response to climate change/recycling was "I don't care, I'll be dead before its a problem".  He was right (he's dead, and it didn't affect him) but his attitude had a negative effect on other people - it wasn't a view that should have been given much weight in decision making.



Nice.

Some peoples views should be dismissed as they don't fit into the "objectives".


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

Including the elderly who are going to die soon anyway so should not count in consultations I wonder what other categories of undesirable consultees should be iincluded on a list of those whose views should be binned straight away?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Some peoples views should be dismissed as they don't fit into the "objectives".


Yes.  Slave owners didn't want to give up their slaves (and they were powerful enough to be appeased - big payoffs and 'apprentices' from my understanding).  But if your objective is to end slavery you don't let some people carry on owning slaves.

The objective is to reduce trips by car. Some people don't want to drive less. Now there is good evidence that the majority of trips made by car in London are short, without luggage and by able bodied people.  If some people don't want to stop making their short trips by car that they could make by other means - on Shakespeare Road that seems to be 'driving to Herne Hill and Brockwell Park' I don't think that justifies a change.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Yes.  Slave owners didn't want to give up their slaves (and they were powerful enough to be appeased - big payoffs and 'apprentices' from my understanding).  But if your objective is to end slavery you don't let some people carry on owning slaves.
> 
> The objective is to reduce trips by car. Some people don't want to drive less. Now there is good evidence that the majority of trips made by car in London are short, without luggage and by able bodied people.  If some people don't want to stop making their short trips by car that they could make by other means - on Shakespeare Road that seems to be 'driving to Herne Hill and Brockwell Park' I don't think that justifies a change.



Pretty disgusting to try to compare slave owners to those who might be critical of this scheme.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Including the elderly who are going to die soon anyway so should not count in consultations I wonder what other categories of undesirable consultees should be iincluded?


Yes, well done. You've managed to misrepresent me entirely.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Pretty disgusting to try to compare slave owners to those who might be critical of this scheme.





Gramsci said:


> Pretty disgusting to try to compare slave owners to those who might be critical of this scheme.


I'm going to double down on that.  why not.  We're talking about people whose actions have a negative impact on other parts of society and for which there are alternatives that don't.

I think it's a perfectly decent analogy but for some reason your instinct to support anyone who objects to a council plan over-rides any other considerations.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 28, 2020)

It's rather _reductio ad Hitlerum_ in nature


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> It's rather _reductio ad Hitlerum_ in nature


absolutely. People like Coldplay and voted for the nazis. You can't trust people Jeremy.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I'm going to double down on that.  why not.  We're talking about people whose actions have a negative impact on other parts of society and for which there are alternatives that don't.
> 
> I think it's a perfectly decent analogy but for some reason your instinct to support anyone who objects to a council plan over-rides anything else.



Its out of order analogy. 

I keep saying Im critically supportive. 

You won't understand that.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 28, 2020)

I'd have probably gone with something like smoking  rather than slavery.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Its out of order analogy.
> 
> I keep saying Im critically supportive.
> 
> You won't understand that.


I was responding to 


Gramsci said:


> Including the elderly who are going to die soon anyway so should not count in consultations I wonder what other categories of undesirable consultees should be iincluded on a list of those whose views should be binned straight away?



You know that wasn't the point I was making about my dad. That's the point at which the tone got lowered here.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

Saying that being critical of Council policy on car use is like being a supporter of slavery. 

Fuck off


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> I'd have probably gone with something like smoking  rather than slavery.


on reflection that might have been a good idea.  However, I think that rather like smoking, once there are low traffic neighbourhoods across Lambeth I suspect no-one will be campaigning to remove them.  Much like no-one is campaigning to allow smoking back into pubs, but when it was going to be banned there were the same sort of people claiming it was a massive imposition on their liberty and they were going to keep doing it anyway.  

Should each pub have had it's regulars vote on whether they wanted to ban smoking in that pub or not?  (Germany did take something like that approach as I understand it - if it's a small bar with a single member of staff and they are a smoker then customers are allowed to as well)


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Going back to what residents actually experience here is example from the most recent "Liveable Neighbourhood"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you been along to Ferndale Road to see what's actually happening?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Saying that being critical of Council policy on car use is like being a supporter of slavery.
> 
> Fuck off


again, that's not what I said.  I was trying to give you an analogy of another issue where freedom of choice had impacts on society so that you might consider whether people who don't like the low traffic neighbourhoods schemes should be accommodated or not.  

but it seems you've realised it's holed your argument below the waterline so resort to insults.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Have you been along to Ferndale Road to see what's actually happening?


yes, a mess at the moment.  Google was still routing people down there yesterday so law abiding motorists turning back at the signs meant Ferndale Road was busy.  Also only half the scheme has been put in so far.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> again, that's not what I said.  I was trying to give you an analogy of another issue where freedom of choice had impacts on society so that you might consider whether people who don't like the low traffic neighbourhoods schemes should be accommodated or not.
> 
> but it seems you've realised it's holed your argument below the waterline so resort to insults.



You used the analogy of slavery. Its out of order.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> yes, a mess at the moment.  Google was still routing people down there yesterday so law abiding motorists turning back at the signs meant Ferndale Road was busy.  Also only half the scheme has been put in so far.


Ok cheers. 

Lambeth ought really to be doing their best to communicate this to people, I don't know if they are at all.


----------



## Shakesperian (Jul 28, 2020)

clear road  - more speed!!


----------



## Shakesperian (Jul 28, 2020)

And these are the 'pretty spots" a cyclist group has been illegally painting on the highway - 'foolish carbuncles'  is a better term I think.
What are they for -  to confuse people or invite children to play on the road??


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 28, 2020)

I'd guess they're inspired by the ones Lambeth painted outside Richard Atkins School on New Park Road?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Shakesperian said:


> clear road  - more speed!!


Have you noticed a big reduction in traffic since they put the gate in?


----------



## Shakesperian (Jul 28, 2020)

Well, Shakespeare Road was never actually that busy !
It's lost it liveliness - dingy ghetto under bridge and long time residents now have no access to local amenities north side of Shakespeare - split the community and heavy trucks are increasing.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2020)

Shakesperian said:


> Well, Shakespeare Road was never actually that busy !
> It's lost it liveliness - dingy ghetto under bridge and long time residents now have no access to local amenities north side of Shakespeare - split the community and heavy trucks are increasing.


We can come back to the other stuff but I wanted to clarify whether the road being less busy is a problem for you. 

You say it was never that busy - but it must have been fairly busy if it was enough to slow lorries down because they were following other traffic. There must have been essentially a continuous flow. And you also miss this continuous flow because it made things feel more lively?


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 28, 2020)

Shakesperian said:


> And these are the 'pretty spots" a cyclist group has been illegally painting on the highway - 'foolish carbuncles'  is a better term I think.
> What are they for -  to confuse people or invite children to play on the road??



The spots look great! People were obsessively (every day) removing or breaking the signs warning of a £130 fine and lots (and I mean lots) of drivers were powering on through. I think fewer drivers are doing that now.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> again, that's not what I said.  I was trying to give you an analogy of another issue where freedom of choice had impacts on society so that you might consider whether people who don't like the low traffic neighbourhoods schemes should be accommodated or not.
> 
> but it seems you've realised it's holed your argument below the waterline so resort to insults.




Ive posted again and again here Im critically supportive of these schemes.

The Council put in theses schemes at neighbourhood level and people were told after the temporary scheme ended local residents in neighbourhoods would have a say in whether its altered or kept.

Im not putting an argument here about freedom of choice. Or whether people who didnt like LTN should be accomodated.

I am saying the Council should be kept to its word about the consultation.

Take Railton - it could be that the Shakespeare road bit after further consultation at end of the temporary period would be removed. But the Railton road section kept if that gets residents support.

I dont live in that neighbourhood - I do think those that do should have say in how roads work in that area. Be they Council tenants/ homeowners/ car owners/ or non car owners.

If as has been said here that car ownership is low it should not be to difficult for the Council to get support for  its schemes in that case.

On Railton road bit looks like there is support for that bit of the scheme.


----------



## madolesance (Jul 28, 2020)

In Covid-19 Recovery, London Bets Big on Low Traffic


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2020)

Shakesperian said:


> And these are the 'pretty spots" a cyclist group has been illegally painting on the highway - 'foolish carbuncles'  is a better term I think.
> What are they for -  to confuse people or invite children to play on the road??


I think they just do it to annoy you.


----------



## madolesance (Jul 29, 2020)

madolesance said:


> In Covid-19 Recovery, London Bets Big on Low Traffic


Isn't it curious when folks are presented with the facts about LTN neighbourhoods the volume of their objections becomes less relevant?


----------



## happyshopper (Jul 29, 2020)

Shakesperian said:


> Well, Shakespeare Road was never actually that busy !
> ... long time residents now have no access to local amenities north side of Shakespeare - split the community ...


Most people who live in this area don’t have cars. Access to amenities doesn’t depend on access by car. A community doesn’t rely on cars.


----------



## Winot (Jul 29, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> I think they just do it to annoy you.


----------



## newbie (Jul 29, 2020)

madolesance said:


> Isn't it curious when folks are presented with the facts about LTN neighbourhoods the volume of their objections becomes less relevant?


which facts?  Those from a journalist who's lived in Brixton for a month and can't get the simple things right? 



Government weight is so fully behind this I can't see local objections being relevant to more than just window dressing, but we'll see what happens when the people who seriously object to being frustrated out of their cars band together.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jul 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Ive posted again and again here Im critically supportive of these schemes.
> 
> The Council put in theses schemes at neighbourhood level and people were told after the temporary scheme ended local residents in neighbourhoods would have a say in whether its altered or kept.
> 
> ...


I don't think the scheme works without the Shakespeare filter though. Without it, the traffic running east/west from Brixton Water Lane to Loughborough Junction and vice versa would all pile down Shakespeare Rd and make it worse than it was before the pandemic, when it was getting 2,500 cars a day.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jul 29, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> I don't think the scheme works without the Shakespeare filter though. Without it, the traffic running east/west from Brixton Water Lane to Loughborough Junction and vice versa would all pile down Shakespeare Rd and make it worse than it was before the pandemic, when it was getting 2,500 cars a day.


And then all the streets west of Shakespeare would fill up like they were before as well.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jul 29, 2020)

teuchter said:


> We can come back to the other stuff but I wanted to clarify whether the road being less busy is a problem for you.
> 
> You say it was never that busy - but it must have been fairly busy if it was enough to slow lorries down because they were following other traffic. There must have been essentially a continuous flow. And you also miss this continuous flow because it made things feel more lively?


The council data showed 2,500 vehicles a day.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jul 29, 2020)

editor said:


> Apart from Brixton Cycles and Harbour, are there any other independent bike shops within a couple of miles of Brixton?
> I want to update this article - is there anything I'm missing?
> 
> 
> ...


Two in Herne Hill - a posh one on Half Moon Lane (can't remember what it's called) and Herne Hill bikes on Norwood Rd.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 29, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> The council data showed 2,500 vehicles a day.





			https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/rtstreets/Shakespeare%20Road%20Evelyn%20Grace%20w1%20combined.pdf
		


(from the commonplace site) 

3597 weekday average on Shakespeare at Evelyn Grace Academy


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 29, 2020)

Ferndale objectors now got a petition and a Facebook group. I think they also want to attend council meetings. I’m not sure they speak for the whole community though as the have your say comments on Lambeth’s website are more measured


----------



## Winot (Jul 29, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Two in Herne Hill - a posh one on Half Moon Lane (can't remember what it's called) and Herne Hill bikes on Norwood Rd.



The Half Moon Lane one is called Bon Velo.


----------



## Winot (Jul 29, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> yes, a mess at the moment.  Google was still routing people down there yesterday so law abiding motorists turning back at the signs meant Ferndale Road was busy.  Also only half the scheme has been put in so far.



Also, there are road works on Acre Lane opposite Costcutter (fibre going in) and three way temporary traffic lights, so there are long queues anyway, which is adding to the chaos.


----------



## ash (Jul 29, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Ferndale objectors now got a petition and a Facebook group. I think they also want to attend council meetings. I’m not sure they speak for the whole community though as the have your say comments on Lambeth’s website are more measured


Yes I’m affected by it but waiting for it to settle in before I make any decisions about the impact.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 29, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> I don't think the scheme works without the Shakespeare filter though. Without it, the traffic running east/west from Brixton Water Lane to Loughborough Junction and vice versa would all pile down Shakespeare Rd and make it worse than it was before the pandemic, when it was getting 2,500 cars a day.



It may not in your view.

What Im saying is that the Concil promised consutation on scheme post covid. They should be kept to that.

I also think it should be up to local people in each Council defined Neighbourhood. As this is how the Council have gone about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme.

If Council decide to go against local wishes they can but need to say why.

As I keep saying Im critically supportive of these schemes. With the caveat that consultation should take place as Council promised.


----------



## Ol Nick (Jul 29, 2020)

In the interest of balance there are now 2 petitions for the Ferndale changes.

One in favour: Sign the Petition
One against: Sign the Petition

Personally I say give it a go. It's not permanent anyway.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2020)

Ol Nick said:


> In the interest of balance there are now 2 petitions for the Ferndale changes.
> 
> One in favour: Sign the Petition
> One against: Sign the Petition
> ...


Sores on the doors: 
Supporting: 37/100
Against: 602/1000


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 29, 2020)

Ol Nick said:


> In the interest of balance there are now 2 petitions for the Ferndale changes.
> 
> One in favour: Sign the Petition
> One against: Sign the Petition
> ...



The petition for it is closed btw btw. Assume was not getting a lot of support.

I was at local meeting tonight. No Cllrs there ( other meetings on). Asked about this it not being permanent.

One pro person there , who does know there Local Authority stuff, reckons it pretty well is permanent.

The commonplace consultations are just to tweak it.

Council already had powers to bring this in pandemic or no pandemic. Local feeling stopped it using its powers to impose this previously . It , imo , is using pandemic to bring these LTNs changing the consultation that was originally promised.

The commonplace consultation is what people are going to get. But the scheme stays. With possible tweaks.
The temporary nature of it was a mirage.

Cant say as a non car owning cyclist Im happy with this and made that clear tonight.

The Cycling lobby are very happy with this.

I beg to differ.

If this is the case its not good for local democracy.

Also this is still supposed to be a Cooperative Council. I got my copy of Lambeth Life today and it says on front cover that Lambeth is a Cooperative Council.

Im not against the scheme. I am against it being imposed on people without genuine consultation.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im not against the scheme. I am against it being imposed on people without genuine consultation.


That's pretty much my take on it too. I'd love to have far fewer cars on the streets but I'm not happy with the way that Lambeth have just pushed this through - and judging by the comments on social media, Buzz, petitions etc., there's no shortage of unhappy locals who feel they haven't been properly consulted (or consulted _at all_).


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The petition for it is closed btw btw. Assume


I think it got closed as it was pointed out that having two petitions one for and one against only serves to divide people when really more conversations on both sides are needed


----------



## newbie (Jul 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> One pro person there , who does know there Local Authority stuff, reckons it pretty well is permanent.
> 
> The commonplace consultations are just to tweak it.


I doubt if they'll even do that, as there are few tweaks that the Tory government/Lambeth Labour/Green + cycle & obesity/health campaigns coalition on this won't see as appeasement to those whose behaviour simply has to be changed.  Disgruntled insiders, maverick tories in Vauxhall,  woe is me local motorists and the demonised rat runners don't stand much chance of a unified voice capable of significantly affecting anything substantial.  Whatever chance they may have had before was scuppered when Johnson announced that this was full on national health regeneration strategy with London schemes as flagship pilots.


----------



## newbie (Jul 30, 2020)

Having said that, i suppose a storm about delays from the emergency services, Amazon, Uber and other businesses might have an impact.

 Or, just remotely possibly, air quality measurements on the through routes, but it looks to me as though the health outcomes for those living and working along them are considered a price worth paying.









						Young girl's death first to be linked to illegal levels of air pollution
					

‘Without unlawful levels of air pollution, Ella would not have died’




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 30, 2020)

That's just awful, and we are all breathing that crap in every day.
Chatting to our 85 year old neighbor yesterday who said he's had to stop working in his front garden this week as all the increased pollution is making him cough much more. He doesn't leave the house much as he's sheltering, and even the ability to spend time tending his garden has been taken away. We don't have the right to do this to people, it's so sad


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I think it got closed as it was pointed out that having two petitions one for and one against only serves to divide people when really more conversations on both sides are needed



I can understand that.

Lambeth typical shoddy implementation of this LTN in Ferndale could cause the kind of divisions I saw in LJ during the road closures some time back.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I'm not against the scheme. I am against it being imposed on people without genuine consultation.





editor said:


> That's pretty much my take on it too. I'd love to have far fewer cars on the streets but I'm not happy with the way that Lambeth have just pushed this through - and judging by the comments on social media, Buzz, petitions etc., there's no shortage of unhappy locals who feel they haven't been properly consulted (or consulted _at all_).



I get what you're both saying but we're a representative democracy - we elect our politicians for a term based on their manifesto and polices. They consulted on their transport strategy and plans, they've had a transport strategy that supposedly put walking and cycling over driving for many years. 

We're not a participatory democracy, where there are regular votes on specific decisions our government or council make. Consultation means inviting input and trying to understand issues people might have.  It doesn't mean, and has never meant, a vote on a specific decision or whether a project should go ahead let alone residents on a particular street being able to veto changes. 

Lambeth's 'co-operative council' aims https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/de...n to the Cooperative Council Constitution.pdf don't turn it into a participative democracy.  it looks like an attempt to involve people in decision making and increase their voice but it doesn't and shouldn't mean a mini-referendum on anything that people shout about loudly enough. 

There _is_ a consultation - they're inviting feedback now through the commonplace sites.  There has to be a more formal/traditional consultation before they're made permanent. But neither of those amount to a 'vote' on keep/cancel and nor should they - that's up to the council to determine whether this project has met whatever objectives they set or it, or if it's part of a larger strategy or plan. 

We don't have vote on every planning application - people are _consulted_ and invited to object but if a planning application is consistent with local planning/zoning etc it will go ahead.  I can object and say 'I don't like the way it looks', or 'I don't want a school/supermarket/office bloc on my street' but those aren't "valid" for the planning department making a decision about an application.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> There _is_ a consultation - they're inviting feedback now through the commonplace sites.


It's a really half arsed consultation. What percentage of residents likely to be affected by these plans do you think have even heard of these sites or bothered to interact with them? Even the name of the sites are shit. What does 'commonplace' mean in this context?

And the assumption that everyone is online and people are going to understand phrases like 'modal filters' is really wide of the mark. The overwhelming consensus of opinion I've discovered from the responses to Buzz articles, social media discussion and talking to friends is that the majority of people had absolutely no idea this was happening and it was all foisted on them. Like them, I'm often  struggled to find a clear and concise explanation as to what is going on too. 

But don't get me wrong: I'm all for reducing traffic massively but Lambeth's strategy sure seems to be alienating some people.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 30, 2020)

editor said:


> It's a really half arsed consultation. What percentage of residents likely to be affected by these plans do you think have even heard of these sites or bothered to interact with them? Even the name of the sites are shit. What does 'commonplace' mean in this context?



Agree - they need to be more accessible but its a bit tough at the moment given COVID restrictions.  These have only been in a few weeks though. I've seen notices on the lamp-posts with a number to call. Some noticeboards with info at each of the filters would be a simple 'offline' way to get information out.

However, in terms of getting feedback on the schemes, given what has been said about time for them to bed in, and that they're not even complete yet (cameras aren't in all locations and there were notices up and residents telling people they can drive through 'because it's not live yet') asking for feedback now is a bit pointless. Kind of like asking views on a half built building or someones views on which side played best in a a football match after 20 minutes of play.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Agree - they need to be more accessible but its a bit tough at the moment given COVID restrictions.  These have only been in a few weeks though. I've seen notices on the lamp-posts with a number to call. Some noticeboards with info at each of the filters would be a simple 'offline' way to get information out.
> 
> However, in terms of getting feedback on the schemes, given what has been said about time for them to bed in, and that they're not even complete yet (cameras aren't in all locations and there were notices up and residents telling people they can drive through 'because it's not live yet') asking for feedback now is a bit pointless. Kind of like asking views on a half built building.


I think the websites are pretty awful too. Maybe I'm thick but I've still no idea what a 'temporary modal filter' is.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 30, 2020)

editor said:


> I think the websites are pretty awful too. Maybe I'm thick but I've still no idea what a 'temporary modal filter' is.



They're a lot more accessible and understandable than many I've seen
Theres an explation of each change with a mock up image about
There is a stack of background info and data Why are these changes happening? for those that want it 

Modal filter is an ugly term (but we have lots of them - where's the joy or ease of understanding in BAME, LBGTQ+ ?)  and they do try to explain - "The low traffic neighbourhood will be created by installing temporary traffic filters in five locations across the neighbourhood. These modal filters will open up the streets to people walking, cycling and taking the buses while make the area access only for motor vehicles."  Call it a road closure?  The road isn't closed to people walking cycling and buses....

and loads of other info.  Navigations not the best but I don't think theres any shortage of info on there.


----------



## editor (Jul 30, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> They're a lot more accessible and understandable than many I've seen
> Theres an explation of each change with a mock up image about
> There is a stack of background info and data Why are these changes happening? for those that want it
> 
> ...


It's not the amount of information that's the problem. It's the manner in which it is presented and explained.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jul 30, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I get what you're both saying but we're a representative democracy - we elect our politicians for a term based on their manifesto and polices. They consulted on their transport strategy and plans, they've had a transport strategy that supposedly put walking and cycling over driving for many years.
> 
> We're not a participatory democracy, where there are regular votes on specific decisions our government or council make. Consultation means inviting input and trying to understand issues people might have.  It doesn't mean, and has never meant, a vote on a specific decision or whether a project should go ahead let alone residents on a particular street being able to veto changes.
> 
> ...


Agreed.

I moved to Brixton 20 years ago when I'm guessing around one vehicle every 10-15 minutes drove down my street. Now there's a steady stream of them - 2-2,500 a day - with associated road noise, danger and pollution - not to mention the regular shouting matches between drivers who won't give way to each other.

I don't remember being consulted on whether I wanted any of that. 

I don't own a car but I'm not stupid - I realise that I depend on motorised transport. The stuff I buy from Brixton Wholefoods doesn't arrive by teleporter and nor do the pints at the Effra. And more.

But there are 80-90 households on my road. That's 25 vehicle movements per household per day; 200 vehicle movements per household per week. There's no doubt in my mind that is an unfair imposition of motorised traffic on a 100% residential road with many elderly vulnerable residents and a nursery and the LTN is a start in fixing that.

What will more consultation tell us? It's an honest question. I don't see how you could start this necessary process in a different way. Even better, expand it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2020)

[


thebackrow said:


> I get what you're both saying but we're a representative democracy - we elect our politicians for a term based on their manifesto and polices. They consulted on their transport strategy and plans, they've had a transport strategy that supposedly put walking and cycling over driving for many years.
> 
> We're not a participatory democracy, where there are regular votes on specific decisions our government or council make. Consultation means inviting input and trying to understand issues people might have.  It doesn't mean, and has never meant, a vote on a specific decision or whether a project should go ahead let alone residents on a particular street being able to veto changes.
> 
> ...



No you dont get what Im saying.

What I said was genuine consultation.

Your trying to set up binary opposition between what you regard as two different types of democracy.

In practise its not a simple binary.

For example lobbying Cllrs and Council is part of representative democracy. Take the case of the LJ road closures. Residents organised lobbied Cllrs/ held public meeting. This led to Council reversing the decision on road closures. The decision was still taken by the elected representatives. This is perfectly legitimate way for residents to engage in representative democracy. Even if one does not support the campaign. People can and do participate directly in local democracy. Which I think is a good thing, 

Democracy is not just about electing representatives every few years. Its also something that changes over time and struggle.

Due to the pandemic some of the normal functioning of local government has been suspended.

The consultation process on the llveable neighbourhoods was cut short. The Council are using Pandemic to bring them in without the normal consultation process.

So actually the normal functioning of representative democracy is suspended whilst pandemic is still going on.

BTW I know a bit about planning. The way it looks is a material consideration. Ive seen an application knocked back for that reason.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I moved to Brixton 20 years ago when I'm guessing around one vehicle every 10-15 minutes drove down my street. Now there's a steady stream of them - 2-2,500 a day - with associated road noise, danger and pollution - not to mention the regular shouting matches between drivers who won't give way to each other.
> 
> ...



I saw what happened in LJ with the road closures few years back. Whole project was badly consulted and implemented by the Council.

When the recent Liveable Neighbourhood was first announced the lead officer came to LJ. He said the Council would learn from the mistakes made at LJ. More time and effort would be put into consulting communities. The project would not go ahead without community support.

IMO the Council has used pandemic to push through this scheme with minimum effort on its part.

My experience in LJ is that people did want changes to the traffic. Meeting few days ago residents group I know was wanting traffic calming etc. It wasn't that people in my LJ Neighbourhood were just against all road closures. They wanted for example HGV lorries banned from their roads, speeding dealt with etc.

The trouble with this thread is that some posters here are trying to portray those who are critically supportive of being against all changes to roads.

In reality a lot of people do see problems with traffic / roads in their areas. If asked they come up with ideas. But its called here by some posters "watered" down changes.

If the Council had actually listened in LJ road changes could have happened with community support.

So what Im saying is that it can be done.

Even if these are small changes for some the fact that people feel listened to and action is taken starts to build up support for more possible changes in future.

For example HGV lorries are , it appears , not supposed to  go through certain bits of LJ. But Council take no action to enforce this. 

Simple thing to get trust is to make work properly what is already agreed.


----------



## newbie (Jul 31, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> I moved to Brixton 20 years ago when I'm guessing around one vehicle every 10-15 minutes drove down my street. Now there's a steady stream of them - 2-2,500 a day - with associated road noise, danger and pollution - not to mention the regular shouting matches between drivers who won't give way to each other.



Interesting. Over that period(ish) overall traffic in Lambeth has dropped by somewhere between a quarter and a third, which might imply something has happened that's specific to your street, possibly closures elsewhere?


----------



## marty21 (Jul 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Pollution and reducing traffic are getting mixed up here.
> 
> There is experimental scheme in the City- only electric vehicles can use it.
> 
> ...


I've only just realised the city has a zero emissions scheme. Got a letter from the City of London warning me that I had driven through it last weekend,  only electric/hybrid vehicles allowed. Must admit I didn't notice the signs, they let me off with a warning, it's a £130 fine normally.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 31, 2020)

Although I just leant that emissions are only a part of the pollution from traffic - small particles from tyres, brakes and the road are also released when you drive. And these exist of course even if the car if electric, so the idea that all electric vehicles will result in no pollution is not correct.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jul 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I saw what happened in LJ with the road closures few years back. Whole project was badly consulted and implemented by the Council.
> 
> When the recent Liveable Neighbourhood was first announced the lead officer came to LJ. He said the Council would learn from the mistakes made at LJ. More time and effort would be put into consulting communities. The project would not go ahead without community support.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, but I have yet to see a workable alternative from those opposed to the Railton LTN.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jul 31, 2020)

newbie said:


> Interesting. Over that period(ish) overall traffic in Lambeth has dropped by somewhere between a quarter and a third, which might imply something has happened that's specific to your street, possibly closures elsewhere?


I don't think it's about other closures - I can't think of any that weren't here when I moved here - Lambert, Josephine etc - and the evidence says that making harder to drive through a general area reduces traffic anyway. The TfL evidence shows that the whiter and wealthier you are, the more you drive. And Brixton has got whiter and wealthier - that may have something to do with it.

But actually I think it's mainly Satnav. The street has always been a great shortcut from east to west to avoid the St Matthews gyratory. Just that before the tech arrived, most drivers from outside the area didn't know about it. And alot of the traffic is from outside the area.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 31, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> But actually I think it's mainly Satnav. The street has always been a great shortcut from east to west to avoid the St Matthews gyratory. Just that before the tech arrived, most drivers from outside the area didn't know about it. And alot of the traffic is from outside the area.


That's my feeling.  Ever increasing use of Satnavs pushes traffic onto backstreets even when the main roads are quiet and the time saving is negligible. Plus ever larger cars worsen congestion by reducing road space and making passing on vicorian backstreets much more difficult.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2020)

Coldharbour Lane has been noticeably busier these days with the hot weather helping those noxious fumes circulate around anyone dining al fresco along the street


----------



## newbie (Jul 31, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> But actually I think it's mainly Satnav. The street has always been a great shortcut from east to west to avoid the St Matthews gyratory. Just that before the tech arrived, most drivers from outside the area didn't know about it. And alot of the traffic is from outside the area.


From ~150 per day to 2,000 plus is a huge increase.  It seems a lot to me.    Sure satnavs have made a difference, and people may have learned routes initially suggested by satnavs or online mapping, but that doesn't explain why a useful route that avoids such a longstanding bottlekneck was hardly used at all when traffic levels were so much higher than now.  People knew and understood London, congestion and ratrunning in the days of paper maps and much more traffic, after all, and just 5 cars an hour seems way below what any useful route would have carried.  No matter, just curiosity.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

I was cycling down Milkwood road couple of days ago and lot of traffic.

Checked the commonplace for Railton LTN and comments that traffic is being displaced onto Milkwood road due to Shakespeare road being blocked off. Comments that the waste lorries from the depot are now going down Milkwood road.

Also affecting Hinton and Coldharbour.

Comments that traffic is being displaced onto Dulwich road- delivery vehicles by the LTN.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

Lot of angry posts on the Railton LTN about the blocking off of Shakespeare road. 

This is looking like the most contentious bit of this experimental scheme.

Several comments that support scheme but people who live in the LTN should be allowed to use the bus gates. Ie be able to drive through Shakespeare road for example. Seems a reasonable compromise to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

Satnavs are only useful up to a point. I've been using Google recently. Some routes aren't what I would do. Knowing London is best thing. Trouble with satnav is you don't learn the roads. 

Old fashioned use a map and you learn the roads.

Given that Waze is outstanding for cars and motorbikes.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I saw what happened in LJ with the road closures few years back. Whole project was badly consulted and implemented by the Council.
> 
> When the recent Liveable Neighbourhood was first announced the lead officer came to LJ. He said the Council would learn from the mistakes made at LJ. More time and effort would be put into consulting communities. The project would not go ahead without community support.
> 
> ...


If this went to consultation the most we would end up with is a few speed bumps. You would have meetings where those who shout loudest would be heard and those most resistant to change, it is not the way to have decisions made.

I’m confused also as to why you expect it from Lambeth, was there community consultation over the fence at the country show?


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I saw what happened in LJ with the road closures few years back. Whole project was badly consulted and implemented by the Council.
> 
> When the recent Liveable Neighbourhood was first announced the lead officer came to LJ. He said the Council would learn from the mistakes made at LJ. More time and effort would be put into consulting communities. The project would not go ahead without community support.
> 
> ...



You keep going on about consultation but that's to ignore the fact that  we're in extraordinary times. Covid cases are soaring again and there's a desperate need to alleviate the pressure, or reliance, on public transport. It will save lives and LTNs should help with that. Do you think we should maybe chat about them for a couple of years first?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> You keep going on about consultation but that's to ignore the fact that  we're in extraordinary times. Covid cases are soaring again and there's a desperate need to alleviate the pressure, or reliance, on public transport. It will save lives and LTNs should help with that. Do you think we should maybe chat about them for a couple of years first?



No I'm not ignoring we are living in "extraordinary times". Thankyou for reminding me. Fact that I have only just keeping my head above water financiallly due to this must have past me by.

If that is your concern then the furlong should be extended. People should be given more support to stay at home and not go to work.

Government should be doing more to bail out small business and those in hospitality and entertainment sector..

You do realise part of this Tory government new found interest in gettting everyone cycling and walking is that they want to get everyone back to work? Making profits for the man?

There is alternative - continue with supporting home working and for those who cant extend the furlong.

That is the way to alleviate pressure on the transport system.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If this went to consultation the most we would end up with is a few speed bumps. You would have meetings where those who shout loudest would be heard and those most resistant to change, it is not the way to have decisions made.
> 
> I’m confused also as to why you expect it from Lambeth, was there community consultation over the fence at the country show?



I engage with Lambeth. I argue the corner that people should have a say. It gets me into trouble. That is what I do. With the limited time I have.

Sorry I have a lot of sympathy for those who "shout the loudest"

Take XR. I covered some of their direct actions here on other sections of U75. I have my criticisms but on the level of shouting the loudest I have a lot of respect for their well planned peaceful direct actions. Got a lot of media attention. Lambeth Council, under new leader Jack Hopkins has engaged with them. XR are example of what you deride as "shouting the loudest". I call it well organise campaigning. I covered them blocking Waterloo bridge for example. 

Another more moderate group is the London Cycling Campaign. Well funded through individuals. With local area sections. Very effective Lobby group who get a set at the table with Labour Councils.

Shouting as you call it is completely legitimate way democracy works in this country.

I could go on with more examples.


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No I'm not ignoring we are living in "extraordinary times". Thankyou for reminding me. Fact that I have only just keeping my head above water financiallly due to this must have past me by.
> 
> If that is your concern then the furlong should be extended. People should be given more support to stay at home and not go to work.
> 
> ...



The "new-found interest in getting everyone cycling and walking" is not solely about "making profits for the Man". There's a mental health aspect as well. Lockdown is disastrous for many people. Getting out and about puts less strain on the NHS.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If this went to consultation the most we would end up with is a few speed bumps. You would have meetings where those who shout loudest would be heard and those most resistant to change, it is not the way to have decisions made.
> 
> I’m confused also as to why you expect it from Lambeth, was there community consultation over the fence at the country show?



Reading this again.

Throughout this thread there has been a contempt for local democracy as seen in posts like this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> The "new-found interest in getting everyone cycling and walking" is not solely about "making profits for the Man". There's a mental health aspect as well. Lockdown is disastrous for many people. Getting out and about puts less strain on the NHS.



Dont lecture me on this. Ive been really struggling in last few months. 

This is just patronising.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> The "new-found interest in getting everyone cycling and walking" is not solely about "making profits for the Man". There's a mental health aspect as well. Lockdown is disastrous for many people. Getting out and about puts less strain on the NHS.



Ive just lost a part time job that was keeping me going. 

Tell you what Just Fuck off with your patronising posts. You haven't a clue.


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Ive just lost a part time job that was keeping me going.
> 
> Tell you what Just Fuck off with your patronising posts. You haven't a clue.



 I was neither patronising nor lecturing. You need to get a grip.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

marty21 said:


> I've only just realised the city has a zero emissions scheme. Got a letter from the City of London warning me that I had driven through it last weekend,  only electric/hybrid vehicles allowed. Must admit I didn't notice the signs, they let me off with a warning, it's a £130 fine normally.



Did you go through Beech Street? By the Barbican with the tunnel?

They are making that street "zero emissions" as some kind of experiment.

Its not the whole of City of London.

It was done before the pandemic as an experiment.

My Van driver mates would be more worked up about it but its so empty in the City that it does not make much difference.

City is empty still. Van Drivers I know who worked in central London are really struggling.

Most big companies are ( wisely) keeping staff on home working. Whatever Boris says. TBF some of the big capitalist firms have dealt with virus better than Boris and the Tories. They arent going to get their staff coming in every day on public transport. That  is the big problem for the City. To get people back it would not work for social distancing purposes. Not everyone can cycle or walk to work. 

Lot of new spaces for pedestrians etc but no one is coming into work in the City. Im starting to wonder if all these new spaces for pedestrians and cyclists are really necessary.

Same with West End.

The only delivery people I know who have been doing ok are the motorbikes. One told me he is doing a lot of out of town deliveries. Long days but making a living. Moving stuff for home workers of big companies.

I see whole offices with empty desks. This is going to be long term. I find the City quite surreal place to be.Massive buildings with no people.

Big Capitalist companies are planning for the long haul and not taking notice of what that prat Boris says.

What I feel for is the small cafes.One I use is open but they have hardly any customers.

Hope all is well with you.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> I was neither patronising nor lecturing. You need to get a grip.



You are lecturing and trying to tell me stuff like I dont know about it.

You need to get a grip.

You need to see that someone who does not not necessarily fit in with what you think does know what is happening in the real world.

I found your posts offensive and lecturing.


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> You are lecturing and trying to tell me stuff like I dont know about it.
> 
> You need to get a grip.
> 
> ...


 Am I not allowed to have an opinion then, because you've decided I don't live in the real world? I've said nothing extreme, I haven't attacked you, criticised you. I've simply put my point of view across.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> Am I not allowed to have an opinion then, because you've decided I don't live in the real world? I've said nothing extreme, I haven't attacked you, criticised you. I've simply put my point of view across.



You started this. Not me. Go back and look at your posts. I never mentioned you before.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Reading this again.
> 
> Throughout this thread there has been a contempt for local democracy as seen in posts like this.


It’s not local democracy you’re after though, it’s the awkward squad having a pop at some councillors.









						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

(Effra Road has been remarkably quiet this evening.)




					www.urban75.net


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It’s not local democracy you’re after though, it’s the awkward squad having a pop at some councillors.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are now sounding like my New Labour Cllrs.

Well done.

Im well aware Im regarded as a member of the "awkward squad".

It meant the Brixton Rec and Grove Adventure playground were saved.


----------



## wurlycurly (Jul 31, 2020)

What on earth are you on about? You've accused me of patronising you, lecturing you, you've told me to fuck off. All I did was give a non-offensive opinion. There was nothing extreme about anything I said.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 31, 2020)

We live in a one party borough, not some democratic utopia ffs.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2020)

Im well aware we live in one party borough. That is what I come up against all the time.


----------



## newbie (Aug 1, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> You keep going on about consultation but that's to ignore the fact that  we're in extraordinary times. Covid cases are soaring again and there's a desperate need to alleviate the pressure, or reliance, on public transport. It will save lives and LTNs should help with that. Do you think we should maybe chat about them for a couple of years first?



What lives will it save?

SFAICS the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. I don't understand how that saves lives, either as a pandemic response or through more traditional threats like air quality and road collisions.  Quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous before Covid, so using LTNs to make them safer isn't focussing on the threat.

Widening pavements to reduce pressure in busy places makes sense to everyone (or so I believe, I've heard very few voices opposing it).  Increasing safe cycling provision is a bit less universally accepted, but only a bit. As Covid, air quality and road safety responses they make sense to most people, because they target real and immediate problems.  LTNs target quality of life (not safety) for selected insiders, and by increasing pressure on main roads they concentrate both air quality and road safety risk where it was already locally highest. They increase Covid risk for some people by increasing pollution at the same time as extending journey times for bus passengers, delivery drivers and other road users

 Backstreet cycling has always been generally slower than on the main roads, but safer, nicer, less stressful.   Cyclists have had the freedom of quiet backstreets streets anyway, including those made quieter by the new LTNs, I've been riding them for years with very few near miss scares, holdups or anything else to disturb.  All the new cyclists may get a warm glow from being able to pedal for a few streets within an LTN but when they leave it they're on to busier, more dangerous and more polluted junctions and roads than they would have been without the LTN.  I guess everyone is expecting cyclist casualty rates to increase because there are so many inexperienced ones around now, but I very much doubt that many injuries or deaths will be on ordinary backstreets, whether in LTNs or not.  They never have been, it seems unlikely they'll suddenly start now.

Same with pedestrians.  Those who mostly potter about within their LTN will be presumably see and feel some quality of life benefit, but if kids are ever taken to school again, those walking will mostly have to cross or walk along the main roads, breathing in more pollution, being more at risk of injury and having a worse experience.  When they go shopping or walk to the tube they'll see what those who live or work on the main roads are expected to put up with all the time, though I doubt they'll recognise that those people have been officially deemed to not matter, they're sacrificial, apparently for the greater good.  

Btw I don't think anyone has mentioned on this thread that return to work will kick in from monday.  No-one knows what will happen, but increased commuting and some reduction in WFH is to be expected I guess.  If the West End and City get busier so will the roads and public transport (which many people are still terrified of).  If every company schedules an all staff welcome back in person meeting on monday morning there will be chaos indeed.  As WFH declines one of the main props for using LTNs as Covid response, that so many people are at home all the time, will also diminish. In any case people are at home on Acre Lane, Brixton Hill and so on as well.  They just tend to have less money to spend on their housing than those on quieter streets- ime very few people actively want to live with constant traffic outside, they're there because they can't afford the quieter, nicer streets.

LTNs target the wrong problems.  A blanket assertion that they "_will save lives_" needs to be explained in detail.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Did you go through Beech Street? By the Barbican with the tunnel?
> 
> They are making that street "zero emissions" as some kind of experiment.
> 
> ...


It was under the Barbican,  haven't driven that way in years but a road was blocked that I would usually have taken .


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 1, 2020)

newbie said:


> What lives will it save?
> 
> SFAICS the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. I don't understand how that saves lives, either as a pandemic response or through more traditional threats like air quality and road collisions.  Quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous before Covid, so using LTNs to make them safer isn't focussing on the threat.
> 
> ...



Lets have one more go for you. I'm sure it's all be said before.

Three important things going on -

a climate emergency which means there is an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. We need to reduce trips made by motor vehicles. Transport is a major contributor to carbon emissions. We need to find lower carbon ways for people move around and reducing trips by private car (and enabling people to feel safe to make trips on foot or by bike instead). There is a solid evidence base that shows large numbers of trips in London could be walked or cycled that are not at present.  Yes, also need to look at the way goods are moved and businesses operate.
an air quality emergency. We have an ever increasing understanding of the impact of air pollution on health. Transport is a major contributor to air pollution. We need to reduce trips by motor vehicles. Electric vehicles don't solve the issue because much of the problem is brake, tyre and resuspended dust which Electric vehicles still cause.
COVID. People still want and need to travel around but the capacity of public transport is drastically reduced. Most Londoners don't have access to a car so unless we reprioritise space to allow them to travel safely  on foot or by bike they will be excluded.  There is a major risk that those that do have cars will use them more than before, and that more people will try to obtain vehicles - but we know that there simply isn't the capacity to accommodate everyone.

Carbon and pollution reduction needs to happen at a Londonwide (nationwide) level.

if you want to reduce traffic there aren't many options you have.

make owning cars more expensive (through purchase tax, parking or fuel costs). But that's very slow to have an impact and we need to make change now
make _using_ cars more expensive.  Some form of smart road user pricing is inevitable long term but even if a decision to implement was made today it's years away.
make cars cleaner. Bring forward the ULEZ.  It's good but its still marginal change, it's politically charged, and it's still years away - the enforcement infa still needs to be built.
reduce the convenience of driving (especially short trips) by limiting roads available and parking. LTNS do this
reduce the effective capacity of the road network. We know that traffic grows to fill the space available - induced demand - and that reducing the space available leads to traffic evaporation.  this can be done quickly and cheaply with LTNs.

If you accept the need to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality at a city wide level, then those are your options.

Lockdown has been a weird experiment that has backed up all the research that showed the main barrier to many more people cycling was fear of traffic.  I'm really glad that you felt comfortable cycling with historic road conditions but most people didn't.  Many of them got on their bikes with Lockdowns reduction in traffic. We can see that this works.

Are they perfect? No - in the short term at least there is going to be some traffic displaced onto other roads but there is good evidence that reduces over time.  

But don't pretend those other roads were healthy as they were. If Coldharbour Lane had 15k vehicles per day before and it now has 16k or 17k obviously that's not great but the problem isn't the couple of thousand trips per day that might have shifted from Railton LTN - they're not making the difference between it being a healthy street or not.  Where was your outrage about he impact of those 15k on the community there before? 

Will there be more congestion? Probably in the short term but again that's shown to drop off quickly. Congestion already placed a limit on road traffic at the level it was before.

Should something happen on the main roads to remove traffic there as well? Definitely.  But what? You've got the options above. Yes, you can create protected space for cycling on main roads (and TfL are doing that) but that also increases congestion in the short term and to do it even with cheap temporary materials is slower, more complex (because of signalised junctions) and more expensive than LTNs.
At a Londonwide level less effective road capacity, by removing the rat runs that have formed, significantly driven by increased satnav use, will Lower carbon emissions and pollution.  Creating quiet streets within neighbourhoods and space on main roads gives people real options to travel without driving or using public transport.

If you've got other ideas please share them, but there don't seem to be any other coming from any other cities globally so it seems unlikely someone on here has found a magic bullet.

If you think carbon emissions, pollution levels and historic levels of car use are just fine obviously we're not even on the same page.

Some people on here try to paint this all at a hyper local level democracy level and that somehow if particular group of residents (or more likely a loud minority on a particular street) think that the small inconvenience to their own ability to drive where they want by the shortest route means that they should be able opt out of a plan to address the above emergencies. I don't think that's sustainable or realistic. The reason we have a representative democracy is to avoid those sort of issues and allow decisions to be made that benefit society as a whole even if they are unpopular with some sections of that society.


----------



## newbie (Aug 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Lets have one more go for you. I'm sure it's all be said before.
> 
> Three important things going on -
> 
> ...


You've listed three important bullet points, with Covid as the last although this is all being done under cover of the emergency.   You've then said "_Will there be more congestion? Probably in the short term _" and "_Are they perfect? No - in the short term at least there is going to be some traffic displaced onto other roads_". So as an emergency response it'll make things worse, which is what I said.

I accept your point that "_traffic grows to fill the space available_" but we are in an emergency where public transport is thought less safe than when your script was written. The important climate change and air quality bullets do not have to be prioritised over the virus in the short term, but understanding that road space should be full of buses that people can use safely, not private cars, needs to be emphasised.

I don't like being misrepresented, you've made up that I "_pretend those other roads were healthy as they were_". I said that quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous. But then I did post a couple of images the other day showing pollution is concentrated on and near main roads, so quiet backstreets could be considered comparatively healthy compared with their nearish neighbours nearer main roads. As for "_If you think carbon emissions, pollution levels and historic levels of car use are just fine obviously we're not even on the same page._" that's just a hyperbolic smear.

Other Covid responses? I've said a lot of it it before. 
Increase the number of buses on the main roads, target commuters and sensibly reduce main road congestion, which is what permeable backstreets do..  
Stop delivery to home by large vehicles, embarrass, nudge or force people to walk or cycle to use collection points.  The Amazon locker initiative should be extended, struggling retailers can open pick-up points and home delivery by cargo bike or foot only, which should be the norm except for big items. There's absolutely no reason why the fit and healthy shouldn't be expected walk to collect small parcels.  
Same with cabs, which go from rank to rank, so for able users the expectation becomes active travel to a cab rank rather than being door to doored.  Active travel is what the script forces on schoolchildren and their parents while leaving equally harmful other activities untouched.  Wrong target.
Focus on getting rid of big footprint, single user car journeys completely.  Extend the ULEZ immediately (if the infrastructure for LTNs can be put in in a hurry so can ULEZ). If necessary with (capped) scrappage schemes in both cases.
Remove parking space in the West End and City, particularly off street business perks, so car commuting is less viable.
Focus on the problems- social distancing, road safety, concentration of pollution.
Apply this across London as a whole. Every borough, every neighbourhood.
Do all this very explicitly, and explain why so that those who are being asked/told to change their activities understand both why they need to modify some of their behaviour and the benefits it could bring.  
Brainstorm ideas.
In the longer term, road rationing with explicit carbon and pollution targets..

As for the script wet dream of road pricing, the contempt for the poor and appeasement of the rich just shines through.


----------



## newbie (Aug 1, 2020)

ps for the avoidance of doubt I'm taking improving cycling safety on main roads as read.

That's a short list, but I've run out of time.  My long term aim would be to stop people living far away from where they work.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 1, 2020)

newbie said:


> You've listed three important bullet points, with Covid as the last although this is all being done under cover of the emergency.   You've then said "_Will there be more congestion? Probably in the short term _" and "_Are they perfect? No - in the short term at least there is going to be some traffic displaced onto other roads_". So as an emergency response it'll make things worse, which is what I said.


But they create immediate capacity for walking and cycling - that's why there is an urgency because of COVID. The covid element is about providing an alternative to driving and public transport - NOT about pollution and air quality, which even with increased bus services (and I'm now sure how you could deliver that rapidly  - need more buses, more bus garages, more bus drivers etc)



newbie said:


> I accept your point that "_traffic grows to fill the space available_" but we are in an emergency where public transport is thought less safe than when your script was written. The important climate change and air quality bullets do not have to be prioritised over the virus in the short term, but understanding that road space should be full of buses that people can use safely, not private cars, needs to be emphasised.


Agreed, but buses are still polluting.  Moving existing bus passengers _off_ buses to walking and cycling effectively creates more public transport capacity for those that need it without needing more buses and bus infra (which can't be delivered in a matter of weeks). That was the reason that Cycle Superhighway 7 followed the northern line - to cheaply create more capacity on that tube by moving some current passengers to bikes.
Also, unless you can take cars off the road immediately, those new buses will just get stuck in traffic.



newbie said:


> I don't like being misrepresented, you've made up that I "_pretend those other roads were healthy as they were_". I said that quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous. But then I did post a couple of images the other day showing pollution is concentrated on and near main roads, so quiet backstreets could be considered comparatively healthy compared with their nearish neighbours nearer main roads. As for "_If you think carbon emissions, pollution levels and historic levels of car use are just fine obviously we're not even on the same page._" that's just a hyperbolic smear.


apologies, some of this post was written in general terms rather than a specific response to you.  a bad habit.



newbie said:


> sensibly reduce main road congestion, which is what permeable backstreets do..



That seems to be your opinion, not backed up by any evidence. In fact there was some research published just this week (that supports previous evidence) that suggests the opposite might be true.








						Rush hour drivers who use short cuts off main roads 'increase journey times for everybody else'
					

Researchers say the key to clearing congestion is more socially aware routing




					www.independent.co.uk
				






newbie said:


> As for the script wet dream of road pricing, the contempt for the poor and appeasement of the rich just shines through.


who mentioned hyperbolic smears?  there's been a discussion on here before about how you can do this fairly but I can't think of a more sensible and effective way to encourage sensible transport choices than putting as much of the cost as possible at the point of use.
When you want to go somewhere you look at an app and it gives you the cost options - rent a bike for £1, take a bus for £1.50, use the tube for £4 or drive for £10 (prices just completely random ideas with no suggestion that should be relative levels). There were discussion on here about allocating so many miles a year per person etc so there are loads of tweaks but it's almost undoubtably the best way to get people to make rational decisions.   The problem with car ownership now is that once you've got one, and you;'re maybe paying £400 a month on a lease for it, you've got a big incentive to drive it.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Some people on here try to paint this all at a hyper local level democracy level and that somehow if particular group of residents (or more likely a loud minority on a particular street) think that the small inconvenience to their own ability to drive where they want by the shortest route means that they should be able opt out of a plan to address the above emergencies. I don't think that's sustainable or realistic. The reason we have a representative democracy is to avoid those sort of issues and allow decisions to be made that benefit society as a whole even if they are unpopular with some sections of that society.



Ive explained in previous posts how I think representative democracy works using examples. Your simplifying it.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Ive explained in previous posts how I think representative democracy works using examples. Your simplifying it.





Gramsci said:


> Lot of angry posts on the Railton LTN about the blocking off of Shakespeare road.
> 
> This is looking like the most contentious bit of this experimental scheme.
> 
> Several comments that support scheme but people who live in the LTN should be allowed to use the bus gates. Ie be able to drive through Shakespeare road for example. Seems a reasonable compromise to me.



that seems to be exactly what you said


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2020)

Just on a point, Railton was a busy and dangerous road to cycle before, it isn't now and has seen a lot more cycle traffic.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> that seems to be exactly what you said



That is not saying that.

I was following the Council consultation on commonplace. Which they will be using to evaluate the scheme.

The Council has divided the Brixton Liveable neighbourhood into smaller units. Each LTN has its own commonplace consultation page. The Council is encouraging those who live in areas to comment.

This suggestion was in a couple of comments.

It would be up to Council to make final decision.

I noted that personally it seemed reasonable suggestion.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> that seems to be exactly what you said



See my post 1171 in reply to you.


----------



## newbie (Aug 2, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That seems to be your opinion, not backed up by any evidence. In fact there was some research published just this week (that supports previous evidence) that suggests the opposite might be true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's interesting, cheers. There's a lot that could be said about that. They're suggesting the optimum 'social good'- delivering workers to their work during rush hour with no account of the other >50% of the population- might be algorithm controlled road trains on centrally planned routes, presumably with lights phased for maximum throughput. Though I'll have little time over the next few days, I'm interested in what others think.  




> who mentioned hyperbolic smears?  there's been a discussion on here before about how you can do this fairly but I can't think of a more sensible and effective way to encourage sensible transport choices than putting as much of the cost as possible at the point of use.
> When you want to go somewhere you look at an app and it gives you the cost options - rent a bike for £1, take a bus for £1.50, use the tube for £4 or drive for £10 (prices just completely random ideas with no suggestion that should be relative levels). There were discussion on here about allocating so many miles a year per person etc so there are loads of tweaks but it's almost undoubtably the best way to get people to make rational decisions.   The problem with car ownership now is that once you've got one, and you;'re maybe paying £400 a month on a lease for it, you've got a big incentive to drive it.


Yes, you're pushing road pricing which inevitably favours the better off and I suggested road rationing, which doesn't.  That is indeed the difference,


----------



## newbie (Aug 2, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Just on a point, Railton was a busy and dangerous road to cycle before, it isn't now and has seen a lot more cycle traffic.


I get that, I always avoided it when possible, so that's good.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 2, 2020)

newbie said:


> SFAICS the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while *some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier.* I don't understand how that saves lives, either as a pandemic response or through more traditional threats like air quality and road collisions.  Quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous before Covid, so using LTNs to make them safer isn't focussing on the threat.



Show us your evidence that either of these things have happened, as a result of the recently (partially implemented) LTNs, given sufficient time for travel habits to re-settle. You can't - it would be impossible. You're stating stuff as if it's fact when it quite plainly is not.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2020)

I posted previously that looking at the comments ( on the commonplace) the Railton road section of the LTN looks like it might be supported by local residents. 

But the Shakespeare road section has been opposed.

Looks like Rattray road / Barnwell road residents support the scheme as it is reducing through traffic using those streets as rat runs.

So its a mixed picture. 

The Railton LTN area is one where majority of traffic has been just going through the area. Don't live in it and are not delivering or working in the area. ( according to Council info ).

As I keep saying Im critically supportive of these schemes. 

I don't think alterations or changes should be ruled out. Suggestions such as allowing residents who live in the area of the LTN to use bus gates for example. Or reviewing the Shakespeare road section. 

What I have not seen is how the Council is going to review these experimental schemes. Take into account comments by local residents in the LTNs.


----------



## newbie (Aug 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Show us your evidence that either of these things have happened, as a result of the recently (partially implemented) LTNs, given sufficient time for travel habits to re-settle. You can't - it would be impossible. You're stating stuff as if it's fact when it quite plainly is not.


You're asking for evidence from the future? 
Have a look at the traffic on Maps at different times in the day, its been pretty clear where the traffic is each time I've looked.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 2, 2020)

newbie said:


> You're asking for evidence from the future?


Yes, that would be the only way you could substantiate your claims, unless your claims only apply to a short term situation in which case what's your point?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 2, 2020)

Take Milkwood road. From what Ive seen cycling on it and looking at the comments on the Council commonplace traffic has increased as its an alternative to the now blocked off Shakespeare road. 

If ths is short term situation what is the long term one? Is it thought that that traffic will just evaporate? 

Have to see how this progresses as this experimental scheme goes on.

I really hope this time the Council will be doing proper studies of what is happening to the traffic with the implementation of the LTNs.


----------



## newbie (Aug 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Yes, that would be the only way you could substantiate your claims, unless your claims only apply to a short term situation in which case what's your point?


I'm lost!  My point? That the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. That is pretty much self evident. You pointed out that the schemes are part implemented and haven't settled down. So's that. Both describe where we're at. Shall we leave it there, see what happens next and stop being silly?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2020)

newbie said:


> I'm lost!  My point? That the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. That is pretty much self evident. You pointed out that the schemes are part implemented and haven't settled down. So's that. Both describe where we're at. Shall we leave it there, see what happens next and stop being silly?


You were using it to make an argument about there being no benefit in terms of "lives saved" because - according to you - not only were the quiet streets already quiet, the measures have made certain streets busier. And you went on to mention streets like Ferndale Road, which you are saying has become congested, even though the reasons for this happening in the short term were discussed just a page or two back. If the argument is about lives saved in the long term then short term effects are irrelevant.

As for certain main roads having gone from busy to busier, no that's not self evident, or at least it's not self evident that this is due to the LTNs. It might be, and it may or may not be short term only, but it's not "self evident". There's so much else changing at the moment that if a certain road appears to have become busier, no-one can say how relevant the LTNs are to that.

That also applies to any claims that the LTNs have had no effect on traffic outside of them. I'm not going to claim that. At this stage we can't say. _If_ Lambeth or TfL are doing any meaningful monitoring, then maybe we'll be able to get some kind of idea a few months from now. Pre- and post- LTN traffic levels will have to be compared but it'll also be necessary to try and view that alongside London-wide measurements to try and disentangled the effects of LTNs from the effects of Covid-related changes in travel habits.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 3, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Take Milkwood road. From what Ive seen cycling on it and looking at the comments on the Council commonplace traffic has increased as its an alternative to the now blocked off Shakespeare road.
> 
> If ths is short term situation what is the long term one? Is it thought that that traffic will just evaporate?
> 
> ...



Milkwood is currently a bottle neck at the Herne Hill junction end - as the roads been narrowed on either side for pedestrians. All it takes is one supermarket delivery truck stopping, or a car parking on the double yellows and it gets reduced to almost one lane in either direction and snarls up


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 3, 2020)

newbie said:


> I'm lost!  My point? That the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. That is pretty much self evident. You pointed out that the schemes are part implemented and haven't settled down. So's that. Both describe where we're at. Shall we leave it there, see what happens next and stop being silly?



The way that Lambeth decided where LTN's would be implemented was based on 2017 traffic data and a scoring system using five criteria, scored on a scale of 1-3, with the maximum overall score being 15. The criteria were:

- Air quality (NO2)

- Collision rate (per household in the neighbourhood)

- Number of school pupils living in the neighbourhood

- Length of Healthy Routes within the neighbourhood

- Evidence that rat-running is an issue

So the backstreets were not and are not 'quiet'.  I live in a ward which scored 14, so personally am looking forward to the implementation of the LTN, as are all the neighbours I have spoken to. 
The volume, speed, pollution and noise of traffic has increased enormously since lockdown eased and so much of it is rat running/non local traffic including huge lorries despite there being a weight limit. Not a day goes by without something kicking off as drivers shout, swear and scream at each other when they 'gridlock' the narrow roads. How anyone is supposed to cycle in the traffic is beyond me.
One of our neighbours who is 85 and sheltering, so hasn't ventured out much at all, now says he cannot garden in his own front garden due to the effects of pollution on his chest. This is so sad. What right do we have to inflict this on someone?
I agree that of course the schemes will need to be tweaked and LBL have said they will do this, along with pre and during scheme monitoring of traffic to determine what improvements have been seen.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 3, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> The way that Lambeth decided where LTN's would be implemented was based on 2017 traffic data and a scoring system using five criteria, scored on a scale of 1-3, with the maximum overall score being 15. The criteria were:
> 
> - Air quality (NO2)
> 
> ...


Cheers for the info - do you have a link to the data and scores?


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 3, 2020)

Rushy 
here's a link to the Transport Strategy Implementation Plan from the Council meeting of 18 Nov 2019 - see page 22 and Appendix A (page 25). That's all the info I have, I guess you could ask them for a breakdown of the data?


			https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s112872/3b.%20Appendix%202%20Transport%20Strategy%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 3, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Cheers for the info - do you have a link to the data and scores?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 3, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Rushy
> here's a link to the Transport Strategy Implementation Plan from the Council meeting of 18 Nov 2019 - see page 22 and Appendix A (page 25). That's all the info I have, I guess you could ask them for a breakdown of the data?
> 
> 
> https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s112872/3b.%20Appendix%202%20Transport%20Strategy%20Implementation%20Plan.pdf


Mine is 11. Funnily enough your area (I think, roughly) is a zone which I only ever drive through when following my satnav as I don't know those roads at all. I get the impression that it directs me that way when I'm headed to Croydon and traffic is heavy on the A23.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 3, 2020)

thanks Gramsci for putting that link in (I've still not worked out how to do it!)
Yes, my road is heavily used for through traffic and I'm sure satnavs have contributed to the issue. Hopefully not for much longer though! Please feel free to ignore your satnav in the meantime


----------



## Rushy (Aug 3, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> thanks Gramsci for putting that link in (I've still not worked out how to do it!)
> Yes, my road is heavily used for through traffic and I'm sure satnavs have contributed to the issue. Hopefully not for much longer though! Please feel free to ignore your satnav in the meantime


I'm due a trip to Ikea  😬 .


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 3, 2020)

order online.....


----------



## Rushy (Aug 3, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> order online.....


They don't deliver the little tealights piled up by the tills. And I like meatballs. Although I'm wavering since they stopped stocking salty liquorice fish.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2020)

You can get to the Croydon Ikea on the tram. Heavy stuff you can give them to deliver later. You can take the tealights with you. You can have some meatballs and get the tram home again. Once you get home, you can put the tealights into the box that most people have at the back of a cupboard somewhere, which contains hundreds of unused tealights that haven't been unpacked since the last time they moved house.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You can get to the Croydon Ikea on the tram. Heavy stuff you can give them to deliver later. You can take the tealights with you. You can have some meatballs and get the tram home again. Once you get home, you can put the tealights into the box that most people have at the back of a cupboard somewhere, which contains hundreds of unused tealights that haven't been unpacked since the last time they moved house.


You can never have too many tealights. Unless you are empty inside.


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2020)

Is the traffic on Coldharbour Lane supposed to go down at some point as part of this scheme, or is more pollution and congestion a given for residents in the future?


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 3, 2020)

Rushy said:


> They don't deliver the little tealights piled up by the tills. And I like meatballs. Although I'm wavering since they stopped stocking salty liquorice fish.


You're seriously thinking of driving from. Brixton to IKEA in Croydon to buy some tealights and meatballs?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 3, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> You're seriously thinking of driving from. Brixton to IKEA in Croydon to buy some tealights and meatballs?


Where do you go for your meatballs?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 3, 2020)

This is the official Ikea meatballs recipe so you can make them at home
					

And, of course, it comes with the brand's classic, flat pack instructions.




					www.goodhousekeeping.com
				




Ikea recipe for meatballs. If I was eating meat I would try this. Does not look to difficult.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 4, 2020)

I don't eat meat, but even if I did I wouldn't put myself through the misery of an Ikea trip to get them!


----------



## Manter (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Is the traffic on Coldharbour Lane supposed to go down at some point as part of this scheme, or is more pollution and congestion a given for residents in the future?
> 
> View attachment 224926


It will go down when people decide jumping in their cars to do short journeys isn’t necessary or fun


----------



## Rushy (Aug 4, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I don't eat meat, but even if I did I wouldn't put myself through the misery of an Ikea trip to get them!



Exciting news!! Ikea launched their plant based balls exactly yesterday. See you there!!









						IKEA is launching vegan meatballs that 'look and taste like meat' in Europe
					

Realistic vegan meatballs that don't compromise on the "familiar taste and texture of Ikea meatballs" are launching at IKEA stores in Europe this August.




					www.veganfoodandliving.com


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

Manter said:


> It will go down when people decide jumping in their cars to do short journeys isn’t necessary or fun


I suspect that will be a long time coming.


----------



## Manter (Aug 4, 2020)

editor said:


> I suspect that will be a long time coming.


Less than 3 months in most cities that try this, according to a US article I was reading yesterday- May take longer because of the pandemic, though


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 4, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Exciting news!! Ikea launched their plant based balls exactly yesterday. See you there!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



After trying both in the canteen last time we were there we decided their existing vegetarian meatballs were nicer than the meat ones in any case.

It's less than 7 miles to Ikea croydon and you're buying stuff that would be easily carried in a small pannier or rucksack. Google says if you leave now it will take you 31 minutes in the car and 36 minutes by bike.  it's the very definition of a cycle-able trip.

I don't cycle south that often and the main road to Ikea can be a bit wild (although a lot of it is bus lane). Google offers a route that's still only 45 minutes that goes through Tooting Common, Figges Marsh and across Mitcham Common that might be pleasant.  cycle.travel journey planner has a 49 minute  route that seems to run entirely along backstreet cycle routes (though unless they're through low traffic neighbourhoods they're often unpleasant due to rat running).


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Aug 4, 2020)

Manter said:


> Less than 3 months in most cities that try this, according to a US article I was reading yesterday- May take longer because of the pandemic, though


Can you link the article? I need ammunition to try to have reasonable conversations about facts with the rage-driving tory acolytes on Nextdoor.


----------



## Manter (Aug 4, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Can you link the article? I need ammunition to try to have reasonable conversations about facts with the rage-driving tory acolytes on Nextdoor.


Er, it was on twitter! Impossible to search and nada in my web history.... It may have been NYT. Let me see what I can find


----------



## Manter (Aug 4, 2020)

(And I’ve given up on nextdoor. My local one is regular adverts for home barbering services including body, and debates about how people look after their cats)


----------



## Manter (Aug 4, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Can you link the article? I need ammunition to try to have reasonable conversations about facts with the rage-driving tory acolytes on Nextdoor.


It wasn’t this, but this had some really interesting stuff in it (follow links to flow)


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2020)

Manter said:


> (And I’ve given up on nextdoor. My local one is regular adverts for home barbering services including body, and debates about how people look after their cats)


I'm always wary of commercially driven 'community' apps and websites.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 4, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Can you link the article? I need ammunition to try to have reasonable conversations about facts with the rage-driving tory acolytes on Nextdoor.


Same here, I always thought urban had angry people (no offence meant) but stick a LTN in and Nextdoor is full of enraged people. Still mostly lost cats though


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Can you link the article? I need ammunition to try to have reasonable conversations about facts with the rage-driving tory acolytes on Nextdoor.


There's a fair bit of info here









						Evaporating traffic? Impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods on main roads
					

By Emma Griffin, vice-chair, London Living Streets Low-traffic neighbourhoods can be life-changing for the residents who live in them. Since the neighbourhood improvements in Walthamstow Village in…




					londonlivingstreets.com
				




You can also look up the various reports on what happened in Ghent.

There are various links throughout this thread if you have the energy to go through it.

Most of these things seem to see reasonably consistent results: traffic on a load of streets (inside and outside of the LTN) goes down a lot, and it goes up a bit on certain main roads bordering the LTN. Usually it doesn't go up as much as is feared/assumed, and usually main roads can absorb a bit extra without the effects being dramatic. It seems that the increase in measured air pollution tends to be a lower % increase than the measured increase in traffic volume.

Importantly, the volume of traffic throughout the area sees a substantial net decline.

None of this answers your specific question about the timescale on which the initial (and not unexpected) congestion declines to its "settled" level. My understanding is that it's usually on a weeks/months sort of scale rather than longer.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 4, 2020)

Massive comres dataset on perceptions of road, traffic and infrastructure changes post covid
https://2sjjwunnql41ia7ki31qqub1-wp...onavirus-Transport-Survey_Final-tables_v2.pdf 

And a table showing a majority supporting changes to road use to increase pedestrian and cycling


----------



## Aristocrat (Aug 5, 2020)

editor said:


> Is the traffic on Coldharbour Lane supposed to go down at some point as part of this scheme, or is more pollution and congestion a given for residents in the future?
> 
> View attachment 224926


Rush hour yesterday (8:15am)


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 5, 2020)

Similar chaos on Dulwich Road at lunch time


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Similar chaos on Dulwich Road at lunch time


I wish Coldharbour Lane looked like that all the time. But it doesn't.


----------



## RubyToogood (Aug 5, 2020)

Without reading all 42 pages of this thread, can anyone tell me whether I can (without getting filmed and fined) still go up Railton Road and park in the motorbike bay at the top end of Chaucer Road to go shopping? Does that count as access? Or if I'm visiting someone in the closed area, does that count as access?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2020)

RubyToogood said:


> Without reading all 42 pages of this thread, can anyone tell me whether I can (without getting filmed and fined) still go up Railton Road and park in the motorbike bay at the top end of Chaucer Road to go shopping? Does that count as access? Or if I'm visiting someone in the closed area, does that count as access?


You can go anywhere in the zone. Just don't go through the gates. If you approach Chaucer from Dulwich Road you won't even see the gates.


----------



## RubyToogood (Aug 5, 2020)

Rushy said:


> You can go anywhere in the zone. Just don't go through the gates. If you approach Chaucer from Dulwich Road you won't even see the gates.


Ah. Where are the gates?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Rush hour yesterday (8:15am)
> 
> View attachment 225108


Wow. No cyclists and barely any pedestrians either. Truly 28 Days Later.

Traffic is totally unpredictable at the moment. Some weekdays it is utterly rammed and others it is blissfully quiet all day - today seemed pretty quiet.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2020)

RubyToogood said:


> Ah. Where are the gates?


----------



## RubyToogood (Aug 5, 2020)

Rushy said:


> View attachment 225184


Right. So as long as I don't go up Hurst St like us ratrunners usually do (did) but one of the next ones it's fine. I cycled up there and back today and it was generally a lot quieter except for sudden unexpected homicidal racing drivers now and then. I'm not sure it was safer...


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 5, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Traffic is totally unpredictable at the moment. Some weekdays it is utterly rammed and others it is blissfully quiet all day - today seemed pretty quiet.


Agree on that. Seems really inconsistent from day to day during week but definitely heavier than usual at weekends


----------



## Rushy (Aug 5, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Agree on that. Seems really inconsistent from day to day during week but definitely heavier than usual at weekends



Sunday evening traffic made me wonder whether I'd got my days muddled.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 6, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Sunday evening traffic made me wonder whether I'd got my days muddled.


I think it's probably explainable as -

General level of economic activity down so weekday traffic reduced. 
Many people are still working from home. Enough of them to mean commuter traffic is reduced (and although commute to work by car is a small minority of all commutes its' still enough to noticeably impact on road traffic)
For fear of Covid  people are shopping less frequently (and particularly avoiding small frequent food shops, which seem particularly high risk)

However, all those people who are working from home all week still have the weekends off and want to 'do stuff' with friends and family.  Public transport is off limits so, if they have access to a car, they are making more trips by car at weekend than they would have done before. Weekend traffic is heavier than usual as a result (definitely seems to be the case heading over to East Dulwich way)


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 6, 2020)

Milkwood Road at rush hour this morning (school holidays etc).


----------



## newbie (Aug 6, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Massive comres dataset on perceptions of road, traffic and infrastructure changes post covid
> https://2sjjwunnql41ia7ki31qqub1-wp...onavirus-Transport-Survey_Final-tables_v2.pdf
> 
> And a table showing a majority supporting changes to road use to increase pedestrian and cycling
> ...


They do, but more people appear to support suspending parking, CC & ULEZ charges- measures which will increase car traffic.  

It also shows that:
Londoners are more likely than not to own some sort of powered vehicle, 
more than 2/3 don't own a bicycle, 

and that, to get to and from work/education:
cars are heavily used across the age range by those that have them but cycles are not, 
even among the target ages, 18-44, only a small percentage use their bikes and it tails off sharply for those older; 
taxi/ride share apps are at least as popular as cycling

That's all in the first few pages.  There's far, far too many tables for me to read and make sense of, but I'm sure others can find equally pertinent stats.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Coldharbour Lane 3.45pm yesterday.  It was actually even busier just before I took this, There are moments where it seems quieter than usual - I took a look at 7.30am and there was just a fairly small stream of cars going by - but other times it absolutely feels a lot busier than usual.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> They do, but more people appear to support suspending parking, CC & ULEZ charges- measures which will increase car traffic.



The other thing to note about the table of people questioned is that people were asked if they support temporary measures.

Not permanent. So answers make sense if seen that way. Drop ULEZ, parking charges and Congestion zone charges. But also bring in more space for bikes and pedestrians.

I can see why people think thats fair during the pandemic. Which is still going on.

Its not panning out that way. Congestion charge has gone up and Council are blurring line between what is temporary / permanent.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The other thing to note about the table of people questioned is that people were asked if they support temporary measures.
> 
> Not permanent. So answers make sense if seen that way. Drop ULEZ, parking charges and Congestion zone charges. But also bring in more space for bikes and pedestrians.
> 
> ...


So I took a walk through the West End and saw the side streets being used for eating and drinking, and thought it was a great idea.  

The huge difference is that none of the streets were on busy main thoroughfares with bus routes like Coldharbour Lane. Soho is different.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> So I took a walk through the West End and saw the side streets being used for eating and drinking, and thought it was a great idea.
> 
> The huge difference is that none of the streets were on busy main thoroughfares with bus routes like Coldharbour Lane. Soho is different.
> 
> View attachment 225242



Its also from 5pm to 11pm.

Most of these streets in Soho are pretty empty most of day now. A lot of the offices are still largely empty.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> So I took a walk through the West End and saw the side streets being used for eating and drinking, and thought it was a great idea.
> 
> The huge difference is that none of the streets were on busy main thoroughfares with bus routes like Coldharbour Lane. Soho is different.
> 
> View attachment 225242



This is Mildreds veggie place in Lexington street yesterday

Even doing this I don't know how these small restaurant are going to survive long term.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> This is Mildreds veggie place in Lexington street yesterdayView attachment 225243
> 
> Even doing this I don't know how these small restaurant are going to survive long term.



I quite like the idea of taking bits of streets back, but yeah, this can't go on.


----------



## newbie (Aug 6, 2020)

8ball said:


> I quite like the idea of taking bits of streets back, but yeah, this can't go on.


Remember the cry _"Whose streets? Our streets!'_? 
What used to be public streets can apparently be privatised, fenced off and delineated to keep pedestrians on narrowed pavements. Cyclists can't sensibly get through at all (although that bit of Lexington St is useful). As summer evening Covid response that may not be massively objectionable but in the longer term surely is.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> Remember the cry _"Whose streets? Our streets!'_?
> What used to be public streets can apparently be privatised, fenced off and delineated to keep pedestrians on narrowed pavements. Cyclists can't sensibly get through at all (although that bit of Lexington St is useful). As summer evening Covid response that may not be massively objectionable but in the longer term surely is.


There is a fine line between helping a business (often independent) survive and them effectively privatising the entire road. I can't get too worked up about most of the examples apart from the one above with the fence and the gate which seems to be taking the piss a bit. It's not their fucking road, so they should take the fence down.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2020)

editor said:


> There is a fine line between helping a business (often independent) survive and them effectively privatising the entire road.



Yeah, I meant having that space for human purposes rather than for businesses tbf.
And yeah, the fences can fuck off.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The other thing to note about the table of people questioned is that people were asked if they support temporary measures.
> 
> Not permanent. So answers make sense if seen that way. Drop ULEZ, parking charges and Congestion zone charges. But also bring in more space for bikes and pedestrians.
> 
> ...


Actually if you look through the tables you'll see they've asked about permanent measures too.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2020)

I really want this to work but Coldharbour Lane does seem to be busier at certain times of the day. Sometimes it can seem happily quiet-ish, but other times it looks a lot more congested than how I remember it being (I could be remembering wrong, of course).

Either way, it was very busy at 6.20pm today, and around 40 mins later when I found myself taking quite a while to cross the road because there was so much traffic.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 6, 2020)

Its going to take at least until November before the new traffic levels start to become apparent. There is too much 'noise' at the moment. School holidays, people testing out new ways of getting around. very large levels of home working.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> Remember the cry _"Whose streets? Our streets!'_?
> What used to be public streets can apparently be privatised, fenced off and delineated to keep pedestrians on narrowed pavements. Cyclists can't sensibly get through at all (although that bit of Lexington St is useful). As summer evening Covid response that may not be massively objectionable but in the longer term surely is.



Was thinking on this.

Soho managed to survive redevelopment post war. Its old maze of streets and alleys were home to small business , Tailors , film, the sex industry and a centre for the gay community.

It therefore in terms of those who would like to tidy up and rationalise  London ( including transport) a mess.

In normal times a LTN for Soho would be a be a fillip for its gentrification.

I support the closing of roads for use by restaurents as Covid measure. But as temporary measure. Due to Covid Soho is largely empty.

Soho need its maze of streets and alleyways to deliver and pick up from these smal business.

Soho just hangs on as different way that a City runs itself. Not one based on loads of experts who work for Councils/ Government/ TFL producing reports. Telling people what is best for them.

I took the photo of Lexington street as I was there delivering to a small sole trader business in one of the buildings. Up the old stairs to his workshop.

The independent worker.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 7, 2020)

To say Soho hasn’t been gentrified is a weird take.

Also experts, who needs ‘em?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 7, 2020)

Lambeth's equality analysis of Railton LTN  

https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/rtstreets/EQIA Railton Phase 1.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Aug 7, 2020)

Soho's been a low traffic neighbourhood of sorts for years - an extensive one way system and a limited number of entry/exit points mean it's somewhere there's little motivation for anyone to drive through unless they are going to/from somewhere within it. And that situation is partly responsible for generating London's cycle courier industry.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Soho's been a low traffic neighbourhood of sorts for years - an extensive one way system and a limited number of entry/exit points mean it's somewhere there's little motivation for anyone to drive through unless they are going to/from somewhere within it. And that situation is partly responsible for generating London's cycle courier industry.



Westminster tried road closures years back and the local small business were up in arms about it so it was abandoned.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> To say Soho hasn’t been gentrified is a weird take.
> 
> Also experts, who needs ‘em?



Yes who needs them is a good question. 

Perhaps ordinary people have a lot of knowledge to be tapped into.

This of course does not chime with view that only educated liberal middle class people can decide what is best for society.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> To say Soho hasn’t been gentrified is a weird take.



Its been partially gentrified. Never said it hasn't.

The closing off of roads for restaurents I support as short term measure. 

What I don't want to see is this being made permanent as a Soho version of a "Playground"


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2020)

teuchter said:


> And that situation is partly responsible for generating London's cycle courier industry.



As a Cycle courier with extensive experience of working in Soho that is incorrect. 

Soho maze of streets and alleyways meant that it was easier to get around by bike. 

What has affected the volume of work in cycle courier industry in Soho is move from video cassettes to internet. Lot of film/model portfolios are online now.

However lot of need for small parcel pick ups. Needing cargo bikes/ small vans. Which need access to roads. 

To get around without breaking the rules of the road is no different for cycles. Its just that parking is easier.

Take Chinatown- whole sections of it are off limits to cycles now after 12. 

Been that way for a while. 

The pavement extensions in West End have not made my life easier. I accept them as temporary Covid measure.

A lot of my mates are van drivers/ Black Cab drivers/ Motorbike couriers so I can see it from different perspectives. 

Most of the people I know who drive use the roads to make a living. Its not about owning a status symbol or being to lazy to walk.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 7, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Also experts, who needs ‘em?



Numerous cases in Lambeth of the Council experts showing they aren't needed.

Take for example the Grove Adventure playground.

The experts in the Council were telling me for months I was not sensible.

They being the experts knew there was no demand for an adventure playground in LJ.

The experts misused the findings of the consultants they hired to try to push their plans.

To no avail.

So experts who needs them?

In my experience as local person they are worse than useless half the time.

They think there ideas for an area are the best and the little people should just shut up complaining./ or wanting to have a say.


----------



## Prophet_UK (Aug 11, 2020)

Hello all, I am a cyclist, scooter rider and car driver so I have a unique perspective to see all sides of the arguments. What I am not seeing is the details of the data. What I do know is what I see and what isn't being reported. 1 example is the Brixton road itself. From Central Brixton, you have major links to central London (Bus & tube) but very poor road management. The section which leads to the station has had a multitude of road shrinkage schemes which squeeze 3 lanes into 2 and a majority of this is bus lanes feeding traffic from Acre lane, Brixton water lane Kennington Road (leading into Brixton) and finally Railton road. No cycle lanes, poor light phasing, and always congested which FORCES traffic onto minor roads within the Ferndale wards. I saw in the youtube video Ferndale road itself but what wasn't evident was the parked cars (and no lay by) which means jams or speeding cars to get through tight spaces. No red routes or no parking enforcements so drivers will park because there isn't any parking in central Brixton anymore yet it's one of the busiest boroughs. Cyclists are often squeezed because there isn't anywhere for anyone to go but this isn't being addressed. The motorist isn't always at fault and before those who state we should use the TFL system should use it. These are often crowded during peak time, way too expensive for the costs of travel and every time I used it I was late for work even with 30 mins added to my commuting time. If you have kids to take to school you may need a car and due to being a local resident you know short routes which also means less time for your car to idle in traffic adding to pollution. Electric vehicles are too expensive to swap for those on low incomes and there are very few charge points especially if you live in flats or social housing. There are loads of parks and green spaces in and around Brixton but no cycle paths through these to make for a safer/healthier ride why? Please do not just take what the media shoves under your noses stop and look around see for yourselves we all live in the borough not just cyclists and pedestrians without cars, vans small trucks the local community dies. Stop letting Councillors who do not live locally dictate what works within the leafy small town in Brixton.


----------



## newbie (Aug 11, 2020)

.


Prophet_UK said:


> There are loads of parks and green spaces in and around Brixton but no cycle paths through these to make for a safer/healthier ride why? .


Hello and welcome. Aiui you can cycle through all Lambeth parks, so theres no real need for dedicated cycle lanes. Other boroughs have different policies, of course.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2020)

newbie said:


> ...you can cycle through all Lambeth parks


Except at night, of course, as parks can close as early 4pm in winter.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> Hello all, I am a cyclist, scooter rider and car driver so I have a unique perspective to see all sides of the arguments. What I am not seeing is the details of the data. What I do know is what I see and what isn't being reported. 1 example is the Brixton road itself. From Central Brixton, you have major links to central London (Bus & tube) but very poor road management. The section which leads to the station has had a multitude of road shrinkage schemes which squeeze 3 lanes into 2 and a majority of this is bus lanes feeding traffic from Acre lane, Brixton water lane Kennington Road (leading into Brixton) and finally Railton road. No cycle lanes, poor light phasing, and always congested which FORCES traffic onto minor roads within the Ferndale wards. I saw in the youtube video Ferndale road itself but what wasn't evident was the parked cars (and no lay by) which means jams or speeding cars to get through tight spaces. No red routes or no parking enforcements so drivers will park because there isn't any parking in central Brixton anymore yet it's one of the busiest boroughs. Cyclists are often squeezed because there isn't anywhere for anyone to go but this isn't being addressed. The motorist isn't always at fault and before those who state we should use the TFL system should use it. These are often crowded during peak time, way too expensive for the costs of travel and every time I used it I was late for work even with 30 mins added to my commuting time. If you have kids to take to school you may need a car and due to being a local resident you know short routes which also means less time for your car to idle in traffic adding to pollution. Electric vehicles are too expensive to swap for those on low incomes and there are very few charge points especially if you live in flats or social housing. There are loads of parks and green spaces in and around Brixton but no cycle paths through these to make for a safer/healthier ride why? Please do not just take what the media shoves under your noses stop and look around see for yourselves we all live in the borough not just cyclists and pedestrians without cars, vans small trucks the local community dies. Stop letting Councillors who do not live locally dictate what works within the leafy small town in Brixton.


What are the cycle routes that you do regularly? And what is the journey that you have had problems with when using the "TFL system"? (does "TfL system" mean public transport?)


----------



## Prophet_UK (Aug 12, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What are the cycle routes that you do regularly? And what is the journey that you have had problems with when using the "TFL system"? (does "TfL system" mean public transport?)


On the cycle and scooter to and from Tesco's (using Ferndale road (Bon marche route). But I work in the City so used to use Atlantic Road, Villa Road to get onto Brixton Road mainly.
My Wife is disabled and I need to often use the car to get her around so all of the road closures have added 30 mins to even small journeys to the Pavillion practice. If you are a Brixtionan you will be familiar with the Gresham Road bottleneck and this has a box junction (again often blocked) or the exit from the O2 Academy. Apologies but there are so many.

For the TFL trips, I use Brixton tube to Kings cross which is often closed due to people congestion then walk from there to Angel  or I get the bus to Oval to get on the Northern line to city Angel. If I ride to work I tend to ride through the estates then Kennington Park to Kennington road, through the Elephant then up through Borough, spitifields to Barbican then back streets to Angel as there isn't direct bus routes. So it's often scooter to and from work.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 12, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> On the cycle and scooter to and from Tesco's (using Ferndale road (Bon marche route). But I work in the City so used to use Atlantic Road, Villa Road to get onto Brixton Road mainly.
> My Wife is disabled and I need to often use the car to get her around so all of the road closures have added 30 mins to even small journeys to the Pavillion practice. If you are a Brixtionan you will be familiar with the Gresham Road bottleneck and this has a box junction (again often blocked) or the exit from the O2 Academy. Apologies but there are so many.
> 
> For the TFL trips, I use Brixton tube to Kings cross which is often closed due to people congestion then walk from there to Angel  or I get the bus to Oval to get on the Northern line to city Angel. If I ride to work I tend to ride through the estates then Kennington Park to Kennington road, through the Elephant then up through Borough, spitifields to Barbican then back streets to Angel as there isn't direct bus routes. So it's often scooter to and from work.


If I've understood correctly, as far as cycling is concerned, your problem is mainly with Ferndale Rd and Brixton Rd.

Ferndale is supposed to be one of Lambeth's "Healthy Routes" so if it's now got more motor traffic than it used to, then the scheme is not working. However, it was pointed out a few posts back that the Ferndale scheme had not yet been fully implemented - I don't know if that's still the case. Also, it's normal for there to be additional disruption for a period after things change because it takes a while for people to change their regular journeys and for route planners to update. So would you be willing to give it a few more weeks to settle down, before concluding that conditions on Ferndale Rd have worsened?

As for Brixton Rd I'd agree it's not pleasant to cycle on in the bit just north of Brixton centre. But is your proposed solution here to re-widen the road, to re-instate more lanes? Is your hope that doing this would ease the congestion and traffic levels (which presumably would also help your car journeys which are delayed by having to get through on this road too)? Because generally that doesn't work - if you increase the road capacity it just fills up with more traffic.

If there were some way of getting a proper segregated cycle lane on the N-S axis through Brixton centre then I'd agree that would be very helpful. At the moment, the closest quiet(ish) N-S route is the one that runs down Loughborough Rd and it sounds like you use something like that to get to/from the City, but of course if you are starting from the Ferndale area then you need to get across to that, and it sounds like that's when you use Villa Rd or Atlantic Rd, either of which force you along Brixton Rd. As I understand it, the "Healthy Route" proposed as part of what they call the Loughborough Neighbourhood, which makes its way up Station Rd, and then Barrington Rd is designed to address this and work in conjunction with the Ferndale Rd route. There is still a short section along Brixton Rd that links those two pieces, and I'm not sure if there are plans to make that ink section work better than it does at the moment.




To make a more general point: your example of cycling from Brixton to the city, I think illustrates that there is a quiet cycling route many parts of which are already OK, but that there are problem sections. Even if only  5 or 10% of the route consists of problem sections, that's enough to put people off (understandably). The problem sections are known about, and attempts are being made to address them. But it's a slow and difficult process connecting all these bits up, because you have to make lots of local-level changes to enable it, and every single one of these is going to raise local level objections from people who may not see or value the larger-scale benefits of making these kinds of changes in general.

The same applies to the principle of reducing cut-through routes and reducing road capacity - it seems to work well at a large scale level, reducing the overall level of traffic, but you have to manage to persuade people neighbourhood by neighbourhood that it's worth it, again because the benefits aren't always very visible if you look at it only on a very local level.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 12, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> On the cycle and scooter to and from Tesco's (using Ferndale road (Bon marche route). But I work in the City so used to use Atlantic Road, Villa Road to get onto Brixton Road mainly.
> My Wife is disabled and I need to often use the car to get her around so all of the road closures have added 30 mins to even small journeys to the Pavillion practice. If you are a Brixtionan you will be familiar with the Gresham Road bottleneck and this has a box junction (again often blocked) or the exit from the O2 Academy. Apologies but there are so many.
> 
> For the TFL trips, I use Brixton tube to Kings cross which is often closed due to people congestion then walk from there to Angel  or I get the bus to Oval to get on the Northern line to city Angel. If I ride to work I tend to ride through the estates then Kennington Park to Kennington road, through the Elephant then up through Borough, spitifields to Barbican then back streets to Angel as there isn't direct bus routes. So it's often scooter to and from work.



Sorry this LTN has affected your ability to get your disabled wife around.

Have you put comments on the Council commonplace consultation webpage?

This kind of thing needs to be recorded before Council decides to make this permanent.

Or email your Cllrs as well.

These LTNs are for individual neighborhoods so those neighborhood should have a say.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 12, 2020)

I can't find a journey from any location to the Pavillion practice where I can see how 30 minutes could be added on by the changes, at least according to Google maps.


----------



## Prophet_UK (Aug 12, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I can't find a journey from any location to the Pavillion practice where I can see how 30 minutes could be added on by the changes, at least according to Google maps.


Try from Somerleyton Road, I need to merge with Coldharbour lane (all traffic now come through here) so the bottle necks are as follows. Getting from Coldharbour to Brixton town hall The road pinches at the top section by the ritzy so if a Bus comes down (either P5/322) Traffic is a single lane by Satay bar. Then once on the 1 way traffic merging from Norwood and streatham congests Brixton road/ Acrelane intersection. Then wait to turn left into Brighton Terrace. Alternate route is to go around the moorlands estate down Moorlands road across to Gresham Road, over to Stockwell road, left onto Chantary Road, Daryall, Road, Pullross, nursery, bernays and finally Brighton terrace. Dude I know my area either way I touch all of the grid points which would normally take 5-10 now increased to 30 most of which is stationary in traffic. I walk it but for the wife she can't so has to be driven. Google doesn't always show jams most people use the Waze app which provide drivers live inputs.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> Try from Somerleyton Road, I need to merge with Coldharbour lane (all traffic now come through here) so the bottle necks are as follows. Getting from Coldharbour to Brixton town hall The road pinches at the top section by . Dude I know my area either way I touch all of the grid points which would normally take 5-10 now increased to 30 most of which is stationary in traffic.



There's a couple of other things going on at the moment though - there is gas works on Brixton Hill with lanes closures/signals thats causing delays in both directions, stretching back to the Brixton gyratory. There's also fibre laying works on Acre Lane that's signalised (currently with side roads signalised as well) that's causing big delays in both directions on Acre Lane. 

Your 30 minutes does seem a bit of an outlier - Google has a _lot_ of data to work on and I've always found it's trips times spookily accurate (unless something happens en route when it changes). People were claiming hour long trips to Tesco from the northern half of Shakespeare Road (basically the same as your trip to the Doctor) but even at peak afternoon rush hour Google was still putting that as no more than 12 minutes.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 12, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> Try from Somerleyton Road, I need to merge with Coldharbour lane (all traffic now come through here) so the bottle necks are as follows. Getting from Coldharbour to Brixton town hall The road pinches at the top section by the ritzy so if a Bus comes down (either P5/322) Traffic is a single lane by Satay bar. Then once on the 1 way traffic merging from Norwood and streatham congests Brixton road/ Acrelane intersection. Then wait to turn left into Brighton Terrace. Alternate route is to go around the moorlands estate down Moorlands road across to Gresham Road, over to Stockwell road, left onto Chantary Road, Daryall, Road, Pullross, nursery, bernays and finally Brighton terrace. Dude I know my area either way I touch all of the grid points which would normally take 5-10 now increased to 30 most of which is stationary in traffic. I walk it but for the wife she can't so has to be driven. Google doesn't always show jams most people use the Waze app which provide drivers live inputs.


Previously you said it added 30 minutes, not that it took 30 minutes in total.

But if your starting point is Somerleyton Rd, now I don't understand why your cycling route to Tesco goes along Ferndale Rd. Also, to cycle to the City, why do you need to go onto Brixton Rd at all?


----------



## Prophet_UK (Aug 12, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Previously you said it added 30 minutes, not that it took 30 minutes in total.
> 
> But if your starting point is Somerleyton Rd, now I don't understand why your cycling route to Tesco goes along Ferndale Rd. Also, to cycle to the City, why do you need to go onto Brixton Rd at all?


If there were no road shutdowns 5 mins max - Shorter route would be Somerleyton Rd, Coldharbour, right onto Atlantic Road, Brixton road, Pulross, nursery, Bernays and finally Brighton terrace. 5 mins, if there wasn't a restriction on left of Atlantic there would be less traffic on Coldharbour for sure. Without the restrictions the only time that part of Brixton is grid locked is peak for about 1 hour again this is feeding traffic from Herne Hill/Brockwell park side.


----------



## Prophet_UK (Aug 12, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> There's a couple of other things going on at the moment though - there is gas works on Brixton Hill with lanes closures/signals thats causing delays in both directions, stretching back to the Brixton gyratory. There's also fibre laying works on Acre Lane that's signalised (currently with side roads signalised as well) that's causing big delays in both directions on Acre Lane.
> 
> Your 30 minutes does seem a bit of an outlier - Google has a _lot_ of data to work on and I've always found it's trips times spookily accurate (unless something happens en route when it changes). People were claiming hour long trips to Tesco from the northern half of Shakespeare Road (basically the same as your trip to the Doctor) but even at peak afternoon rush hour Google was still putting that as no more than 12 minutes.


And that right there is why I switched to Waze. Gmaps told me once a place was 3 mins by foot 45 mins later on the hottest day of the year I nearly passed out at my interview.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> And that right there is why I switched to Waze. Gmaps told me once a place was 3 mins by foot 45 mins later on the hottest day of the year I nearly passed out at my interview.


That's really odd.  What were the origin and destination for that walking trip? What time of day did you find it took 30 minutes to drive from Somerleyton to Brighton Terrace? Was it a one off - it doesn't seem to reflect the trip times anyone else is getting.

Personally I've used both Waze and Google maps and never found anything between them on trip times - even in London and when traffic is really heavy. Plus I _really_ dislike the way Waze encourages speeding by flagging up speed cameras and police presence.  That should, like in France, be illegal.

I don't have any knowledge of your partner's condition but is there really no other way she could reach the Pavilion Practice from Somerlyton Road without using a car? It's a less than 10 minute walk - it's seems ridiculous that there aren't any alternatives to a motorway-capable 5 seater car seems such overkill for a trip that short.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 12, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> If there were no road shutdowns 5 mins max - Shorter route would be Somerleyton Rd, Coldharbour, right onto Atlantic Road, Brixton road, Pulross, nursery, Bernays and finally Brighton terrace. 5 mins, if there wasn't a restriction on left of Atlantic there would be less traffic on Coldharbour for sure. Without the restrictions the only time that part of Brixton is grid locked is peak for about 1 hour again this is feeding traffic from Herne Hill/Brockwell park side.


Without which restrictions?


----------



## Prophet_UK (Aug 12, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's really odd.  What were the origin and destination for that walking trip? What time of day did you find it took 30 minutes to drive from Somerleyton to Brighton Terrace? Was it a one off - it doesn't seem to reflect the trip times anyone else is getting.
> 
> Personally I've used both Waze and Google maps and never found anything between them on trip times - even in London and when traffic is really heavy. Plus I _really_ dislike the way Waze encourages speeding by flagging up speed cameras and police presence.  That should, like in France, be illegal.
> 
> I don't have any knowledge of your partner's condition but is there really no other way she could reach the Pavilion Practice from Somerlyton Road without using a car? It's a less than 10 minute walk - it's seems ridiculous that there aren't any alternatives to a motorway-capable 5 seater car seems such overkill for a trip that short.


It's funny that I need to give all of these details, so the time was Mid week 2pm appointment and she is qualified as disabled, however there should be a fair policy for all road users. Like I said I am someone who adapts if it's short distance I tend to walk, don't really have issues with traffic (I am also asthmatic) so affected on really hot days it does cause a bit of a problem. But I have seen things get worse since the introduction of COVID-19 road closures. More stationary traffic limited space for cyclists/scooters. We need to also add into the factor of these statistics types of vehicles, how many hybrid's electric cars are used? how many low emissions stop/start vehicles are also in the mix. I must protest about the villainy against the motor user not all of us speed around drive gas guzzling, poorly maintained cars for short trips. If they analyse traffic the average car is no more than 5 years old.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 12, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> It's funny that I need to give all of these details,



You will be interrogated until you're worn down to the point you thank the Council for bringing in the LTNs. 

Thanks for posting your experience of it btw.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 12, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> It's funny that I need to give all of these details, so the time was Mid week 2pm appointment and she is qualified as disabled, however there should be a fair policy for all road users. Like I said I am someone who adapts if it's short distance I tend to walk, don't really have issues with traffic (I am also asthmatic) so affected on really hot days it does cause a bit of a problem. But I have seen things get worse since the introduction of COVID-19 road closures. More stationary traffic limited space for cyclists/scooters. We need to also add into the factor of these statistics types of vehicles, how many hybrid's electric cars are used? how many low emissions stop/start vehicles are also in the mix. I must protest about the villainy against the motor user not all of us speed around drive gas guzzling, poorly maintained cars for short trips. If they analyse traffic the average car is no more than 5 years old.


I don't really understand your position though, or what point you want to make. What is it that you think should change? The Livable Neighbourhood things shouldn't have been brought in? More roadspace for motor traffic to ease congestion? Less roadspace for motor traffic to make it easier for cyclists? What's the point about electric/hybrid cars - they help with air quality a little bit but it doesn't have any impact on congestion or journey times, so what do you mean about factoring them into statistics?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 12, 2020)

After 5 or 6 weeks of this LTN malarkey I find it difficult to not see them as divisive and destructive. The basic premise seems to be for one area to win and the areas around it to lose. It's sledgehammer stuff. I've looked and can't see any reliable research into the benefits of this approach, it seems to set one area against another, one section of society against another, while pushing traffic around in ever more grotesque ways. In other words a pretty standard Johnson/Cummings wheeze.

I get that the town hall leadership fetishises cafe culture and won't rest until Atlantic Rod is a sea of bistro tables, also that people lke Claire Holland want to add this to their Parliamentary candidate CV, but it all feels so desperate and amateur. I've looped back into despair again at Labour's antics. Greens won't touch it, if you haven't noticed.


----------



## happyshopper (Aug 13, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Greens won't touch it, if you haven't noticed.


That might be because of political opportunism rather than any point of principle. Can’t tell until they tell us what they would do.


----------



## newbie (Aug 13, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> After 5 or 6 weeks of this LTN malarkey I find it difficult to not see them as divisive and destructive. The basic premise seems to be for one area to win and the areas around it to lose. It's sledgehammer stuff. I've looked and can't see any reliable research into the benefits of this approach, it seems to set one area against another, one section of society against another, while pushing traffic around in ever more grotesque ways. In other words a pretty standard Johnson/Cummings wheeze.


Yes, it's aimed at quality of life improvements for chosen Victorian street insiders, with likely capital gains for owner occupiers and landlords as the desirability of their newly tranquil properties increases compared with other, less favoured, streets which will have to soak up additional pollution, noise, danger and so on.

Someone will be along in a bit to read you the script about health and wellbeing benefits for all, happy cyclists and children frolicking as they walk to school, to be achieved by frustrating drivers out of their cars. SFAICS the wider effects on social cohesion/division through alienating and marginalising outsiders was an afterthought at best.



> I get that the town hall leadership fetishises cafe culture and won't rest until Atlantic Rod is a sea of bistro tables, also that people lke Claire Holland want to add this to their Parliamentary candidate CV, but it all feels so desperate and amateur. I've looped back into despair again at Labour's antics. Greens won't touch it, if you haven't noticed.


I hadn't (my version of a tranquil life involves not letting Lambeth party politics intrude).  Is that a stated Green position, is it meaningful?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 13, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The basic premise seems to be for one area to win and the areas around it to lose.



Is 'premise' the word you meant to use here?


----------



## ash (Aug 13, 2020)

Did anyone attend the virtual meeting about Ferndale last night. I forgot it was on and just wondered if anything interesting was said?


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 13, 2020)

Prophet_UK said:


> It's funny that I need to give all of these details,



Just trying to understand what you'd experienced. Some of us who think these schemes are the right approach want to understand any issues they're causing and try to get them improved.  You talked about a journey time which doesn't match anything I've seen or experienced (and a problem with Google giving a completely inaccurate walking time which I've never seen)  so obviously interested to find out more. 



Prophet_UK said:


> however there should be a fair policy for all road users.



Personally I'd like an approach to transport that enables everyone to make the trips they need to by the cleanest and lowest impact form of transport they can. For many people the car is the default thing they use, even for trips that they could easily walk. I see that as a problem. If you can get those people not to drive there will be more space on the roads for those that really need to.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 13, 2020)

newbie said:


> I hadn't (my version of a tranquil life involves not letting Lambeth party politics intrude).  Is that a stated Green position, is it meaningful?



During the LJ road closure the Greens stayed silent. When they put up candidates for Coldharbour ward they are presented as alternative for pissed off Labour voters more than Green issues.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 13, 2020)

Lambeth Cyclists linked to this image the other day which I think is trying to show where the majority of social housing/estates is around Railton area.  it doesn't look like the scheme only benefits 'Victorian Street insiders". It actually looks like the estates are mostly within the areas where through traffic is being cut.  Most of the estates don't front onto main roads - and the main one that does (Southwyck House) was of course built to turn its back on a 6 lane elevated ringway.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 13, 2020)

Theres one for Oval as well - most of the "insiders" there seem to be estates?!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 13, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Lambeth Cyclists linked to this image the other day which I think is trying to show where the majority of social housing/estates is around Railton area.  it doesn't look like the scheme only benefits 'Victorian Street insiders". It actually looks like the estates are mostly within the areas where through traffic is being cut.  Most of the estates don't front onto main roads - and the main one that does (Southwyck House) was of course built to turn its back on a 6 lane elevated ringway.




The barrier block fronts onto CHL which is not part of the Railton scheme. Neither is Moorlands estate part of Railton scheme. Nor is Guiness trust estate. They are all other side of the railway line to Railton. Nor does Shakespeare road go through them. 

 So don't see why they are included. Take them out and the picture looks different


----------



## Prophet_UK (Aug 13, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Just trying to understand what you'd experienced. Some of us who think these schemes are the right approach want to understand any issues they're causing and try to get them improved.  You talked about a journey time which doesn't match anything I've seen or experienced (and a problem with Google giving a completely inaccurate walking time which I've never seen)  so obviously interested to find out more.
> 
> With this example I was in Finsbury Circus Gardens and needed to get to City Road (specific post code used was EC1V 2NZ) it stated 3 mins walk (I was in Finsbury Circus Gardens) which turned into 15 mins when I came out of the Old street underpass. Which I did in a full blown suit for a interview on the hottest day of the year. Since then use Waze.
> 
> ...


It's the way changes are implemented under disguised incentives like COVID-19 or social distancing and pollution to create ill thought out road planning which blames motorists. There is no doubt there is an increase in pollution but the reasons behind the increase needs to be clear and precise BEFORE measures like road closures, decreasing road space or pavement widening which restricts the free movement of traffic. This planning creates bottlenecks, moves the pollution to other areas (NOT DECREASES), increase avoidable accidents between cyclist, pedestrians & motorists. Why does pavement widening work (apparently done due to social distancing) over an added cycle path going through the market as an example where no motor vehicles are permitted,  or making alternate junctions cycle only (NOT ALL ROADS) i.e. Salton Road car friendly Kellett cycle only. The bus stop along Coldharbour lane causes stationary traffic flow, as does the squeezing into 1 lane along Brixton Road. Make Lambeth make better use of the box junction enforcement, there are also delivery vehicles unloading which again has an impact. Minor changes in these area's could help lower pollution and allow traffic to flow freely. If traffic flows more freely this will improve transport performance prompting more people to use it (hey we may be able to make it cheaper) better planning with utility companies on planned works. These are my points. On the types of cars point I made earlier these cars are also *stuck *in the traffic but are 0 pollutant but add to congestion. Lambeth should look at parking enforcement as Brixton has a very active social presence which increases in traffic but with limited parking or enforcement causes high revving and idling vehicles throughout the day and evening so no reprieve from what pollution already exists


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 13, 2020)

It’s not the case that there is x number of cars and we have to plan around it. LTNs are about making alternatives feasible. And yeah, traffic does decrease.


----------



## newbie (Aug 13, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Lambeth Cyclists linked to this image the other day which I think is trying to show where the majority of social housing/estates is around Railton area.  it doesn't look like the scheme only benefits 'Victorian Street insiders". It actually looks like the estates are mostly within the areas where through traffic is being cut.  Most of the estates don't front onto main roads - and the main one that does (Southwyck House) was of course built to turn its back on a 6 lane elevated ringway.


Carefully drawing the boundary then highlighting a large block of social housing outside it?  Not showing that here's social tenancies in the Victorian housing as well. No mention that people from Shakespeare Road north were the ones complaining about social exclusion.  All a bit desperate really.

Misses the point anyway- the primary beneficiaries will be the current property owners- occupiers and landlords- who can hope for a windfall.  Other benefits will, of course be shared more widely, but capital gains (& likely rent increases) will only benefit the already better off.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 14, 2020)

Moorlands estate is locked out of the Railton scheme - no entry signs, camera, the posh flower bed bollards. In that drawing above it's presented as being part of it.  The WhatsApp groups on Moorlands are apoplecticly opposed. It's now called 'Shakespeare Road North'.

If you understand the dimensins of the Railton scheme that map shows about 85% of it is privately-owned housing. The social housing is presumably bomb damaged sites.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 15, 2020)

newbie said:


> Carefully drawing the boundary then highlighting a large block of social housing outside it?  Not showing that here's social tenancies in the Victorian housing as well. No mention that people from Shakespeare Road north were the ones complaining about social exclusion.  All a bit desperate really.



Does that make any difference?  There will be social tenancies in victorian housing throughout the whole area based on my experience of Brixton streets.  That just shows that none of these streets are really 'rich ghettos' - nearly all of them are very mixed.   Shakespeare Road north is no longer a through road - how are they socially excluded from areas within a short walk? The only change is that if you live on Shakespeare Road North you can't drive to Herne Hill by the shortest route (and conversely no-one south of the Railway can drive to Loughborough Junction, and beyond, by the shortest route).


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Does that make any difference?  There will be social tenancies in victorian housing throughout the whole area based on my experience of Brixton streets.  That just shows that none of these streets are really 'rich ghettos' - nearly all of them are very mixed.   Shakespeare Road north is no longer a through road - how are they socially excluded from areas within a short walk? The only change is that if you live on Shakespeare Road North you can't drive to Herne Hill by the shortest route (and conversely no-one south of the Railway can drive to Loughborough Junction, and beyond, by the shortest route).


pssst. Social tenants don't OWN the property. This, like all Tory central Gov schemes, is about following the money.  So yes, that matters, very, very much. Property values inside Claire Hollands magical kingdom will see a very nice upswing.

Lambeth Cyclists have chosen to misrepresent the relevnt landscape. It is disgusting behaviour.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 15, 2020)

So should air pollution and road safety not be improved to prevent homeowners benefiting financially?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 15, 2020)

The discussion was about why Lambeth Cyclists intentionally misrepresented the boundaries. The answer is becasue it is worth very serious money.

If you want to talk about policies regarding pollution and road safety, I rec 20 years of literature in which the focus has been on everyone contributing and everyone benefittng. The point of Tory #LTN's is that others pay for the gain of a minority, thus undermining 20 years of consensus.

It doesn't seem to be too far from this week's Gov wheeze of down-grading exam results for everyone expect the privileged.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2020)

The maps as far as I can see were produced as a direct response to the claim that the LTNs have been chosen to apply to areas which overwhelmingly contain owner occupier properties, and not social housing. They demonstrate that's not true. The boundary of the LTN is shown in blue, and social housing outlined in red. They show that there's social housing both inside and outside the areas. There's no "disgusting misrepresentation". 

Useful of course that opponents can now call them "Tory LTNs" because the (already in progress under a non Tory mayor) plans have been accelerated by legislation put in place in response to the unprecedented covid crisis. Interestingly they see deep opposition from the traditional Tory vote. LTNs and cutting rat running were also part of the Green Party's last manifesto, so if it's true that the Greens are pointedly remaining silent on this (are they) then that's also interesting. 

One argument that really doesn't make sense is that the plans are designed to enhance property values and won't benefit non owner occupiers in the neighbourhoods. They can only enhance property values if they make the overall area more attractive to live in, so why would the changes _only_ be attractive or beneficial to those who own their homes? If we are saying it'll just make the currently rented social housing more desirable for sell-off or redevelopment then we're back in the position where we have to rule out doing anything that makes life better for the area's residents.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> One argument that really doesn't make sense is that the plans are designed to enhance property values and won't benefit non owner occupiers in the neighbourhoods. They can only enhance property values if they make the overall area more attractive to live in, so why would the changes _only_ be attractive or beneficial to those who own their homes? If we are saying it'll just make the currently rented social housing more desirable for sell-off or redevelopment then we're back in the position where we have to rule out doing anything that makes life better for the area's residents.


I think you'll find it makes enormous sense.

People who rent socilly and live in a #MagiclLTN have no finncial gain - the many £10,000s, but some will gain in convenience while others wil have loss in convenience. It's a different measurement, and becasue circs vary so socially renting opinion within the magic kingdom will vary.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> If you want to talk about policies regarding pollution and road safety, I rec 20 years of literature in which the focus has been on everyone contributing and everyone benefittng.


Having examined all that literature what are your proposals for rapidly addressing congestion, air pollution, and pedestrian and cyclist safety in London? No-one in opposition to the LTN concept seems to be able to offer a plausible better approach. No policy is perfect, but this approach seems to be the best we have available right now. It doesn't rely on excluding some areas to allow others to benefit. The ideal would be to apply it city wide, but this kind of staged introduction is what seems to be the politically and practically feasible one. In Ghent, discussed earlier in the thread, they did apply it in more of a blanket approach (all neighbourhoods within the ring road at once). They are now looking at extending it outwards. 

When you say the concept relies on excluding certain neighbourhoods from the benefits, you are misrepresenting the concept.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Having examined all that literature what are your proposals for rapidly addressing congestion, air pollution, and pedestrian and cyclist safety in London? No-one in opposition to the LTN concept seems to be able to offer a plausible better approach. No policy is perfect, but this approach seems to be the best we have available right now. It doesn't rely on excluding some areas to allow others to benefit. The ideal would be to apply it city wide, but this kind of staged introduction is what seems to be the politically and practically feasible one. In Ghent, discussed earlier in the thread, they did apply it in more of a blanket approach (all neighbourhoods within the ring road at once). They are now looking at extending it outwards.
> 
> When you say the concept relies on excluding certain neighbourhoods from the benefits, you are misrepresenting the concept.


Really hopeful for the extended ULEZ. Potentially, good incremental gains - FOR THE SOCIETY. Another one of those crazy policies designed by experts engaged in joined up professional thinking, rather than by one of the Chosen Few at  Castle Cummings on Whitehall and rushed out for the wheeze.





__





						ULEZ: Where and when
					

Where and when the ULEZ will operate




					tfl.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I think you'll find it makes enormous sense.
> 
> People who rent socilly and live in a #MagiclLTN have no finncial gain - the many £10,000s, but some will gain in convenience while others wil have loss in convenience. It's a different measurement, and becasue circs vary so socially renting opinion will vary.


I'm not saying they make financial gain. The schemes are not focussed on making financial gains for residents, even if you want to claim they are and it's a kind of conspiracy. They are focussed on making other types of gain.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Really hopeful for the extended ULEZ. Potentially, good incremental gains - FOR THE SOCIETY. Another one of those crazy policies designed by experts engaged in joined up professional thinking, rather than by one of the Chosen Few at  Castle Cummings on Whitehall and rushed out for the wheeze.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Last time that was discussed here, the same people criticising the LTNs complained that the ULEZ penalises those who can't afford to replace vehicles, while those with cash can simply pay their way out of any inconvenience. And of course, it excludes those outside of the ULEZ from any benefit whatsoever, and there are concerns raised about traffic diverted around its edges through those "outsider" areas. 
The ULEZ (which I'm in favour of by the way) doesn't adress the issue of creating safe routes for cyclists & pedestrians. It's also painfully slow to implement, like anything that involves disrupting motorists' existing habits.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'm not saying they make financial gain. The schemes are not focussed on making financial gains for residents, even if you want to claim they are and it's a kind of conspiracy. They are focussed on making other types of gain.


Nah. the Sharp Elbows can hype it 'til the cows come home but it's it's 500m long and isn't even a cycle lane. Yet somehow it's supposed to have changed hundreds of lives!!  
To put it mildly, the potential peripheral gains have been thrust to the centre, while the important issues of environments injustice and the introduction of we gain/you lose into climte policy is marginalised. Extraordinary bias and dishonesty thatt is undermining the work to build consensus over decades in the UK.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2020)

It's complete nonsense that the LTN concept has been dreamt up in an instance by Cummings etc by the way. It's been established as a principle in transport planning and urban design for decades.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 15, 2020)

So now you're the expert? We're lucky to have you.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2020)

Loose meat I wonder if you'll answer the question that newbie is determined to dodge. In areas where a LTN is already in place, and has been for some years, where there's a mix of private and social housing, would you advocate removing the traffic blocks, as this by your logic would make things on the whole better for any social housing residents would it not?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Loose meat I wonder if you'll answer the question that newbie is determined to dodge. In areas where a LTN is already in place, and has been for some years, where there's a mix of private and social housing, would you advocate removing the traffic blocks, as this by your logic would make things on the whole better for any social housing residents would it not?


If it works for everyone and the environment, why would you stop it. The problem with LTN  is - to repeat myself - the price others have to pay for some to gain. Fwiw, I think the Railton area LTN is a particularly strong example of win/lose, and that's just within Coldharbour Ward. Other LTNs may be less extreme in effect.

Why not ask me: do I want more traffic on the streets where my kids go, do I want more pollution, more noise, more danger - before you answer let me say I will gain financially by gifting you these things?


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 15, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The discussion was about why Lambeth Cyclists intentionally misrepresented the boundaries. The answer is becasue it is worth very serious money.
> 
> If you want to talk about policies regarding pollution and road safety, I rec 20 years of literature in which the focus has been on everyone contributing and everyone benefittng. The point of Tory #LTN's is that others pay for the gain of a minority, thus undermining 20 years of consensus.
> 
> It doesn't seem to be too far from this week's Gov wheeze of down-grading exam results for everyone expect the privileged.


Sorry I don't understand what you're getting at here?
And Lambeth is a Labour Council, so why the #Tory LTN? I'm confused...


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 15, 2020)

I've found the source - census data on Datashine.  Your estimates seem a bit off


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 15, 2020)

LOL. I suspect even you don't knew the area that measures. You didn't do your graphic training with Lambeth Cyclists, per chance?


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2020)

Although the traffic levels go up and down in the week, almost every time I've been out on a Saturday there's been really, really queues along Coldharbour Lane. This one stretches up to the Dogstar. I'm pretty sure it wasn't always this congested.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 15, 2020)

editor said:


> Although the traffic levels go up and down in the week, almost every time I've been out on a Saturday there's been really, really queues along Coldharbour Lane. This one stretches up to the Dogstar. I'm pretty sure it wasn't always this congested.



I think we're seeing slightly reduced traffic in the week (people working from home, fewer school runs, people shopping less frequently) but higher traffic at weekends as people with cars make family leisure trips that by car that they would have used public transport for before.  Seems the same all over London - this is whole justification for the COVID transport strategy - that unless we provide real alternatives to driving by making the streets safer traffic, congestion, pollution will be worse than pre COVID.  (Plus there are ongoing road works on both Brixton Road and Acre Lane)


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I think we're seeing slightly reduced traffic in the week (people working from home, fewer school runs, people shopping less frequently) but higher traffic at weekends as people with cars make family leisure trips that by car that they would have used public transport for before.  Seems the same all over London - this is whole justification for the COVID transport strategy - that unless we provide real alternatives to driving by making the streets safer traffic, congestion, pollution will be worse than pre COVID.  (Plus there are ongoing road works on both Brixton Road and Acre Lane)



Your not getting the point of editor photo.

Coldharbour lane is not part the LTN. For LTN purposes its a main road for traffic. As traffic "filtering" is taking place nearby it might be that this part of CHL ( which I also live on) may have to put up with more traffic.

I really hope the Council is monitering traffic properly and will give figures of road use now Railton LTN is in place. Its effect on nearby road such as CHL.

You say this is a COVID transport strategy. So Im assuming you are now saying these are temporary.


----------



## Winot (Aug 16, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Really hopeful for the extended ULEZ. Potentially, good incremental gains - FOR THE SOCIETY. Another one of those crazy policies designed by experts engaged in joined up professional thinking, rather than by one of the Chosen Few at  Castle Cummings on Whitehall and rushed out for the wheeze.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What have LTNs to do with Whitehall or Cummings?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 16, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Really hopeful for the extended ULEZ. Potentially, good incremental gains - FOR THE SOCIETY. Another one of those crazy policies designed by experts engaged in joined up professional thinking, rather than by one of the Chosen Few at  Castle Cummings on Whitehall and rushed out for the wheeze.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The ULEZ is bullshit, An Aston Martin db11 or Range Rover evoque are exempt, it’s a great example of consultation doing sweet FA.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 16, 2020)

not too focused on brands. The issue is emissions. Euro-6 complaint is the game.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 16, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> If it works for everyone and the environment, why would you stop it. The problem with LTN  is - to repeat myself - the price others have to pay for some to gain. Fwiw, I think the Railton area LTN is a particularly strong example of win/lose, and that's just within Coldharbour Ward. Other LTNs may be less extreme in effect.
> 
> Why not ask me: do I want more traffic on the streets where my kids go, do I want more pollution, more noise, more danger - before you answer let me say I will gain financially by gifting you these things?


No, because there are other existing modal filters, the one on lambert road for example, do you want to take those out?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 16, 2020)

why would I.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 16, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> why would I.


Because they don’t let traffic flow through off Brixton hill. It’s an LTN.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 16, 2020)

I know. I cut through there to Lidl, and Clapham.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 16, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I know. I cut through there to Lidl, and Clapham.


But you can’t get onto the b221 there, can ya?. Because of a modal filter. Where are the protests about that?. Crescent lane has one as well.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 16, 2020)

I cycle.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 16, 2020)

It’s an existing LTN, you would let traffic through there?.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> *If it works for everyone* and the environment, why would you stop it. The problem with LTN  is - to repeat myself - the price others have to pay for some to gain. Fwiw, I think the Railton area LTN is a particularly strong example of win/lose, and that's just within Coldharbour Ward. Other LTNs may be less extreme in effect.


You are telling us that LTNs do not work for everyone. Furthermore you are telling us that they are actively harmful to some.
My question was, therefore, would you remove all existing LTNs?

Would you?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

I refer the gentleman to the first sentence in the answer he quotes.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I refer the gentleman to the first sentence in the answer he quotes.


I quoted it because it doesn't answer the question.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Sorry I don't understand what you're getting at here?
> And Lambeth is a Labour Council, so why the #Tory LTN? I'm confused...





Winot said:


> What have LTNs to do with Whitehall or Cummings?


The policy come from Cummings and Downing St, is put in train by Dep't of Transport under Grant Schaps, money devolves regionally (inc. to the Mayor/Tfl), boroughs then compete for the money based on local-level proposals.

The usual consultation stages were abandoned/avoided on the basis of  the Covid 19 emergency.

As we can see at Railton, peripheral improvements like cycling and walking are pushed to the centre while the issues of large property value increases and environmental injustice are ignored.









						£2 billion package to create new era for cycling and walking
					

Alternative ways to travel, such as walking and cycling, could relieve the pressure on public transport.




					www.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The policy come from Cummings and Downing St,


No it didn't.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2020)

Seen yesterday...









						Debate rages about Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme on the Brixton forum – have your say!
					

Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme (LTN) was the subject of a Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood consultation last year, and looks to reduce car traffic and make routes more attractive to…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Your not getting the point of editor photo.


You're not getting the point I've made. A photo of some queuing traffic proves nothing at all. I can post you a photo of an empty Coldharbour Lane if its timed right.  Needs traffic counts (and maybe bus reliablity figures to see if delays have increased).  That needs to be compared not just to historic figures but to post-Covid figures for general change in traffic levels. And need to look at traffic across the area not just on one road. 

This is a Lambeth Transport Strategy - it has been urgently accelerated because COVID reduced public transport capacity. You've been told this many times.


----------



## editor (Aug 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You're not getting the point I've made. A photo of some queuing traffic proves nothing at all. I can post you a photo of an empty Coldharbour Lane if its timed right.


Yes but_ I live here_ and I'm telling you that I've absolutely seen a fairly substantial increase in traffic numbers at certain times.  Maybe overall the numbers are down - I doubt it - but I'm seeing long queues which weren't the norm in the past and I can't say I like it.

And om Twitter:


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

It seems that "phase 2" of the Ferndale scheme should now have happened?


----------



## Jrunner (Aug 17, 2020)

Personally I think it's a great idea to reduce car journeys. Public transport is excellent in the area and we should make greater allowances for cycling and to make walking as safe as possible. Sometimes people are stuck in their ways so why not give them a little push to stop using the car unless completely necessary? Sure there will be an adjustment period, but it will be a long term benefit for all residents and improve people's activity levels. Given the number of people living in the area compared to the number of parking spaces I find it hard to believe that the majority of residents are pro driving as much as possible and being able to make journeys in a car faster at the expense of everyone else's quality of life


----------



## organicpanda (Aug 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You're not getting the point I've made. A photo of some queuing traffic proves nothing at all. I can post you a photo of an empty Coldharbour Lane if its timed right.  Needs traffic counts (and maybe bus reliablity figures to see if delays have increased).  That needs to be compared not just to historic figures but to post-Covid figures for general change in traffic levels. And need to look at traffic across the area not just on one road.
> 
> This is a Lambeth Transport Strategy - it has been urgently accelerated because COVID reduced public transport capacity. You've been told this many times.


if Lambeth's Transport Strategy was to increase the traffic to levels I have not seen in my 25 years of living on Coldharbour Lane then they've succeeded. Every day (7 days a week) there are queues from the Atlantic Road/Coldharbour Lane traffic lights going to Gresham Road in one direction and Brixton Road in the other, the queues are also happening over more hours than before, the only time it has decreased is the early morning rush hour, shame there is no money to look at these problems here, according to the council when I enquired


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> if Lambeth's Transport Strategy was to increase the traffic to levels I have not seen in my 25 years of living on Coldharbour Lane then they've succeeded. Every day (7 days a week) there are queues from the Atlantic Road/Coldharbour Lane traffic lights going to Gresham Road in one direction and Brixton Road in the other, the queues are also happening over more hours than before, the only time it has decreased is the early morning rush hour, shame there is no money to look at these problems here, according to the council when I enquired


I don't think it was Lambeth's Transport Strategy to introduce a global pandemic that's caused a sudden change in travel patterns and made many people fearful of travelling on public transport.

If your experience is that traffic on that portion of Coldharbour Lane has increased noticeably in the past weeks/months, then I am not going to dispute that - what is now very difficult is to untangle the causes and we simply don't know to what extent the introduction of the Railton LTN is contributing to it.

My question would be: how plausible is it, that the introduction of the Railton LTN is a significant contributor? As I see it, it would depend on a substantial amount of traffic that previously used Shakespeare Rd to get between Loughborough Junction to points west of Brixton. Does that make sense? For example if you want to get from LJ to Acre Lane, was the route via Shakespeare Rd previously a popular/quicker one? I'm not actually sure - I don't drive very often, but in the past I'd always have gone along CHL. I might have used the Shakespeare Rd route to get to Herne Hill but I'd have thought my alternative route now would be along Milkwood Rd, not via central Brixton. 

But there's a whole load of other things going on: there ought to be hardly any traffic now trying to join CHL from Railton Rd at the Dogstar Junction, which I'd have thought would decrease the number of vehicles trying to get along CHL. On the other hand of course Atlantic Rd is closed, limiting the capacity to the west of the dogstar bridge, but that's not part of the Railton LTN scheme, it's been enforced by the viaduct repairs. On top of this, there are various narrowings of lanes in the area resulting from pavement widening.

So there are a multitude of causes that could be contributing to any observed increase along CHL. It would be foolish for me to try and say the Railton LTN can't be involved, but at the same time, there's no way at this stage of showing that it is, in any significant way. So that's the objection to posting pictures of traffic queued up and accompanying them with comments about the Railton LTN - it implies there's an obvious connection when there isn't.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

Jrunner said:


> Personally I think it's a great idea to reduce car journeys.


Yep, we can all get behind that. No matter how it's sold to the public, reconfiguring 500m of Railton Road doesn't do that, it just creates a lot of diversions as well as environmental injustices.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It seems that "phase 2" of the Ferndale scheme should now have happened?



What's "phase 2" bulid a wall across Brixton Road, give everyone Lycra shorts and declare the climate emergency sorted?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Yep, we can all get behind that. No matter how it's sold to the public, reconfiguring 500m of Railton Road doesn't do that, it just creates a lot of diversions as well as environmental injustices.


Yes it does, that's the whole point of LTNs.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

Why are you responding to me and not poor organicpanda on CHL a few posts up. Are you denying that experience?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Why are you responding to me and not poor organicpanda on CHL a few posts up. Are you denying that experience?


teuchter already did a big reply to that. I haven't noticed CHL to be busy the times I've been down there, but you're missing the point - there isn't x number of cars that have to be catered for, traffic levels can go down - if you want them to go up lets just build a motorway through...


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

If you want traffic to go up keep supporting LTNs that force diversions as much as this Rialton area stupidity.  LTNs can't even muster a single cycle lane. FFS.


----------



## Jrunner (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Yep, we can all get behind that. No matter how it's sold to the public, reconfiguring 500m of Railton Road doesn't do that, it just creates a lot of diversions as well as environmental injustices.



I think a large part of the point of the ltn is that if you have to make a lot of diversions and it's a pain to drive somewhere that you could use other transportation to get to (e.g. walk, cycle or public transport) then you'll reconsider


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> If you want traffic to go up keep supporting LTNs that force diversions as much as this Rialton area stupidity.  LTNs can't even muster a single cycle lane. FFS.


LTNs themselves aren't supposed to be about cycle lanes, which should be obvious to you if you've considered all this as much as you claim to have. Cycle lanes can certainly be provided in parallel. Where specifically would you like to see a cycle lane, or will you once again flake out of the discussion as soon as you asked to consider the details and practicalities of alternatives to the things you object to?


----------



## organicpanda (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't think it was Lambeth's Transport Strategy to introduce a global pandemic that's caused a sudden change in travel patterns and made many people fearful of travelling on public transport.
> 
> If your experience is that traffic on that portion of Coldharbour Lane has increased noticeably in the past weeks/months, then I am not going to dispute that - what is now very difficult is to untangle the causes and we simply don't know to what extent the introduction of the Railton LTN is contributing to it.
> 
> ...


I was being a tad sarky regarding the council's transport strategy. the amount and times of traffic is truly out of whack compared to pre-virus in theory the traffic should be able to move quicker, no right turns into Atlantic Road backing up for instance, on the other hand there are a lot more HGV's but wether that's from Shakespeare Road or the building of the new theatre I have no idea, I don't think any of the traffic that would have used Railton Road is now coming down here and can only guess where it does come from, all I know is there is definitely more of it and at times a lot more, would be interesting if there had been a pollution checker to see the difference between now, lockdown and pre lockdown


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> LTNs themselves aren't supposed to be about cycle lanes, which should be obvious to you if you've considered all this as much as you claim to have. Cycle lanes can certainly be provided in parallel. Where specifically would you like to see a cycle lane, or will you once again flake out of the discussion as soon as you asked to consider the details and practicalities of alternatives to the things you object to?


Best if you concentrate on counting your property windfall.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Best if you concentrate on counting your property windfall.


If all else fails just shout gentrification or property windfall.  Glad to see the 'keep Brixton shit' campaign is still going strong. Power to the people Wolfie!


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

Aren't you the character with the MS Paint map who was telling us the Moorlands Estate was part of the scheme? Top value contributor.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> If you want traffic to go up keep supporting LTNs that force diversions as much as this Rialton area stupidity.  LTNs can't even muster a single cycle lane. FFS.


The whole point of an LTN is that it is Low Traffic therefore it's safer to cycle as there is less traffic and no need for those cycle lanes to try and protect cyclists from car drivers.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You're not getting the point I've made. A photo of some queuing traffic proves nothing at all. I can post you a photo of an empty Coldharbour Lane if its timed right.  Needs traffic counts (and maybe bus reliablity figures to see if delays have increased).  That needs to be compared not just to historic figures but to post-Covid figures for general change in traffic levels. And need to look at traffic across the area not just on one road.
> 
> This is a Lambeth Transport Strategy - it has been urgently accelerated because COVID reduced public transport capacity. You've been told this many times.



Im saying is that I hope Lambeth are doing a proper study of how the Railton road LTN may affect nearby roads like Coldharbour.

All you do is come back and say this is the "Strategy". And dont give me "the "You've been told this many times".

Ive told you many times this is temporary scheme. Lambeth say full consultation will happen later.

Given this is temporary scheme I expect Lambeth to do proper studies of how this nearby Railton LTN has affected local nearby streets like Coldharbour lane.

The road me and others posting here live on. 

Do you have a problem with that?

Once the temporary scheme ends and full consultation begins again that was cut short I want evidence to make and opinion on.

Not be told by someone like you that this is just "Lambeth Transport Strategy".


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> The whole point of an LTN is that it is Low Traffic therefore it's safer to cycle as there is less traffic and no need for those cycle lanes to try and protect cyclists from car drivers.


The whole effect of an LTN is that it is High Traffic eveywhere around it - pollution is more concentrated. The peole posting here live on CHL.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Aren't you the character with the MS Paint map who was telling us the Moorlands Estate was part of the scheme? Top value contributor.



Yes thebackrow was. Fell silent when I pointed that out. I do live in area so know.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

It just shows how completely shameless the Sharp Elbows can be when there's decent money in it for them. Never buy a car off anyone who lives around Railton.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

As someone who has long experience of Lambeth "consultations" my view is that if local people who live on CHL report more traffic on CHL at the same time that the Railton LTN was introduced its up to the Council to produce a properly researched report for its residents to see whether the introduction of the Railton LTN has had any effect on those living on CHL.

If not what are the other factors that have? If that is the case,

Its not me as a resident who has the responsibility to disprove it was the introduction of Railton LTN has had effect.

The Council brought in this scheme under Covid powers its up to it to produce the evidence.

My view is that they might not. Citing expense of doing the work. I hope to be proved wrong.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Yes thebackrow was. Fell silent when I pointed that out. I do live in area so know.


No-one claimed the Moorlands estate was inside the LTN. The diagram was quite clear: the blue line defined the edge of the LTN and the moorlands estate was drawn outside of that line. Look at the equivalent Oval Triangle diagram - there are also social housing estates, outside the LTN, shown on that one.

As I understand it, the social housing estates outside of the LTNs were there as an illustration that, contrary to some claims, the pattern is not that the main roads are lined with social housing while the streets interior to the LTNs are exclusively private housing.
The Moorlands Estate does border onto Colharbour Lane (and Coldharbour Lane is one of the roads that may see displaced traffic). But if you look at the diagram it shows that the majority of the Moorlands Estate does not face CHL at all. In fact it's shielded from CHL by the barrier block which as we all know was built in anticipation of a major ring road being built along the line of CHL.

The diagrams are being wilfully misread. I can see that a passing glance might conclude that there's a claim that Moorlands is somehow inside the zone. But look at them properly and you can see that there was no intention to suggest that.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't think it was Lambeth's Transport Strategy to introduce a global pandemic that's caused a sudden change in travel patterns and made many people fearful of travelling on public transport.



Does this not imply that Lambeth Transport Strategy is now out of date?

Unless the pandemic ends soon and the economy reverts to normal the LTS should be reviewed?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No-one claimed the Moorlands estate was inside the LTN. The diagram was quite clear: the blue line defined the edge of the LTN and the moorlands estate was drawn outside of that line. Look at the equivalent Oval Triangle diagram - there are also social housing estates, outside the LTN, shown on that one.
> 
> As I understand it, the social housing estates outside of the LTNs were there as an illustration that, contrary to some claims, the pattern is not that the main roads are lined with social housing while the streets interior to the LTNs are exclusively private housing.
> The Moorlands Estate does border onto Colharbour Lane (and Coldharbour Lane is one of the roads that may see displaced traffic). But if you look at the diagram it shows that the majority of the Moorlands Estate does not face CHL at all. In fact it's shielded from CHL by the barrier block which as we all know was built in anticipation of a major ring road being built along the line of CHL.
> ...



Including local social housing estates that are not part of the LTN was wilfull misuse by Lambeth Cyclists. Take them out and the Railton LTN picture is very different.

As nearby Council tenant and cyclist it really irritated me.

Its only that I live nearby that I saw that. Anyone else not from area having a quick look on social media would not see it. 

It was deliberate.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Including local social housing estates that are not part of the LTN was wilfull misuse by Lambeth Cyclists. Take them out and the Railton LTN picture is very different.
> 
> As nearby Council tenant and cyclist it really irritated me.


I don't think you've read my post.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Does this not imply that Lambeth Transport Strategy is now out of date?
> 
> Unless the pandemic ends soon and the economy reverts to normal the LTS should be reviewed?


Well, of course it should. It already is, isn't it?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Well, of course it should. It already is, isn't it?



Sorry don't get you. Are you agreeing its out of date and should be  reviewed?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't think you've read my post.



I did. I don't think you read mine


----------



## nagapie (Aug 17, 2020)

It's problematic that the attempt to get more people onto public transport comes at a time when people have real health fears about doing so and when fares are being introduced for young people and restricted travel for pensioners - joined up thinking and all that.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 17, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> It just shows how completely shameless the Sharp Elbows can be when there's decent money in it for them. Never buy a car off anyone who lives around Railton.



in case anyone doesn’t think increased property prices are seen as a benefit by some supporters of LTNs









						Van Gogh Walk in Lambeth is a fabulous people-friendly street but highlights need for more Dutch-style residential zones
					





					www.lcc.org.uk


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

As someone who is out on the road all day traffic has increased outside congestion zone.

The congestion zone was established to discourage cars to go to central London.

Central London is now quite empty.

Economic activity transport wise is taking place outside the main previously congested area. Possibly.

So imo a lot of new research needs to be done to see what is happening.

Lots of new cycle lane in the City that are largely redudant as there is no traffic in City for example. They were based, along with pavement widening , the idea that workers would return to City. This is not happening. Some big companies like PWC ( Charing Cross area) are now saying home working is here to stay.

Move to homeworking will be a disaster for the workers who serviced the City.

There is still lot of traffic going straight through London.

So overall transport strategy for boroughs and London needs updating.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

and this:


> Simply removing through traffic with bollards doesn’t always create the kind of headline-grabbing environments liked by politicians, but for a fraction of the cost it’s possible to create child-friendly streets *and boost house prices*.



Railton area  - it's a quick £30,000-£50,000 minimum.  Foxtons more like £70,000..

Meanwhile everyone in the surrounding areas chokes on the extra pollution. Of course it's a Tory policy.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> if Lambeth's Transport Strategy was to increase the traffic to levels I have not seen in my 25 years of living on Coldharbour Lane then they've succeeded. Every day (7 days a week) there are queues from the Atlantic Road/Coldharbour Lane traffic lights going to Gresham Road in one direction and Brixton Road in the other, the queues are also happening over more hours than before, the only time it has decreased is the early morning rush hour, shame there is no money to look at these problems here, according to the council when I enquired



Curious you said you enquired and the Coucil said no money to look into these problems. Not criticising. So that is what the Council said to you? If so that is concerning.


----------



## BusLanes (Aug 17, 2020)

Looks like someone shouted (abuse?) at Vauxhall's new MP today whilst she was walking with her kid, relating to the Oval Triangle LTN - which seems like an escalation. From what I can see online that one is getting quite nasty. I used to knock around that area in recent years and the traffic issue was one that came up all the time, but clearly the chosen solution is pretty controversial.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 17, 2020)

Is this about Oval LTN as well?


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 17, 2020)

BusLanes said:


> Looks like someone shouted (abuse?) at Vauxhall's new MP today whilst she was walking with her kid, relating to the Oval Triangle LTN - which seems like an escalation. _*From what I can see online that one is getting quite nasty.*_ I used to knock around that area in recent years and the traffic issue was one that came up all the time, but clearly the chosen solution is pretty controversial.



thats the feeling I get too, the problem is this has been pushed thru with no transparency, a lot of people are blaming whoever they are prejudiced against for whatever reason, it’s not doing a lot for social cohesion.



Loose meat said:


> Is this about Oval LTN as well?



this thread ? Yeah I think its about LTNs in Lambeth generally, but the ones over the border in Southwark around Kennington are generating a fair bit of heat as well.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2020)

BusLanes said:


> Looks like someone shouted (abuse?) at Vauxhall's new MP today whilst she was walking with her kid, relating to the Oval Triangle LTN - which seems like an escalation. From what I can see online that one is getting quite nasty. I used to knock around that area in recent years and the traffic issue was one that came up all the time, but clearly the chosen solution is pretty controversial.


The taxi drivers are whipping up a lot of noise around the one in Islington. Like I said earlier, lots of entitled motorists about, some of them ignoring the signs that are on the filters even now.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2020)

House prices are f**ked anyway with this COVID slump coming up, it’s bizarre that people think they’re going up 50k with this.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Sorry don't get you. Are you agreeing its out of date and should be  reviewed?


It already has been reviewed - there's a Lambeth Covid-19 Transport Strategy, it's all here as I'm sure you are already aware - are we talking at cross purposes?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It already has been reviewed - there's a Lambeth Covid-19 Transport Strategy, it's all here as I'm sure you are already aware - are we talking at cross purposes?



This is not a review.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It already has been reviewed - there's a Lambeth Covid-19 Transport Strategy, it's all here as I'm sure you are already aware - are we talking at cross purposes?



It renaming what they have alraeady wanted to do plus a bit of pavement widening.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> in case anyone doesn’t think increased property prices are seen as a benefit by some supporters of LTNs
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I doubt that anyone who supports the idea of LTNs would try and deny that they might affect nearby property prices. If you think they are something that gives people a better living environment then it would follow that that environment will become more desirable to people.

Is the fact that something might affect house prices a reason to argue against it? Or is it fair to then imply that the only reason anyone would support it would be out of self interest? Would the same apply to investment in a local school or park? Should improvements to common goods like school facilities be opposed or subject to automatic suspicion as soon as it turns out that some of the people promoting them own their houses? Or indeed, if it turns out that no-one actively promoting them has anything to gain in terms of property prices but someone somewhere might?

That article is from 2013 - a little while ago. One thing I think I've noticed, is that not that long ago, wealthier home owners were considered one of the main obstacles to getting these kinds of schemes through. Because they tend to own cars and object to things that makes it less convenient for them to use or park those cars. So, previously, people trying to promote these schemes, I think, though it was these people they had to persuade. Maybe a mention of house prices was part of that. More recently things seem to have changed somewhat, with the gentrification angle coming to the fore. As it happens, I reckon the wealthy car owners are still a big part of the problem, and they have rather cynically cottoned on to the fact that if they can portray this as something that's an attack on the freedom of social housing residents, or that is going to cause traffic mayhem and substantially increased pollution on streets where the less wealthy live, then that gains a lot of traction and is very twitter-friendly. You just need a bit of misinformation, some context-free videos of traffic getting jammed up in a street in the early period after changes are made, and some banners about divided communities. They are always terribly concerned about the pollution and the danger to children, and yes we really do need to do something about this, it's just that this LTN where they live isn't right (probably other LTNs elsewhere might be OK, it's just the one that affects them that hasn't been designed right, and there hasn't been transparent consultation), and we should be doing something else instead, something that they can't define in any detail, other than that it's not this.

But anyway, getting back to Van Gogh Walk, I wonder if anyone on this thread is willing to say that it should be torn up and reverted to provide that previously existing through-access? Because it must, according to the logic of the main arguments against the LTNs, be concentrating traffic and pollution onto nearby main roads, traffic and pollution which would be better dispersed throughout the residential streets. And, that blog post suggests it might have benefitted local property owners, and that unfair benefit could be taken back from them if the local changes were reversed. Anyone want to put their name down in support of a reversal of the Van Gogh Walk scheme?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> This is not a review.


What do you want then?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> It's problematic that the attempt to get more people onto public transport comes at a time when people have real health fears about doing so and when fares are being introduced for young people and restricted travel for pensioners - joined up thinking and all that.


Actually the measures that are being focused on right now are not really mainly about getting more people onto public transport, but getting as many people as possible walking and cycling, and that's not just about getting people out of cars, but reducing the pressure on public transport as much as possible.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What do you want then?




I have repeatedly stated on this thread that I critically support the LTN.

I also want that once these temporary LTNs are over proper consultation is restarted.

That whilst the LTNs are in place for temporary time peoples concerns/ observations are taken seriously.

That the Council ensure that the temporary LTNs are monitereed properly.

That traffic alterations are monitered by Council and funded to do so.

That at end of temporary period if local population of an LTN area want to keep LTN then they can keep it.

If they don't it goes.

If alterations are needed then they take place.

How the Council do this is the Council's responsibility not mine. This is a Coop Council. Despite the pandemic Councils do have a duty to consult in the future. 

As the Council have decided to implement the LTNs without consultation due to pandemic I will give them no more than critical support.

I will give them critical support for the time being.

I will wait to see when normal procedures apply once more if the Council keeps to its word about consultation.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I doubt that anyone who supports the idea of LTNs would try and deny that they might affect nearby property prices. If you think they are something that gives people a better living environment then it would follow that that environment will become more desirable to people.
> 
> Is the fact that something might affect house prices a reason to argue against it? Or is it fair to then imply that the only reason anyone would support it would be out of self interest? Would the same apply to investment in a local school or park? Should improvements to common goods like school facilities be opposed or subject to automatic suspicion as soon as it turns out that some of the people promoting them own their houses? Or indeed, if it turns out that no-one actively promoting them has anything to gain in terms of property prices but someone somewhere might?


I love this. It's like watching a goldfish over eat becasue it forgot what happened 30 seconds ago.

The point about Railton area LTN is that other people - outside the Railton area LTN - pay the price of the gain of those inside. The Sharp Elbows suffer less air and noise pollution, those outside more air and noise pollution,. And more potential danger for their children.

It's only the tenth time someone has mentioned this to you. It's almost as if you can't quite grasp the idea that others suffering miserably for your gain is in any way questionable.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What do you want then?



So you agree its not a review is what I get from this further question.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The point about Railton area LTN is that other people - outside the Railton area LTN - pay the price of the gain of those inside. The Sharp Elbows suffer less air and noise pollution, those outside more air and noise pollution,. And more potential danger for their children.


You claim to believe this, yet you don't want to save any children's lives by reversing all existing traffic measures that restrict motor access to residential streets. You want us to carry on with the things you think bring misery to thousands of Londoners. Weird.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 18, 2020)

You've achieved Peak Incoherence.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> That at end of temporary period if local population of an LTN area want to keep LTN then they can keep it.
> 
> If they don't it goes.



I pretty much agree with all the stuff about monitoring and making adjustments. 

On this particular point though, what's your definition of the local population? Is it people that live within the LTN area? Or within a certain distance? And how do you determine whether they want it - is there a vote?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I pretty much agree with all the stuff about monitoring and making adjustments.
> 
> On this particular point though, what's your definition of the local population? Is it people that live within the LTN area? Or within a certain distance? And how do you determine whether they want it - is there a vote?



This isn't my problem. Council have introduced these LTNs , they have been a Coop Council for years I await to see how they are going to do the proper consultation that people have a right to once pandemic is over. 

As the Council have decided to bring these LTNs on "Neighbourhood" basis they have defined it should be done on a neighbourhood basis. Which appears to how the Council are doing this. So Im not out of line with Council on that.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> House prices are f**ked anyway with this COVID slump coming up, it’s bizarre that people think they’re going up 50k with this.


Except those against the schemes who think they’re going down 50.k because they can’t drive the shortest route to herne hill.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

Back to these nightmare schemes! I remember when they did one near Loughborough Junction a few years go. A DISASTER. The council had to close it due to huge, huge local pressure. Sounded nice, didnt work. The Fire Brigade launched a formal complaint.

It made cycling a nightmare - nothing worse than cycling through idle traffic everywhere. Now i'm seeing the same uptick in traffic and only realised why when a neighbour showed me a letter she got (but I didn't?!). Can't wait for winter traffic!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I love this. It's like watching a goldfish over eat becasue it forgot what happened 30 seconds ago.
> 
> The point about Railton area LTN is that other people - outside the Railton area LTN - pay the price of the gain of those inside. The Sharp Elbows suffer less air and noise pollution, those outside more air and noise pollution,. And more potential danger for their children.
> 
> It's only the tenth time someone has mentioned this to you. It's almost as if you can't quite grasp the idea that others suffering miserably for your gain is in any way questionable.


Look, it keeps getting pointed out to you that Traffic levels change and that LTNs drive down traffic overall. It’s not the case that the same level traffic simply just goes down another road, that’s nonsense.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

If there’s too much traffic, and remember Brixton had bad pollution before the pandemic without the LTNs, what’s your idea for reducing car driving?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

The traffic _does_ just go down other routes. It hit Loughborough for months and guess what - traffic didn't reduce, people didn't change.

Its a hot topic on other forums because we have been here before. This are not new to Lambeth and the one big shot there was utterly, utterly failed.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Evaporating traffic: 








						Evaporating traffic? Impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods on main roads
					

By Emma Griffin, vice-chair, London Living Streets Low-traffic neighbourhoods can be life-changing for the residents who live in them. Since the neighbourhood improvements in Walthamstow Village in…




					londonlivingstreets.com


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> The traffic _does_ just go down other routes. It hit Loughborough for months and guess what - traffic didn't reduce, people didn't change.
> 
> Its a hot topic on other forums because we have been here before. This are not new to Lambeth and the one big shot there was utterly, utterly failed.


The Loughborough thing lasted months did it?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> About the ambulance times thing - this kept coming up as an objection when the Loughborough Junction scheme was being "trialed". There were lots of claims that travel times were being extended or that ambulances were being obstructed. There was even a paramedic speaking at one of the meetings.
> 
> But when (too late) a formal statement from the ambulance service was made available, it was quite clear: they did not have any fundamental objections to the scheme and they had not noted any consequences that gave them significant cause for concern.
> 
> So, I'd be very sceptical about anything you hear. I think that what happens is that seculative fears about ambulances being delayed get turned into "actually happened" stories. And I'm sure that transformation doesn't always happen accidentally either.



The Ambulance service did raise concerns directly but did not object because they were asked to pull data in a ridiculously short period of time. The perception form their teams was higher traffic, slower response times, concerns over routes.

The fire brigade, who were annoyed that they were asked to provide the stats in an unreasonable amount of time told the council to screw themselves and formally objected anyway while giving damning feedback.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The Loughborough thing lasted months did it?



Yes. It was mid 2016 before it was fully rolled back.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Evaporating traffic:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reading - doesn't this report just highlight exactly what many people have been saying:

*“At the first level, there is the perception that road capacity for general traffic has been reduced. However, any changes are offset, or more than offset, by capacity increases on other routes, or changes in traffic management, or changes in driving style, which pack more vehicles into the same space. In other words, not all examples of roadspace reallocation reduce road capacity.” 

"Second, there may be a real reduction in capacity on the treated road or area, but this may be offset by adequate spare capacity on alternative routes or at other times of the day. Consequently, people may change their route or journey time, but the overall number of trips and vehicle mileage is likely to remain relatively unchanged." *


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes. It was mid 2016 before it was fully rolled back.


But the main changes, how long were they in there for?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Actually the measures that are being focused on right now are not really mainly about getting more people onto public transport, but getting as many people as possible walking and cycling, and that's not just about getting people out of cars, but reducing the pressure on public transport as much as possible.


So can blue badge holders drive down the non accessible streets?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> But the main changes, how long were they in there for?



2-3 months fro what I recall - but the impact of having even the partial zones was felt right up until the last day


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> 2-3 months fro what I recall - but the impact of having even the partial zones was felt right up until the last day


As I understand it the council now realise that 2-3 months is not enough time for people to change behaviours, so with the present LTNs they will monitor over a much longer period of time. Of course there is going to be chaos as people adjust, but that isn't necessarily a reason not to try out changes IMO


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> As I understand it the council now realise that 2-3 months is not enough time for people to change behaviours, so with the present LTNs they will monitor over a much longer period of time. Of course there is going to be chaos as people adjust, but that isn't necessarily a reason not to make changes IMO



In the digital age when we can plan a route in 30 seconds on our phone we find out that 2-3 months is not enough time for people to adjust? Even with google maps the traffic was obscene!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> So can blue badge holders drive down the non accessible streets?


There are no non accessible streets.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There are no non accessible streets.


Sorry, I meant is there special access to roads for people who cannot walk or cycle because they are disabled? Or do they just have to suffer in traffic because they need to drive?
I don't like how the disabled are always forgotten.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> 2-3 months fro what I recall - but the impact of having even the partial zones was felt right up until the last day


I live in Loughborough Junction. I saw what happened. Where there was congestion it visibly declined throughout the short period that the scheme was actually running.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I live in Loughborough Junction. I saw what happened. Where there was congestion it visibly declined throughout the short period that the scheme was actually running.



Visibly declined from it's peak 'awful' but still nowhere near back to normal until the final few roads opened up. Every closure had an impact.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Visibly declined from it's peak 'awful' but still nowhere near back to normal until the final few roads opened up. Every closure had an impact.


Right, so it declined, was continuing to decline, and was not allowed the opportunity to return to "normal" because the scheme was abandoned early, much earlier than experience in hundreds of other cities tells us is needed to see things settle. The LJ scheme had been set up with monitoring points planned at various time intervals, and it had been planned to last for a certain amount of time, because it's well known that this amount of time is needed. But it was abandoned long before that time, and before there was any chance to find out the results.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Right, so it declined, was continuing to decline, and was not allowed the opportunity to return to "normal" because the scheme was abandoned early, much earlier than experience in hundreds of other cities tells us is needed to see things settle. The LJ scheme had been set up with monitoring points planned at various time intervals, and it had been planned to last for a certain amount of time, because it's well known that this amount of time is needed. But it was abandoned long before that time, and before there was any chance to find out the results.



If by 'abandoned' you mean forcibly closed by the council oversight committee because even with their months of data it failed spectacularly and received harsh criticism from everyone from residents, to hospitals, the emergency services, schools and numerous others. They had months or years to plan it, months to analyse it and it failed. Like hand grenade failed.

Even the MP spoke out saying it was a disaster and they should have just "listened to people in the first place". Well, they're back again. Rushed in under a COVID excuse and the misery is about to begin again!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Reading - doesn't this report just highlight exactly what many people have been saying:
> 
> *“At the first level, there is the perception that road capacity for general traffic has been reduced. However, any changes are offset, or more than offset, by capacity increases on other routes, or changes in traffic management, or changes in driving style, which pack more vehicles into the same space. In other words, not all examples of roadspace reallocation reduce road capacity.”
> 
> "Second, there may be a real reduction in capacity on the treated road or area, but this may be offset by adequate spare capacity on alternative routes or at other times of the day. Consequently, people may change their route or journey time, but the overall number of trips and vehicle mileage is likely to remain relatively unchanged." *


I can't see the bit you've quoted in the link?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

One big difference that this has from the Loughborough Junction scheme is that this is being done all over London, so it's not just an isolated case, more people will see the benefits.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I can't see the bit you've quoted in the link?



"The most comprehensive study of the phenomenon of disappearing or “evaporating” traffic was carried out by Sally Cairns, Carmen Hass-Klau, and Phil Goodwin in 1998 and followed up in 2002. See below and here. "

The full study.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 18, 2020)

I own a car and I cannot wait for this sort of thing to be implemented where i live.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> One big difference that this has from the Loughborough Junction scheme is that this is being done all over London, so it's not just an isolated case, more people will see the benefits.



....because having more of something that has failed makes things better?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> ....because having more of something that has failed makes things better?


LTNs existed and worked even before covid, they're not a failure they're a common part of urban planning.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> LTNs existed and worked even before covid, they're not a failure they're a common part of urban planning.



Yes, there are a few about.....very few post-implementation write ups and studies. Usually when such things are rolled out, like 20mph limits, they are followed up with detailed analysis. This is rarely the case with LTNs which speaks volumes.

I think the fact that Lambeth had others to work against and still failed sets precedent.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Reading - doesn't this report just highlight exactly what many people have been saying:
> 
> *“At the first level, there is the perception that road capacity for general traffic has been reduced. However, any changes are offset, or more than offset, by capacity increases on other routes, or changes in traffic management, or changes in driving style, which pack more vehicles into the same space. In other words, not all examples of roadspace reallocation reduce road capacity.”
> 
> "Second, there may be a real reduction in capacity on the treated road or area, but this may be offset by adequate spare capacity on alternative routes or at other times of the day. Consequently, people may change their route or journey time, but the overall number of trips and vehicle mileage is likely to remain relatively unchanged." *





teuchter said:


> I live in Loughborough Junction. I saw what happened. Where there was congestion it visibly declined throughout the short period that the scheme was actually running.





Jeanette Moo said:


> Visibly declined from it's peak 'awful' but still nowhere near back to normal until the final few roads opened up. Every closure had an impact.





Jeanette Moo said:


> Visibly declined from it's peak 'awful' but still nowhere near back to normal until the final few roads opened up. Every closure had an impact.


what I find extraordinary is a scheme that actively pushes pollution on to RMR’s, leaving kids and families there to walk through and live in that ‘toxic soup’ as they wait for unproven’traffic evaporation’ one paper written 18yrs ago appears to be the only driver of this theory. Ppl quote Waltham Forest  which gives examples of ppl changing driver behaviour as 2!! not even two % but two ppl! 
what’s at stake across Brixton is much more profound! We are about to witness the eradication of small BAME owned run businesses from prime real estate on Dulwich Road & Railton same with south Lambeth road.The historic significance of these communities and the customers they serve and the places they have ‘carved’ for themselves to serve their community will be lost as Lambeth reshapes how this borough looks & who gets to thrive here! I object to South Londoners being called‘rat runners’ as they travel from Camberwell & Loughborough to families & businesses in TulseHill & Norwood. ‘Rats’ Seriously the casual tone of disparagement as we ‘red line’ communities is an ominous one!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> what I find extraordinary is a scheme that actively pushes pollution on to RMR’s, leaving kids and families there to walk through and live in that ‘toxic soup’ as they wait for unproven’traffic evaporation’ one paper written 18yrs ago appears to be the only driver of this theory. Ppl quote Waltham Forest  which gives examples of ppl changing driver behaviour as 2!! not even two % but two ppl!
> what’s at stake across Brixton is much more profound! We are about to witness the eradication of small BAME owned run businesses from prime real estate on Dulwich Road & Railton same with south Lambeth road.The historic significance of these communities and the customers they serve and the places they have ‘carved’ for themselves to serve their community will be lost as Lambeth reshapes how this borough looks & who gets to thrive here! I object to South Londoners being called‘rat runners’ as they travel from Camberwell & Loughborough to families & businesses in TulseHill & Norwood. ‘Rats’ Seriously the casual tone of disparagement as we ‘red line’ communities is an ominous one!



I didn't even realise the date. In addition it takes info from as far back as the 70's! ...and as far away as Australia. 

It's valid research it's just being misquoted to fit a purpose. 

Do you have a link to the Waltham Forest data?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> what I find extraordinary is a scheme that actively pushes pollution on to RMR’s, leaving kids and families there to walk through and live in that ‘toxic soup’ as they wait for unproven’traffic evaporation’ one paper written 18yrs ago appears to be the only driver of this theory. Ppl quote Waltham Forest  which gives examples of ppl changing driver behaviour as 2!! not even two % but two ppl!


If you read it the paper analyses 150 sources of evidence, across different countries adding more in 2002 and 
they found  25% of the traffic disappeared.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If you read it the paper analyses 150 sources of evidence, across different countries adding more in 2002 and
> they found  25% of the traffic disappeared.



It's almost 20 years old. Before sat nav and google maps. Seven years before the iPhone came out.

You can't take cherry picked data from a road closure in Hobart Australia, a road closure in Nottingham in the 1970's, or data from roads that were closed for only one day and say 'hallelulia' this is the answer to our problems. Why use an old research paper when we have data from other LTNs?

What has this Waltham Forest LTN shown? I can see it is recent but can't find the data.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It's almost 20 years old. Before sat nav and google maps. Seven years before the iPhone came out.
> 
> You can't take cherry picked data from a road closure in Hobart Australia, a road closure in Nottingham in the 1970's, or data from roads that were closed for only one day and say 'hallelulia' this is the answer to our problems. Why use an old research paper when we have data from other LTNs?
> 
> What has this Waltham Forest LTN shown? I can see it is recent but can't find the data.


People still drove 20 years ago. That's only the year 2000 ffs.   

Walthamstow is linked to in the article I posted: Evaporating traffic? Impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods on main roads


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

Someone on Nextdoor has the Waltham data and did a write up. Will


sleaterkinney said:


> People still drove 20 years ago. That's only the year 2000 ffs.
> 
> Walthamstow is linked to in the article I posted: Evaporating traffic? Impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods on main roads



You completely avoided the points and the facts this study points out

*“At the first level, there is the perception that road capacity for general traffic has been reduced. However, any changes are offset, or more than offset, by capacity increases on other routes, or changes in traffic management, or changes in driving style, which pack more vehicles into the same space. In other words, not all examples of roadspace reallocation reduce road capacity.”

"Second, there may be a real reduction in capacity on the treated road or area, but this may be offset by adequate spare capacity on alternative routes or at other times of the day. Consequently, people may change their route or journey time, but the overall number of trips and vehicle mileage is likely to remain relatively unchanged."*


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 18, 2020)

Also someone on Nextdoor has the Walthamstow data and has written it up. I'll post it later when not on lunch but it's not good.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> If by 'abandoned' you mean forcibly closed by the council oversight committee because even with their months of data it failed spectacularly and received harsh criticism from everyone from residents, to hospitals, the emergency services, schools and numerous others. They had months or years to plan it, months to analyse it and it failed. Like hand grenade failed.
> 
> Even the MP spoke out saying it was a disaster and they should have just "listened to people in the first place". Well, they're back again. Rushed in under a COVID excuse and the misery is about to begin again!



They didn't have months of data. There was supposed to be a review after 12 weeks, and this was pulled forward to 8 weeks. They attempted a review at 8 weeks under all the pressure from those calling for it to be abandoned. Your version of the responses from the emergency services:



Jeanette Moo said:


> The Fire Brigade launched a formal complaint.





Jeanette Moo said:


> The Ambulance service did raise concerns directly but did not object because they were asked to pull data in a ridiculously short period of time. The perception form their teams was higher traffic, slower response times, concerns over routes.
> 
> The fire brigade, who were annoyed that they were asked to provide the stats in an unreasonable amount of time told the council to screw themselves and formally objected anyway while giving damning feedback.



The reason they were asked to provide data in an "unreasonable amount of time" was that this review was pulled forward, earlier than it should have been. If you read the actual responses from both the fire brigade and the ambulance service, they say that their opinion at that stage is based on perception, and by definition this perception was throughout the early stages of the trials when it would be expected that disruption would be at its worst. Both of them say that they would be able to provide more objective data given time, but that opportunity was never provided.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It's almost 20 years old. Before sat nav and google maps. Seven years before the iPhone came out.
> 
> You can't take cherry picked data from a road closure in Hobart Australia, a road closure in Nottingham in the 1970's, or data from roads that were closed for only one day and say 'hallelulia' this is the answer to our problems. Why use an old research paper when we have data from other LTNs?
> 
> What has this Waltham Forest LTN shown? I can see it is recent but can't find the data.


I've already posted this on this thread several times but if you want a more recent case study then you can look at the Ghent Circulation Plan.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Also someone on Nextdoor has the Walthamstow data and has written it up. I'll post it later when not on lunch but it's not good.


Well, do you have any proper studies of LTNs you can post up?.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> Sorry, I meant is there special access to roads for people who cannot walk or cycle because they are disabled? Or do they just have to suffer in traffic because they need to drive?
> I don't like how the disabled are always forgotten.


If you mean, can blue badge cars drive through the modal filters, then as I understand it the answer is no. I am not sure if this is because of technological limitations or something else. If it's something that would be possible to implement then I would probably support it.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If you mean, can blue badge cars drive through the modal filters, then as I understand it the answer is no. I am not sure if this is because of technological limitations or something else. If it's something that would be possible to implement then I would probably support it.


If there's the will it can be supported, blue badge holders drive through the congestion zone without charge.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> What has this Waltham Forest LTN shown? I can see it is recent but can't find the data.



An initial rise in traffic on the boundary roads which dropped back to previous level over time. An overall drop in traffic across the whole area, reduced pollution across the whole area, trend of increases in walking and cycling (but this was after just 1 year of large parts of implantation).

Satnavs have made the problems of rat running (and the need for LTNs) much worse.  They also give people a clearer indication of travel times - so they know if they're going to have to sit in congestion and maybe make a more sensible decision about how to travel. I don't see that age, location of case studies or SatNavs make any difference to the evidence for Traffic Evapaoration (which is also supported by a huge evidence base going back many more years showing that building more roads and increasing road network capacity doesn't decrease congestion, it just creates more trips and congestion stays the same.  The M25 and countless suburban bypasses in the UK showing this effect.  It's clear that traffic is not a fixed thing - if you make a pipe bigger, it grows to fill it, why is it so inconceivable that if you make the pipe smaller it shrinks to the space now allocated?


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If you mean, can blue badge cars drive through the modal filters, then as I understand it the answer is no. I am not sure if this is because of technological limitations or something else. If it's something that would be possible to implement then I would probably support it.


Why?  Most of these filters shouldn't be cameras - they should be full width closures (maybe with removable bollards or gates for emergency services if needed).  In nearly all cases the penalty on travel time is a few minutes (not 'hours') and cars are not the only way disabled people get about. BUT from a simple, practical perspective blue badges are linked to a person not a vehicle.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> If there's the will it can be supported, blue badge holders drive through the congestion zone without charge.


It's described as 100% discount, so I'm guessing they have to go into their congestion charge account and 'buy' a pass for that day for the vehicle they are using (which has no cost). theres also a real justification for it - CCZone adds significant cost to travel anywhere in zone 1 (basically).  We're talking about what is really a minor inconvenience in the case of an LTN


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> In nearly all cases the penalty on travel time is a few minutes (not 'hours') and cars are not the only way disabled people get about.


Agreed.

But, from a pragmatic point of view, if it were relatively simple to make it a feature of those gates that need to be controlled by camera anyway, then it might as well be done if it would reduce the number of reasons people could object. 

If it's something that's complicated to implement and which would compromise the functioning of the scheme then I agree with you, the additional small inconvenience to car-owning disabled people is outweighed by the benefits to all of those disabled people who have to rely on other means of transport.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> It's described as 100% discount, so I'm guessing they have to go into their congestion charge account and 'buy' a pass for that day for the vehicle they are using (which has no cost). theres also a real justification for it - CCZone adds significant cost to travel anywhere in zone 1 (basically).  We're talking about what is really a minor inconvenience in the case of an LTN


I already know blue badge holders can, rightly, go through the congestion charge for free if they pay a one off £10 fee.
I don't agree there is no justification for it in this scheme, which is designed to deter people from driving by making it more inconvenient. So a group of the population who already experience significant hardship will have their difficulties added to because right on transport schemes don't audit or can't be bothered to provide for disabled people. Just more marginalisation, more invisibility.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> right on transport schemes don't audit or can't be bothered to provide for disabled people.


I don't think that's true.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't think that's true.


This one hasn't.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> This one hasn't.


How do you know?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> How do you know?


Because there's no special accessibility for blue badge holders.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> Because there's no special accessibility for blue badge holders.


That doesn't tell you that it hasn't been considered. It may well have been considered, and decided that it was not practical, due to technical limitations, or necessary, due to the fact that no areas are made inaccessible and that the increase in journey times was considered tolerable. You might disagree with the conclusions but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That doesn't tell you that it hasn't been considered. It may well have been considered, and decided that it was not practical, due to technical limitations, or necessary, due to the fact that no areas are made inaccessible and that the increase in journey times was considered tolerable. You might disagree with the conclusions but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered.


Technical means cost, money before accessibility and inclusion.
I said didn't audit or couldn't be bothered. Not being willing to spend more to make a scheme more accessible fits into the latter.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> In the digital age when we can plan a route in 30 seconds on our phone we find out that 2-3 months is not enough time for people to adjust? Even with google maps the traffic was obscene!


Not everyone uses sat nav or Google maps though.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> Technical means cost, money before accessibility and inclusion.
> I said didn't audit or couldn't be bothered. Not being willing to spend more to make a scheme more accessible fits into the latter.


It would fit into the latter if funding wasn't finite.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It would fit into the latter if funding wasn't finite.


When finite excludes the needs of any sector of the population, in this case those with disabilities, it becomes exclusion.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 18, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Not everyone uses sat nav or Google maps though.


Though the reason LTNs are felt necessary by some is fulleed by the rise of both tools, both of which encourage and direct drivers to use residential streets as 'short cuts'. Once someone knows the 'better' route, they will always use it.
It's also why the social housing estates to the north have suddenly become more popular - SatNav redirecting people who would have used Atlantic Road, the Railton area, or CHL (but don't now suggest CHL becasue it shows on their satnav as too busy).  So we're already into secondary redirecting (away from the already redirected congestion to new congestion) and it's still the summer school holidays ..


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> When finite excludes the needs of any sector of the population, in this case those with disabilities, it becomes exclusion.


These schemes do not exclude the needs of those with disabilities.
For some of those with a disability and access to a car, it may lengthen some of their journey times by a small amount.
For some those with a disability and no access to a car, it is likely to reduce exclusion.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> These schemes do not exclude the needs of those with disabilities.
> For some of those with a disability and access to a car, it may lengthen some of their journey times by a small amount.
> For some those with a disability and no access to a car, it is likely to reduce exclusion.


I'm not sure what consultation was done with those with disabilities but I can already tell you that just in this short discussion one other poster and myself are already perceiving problems as we live with blue badge holders. Journey times with people with disabilities are already longer due to a number of factors, now added to by your 'small amount' which may be a longer amount if there are traffic jams. You assume a lot of things, typical of a person who doesn't have to manage disabilities on a day to day. 
How is it likely to reduce exclusion for those without access to a car?


----------



## editor (Aug 18, 2020)

This does rather suggest that local consultation was not exactly comprehensive
















						Residents demand disabled access for Brixton/Herne Hill low traffic neighbourhood scheme, July 2020
					

Two home made banners have appeared on Shakespeare Road in response to the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme which was introduced last month.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> I'm not sure what consultation was done with those with disabilities but I can already tell you that just in this short discussion one other poster and myself are already perceiving problems as we live with blue badge holders. Journey times with people with disabilities are already longer due to a number of factors, now added to by your 'small amount' which may be a longer amount if there are traffic jams.


If I were responsible for designing and monitoring one of these schemes (I'm not) then I'd certainly want to hear about and understand individual cases, and make adjustments where necessary. If it seemed an LTN was massively increasing journey times then I'd want to understand why, make sure it was really the LTN that was responsible for the delays and also give things time to settle down before jumping to conclusions, as discussed many times over.




nagapie said:


> typical of a person who doesn't have to manage disabilities on a day to day.


Not sure you can really tell me off for assuming things and then write this.



nagapie said:


> How is it likely to reduce exclusion for those without access to a car?


For example, there are lots of people with mobility issues, or visual or hearing impairments, who are able to walk a short distance but are put off from doing so by busy/dangerous/noisy roads. Might be a simple matter of how easy it is to cross the road. This kind of thing stops people from getting to local shops, bus stops, social events.

In a bigger picture sense, there are disabilities that mean people are unable to drive, whether or not they can afford a car. Car dependency is hugely exclusionary to those people.

And finally looking at things from the finite resources point of view, going a little outside of the scope of the LTNs I think it can make perfect sense to decide, for example, that money is better spent on things like making public transport fully accessible to all, than it is for minimising inconvenience to that portion of disabled people who have the privilege of private car access.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> And finally looking at things from the finite resources point of view, going a little outside of the scope of the LTNs I think it can make perfect sense to decide, for example, that money is better spent on things like making public transport fully accessible to all, than it is for minimising inconvenience to that portion of disabled people who have the privilege of private car access.



This paragraph on its own shows how little you understand about the issues involved.

Public transport on the whole is not very accessible at all for people with various disabilities and this scheme is not addressing that, you're clutching at straws. This is why many people make use of the motability scheme, which you do not need to be privileged to access just  in receipt of DLA.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie said:


> This paragraph on its own shows how little you understand about the issues involved.
> 
> Public transport on the whole is not very accessible at all for people with various disabilities and this scheme is not addressing that, you're clutching at straws. This is why many people make use of the motability scheme, which you do not need to be privileged to access just  in receipt of DLA.


You need to be physically able to drive, or have someone who can drive for you, do you not? It's not a solution that is available to all people with disabilities.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You need to be physically able to drive, or have someone who can drive for you, do you not? It's not a solution that is available to all people with disabilities.


I think you will find that all disabled children, at least, have parents who are also carers.
And many, if not the majority, are forced to drive because public transport is not suitable for children with behavioural and medical needs and barely suitable for those with mobility needs.
I wonder if the education transport buses will be allowed access to these now closed routes? Most of the children that travel on those already have very extended transport times to school because, you know, resources are finite.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 18, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The whole effect of an LTN is that it is High Traffic eveywhere around it - pollution is more concentrated. The peole posting here live on CHL.


I was responding to your complaint that there was not a single cycle lane inside an LTN and trying to explain why that was, but if you want to ignore that bit, go ahead. And I wasn't aware that this thread was only for people who live on CHL


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 18, 2020)

nagapie with apologies if you have already done this - can you voice your concerns also on the official consultation website with specific examples of the impact on people with disabilities? And encourage others to do so as well? For example your point about the school buses is really important. As I understand it, the schemes can be adjusted to take account of issues that arise following their rather speedy implementation.
Assuming Railton is your area:








						Comment on the temporary scheme
					

Give us your feedback on the temporary project and let us know about any specific improvements or issues by marking them on a map of the area




					rtstreets.commonplace.is


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 18, 2020)

I looked up the motability scheme.





__





						Motability Scheme - The Car and Scooter Scheme for disabled people
					

The Motability Scheme helps people with a disability exchange their mobility allowance for a new car, mobility scooter or electric wheelchair.




					www.motability.co.uk
				






> The Motability Scheme enables anyone in receipt of a higher rate mobility allowance (such as the Enhanced Rate of the Mobility Component of Personal Independence Payment or the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance) to use their mobility allowance to lease a car, scooter, powered wheelchair or Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle.



The assumption on this thread from some posters is that car ownership denotes privilege. They are sticking up for the deprived by curbing its use.

This is simplistic view.

For a disabled person the car gives them a level of independence they would not have had decades ago.

This is progress. Cars for some disabled mean they can have a fuller life. A life with dignity.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 18, 2020)

The thing I don't get about discussion of LTNs here is that on the one hand:

They are meant to make it more difficult to get around by car. So after a while people will learn new behaviors and for example walk to shops and back.

But when a poster says they find it more difficult to get around there is long series of posts about LTNs having little impact on getting around by car.

I don't get it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The thing I don't get about discussion of LTNs here is that on the one hand:
> 
> They are meant to make it more difficult to get around by car. So after a while people will learn new behaviors and for example walk to shops and back.
> 
> ...


These are still very new, so we are in that phase of learning new behaviours.

That said, disabled badge holders should be exempt but I can only presume it would cost to register and admin it.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The thing I don't get about discussion of LTNs here is that on the one hand:
> 
> They are meant to make it more difficult to get around by car. So after a while people will learn new behaviors and for example walk to shops and back.
> 
> ...


It's not that difficult to understand - there has to be a balance struck - the relative convenience of short car journeys made such that people will be persuaded to change behaviours, but not made so inconvenient that it becomes completely unreasonable for those who genuinely do need to use a car. And if there's not a system to exempt blue badge holders, then that obviously has some impact on what can be called reasonable.

As for privilege - it's great if the motability scheme can provide some disabled people mobility and independence - a good solution for those for whom it can work - but let's not pretend that this is a solution for all or most people with a disability.

If we are talking about mobility, then someone who has a disability which does not prevent them from driving a car (whether it's bought independently or provided via motability) does have a privilege over someone whose disability does not allow them to drive, and who does not have someone to drive them. They have to rely on public transport, walking, or other services.

If a livable neighbourhood scheme means that someone with a disability and a car can get everywhere they want to, but some journeys they make take a bit longer than they used to, then I think that's OK if it allows other people, with a whole range of disabilities that either don't allow them to drive or don't qualify them for things like the motability scheme, to have more freedom to do stuff like make independent trips to the local shops and other places.

If a scheme can be devised such that blue badge holders are exempt then that seems like the ideal solution, which is why I said above that I'd likely support it.


----------



## organicpanda (Aug 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Curious you said you enquired and the Coucil said no money to look into these problems. Not criticising. So that is what the Council said to you? If so that is concerning.


it was actually when the car smashed our wall, email from the councillor said that more needed to be done but there was no money due to TFL taking away the funding


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's not that difficult to understand - there has to be a balance struck - the relative convenience of short car journeys made such that people will be persuaded to change behaviours, but not made so inconvenient that it becomes completely unreasonable for those who genuinely do need to use a car. And if there's not a system to exempt blue badge holders, then that obviously has some impact on what can be called reasonable.
> 
> As for privilege - it's great if the motability scheme can provide some disabled people mobility and independence - a good solution for those for whom it can work - but let's not pretend that this is a solution for all or most people with a disability.
> 
> ...



It might be idea if Council asked disabled people what they what. Rather than assumptions be made for them. I do hope the Council will be doing that whilst these temporary LTNs are in place. 

I certainly don't know much about diability. I know a little and disability its not straightforward. Its not clear cut distinctions between which disabled person is more privileged than another.

Im glad nagapie has brought the issue of disability up.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> They didn't have months of data. There was supposed to be a review after 12 weeks, and this was pulled forward to 8 weeks. They attempted a review at 8 weeks under all the pressure from those calling for it to be abandoned. Your version of the responses from the emergency services:
> 
> The reason they were asked to provide data in an "unreasonable amount of time" was that this review was pulled forward, earlier than it should have been. If you read the actual responses from both the fire brigade and the ambulance service, they say that their opinion at that stage is based on perception, and by definition this perception was throughout the early stages of the trials when it would be expected that disruption would be at its worst. Both of them say that they would be able to provide more objective data given time, but that opportunity was never provided.



They had 8 weeks+ to gather data. They wanted 12 weeks. Doesn't sound unreasonable.

The 'unreasonable amount of time' relates to the amount of time that the emergency services were given to respond. They were consulted with regards tot he LTNs the same way people were. No special meetings. When Andy (ambulance service) spoke at the council meetings he plainly said he had been given three days to submit opinion and data relating to response times. They did not have the manpower spare to have someone work out every emergency services call which went through this area and compare it to similar calls.

To summarise some findings of official submissions

London Ambulance Service 

The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. However, their official response raised concerns regarding;

A perceived increase in traffic congestion
The reduction in available routes for general motor traffic having a knock-on effect on other roads and the potential to increase response and journey times
The use of physical barriers at a number of the closures reduces the number of available routes to emergency crews
Possible increases in pollution generated from stationary/slow moving traffic
London Fire Brigade 

The London Fire Brigade has raised a formal objection to the scheme based on;


Gridlocked roads throughout the Coldharbour Lane area
Specifically total gridlock at most times of the day and evening in Coldharbour Lane, Herne Hill Road, Hinton Road, Gresham Road and Barrington Road
Antisocial behaviour and poor/dangerous driving being witnessed by drivers including 3 point turns on crowded roads and driving on pavements
A significant knock on effect to surrounding roads as commuters and residents try and circumvent the closures
Coldharbour Lane is Primary Route for attending incidents and as such reduced attendance times have been experienced It was stated that it is too early to provide empirical data or evidence confirming the increase in journey times but the objection stands.
Metropolitan Police Service

The Metropolitan Police Service stated that it would raise no objection to the scheme at this stage as it is too early for any measurable analysis to have taken place

Kings College Hospital

KCT submitted a three page response to the review and the issues raised by KCH can be summarised as follows:


Better efforts should have been made at engagement with KCH before the introduction of the closures
Staff have experienced significant delays when travelling by bus or car
Delays and local road congestion is a cause for concern for patients, visitors and staff
Staff feedback of patients reporting difficulty arriving for appointment on time
An increase in queuing around Cutcombe and Caldicott Road, the main vehicle access routes to the hospital car park
Staff experiencing delays of between 20-30 minutes, results of which include added stress and an impact on managing work/life schedules including childcare
Concerns about road safety for pedestrians and cyclists
Loughborough Estate Management Board 

A written submission from the Chair of the LEMB raised a number of concerns including:


The detrimental effect on residents, staff, businesses and visitors to and from the estate 10
Vehicles using the private estate roads as a cut through and rat run to avoid the Barrington Road closure, endangering the lives of children and residents
Access difficulties for healthcare professionals and carers needing to visit vulnerable residents on the estate
Missed appointments at King’s College Hospital due to congestion of Coldharbour Lane
The effect of the closures on local businesses and longer journey times
Loughborough School 

The deputy head teacher at Loughborough Primary School raised the following concerns;


Complaints from teachers, other staff and the community
Journey times increasing due to build-up of traffic on Coldharbour Lane, Atlantic Road and Shakespeare Road
Increased traffic on estate roads
Confusion over traffic restrictions particularly in Barrington Road

and so on


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I've already posted this on this thread several times but if you want a more recent case study then you can look at the Ghent Circulation Plan.



With all the amazing LTNs in tn the UK why are people focusing on overseas? The council can't plant a tree without giving a write up of the impact so why not pick something in the UK? In London?

Let's look at Waltham Forest / Walthamstow LTN put in place in 2015 - the one that everyone keeps raving about. *This content is from another user on Nextdoor but is COUNCIL DATA - source below*

--------------------------



			http://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Village-Review-Report-FINAL.pdf
		


_Headline data "16 percent reduction in use of cars!"...but actual car use was only reduced by net one percent. _



_Walking and cycling up heavily but bear in mind there is the possibility of dirty data -  original survey was September (possibly bad weather, schools, etc) and follow up survey was June/July -(so better weather and possibly schools closed._




_Residents view on journeys. Heavy swing to worse - i.e even if you are in an LTN....you're surrounded by traffic when you want to get out._



Net results shows traffic swing to only have improved by 1%




_When residents decided to leave a comment it was 'open the roads please'._





_Only 2...not 2%...just two visitors to the area said the LTN made them decide to change their method of transport (and it doesn't say what the change was!)_




_47% of businesses say customer numbers decreased. 53% say turnover decreased. They do not split out 'increased' and 'stayed the same' which is worrying from an analysis point of view_




_56% of businesses said their suppliers had difficulty reaching them_




_46% of businesses against the scheme_



_Overall view of the LTN_


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Not everyone uses sat nav or Google maps though.



You don't actually challenge points you nit pick and inane comments like it makes them null.

So lets think about this;

We had google and sat nav moving people away from the traffic. in that area. In 2 months (8+ months for some streets!) people still had not adapt their behaviours because the traffic was still immense,....but with more time people would have changed....


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The thing I don't get about discussion of LTNs here is that on the one hand:
> 
> They are meant to make it more difficult to get around by car. So after a while people will learn new behaviors and for example walk to shops and back.
> 
> ...



In short they don't work or change behaviour See Loughborough Junction, see Walthamstow Forest/Village.

Look at all the alternatives. Amazon, online shopping (food, clothes etc), deliveroo, zipcar, uber, more buses, more bus routes, boris bikes, more cycle lanes. We have more choice than ever for not having a car.

Those who want to drive will keep driving and driving in London has been on the decrease since the late 90's. This is about creating as much misery as possible to speed up a process that is happening naturally anyway. I'm a legal courier and I am literally anxious at the thought of having to cycle through the idle traffic caused by a single LTN let alone the 3+ thrown into Lambeth alone.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well, do you have any proper studies of LTNs you can post up?.



See above/below at some point - waiting moderator approval because of pictures.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> You don't actually challenge points you nit pick and inane comments like it makes them null.



Not sure how that's a nit pick, I don't use sat nav for example. And so sorry if you find my comments inane. Not sure that automatically makes them null though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> You don't actually challenge points you nit pick and inane comments like it makes them null.
> 
> So lets think about this;
> 
> We had google and sat nav moving people away from the traffic. in that area. In 2 months (8+ months for some streets!) people still had not adapt their behaviours because the traffic was still immense,....but with more time people would have changed....


8 weeks is not long enough for changes to bed in. I know loads of people who don’t use sat nav.


----------



## Winot (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> In short they don't work or change behaviour See Loughborough Junction, see Walthamstow Forest/Village.



The Walthamstow scheme (which was completed unlike LJ) has changed behaviour. Walking and cycle use up. 









						'Mini-Holland' schemes have proved their worth in outer London boroughs | Peter Walker
					

Peter Walker: First formal study into their impact finds that boroughs with the schemes have boosted walking and cycling rates




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## nagapie (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's not that difficult to understand - there has to be a balance struck - the relative convenience of short car journeys made such that people will be persuaded to change behaviours, but not made so inconvenient that it becomes completely unreasonable for those who genuinely do need to use a car. And if there's not a system to exempt blue badge holders, then that obviously has some impact on what can be called reasonable.
> 
> As for privilege - it's great if the motability scheme can provide some disabled people mobility and independence - a good solution for those for whom it can work - but let's not pretend that this is a solution for all or most people with a disability.
> 
> ...


There's a lot of made up stuff in this post that you're hoping might be true. I would suggest from both personal and professional standpoints of my experience of disability, that only a fraction holds any merit.
Nevertheless the point still remains that people with disabilities feel excluded from this process and tweaking the scheme so it could be more helpful to those who do access motability is possible and should always be done. In fact I've had the finite resources argument from the mayor's office before. It was and remains a crap argument.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

Winot said:


> The Walthamstow scheme (which was completed unlike LJ) has changed behaviour. Walking and cycle use up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Positive....but no impact on car use. One year on.

Also I can't find when they sent the surveys (unless I missed it?). As we saw with Waltham when you ask people if they are cycling & walking more in summer the stats go up massively.

_"Firstly, Mini-Holland status (particularly being in the high-dose area) was associated with increased use of active travel at Wave 1,including an increased likelihood of any participation in past-week cycling. *One-year findings show as yet no evidence of change in car use*. Secondly, mini-Holland status (particularly being in the high-dose area) was associated with increasingly positive perception of the local cycling environment, and therefore a more positive overall perception of the local environment. "_

and their own criticism

_"However, there are weaknesses. Study power was relatively low, particularly for one of our primary outcomes, past-week cycling.Response rate was extremely low, and our sample does not fully represent the demographics of control or intervention areas (al-though the nature and the magnitude of the selection bias seems to be operating similarly between our intervention and controlgroups). The sample is made up of a combination of respondents to a household leaflet, and respondents from two TfL customerdatabases. This type of convenience sampling is common in evaluation studies of transport interventions (e.g.Crane et al., 2017;Panter et al., 2016), which tend to assume changes in a non-typical sample provide some proxy indication of changes in the widerpopulation. However, a more representative sample would provide more confidence that changes here are generalisable"_


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> To summarise some findings of official submissions
> 
> London Ambulance Service
> 
> ...


You're actually just posting up stuff which proves my points. Bizarre.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> You're actually just posting up stuff which proves my points. Bizarre.



As mentioned - an Ambulance service representative (Andy?) stood up at the meetings and, in addition to saying he was seeing delays, he said he literally could not compile the data in the 3 days the council gave them before they said they were forming the report. hmmm strange that. He had the data but could not pull it together in time - remember they are in Oval. Imagine having days to work out every amulance that had to go through that area, compare it to older journeys, etc.

He just took the opinion of his paramedics.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> They had 8 weeks+ to gather data. They wanted 12 weeks. Doesn't sound unreasonable.



It's not unreasonable. Like I already said, the scheme was designed to have feedback at the 12 week point. That didn't happen, because under pressure Lambeth pulled the review period forwards by a month. They shouldn't have done that. The result is that all the responses we have are based only on the initial period of operation, the period where disruption is not unexpected. This was compounded by the fact that the scheme was barely enforced at the beginning, with many people continuing to simply drive through the barriers. So it didn't even really come into play until some point into that 8 week period.



Jeanette Moo said:


> The 'unreasonable amount of time' relates to the amount of time that the emergency services were given to respond. They were consulted with regards tot he LTNs the same way people were. No special meetings. When Andy (ambulance service) spoke at the council meetings he plainly said he had been given three days to submit opinion and data relating to response times. They did not have the manpower spare to have someone work out every emergency services call which went through this area and compare it to similar calls.
> 
> To summarise some findings of official submissions
> 
> ...



The pattern with each of these organisations is that they are reporting perceived increase in journey times in the early stages of the scheme. There is some back and forth with the council where things like physical barriers which weren't supposed to be there are removed. There's also some discussion of the problematic temporary traffic lights that were operating at the Herne Hill Rd junction, and at some point these are removed and an improvement in traffic flow is observed. In actual fact, the last email from the LAS states that they have looked at the data, and this is what they say:




> The data is now back from our Management Information department and whilst there isn’t conclusive evidence that journey times on emergency calls in the area are significantly extended, there are indications that some journeys are being extended. However whilst we would still like to maintain our position that it is likely that journey times have been detrimentally impacted upon by the scheme, we would not be comfortable using such a small dataset (an eight week period which appears to show times increasing in the range of 1 to 2 minutes on average), to formally object to the scheme.
> 
> Confirmation that road closures will not be maintained with physical barriers if the scheme were to be approved also provides some reassurance regarding access and running times.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

Found an article talking about his comments.

Not 'Andy' - John.

In addition - when the council asks for data which they don't actually want to see they do exactly this - give a few days. It's like when a reporter is about to announce a story and *just *before they click submit they send an email to the person/company asking for comment. They don't really want a comment they just want to say they asked and received nothing back


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> As mentioned - an Ambulance service representative (Andy?) stood up at the meetings and, in addition to saying he was seeing delays, he said he literally could not compile the data in the 3 days the council gave them before they said they were forming the report. hmmm strange that. He had the data but could not pull it together in time - remember they are in Oval. Imagine having days to work out every amulance that had to go through that area, compare it to older journeys, etc.
> 
> He just took the opinion of his paramedics.


What part of this sentence are you not understanding?

The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> What part of this sentence are you not understanding?
> 
> The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times.



They did state that an increase in traffic and stood up at council meetings to state there was an impact to journey times. As did the fire brigade, as did representatives for local hospitals.

Have you ever tried to pull together stats around journey times pre and post implementation for a small area which you cover? The council sits there having a dedicated team counting cars on CCTV; these services have to actually pull together detailed stats which could take months AND pull resources from other needed teams. They said their bit, they were not prepared to put the leg work into disproving something they already stood up and said hurts them and was in the process of being booted out.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> They did state that an increase in traffic and stood up at council meetings to state there was an impact to journey times. As did the fire brigade, as did representatives for local hospitals.
> 
> Have you ever tried to pull together stats around journey times pre and post implementation for a small area which you cover? The council sits there having a dedicated team counting cars on CCTV; these services have to actually pull together detailed stats which could take months AND pull resources from other needed teams. They said their bit, they were not prepared to put the leg work into disproving something they already stood up and said hurts them and was in the process of being booted out.


They said that is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. Which it was.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> With all the amazing LTNs in tn the UK why are people focusing on overseas? The council can't plant a tree without giving a write up of the impact so why not pick something in the UK? In London?
> 
> Let's look at Waltham Forest / Walthamstow LTN put in place in 2015 - the one that everyone keeps raving about. *This content is from another user on Nextdoor but is COUNCIL DATA - source below*
> 
> ...



I could also go through that report and pull out the individual graphs that show the most positive results.

It's true that the findings at that point were that residents were not using their cars less, even though people seemed to be walking and cycling more.

The results from traffic counts did show quite substantial differences though, with the amount of traffic, and speeds, within the zone decreasing.



Yes, they observed increases on some surrounding roads but the view of the report (which I know many will disagree with) is that these are outweighed by the benefits seen within the zone.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

_"The data is now back from our Management Information department and whilst there isn’t conclusive evidence that journey times on emergency calls in the area are significantly extended, there are indications that some journeys are being extended. However whilst we would still like to maintain our position that it is likely that journey times have been detrimentally impacted upon by the scheme, we would not be comfortable using such a small dataset (an eight week period which appears to show times increasing in the range of 1 to 2 minutes on average), to formally object to the scheme.

Confirmation that road closures will not be maintained with physical barriers if the scheme were to be approved also provides some reassurance regarding access and running times. "_

What's the source for this? The average ambulance service responds to emergency calls in under 7 minutes. 1-2 minutes is almost a 30% increase


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I could also go through that report and pull out the individual graphs that show the most positive results.
> 
> It's true that the findings at that point were that residents were not using their cars less, even though people seemed to be walking and cycling more.
> 
> ...



Surprise and roads are closed off and traffic on said roads reduces. In other news water is wet.

It also reports that public transport both within and outside the zone saw increases in journey times. One route from 18 minutes to 25 minutes (main report)


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> _"The data is now back from our Management Information department and whilst there isn’t conclusive evidence that journey times on emergency calls in the area are significantly extended, there are indications that some journeys are being extended. However whilst we would still like to maintain our position that it is likely that journey times have been detrimentally impacted upon by the scheme, we would not be comfortable using such a small dataset (an eight week period which appears to show times increasing in the range of 1 to 2 minutes on average), to formally object to the scheme.
> 
> Confirmation that road closures will not be maintained with physical barriers if the scheme were to be approved also provides some reassurance regarding access and running times. "_
> 
> What's the source for this? The average ambulance service responds to emergency calls in under 7 minutes. 1-2 minutes is almost a 30% increase


It's in the appendix to the Lambeth report. The chain of emails is there.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> They said that is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. Which it was.



......but still stood up and said it was noticeable. They did not have the manpower or time to measure the impact but firmly threw their hat in the 'NOT GOOD' pile.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It also reports that public transport both within and outside the zone saw increases in journey times. One route from 18 minutes to 25 minutes (main report)



Here's what it actually says about bus performance. Please excuse messy formatting.

Some routes see a slight increase, some see a slight improvement.



> Summary of bus performance
> 
> 
> Due to the number of bus routes running on the surrounding roads any changes in bus performance before and after the implementation of the scheme will give us an indication of the overall performance of the wider road network. TfL has a number of key bus journey performance indicators, which are: Journey times, Excess waiting times and mileage completed.
> ...


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's in the appendix to the Lambeth report. The chain of emails is there.



So up to a 30% increase in emergency response times....and that is just time to patient. Add time to hospital and it's more (and Kings Hospital highlighted their own issues around traffic)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> ......but still stood up and said it was noticeable. They did not have the manpower or time to measure the impact but firmly threw their hat in the 'NOT GOOD' pile.
> 
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


What is this bullshit?. One paramedic in a meeting Vs their official response.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> So up to a 30% increase in emergency response times....and that is just time to patient. Add time to hospital and it's more (and Kings Hospital highlighted their own issues around traffic)


We don't know whether it's time to patient, or how the increases stacked up over different types of callout. What we do know is that the amount of data was insufficient to come to a conclusion either way, that it was based only on the very initial, maximal disruption, period of operation, that it would very likely have changed over time, and that the LAS decided they did not want to object to the scheme.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> What is this bullshit?. One paramedic in a meeting Vs their official response.



Let's summarise what we had:

1.) An Ambulance Service Team Leader, responsible for one of three entire shifts, represented the ambulance service and spend his 5 minutes at the meeting lambasting the LTN He gave information fed back from the Oval Service as a whole. Congestion, traffic, delays, barriers. He did this in a room full of residents, business owners and - importantly - local press. He knew he was a spokesman for Oval Ambulance Service. He introduced himself as such - I was one of the few hundred in the room.

In addition he said it was difficult for them to quantify exact measurements because they would need a dedicated team to analyse the routes, typical response times and other factors. The Fire Brigade (not present at the meeting) said similar - gridlock, not enough time to measure (the 8 week period does seem pretty important BUT they all said despite the measurement difficulties they were confident giving such feedback.)

2.) Figures from the Ambulance Service in which they say delays of 1-2 minutes were seen which is an average increase of up to 30% on an emergency call out times.

Just because they did not formally object does not make the impact evidence and their statements any less relevant


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

From the London Fire Brigade appendix comments:

_" In the opinion of some of my longer serving officers at Brixton they have never known such a build up of congestion in all their time at the station and in the strongest possible terms would like their objections to this scheme noted on the above mentions points."_

They may not be able to pull data together but like the Ambulance service they trust and freely share the opinions of their guys on the ground. Oh, and the Fire Brigade did formally object based on the above.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Let's summarise what we had:
> 
> 1.) An Ambulance Service Team Leader, responsible for one of three entire shifts, represented the ambulance service and spend his 5 minutes at the meeting lambasting the LTN He gave information fed back from the Oval Service as a whole. Congestion, traffic, delays, barriers. He did this in a room full of residents, business owners and - importantly - local press. He knew he was a spokesman for Oval Ambulance Service. He introduced himself as such - I was one of the few hundred in the room.
> 
> ...


Why are you ignoring this?

The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme *as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. *


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

People are so attached to their cars. it's ridiculous.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why are you ignoring this?
> 
> The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme *as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. *



Why are you ignoring that when they did give information about journey times they estimated up to a 30% increase in emergency response times based on the London average. Yes, the did not formally complain but they DID give stats.

The fire brigade didn't give stats but DID formally complain. The formally complaining bit is a 'formality' it seems


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Why are you ignoring that when they did give information about journey times they estimated up to a 30% increase in emergency response times based on the London average. Yes, the did not formally complain but they DID give stats.
> 
> The fire brigade didn't give stats but DID formally complain. The formally complaining bit is a 'formality' it seems


Because it was too early to get reliable measurements, as we have been saying for the past few pages and as they said in their statement.

There could have been a  30% increase, but we'll never know as the scheme did not have enough time.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> People are so attached to their cars. it's ridiculous.



Is this aimed at me?

I'm a legal courier. A bicycle courier, I get legal documents which much be physically signed and delivered to their destination. It might be a court, it might be another solicitor. I've done it for 10 years and I may deliver papers between two solicitors within Lambeth or Isleworth County Court to Stratford.

I've lived through the traffic and misery caused by one LTN, now to have loads popping up?! Take it from someone has no love for cars and, to my own guilt, a bit of hate for pedestrians these schemes bring no joy to cyclists who have experienced them.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Because it was too early to get reliable measurements, as we have been saying for the past few pages and as they said in their statement.
> 
> There could have been a  30% increase, but we'll never know as the scheme did not have enough time.



Well, they made a call on email which they knew they could be held accountable to under the FOI act. That's a big thing - this is why the email trails are so non-committal and coy. But..they gave a figure.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Because it was too early to get reliable measurements, as we have been saying for the past few pages and as they said in their statement.
> 
> There could have been a  30% increase, but we'll never know as the scheme did not have enough time.



Same from the police - not enough info. They note the ongoing traffic light signal changes (unrelated to teh LTN) and specifically state that they think the scheme is stil in its "transitional period".



> Thank you for the meeting on Tuesday 3rd November and appraising us with the current position regarding this experimental scheme.
> Firstly we support any scheme which reduces or has a likelihood to reduce casualties.
> We also have to take into consideration traffic flows, congestion and the effects of displaced traffic. There is also the compounded traffic problems created by the local signal modernisation programme.
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I've lived through the traffic and misery caused by one LTN,


You've lived through the misery caused by the very initial period of a badly implemented LTN which was abandoned long before anyone could expect that traffic to have settled into new patterns.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You've lived through the misery caused by the very initial period of a badly implemented LTN which was abandoned long before anyone could expect that traffic to have settled into new patterns.



Lived through almost a year of a LTN in my neighborhood where traffic was misery, I was spending all day filtering through it and the traffic impact was felt right up until some time in 2016 when the final roads were opened. Looking at Waltham it didn't seem to work out either, net 1% less car use. I now understand why so few councils do write-ups about these schemes.

Based on what others say I agree - LTNs don't reduce traffic, they create bubbles where there are no cars and the traffic finds other routes...which inevitably clog up.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Is this aimed at me?
> 
> I'm a legal courier. A bicycle courier, I get legal documents which much be physically signed and delivered to their destination. It might be a court, it might be another solicitor. I've done it for 10 years and I may deliver papers between two solicitors within Lambeth or Isleworth County Court to Stratford.
> 
> I've lived through the traffic and misery caused by one LTN, now to have loads popping up?! Take it from someone has no love for cars and, to my own guilt, a bit of hate for pedestrians these schemes bring no joy to cyclists who have experienced them.


You are literally the only bike courier I've come across that's complained about filtering through traffic. I cycle myself and I do it all the time, it's part of cycling in London. There has been a massive increase in cycling due to the LTNs.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Lived through almost a year of a LTN in my neighborhood where traffic was misery,


Are we still talking about the LJ experiment?

It was introduced at the end of August 2015, and was abandoned by the end of November. That's 3 months, not "almost a year".


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> You are literally the only bike courier I've come across that's complained about filtering through traffic. I cycle myself and I do it all the time, it's part of cycling in London. There has been a massive increase in cycling due to the LTNs.



Part of cycling is London is traffic. Filtering stationary traffic is something I hate - especially when it's been caused by a system to reduce traffic which actually doesn't.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Are we still talking about the LJ experiment?
> 
> It was introduced at the end of August 2015, and was abandoned by the end of November. That's 3 months, not "almost a year".



Incorrect. 

Some roads were opened in November. All roads were finally opened around June 2016.


----------



## Aristocrat (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I've lived through the traffic and misery caused by one LTN, now to have loads popping up?! Take it from someone has no love for cars and, to my own guilt, a bit of hate for pedestrians these schemes bring no joy to cyclists who have experienced them.



Apart from this cyclist. Oh - and my partner - who wasn't prepared to cycle beyond the neighbourhood before April. And several people on my street who have been inspired to get on bikes in London for the first time.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Some roads were opened in November. All roads were finally opened around June 2016.


Which ones stayed closed until June? I thought it was just a few minor ones (like Padfield Rd) that were not the controversial ones.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Which ones stayed closed until June? I thought it was just a few minor ones (like Padfield Rd) that were not the controversial ones.



Padfield and my street, Calais.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Apart from this cyclist. Oh - and my partner - who wasn't prepared to cycle beyond the neighbourhood before April. And several people on my street who have been inspired to get on bikes in London for the first time.



Wait for the traffic. I loved the idea of the LTN. Next thing I'm attending community things against them.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Padfield and my street, Calais.


What was the misery caused while just those two streets were closed? Are you saying that they by themselves caused congestion that affected you as a cyclist?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Wait for the traffic.


Then wait until then scheme has time to bed in.


----------



## Aristocrat (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Wait for the traffic. I loved the idea of the LTN. Next thing I'm attending community things against them.


I am waiting. Traffic levels are back to where they were pre-lockdown, yet cycling in the LTN is much more pleasant than it was this time last year and on the roads around the edge of the LTN it's still much quieter than usual. Traffic levels


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What was the misery caused while just those two streets were closed? Are you saying that they by themselves caused congestion that affected you as a cyclist?



Yes and affected me as a resident. The traffic built up at both ends of the road and had a knock on effect for some distance. Just like how an an LTN in Croydon is now affecting Bromley so much one is thinking of taking legal action against the other. 

Then factor in the little personal things which you don't realise until these are in place . No visitors even with permits, if you want a taxi you have to meet them at the end of the road. Amazon deliveries would get to you but if you had a worse company like hermes or a.n.other you could bet they would skip your delivery and let the next days driver do it because they didn't want to park up another street and walk it.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2020)

Petition hits a thousand signatures









						Petition calls for the immediate removal of Railton Road LTN traffic restrictions in Brixton
					

Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme continues to be a divisive issue, with a new petition being launched demanding the immediate removal of the traffic restrictions in Railton Road.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Manter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> From the London Fire Brigade appendix comments:
> 
> _" In the opinion of some of my longer serving officers at Brixton they have never known such a build up of congestion in all their time at the station and in the strongest possible terms would like their objections to this scheme noted on the above mentions points."_
> 
> They may not be able to pull data together but like the Ambulance service they trust and freely share the opinions of their guys on the ground. Oh, and the Fire Brigade did formally object based on the above.


Emergency services can use the LTNs as they like- use them as shortcuts etc- so this suggest a misunderstanding


----------



## Manter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes and affected me as a resident. The traffic built up at both ends of the road and had a knock on effect for some distance. Just like how an an LTN in Croydon is now affecting Bromley so much one is thinking of taking legal action against the other.
> 
> Then factor in the little personal things which you don't realise until these are in place . No visitors even with permits, if you want a taxi you have to meet them at the end of the road. Amazon deliveries would get to you but if you had a worse company like hermes or a.n.other you could bet they would skip your delivery and let the next days driver do it because they didn't want to park up another street and walk it.


This isn't true.  Seems like a lot of problems with this are understanding not the LTN


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

Manter said:


> Emergency services can use the LTNs as they like- use them as shortcuts etc- so this suggest a misunderstanding



Agree. However their early complaints were that they were stuck at barriers and the fire brigade reported heavy congestion.. 'Gridlock'. Access to a few streets is little consolation when looking at half a mile of traffic on a main road and driving one of the largest response vehicles we have.


----------



## Manter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Agree. However their early complaints were that they were stuck at barriers and the fire brigade reported heavy congestion.. 'Gridlock'. Access to a few streets is little consolation when looking at half a mile of traffic on a main road and driving one of the largest response vehicles we have.


how can they be stuck at barriers? There aren't any.  There are planters.  And the point is that while everyone else chugs down a main road, the ambulances etc can take shortcuts.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> There has been a massive increase in cycling due to the LTNs.



Can you share any more details?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Can you share any more details?


Well I can only speak about the one I'm close to, Railton, but there are loads of cyclists using that road now.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

Manter said:


> This isn't true.  Seems like a lot of problems with this are understanding not the LTN



This is first hand experience from the LJ LTN years ago. I know they are petty points but I'm just highlighting the little things you take for granted and many forget.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

Manter said:


> how can they be stuck at barriers? There aren't any.  There are planters.  And the point is that while everyone else chugs down a main road, the ambulances etc can take shortcuts.



We were discussing the LJ LTN which blocked off routes. Not literal barriers but barriers of entry. Access roads closed.


----------



## Manter (Aug 19, 2020)

So stuff years and years ago that doesn’t apply now is being drawn forward to try and undermine what’s being done now? What an odd approach,


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 19, 2020)

Manter said:


> So stuff years and years ago that doesn’t apply now is being drawn forward to try and undermine what’s being done now? What an odd approach,



Past experience of an LTN on our doorstep. A few years ago. 

Yet people laud about some study written 20 years ago and taking data from the 70's and as far as Australia like its the 10 commandments and one god will come and evaporate traffic.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well I can only speak about the one I'm close to, Railton, but there are loads of cyclists using that road now.



I'm also close to Railton. The number of cyclists has increased dramatically. People are losing sight of the aim of the LTNs here. If Covid thrives at 4C or thereabouts and assuming it will be delighted to piggy-back on the flu virus, things could get very, very nasty in the winter. Anything to lessen pressure on public transport will surely be a good thing at that point.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 19, 2020)

Some of the anti Railton LTN responses on the petition are worth reading for the lols.


----------



## Jesterburger (Aug 19, 2020)

editor said:


> Petition hits a thousand signatures
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's hard to tell with this type of petition what % are locals, vs the % who are the drivers from outside the area who the LTN is meant to inconvenience vs the % of non-locals who hate all LTNs - these petitions get circulated on Twitter and Facebook so it's hard to know if they can be trusted (I feel the same about any petitions the other way)


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 19, 2020)

I can see at least one ex resident that I know has signed it - I assume because they’re still members of the reclaim Brixton FB group where Ed posted it. 

They now live 70 miles away.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 19, 2020)

And don't forget the Association of British Drivers who have told me they are too busy to give me any examples of alternatives to LTNs ( of which there are many apparently) because they are fighting LTNs all around the country. They are sharing details of local petitions/feedback websites on their national website and calling for members to sign them.


----------



## Winot (Aug 19, 2020)

There is no good reason why petitions (for or against) should be influential either way in the consultation.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Manter said:


> how can they be stuck at barriers? There aren't any.  There are planters.  And the point is that while everyone else chugs down a main road, the ambulances etc can take shortcuts.


This was about the LJ scheme. They were stuck at barriers because in that scheme, Lambeth had somehow managed to install physical barriers at locations where they were not supposed to. These physical barriers were removed a few weeks after installation.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This was about the LJ scheme. They were stuck at barriers because in that scheme, Lambeth had somehow managed to install physical barriers at locations where they were not supposed to. These physical barriers were removed a few weeks after installation.


I live there I don't remember this at all. Can you remind us of the location/s (pssst: I think we all know you can't)?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> It's hard to tell with this type of petition what % are locals, vs the % who are the drivers from outside the area who the LTN is meant to inconvenience vs the % of non-locals who hate all LTNs - these petitions get circulated on Twitter and Facebook so it's hard to know if they can be trusted (I feel the same about any petitions the other way)



The same applies to the Lambeth commonplace website for comments on the scheme. How to verify if comments come from people living in the area is not possible

One aim of LTNs is to make car journeys inside the LTNs a bit longer as well. To encourage people to walk instead.

So LTNs aren't just about stopping/ inconveniencing through traffic.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Then factor in the little personal things which you don't realise until these are in place . No visitors even with permits, if you want a taxi you have to meet them at the end of the road. Amazon deliveries would get to you but if you had a worse company like hermes or a.n.other you could bet they would skip your delivery and let the next days driver do it because they didn't want to park up another street and walk it.


I don't quite understand this - the road was closed to motor vehicles only at one point wasn't it? So you could drive up to the closure point from either side? Why no visitors?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I live there I don't remember this at all. Can you remind us of the location/s (pssst: I think we all know you can't)?


 
Yes, they are stated in an officer's email in an appendix to the Lambeth report:     




> I would like to confirm the temporary barriers were introduced at four locations on 11 September. These were at Barrington Road, Gordon Grove, Calais Street and Lilford Road. At Barrington Road, a 3 metre gap was maintained for the emergency services at all times. Loughborough Road has remained fully open for the emergency services and buses except for a Car Free Day event on Saturday 26 September.
> 
> The temporary barriers at Barrington Road, Lilford Road and Gordon Grove were removed on 24 September and the barriers at Calais Street were removed on 5 October.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2020)

The LJ scheme is relevant as it was Lambeth failing abysmally to consult and get people on side to support the scheme.

The Pandemic has meant that Lambeth have been able to put schemes in place without full consultation beforehand.

As I've said previously Im not happy with this.

Let's a supposed Labour Coop Council off the hook.

In theory full  consultation will resume once pandemic is over. I really hope this time Council will have all the research done on how these temporary LTNs have worked.  Changes to traffic etc.

So people living in the LTNs can decide if they want them or not Or want to keep them with changes.

Such as free movement in LTN for Blue badge holder. Or remove filter on Shakespeare road.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 19, 2020)

New zebra crossing on Milkwood Road has been installed as part of this.


----------



## editor (Aug 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The same applies to the Lambeth commonplace website for comments on the scheme. How to verify if comments come from people living in the area is not possible


Exactly. Hardly anyone even knows about these websites anyway.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2020)

editor said:


> Petition hits a thousand signatures
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Read some of the comments and looks like a lot of local people have signed it. Recognise one local name.

So this petition is not to be laughed at.

Or dismissed as a put up job by the car lobby.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2020)

A lot of the opposition to these LTN would go if people who live in them could have an exemption to allow them to get around the "filters".

Railton Road LTN is largely for reducing through traffic on Railton road.

This from what Ive seen looking at the Commonplace website is supported by residents.

The overwhelming amount of traffic in Railton LTN was traffic not stopping there just going through.

So seems to me reasonable compromise to make. Allow people living in the Railton LTN area to be able to go through the filters. Whilst stopping all the through traffic that is not stopping just going through.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

So you don't think much of the opposition is actually to do with concerns about traffic being concentrated around the peripheries?


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> So you don't think much of the opposition is actually to do with concerns about traffic being concentrated around the peripheries?



Yes I do as well. As you know Ive posted previously. 

Thankyou for pointing it out so I can repeat what I said previously.

Unless anything has changed on the Commonplace website and now those on periphery love the LTN


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2020)

Im trying to think of practical ways that an LTN could be accepted by a local community. 

Without a repeat of what I saw happen in LJ. The divisions. resentments and distrust of Council still simmer away in LJ. Despite the road closures being dropped some years back. It did the community in LJ no good imo.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> A lot of the opposition to these LTN would go if people who live in them could have an exemption to allow them to get around the "filters".
> 
> Railton Road LTN is largely for reducing through traffic on Railton road.
> 
> ...


How would you define people living in the Railton LTN area though?

You’ve got to weigh up the cost of administering a system like that vs people having an extra 10 mins on their journey.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 19, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Some of the anti Railton LTN responses on the petition are worth reading for the lols.


So they are!


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> How would you define people living in the Railton LTN area though?
> 
> You’ve got to weigh up the cost of administering a system like that vs people having an extra 10 mins on their journey.



I haven't got to do anything.

Pretty easy to define who lives in area - use the Council boundaries.

So in principle you aren't against the idea.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

teuchter said:


> So they are!


The irony.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I haven't got to do anything.
> 
> Pretty easy to define who lives in area - use the Council boundaries.
> 
> So in principle you aren't against the idea.


The council boundaries as in the whole borough?


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The council boundaries as in the whole borough?



Actually, I think this idea is viable. The enforcement of the scheme works by using ANPR, in other words numberplate recognition. Cars are registered to specific addresses. You could easily define addresses within the boundaries of the LTNs.

It’s something that certainly should be looked at in terms of the modelling, and it’s a compromise that I might be prepared to make depending on the outcome of that modelling.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 20, 2020)

Winot said:


> Actually, I think this idea is viable. The enforcement of the scheme works by using ANPR, in other words numberplate recognition. Cars are registered to specific addresses. You could easily define addresses within the boundaries of the LTNs.
> 
> It’s something that certainly should be looked at in terms of the modelling, and it’s a compromise that I might be prepared to make depending on the outcome of that modelling.



This will totally screw with things like satnavs as they don’t have the concept of road tolls which are variable per habited postcode.

( and this would have the benefit of forcing people who don’t “know“ to use arterial routes )

I think the anpr solution is a goer, free if you live within a mile, a tenner a go if you don’t.

It already happens in dulwich Tollgate and roads

Alex

Alex


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2020)

alex_ said:


> This will totally screw with things like satnavs as they don’t have the concept of road tolls which are variable per habited postcode.
> 
> ( and this would have the benefit of forcing people who don’t “know“ to use arterial routes )
> 
> ...



I don’t want to see ‘pay per use‘ LTNs as that just benefits the well-off. I was just suggesting that it should be practical to adapt the existing model to allow a carve-out for people living within the LTN.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 20, 2020)

Winot said:


> I don’t want to see ‘pay per use‘ LTNs as that just benefits the well-off. I was just suggesting that it should be practical to adapt the existing model to allow a carve-out for people living within the LTN.



I was being facetious, a toll is always affordable to someone.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

Winot said:


> I don’t want to see ‘pay per use‘ LTNs as that just benefits the well-off.


Yeah, like no one wants that. Have you made your socialy distanced booking with Foxton's yet ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

Winot said:


> I don’t want to see ‘pay per use‘ LTNs as that just benefits the well-off. I was just suggesting that it should be practical to adapt the existing model to allow a carve-out for people living within the LTN.


No, I was asking if he meant council boundaries - i.e anyone in the whole borough could drive through the gates.


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Yeah, like no one wants that. Have you made your socialy distanced booking with Foxton's yet ...



Fuck off troll.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

Check out those sharp elbows ..


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2020)

New statement from the somewhat mysterious OneOval OneOval campaign cites Fire Brigade safety issues with the Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood
Buzz will run a response from Save Oval Streets shortly.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 20, 2020)

If looking out the window counts as evidence, the ability for fire engines to get from the Brixton site to Tulse Hill has reduced as they now have a long relatively empty railton road to use at speed and seem to be preferring that to Dulwich Road (which has more obstacles and junctions).


----------



## newbie (Aug 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> In theory full  consultation will resume once pandemic is over. I really hope this time Council will have all the research done on how these temporary LTNs have worked.  Changes to traffic etc.
> 
> So people living in the LTNs can decide if they want them or not Or want to keep them with changes.
> 
> Such as free movement in LTN for Blue badge holder. Or remove filter on Shakespeare road.


why should decisions devolve only to those most likely to see benefit, whether financial or quality of life?  Does no-one else deserve a say?


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2020)

Anti Railton Road LTN website




__





						Action against Railton LTN | One Railton | Brixton
					

Action against Railton LTN undemocratic road closures imposed without consultation




					www.onerailton.co.uk
				







__





						About Us | One Railton
					






					www.onerailton.co.uk
				




They get a bit carried away here 



> Brixton’s past social divisions are well documented – the 1981 Brixton riots began on Railton Road, the “Front Line”. In more recent years, the area has seen rapid changes and gentrification. Areas that were previously viewed by outsiders as no-go zones have become desirable and expensive places to live. At a time when we as a country are confronting the traumas and legacies of our colonial past, and awareness and support for causes such as Black Lives Matter are at an all time high, the implementation of the LTN in its current form (without proper consultation with BAME residents) feels thoughtless and politically tone deaf (albeit unintentional). Where before barricades were put up by those fighting the system, today they are erected by the council dividing the community and giving the LTN the feel of a gated community risking serious damage to social and racial cohesion in the area.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 20, 2020)

Almost identical introduction copy as the one oval / one Dulwich ones etc.

Also full of factual inaccuracies which make some of the valid points less credible.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Almost identical introduction copy as the one oval / one Dulwich ones etc.
> 
> Also full of factual inaccuracies which make some of the valid points less credible.


Trying to slip in a racial angle is despicable.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 20, 2020)

editor said:


> Trying to slip in a racial angle is despicable.



I don’t think it’s wrong to question equity / equality in this as newbie has pointed out, but ‘barricades’?

Also I now have Spandau Ballet in my head.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

editor said:


> New statement from the somewhat mysterious OneOval OneOval campaign cites Fire Brigade safety issues with the Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood
> Buzz will run a response from Save Oval Streets shortly.


You can run this response from the council also:


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The council boundaries as in the whole borough?



The council has drawn a boundary for the Brixton Liveable neighborhood.

It's divided that area into sub sections. Railton LTN is one of the sub sections. Hence the name.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The council has drawn a boundary for the Brixton Liveable neighborhood.
> 
> It's divided that area into sub sections. Railton LTN is one of the sub sections. Hence the name.


Ok, So only people living in the LTN. Like I said earlier they would have to weigh up the cost of administering the scheme Vs an extra 10 or 15 or so mins saved for drivers. Are any of the other London LTNs that have been rolled out doing this?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ok, So only people living in the LTN. Like I said earlier they would have to weigh up the cost of administering the scheme Vs an extra 10 or 15 or so mins saved for drivers. Are any of the other London LTNs that have been rolled out doing this?


There's one in Fulham(?) that was discussed upthread, although slightly different arrangement.


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2020)

Whatever you think about LTNs, they're definitely divisive and ripe for political exploitation 









						Save Oval Streets hits back at OneOval’s ‘misleading information’ about emergency access to the the Oval Triangle LTN
					

Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme continues  to prove a contentious and hugely divisive issue, spawning petitions and counter petitions, pressure groups and what some feel are …



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 20, 2020)

alex_ said:


> This will totally screw with things like satnavs as they don’t have the concept of road tolls which are variable per habited postcode.
> ...
> Alex


Don't know about others but in waze you can enter exemptions from tolls/blocked zones if you have one.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 20, 2020)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> Don't know about others but in waze you can enter exemptions from tolls/blocked zones if you have one.



didn’t know that, handy


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 20, 2020)

editor said:


> Whatever you think about LTNs, they're definitely divisive and ripe for political exploitation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lots of BDA / Black Cab / LTDA and UKIP involvement in the Islington anti groups who then get retweeted by racist anti Sadiq Khan bots.


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ok, So only people living in the LTN. Like I said earlier they would have to weigh up the cost of administering the scheme Vs an extra 10 or 15 or so mins saved for drivers.



You and I don't see 10/15 mins extra driving being a big deal but obviously many do. Whilst I'd love to be purist about this, I see it essentially as a political compromise to remove at a stroke the objections of those inside the zone.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 20, 2020)

I think it’s a perfect opportunity for the police to include facial recognition cameras with the ANPR ones. Ties the person to a vehicle and it’s a winner. Yes I am joking


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2020)

I just watched two people drive right through the Shakespeare Rd gate in the time it took me to walk past.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

Winot said:


> You and I don't see 10/15 mins extra driving being a big deal but obviously many do. Whilst I'd love to be purist about this, I see it essentially as a political compromise to remove at a stroke the objections of those inside the zone.


The thing is, if you're driving around london you can easily spend 10 mins stationary in traffic, especially in busy times.


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The thing is, if you're driving around london you can easily spend 10 mins stationary in traffic, especially in busy times.



I agree with you!


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 20, 2020)

editor said:


> Trying to slip in a racial angle is despicable.



It's not even subtle is it?  Having to walk instead of drive under the bridge is hardly apartheid.  Segregation is a pretty loaded word


----------



## editor (Aug 20, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> It's not even subtle is it?  Having to walk instead of drive under the bridge is hardly apartheid.  Segregation is a pretty loaded word
> 
> View attachment 227268View attachment 227270


It's pissed me off enough to consider doing a piece about it. I do understand why people make feel they have a legitimate grievance against LTNs but bringing up BLM is way off the fucking mark.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ok, So only people living in the LTN. Like I said earlier they would have to weigh up the cost of administering the scheme Vs an extra 10 or 15 or so mins saved for drivers. Are any of the other London LTNs that have been rolled out doing this?



That's the Council problem. Not residents.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2020)

newbie said:


> why should decisions devolve only to those most likely to see benefit, whether financial or quality of life?  Does no-one else deserve a say?



I've got no axe to grind here. I live on CHL and don't own a car. 

I do think that local residents should have say in how streets are used.

In Railton LTN it is looking like cutting out through traffic is supported. Shakespeare road filters aren't  

Railton road filtering is improving quality of life ( as a guess at the moment) for people living in area .

I don't have a problem with that 

LTN/ road filtering means cars can still go through an area but only on what are designated main roads. Like mine.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

I'm not sure why they didn't put the Shakespeare road filter down the other end.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2020)

I've read SOS and One Oval Brixton Buzz articles.

Also looked at Cllr Holland tweet.

So Fire Brigade are statutory consultees. They expressed concerns and design of Oval LTN was altered. The Fire Brigade signed off design as acceptable.

Might have helped if the Council had put this in the public domain some time ago.

Some of the things the  One group ask are not unreasonable. Like proper monitoring of road use now LTNs are in place.

The Council have bought this on themselves by skipping full consultation.

After Cllr Holland tweet several people point out that she could give out more information directly and quickly to general public. Rather than it going to secondary group like SOS to release to public.

( Council are poor at giving out info. Why so many use FOIs. )

The perception is certain groups seem to know a lot before the average resident does.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure why they didn't put the Shakespeare road filter down the other end.


Then you'd simply have people on Shakespeare Rd unhappy that they can't drive in the LJ direction.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

editor said:


> It's pissed me off enough to consider doing a piece about it. I do understand why people make feel they have a legitimate grievance against LTNs but bringing up BLM is way off the fucking mark.


Why not just ask them to explain. It's not how I'd go about describing the divisions the LTN creates but they presumably have a rationale. I'd like to know if there is something there to learn.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure why they didn't put the Shakespeare road filter down the other end.


It you stand there for any period you'll see the big change is the route into the Norris skip tipping facility - each journey is obv in and out, perhaps 20-30 skips or so an hour at peak. Usually a queue when I cycle past.

If you follow them, the route they mostly now come down Milkwood Road from HH end, turn left, left again and travel along Shakeapeare Road North to beside the bridge.
Previously they would duck and dive from the other side of the bridge/Railton Rd.

Putting the planters there, shifts the whole skip journey operation to the other end of Shakespeare Road and Milkwood. One or two of the houses at that end have home-made signs in the window about it. Far longer journey for the skips.

Does this work ...?








						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					www.google.co.uk


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> It you stand there for any period you'll see the big change is the route into Newalls skip tipping facility - each journey is obv in and out, perhaps 20-30 skips or so an hour at peak. Usually a queue when I cycle past.
> 
> If you follow them, the route they mostly now come down Milkwood Road from HH end, turn left, left again and travel along Shakeapeare Road North to beside the bridge.
> Previously they would duck and dive from the other side of the bridge/Railton Rd.
> ...


Maybe there shouldn't be a skip operation on a residential street in the first place.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

You're too deep for us.  Plus, you're welcome.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Maybe there shouldn't be a skip operation on a residential street in the first place.



I believe the filter is at the southern end because of the low bridge - the skip site has large lorries visiting which can't go under.  I'm pretty sure I've heard most of the skip traffic was from the north before (ultimately this stuff is going out of London so general traffic direction is outward).  Lastly have also heard the site already has planning permission for residential and has been sold so it's only a matter of time before it's relocated. Obviously finding somewhere else to put it isn't that easy.....


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I believe the filter is at the southern end because of the low bridge


Nope. Making stuff up again. They're not double decker buses. Click on the link above, scroll around, you can see a man on a bike under the bridge and a sign saying 14' clearance. In fact here it is:









						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					www.google.co.uk
				




Maybe go and have a squiggle with your MS Paint graphics again.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Nope. Making stuff up again. They're not double decker buses.


If you're going to call someone out for making stuff up, at least check your facts.

Skip trucks can get under the Bridge.  The flatbed "transit" 'waste clearance' trucks can get under the bridge.

The large, articulated, lorries that come to the Norris site to collect the sorted waste and take it away can't.  I don't think theres many of them - a few each day? But they're the reason the filter needs to be where it is


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> If you're going to call someone out for making stuff up, at least check your facts.
> 
> blah blah blah


Repeat: ** NOT ** a low bridge. Repeat: ** NOT ** a low bridge.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Repeat: ** NOT ** a low bridge. Repeat: ** NOT ** a low bridge.


Repeat _overheight lorries_ Repeat _overheight lorries

Twat_


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> The large, articulated, lorries that come to the Norris site to collect the sorted waste and take it away can't.  I don't think theres many of them - a few each day? But they're the reason the filter needs to be where it is


This is plain stupid. The reason a handful _have_ to go the other way is ... wait for it ... the bridge is too low for that handful.

The planters don't make the bridge higher or lower


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> This is plain stupid. The reason a handful _have_ to go the other way is ... wait for it ... the bridge is too low for that handful.
> 
> The planters don't make the bridge higher or lower


No they don't.  But the filter means all traffic goes one way. and it cant all go under the bridge.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> _Twat_


Beep. Beep. SHARP ELBOWS REVERSING! SHARP ELBOWS REVERSING!

Beep. Beep. MS Paint _evidence_ INCOMING. MS Paint _evidence_ INCOMING.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure why they didn't put the Shakespeare road filter down the other end.



Im not either. 

Fact is Council designed the scheme quickly and implemented it. Not surprising that some of aspects of it aren't liked. 

Last time I looked at the Commonplace a lot of the anti comments were around the Shakespeare road filter.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Beep. Beep. SHARP ELBOWS REVERSING! SHARP ELBOWS REVERSING!
> 
> Beep. Beep. MS Paint _evidence_ INCOMING. MS Paint _evidence_ INCOMING.


Twat. 

4.9m = 16 feet


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

So, if it wasn't for the strategically planted planters, the very few over height lorries would have to go the way they already go anyway? I'm not sure this is helping you.

The whole point is the dozens and dozens and dozens of SKIPP-SIZED vehicles that used to go the much shorter route across Railton but now go the further, more disruptive route along Milkwood and  LJ and Shakespeare Road North.

That is not something that would have escaped the angelic and magical Claire Holland.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2020)

> The metrics by which any LTN will be assessed should be published immediately by Lambeth Council to enable improvement of the scheme or proper objection.
> 
> Any and all modelling of traffic displacement or evaporation should be published immediately by Lambeth Council to enable improvement of the scheme or proper objection.
> 
> ...



From the About Us | One Railton

The above seems reasonable to me. The Council should, now its got the LTNs in place, start to do this. 

Maybe it is. And some time needs to be given for Council to start giving out detailed info to residents. 

Would help if Council made clesr how they are going to evaluate the LTNs


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 20, 2020)

tbh, not interested so much in August data. Mid-Sep onwards imo.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> So, if it wasn't for the strategically planted planters, the very few over height lorries would have to go the way they already go anyway? I'm not sure this is helping you.
> 
> The whole point is the dozens and dozens and dozens of SKIPP-SIZED vehicles that used to go the much shorter route across Railton but now go the further, more disruptive route along Milkwood and  LJ and Shakespeare Road North.
> 
> That is not something that would have escaped the angelic and magical Claire Holland.


The point is that if you do filter the road, that’s where it needs to go.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> tbh, not interested so much in August data. Mid-Sep onwards imo.


Too soon even, it needs a good six months to bed in. Look at what happened in LJ.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> tbh, not interested so much in August data. Mid-Sep onwards imo.



Id agree.

My concern is whether Lambeth actually do it properly. I have my doubts. So its something Cllr Holland should address.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 20, 2020)

Frequently asked Questions.

Access for residents and businesses

All residents and businesses where there are closures/filters or School Streets will still be able to drive to their property, but this may be via a different route. 

No road is being closed entirely - they are being closed to non-local through-traffic at specific points on each road. 

Crime and antisocial behaviour

Hackney already has one of the highest numbers of these types of closure (ca. 120) in London. There has been no demonstrable effect on crime and antisocial behaviour in other low traffic neighbourhoods. 

However, the Council is committed to liaising with Community Safety Partnerships in Hackney to consider 'crime prevention through environmental design' in developing its transport proposals. The type of plants and trees to be used in public realm schemes will take into consideration the potential for creating hiding places and reducing natural surveillance. 

Emergency vehicle access 

Emergency vehicles will be able to drive through the closures. 

We have an excellent working relationship with the emergency services and whenever we do anything to change the road network we always consult with them so that we do not do anything which makes their work more difficult. 

Having your say

All measures are being introduced using an experimental traffic order for a maximum period of 18 months, which means residents and businesses can see how the closures work in practice before having their say. 

The views of residents and businesses, including any suggested changes to how schemes operate, will be taken into account before any decision on whether or not to make the measures permanent. This process is in line with specific guidance from Transport for London, and the Department for Transport, whose guidance states that: 'authorities should monitor and evaluate any temporary measures they install, with a view to making them permanent, and embedding a long-term shift to active travel as we move from restart to recovery’.

Residents can have their say up until six months after measures have been implemented. Letters will be sent to all residents in the local area prior to implementation, outlining how they can have their say. 


‘Restricting traffic is bad for business’ 

This is not true, there are numerous studies highlighting the economic benefits of investing walking and cycling. A number of these have been collated by TfL recently http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf 

Traffic displacement onto other roads

This is a common fear when residential road closures are installed which assumes that trips which used to pass along a road simply divert to other roads when that road is closed and problems are shifted to those other roads. This ignores the fact that roads are designed for different purposes. Roads in residential areas are not designed to carry non-local through traffic which is better accommodated on main roads. 

The measures are being designed to try to ensure that displacement does not occur. While there will be a natural settling-in period for each scheme of a few weeks, where there may be some traffic disruption, the scheme is being implemented under an experimental traffic order, which will allow residents to feed back on the measures and allow us to make amendments to address any issues should the measures be made permanent. We will monitor traffic flows in and around each area during implementation. 

Closing roads to motor traffic is unfair on elderly and disabled people less able to walk or cycle 

The design of low traffic neighbourhoods maintains access by car or delivery vehicles to all properties that currently have access. The reduction in traffic in residential areas is of benefit to those with mobility issues in moving around their local areas in safety and with cleaner air. The timed closures around schools created by School Streets will exempt residents travelling to and from their own houses. Where cycle lanes are introduced, access to crossing places and bus stops will be protected. 

Why are you implementing these closures quicker than you usually would? 

Given lockdown restrictions remain subject to change, and people are continuing to avoid public transport, it is important that we support the 70% of Hackney households that do not own a car to walk and cycle instead. There is also a risk that, as public transport use remains low, car use will return to or exceed pre-lockdown levels, with the associated effect this will have on road safety and air quality. 

We need to act quickly to make roads safer for walking and cycling, and to help residents maintain social distancing. This is in line with Department for Transport guidance, which states that: “Measures should be taken as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks, given the urgent need to change travel habits before the restart takes full effect.”

Why isn't my road included?

We have focussed measures on areas where we know there are issues, or where we can quickly link up with other schemes, such as TfL cycle routes, which are based on analysis of areas where there is the greatest potential for rapid increases in cycling levels. Please get in touch at streetscene.consultations@hackney.gov.uk if you have any further comments.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 20, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> Frequently asked Questions.
> 
> Access for residents and businesses
> 
> ...



This is about Hackney.


----------



## newbie (Aug 21, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> roads are designed for different purposes. Roads in residential areas are not designed to carry non-local through traffic which is better accommodated on main roads.


Was Hackney designed differently from Lambeth when the Victorians laid out the roads?  If the design intention was to exclude through traffic then there wouldn't have been a century of Londoners using residential areas to permeate.

That document, part council explanation, part transparent campaigning, just emphasises how little regard our betters have for the peasants.

They promise an 18 month 'trial' but no opportunity for anyone other than residents and businesses to have a say, and theirs ends after 6 months.

It's obvious that these schemes will become permanent.

DoT says


> Permanent: this process includes prior consultation on the proposed scheme design, a 21-day notice period for statutory consultees and others who can log objections; there can be a public inquiry in some circumstances.
> Experimental: these are used to trial schemes that may then be made permanent. Authorities may put in place monitoring arrangements, and carry out ongoing consultation once the measure is built. Although the initial implementation period can be quick, the need for extra monitoring and consultation afterwards makes them a more onerous process overall.
> Temporary: these can be in place for up to 18 months. There is a 7-day notice period prior to making the TRO and a 14-day notification requirement after it is made, plus publicity requirements. These are most suitable for putting in place temporary measures and road closures.


No requirement for monitoring or consultation on temporary schemes.
And 'mandatory cycle lanes'.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

As if the Victorians laid out London's streets in anticipation of 21st century traffic patterns and nothing's changed since then


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yes, a radical change like this will get dragged down by nimbys until it’s meaningless.


That means that essential checks and balances that communities have to protect themselves are lost, with huge unforeseen consequences. One of the distasteful things about LTN’s is ‘born & bread’ city locals who move out of borough ie: many Brixton born folk more to Croydon, Norwood, Streatham ect will return to support & care  for family members on a daily basis, multi visits in a week. These South Londoners are now called’rat runners’ their significance as carers & supporters of local businesses is ignored and has not been factored in.
In the case of Brixton huge majority of these ‘Brixton born’ residents are BAME. So we have Black South Londoners denied access/ (access made extremely difficult)  to important cultural hubs
That is social engineering ( unintended perhaps) but it’s happening & the businesses who rely on their custom can’t survive. That’s a feature of an LTN implemented by those who are not local and haven’t investigated the important, delicate balance in multi cultural cohesion & business success.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> Traffic displacement onto other roads
> 
> This is a common fear when residential road closures are installed which assumes that trips which used to pass along a road simply divert to other roads when that road is closed and problems are shifted to those other roads. This ignores the fact that roads are designed for different purposes. Roads in residential areas are not designed to carry non-local through traffic which is better accommodated on main roads.



Problem with this line of argument is that in London main roads are also sometimes residential. Coldharbour lane for example.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 21, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Twat.
> 
> 4.9m = 16 feet
> View attachment 227291View attachment 227292



so a bridge below the maximum height could be described as a low bridge ?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> So we have Black South Londoners *denied access/ (access made extremely difficult)*  to important cultural hubs



That's not really true is it?


----------



## Winot (Aug 21, 2020)

The negative response to LTNs is based on an assumption that there is no real transport option other than driving. It is precisely this cultural assumption that LTNs are looking to challenge (and even then, there is no denial of access).

We also have the Schrödinger’s LTN - people within the zone are unfairly prejudiced because they must drive further to leave the zone. Also people within the zone are unfairly favoured because their house prices will increase.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> Was Hackney designed differently from Lambeth when the Victorians laid out the roads?  If the design intention was to exclude through traffic then there wouldn't have been a century of Londoners using residential areas to permeate.


Needless to say, the Victorians didn't have widespread cars, if any at all. I'm pretty sure Railton road would pre-date motor cars.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Needless to say, the Victorians didn't have widespread cars, if any at all. I'm pretty sure Railton road would pre-date motor cars.


They also built railways to deal with a lot of the load we now force onto the road network - freight deliveries for example.
Shakespeare Rd runs alongside what was once a big freight sorting yard. Goods would arrive and be re-sorted there before going onwards to various smaller yards throughout London.
Now we sort stuff for redistribution in places like Daventry in the Midlands and it arrives into London in lorries via the road network. Unsurprisingly Victorian streets, intended really for more local traffic, aren't all that great for this. 
Nonetheless in the time since, some roads have become designated "main" roads because they happen to be wide enough, or have been widened by removing front gardens, or entirely reconstructed post war. They have become altered to accommodate heavier traffic. Railton Rd and the majority of residential streets haven't. The Victorians didn't lay them out to cope well with lots of motor traffic, and that remains the case.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 21, 2020)

Winot said:


> Also people within the zone are unfairly favoured because their house prices will increase.


Not if they're renting!


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That's not really true is it?


If you ask businesses and they are all there with their doors open, you will hear it first hand just as I have done. It’s true don’t take my word for it. Plz, plz ask them. That’s who they know to be their customers and where they come from, so at the moment that’s why those businesses are struggling.
If ‘traffic evaporation’ turns out to be the ‘holy grail it’s being presented as then those customers will find different modes of transport. But what’s clear is they and their reasons to journey here have been this far ‘discounted & under estimated. Plz ask yourselves.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> If you ask businesses and they are all there with their doors open, you will hear it first hand just as I have done. It’s true don’t take my word for it. Plz, plz ask them. That’s who they know to be their customers and where they come from, so at the moment that’s why those businesses are struggling.
> If ‘traffic evaporation’ turns out to be the ‘holy grail it’s being presented as then those customers will find different modes of transport. But what’s clear is they and their reasons to journey here have been this far ‘discounted & under estimated. Plz ask yourselves.


What kind of businesses do you mean - small businesses like corner shops within the LTNs? Are you saying that they have lost customers because those customers used to come to the area to care for or visit relatives, and they have stopped doing that because it's now too difficult to get there?


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> One of the distasteful things about LTN’s is ‘born & bread’ city locals who move out of borough ie: many Brixton born folk more to Croydon, Norwood, Streatham ect will return to support & care  for family members on a daily basis, multi visits in a week. These South Londoners are now called’rat runners’ their significance as carers & supporters of local businesses is ignored and has not been factored in.
> In the case of Brixton huge majority of these ‘Brixton born’ residents are BAME. So we have Black South Londoners denied access/ (access made extremely difficult)  to important cultural hubs
> That is social engineering ( unintended perhaps) but it’s happening & the businesses who rely on their custom can’t survive. That’s a feature of an LTN implemented by those who are not local and haven’t investigated the important, delicate balance in multi cultural cohesion & business success.


Whoa! I didn't see anyone suggesting that people who visit friends/family inside an LTN are a 'rat runners' - they have a reason to be there and can still get exactly to where they need to go, albeit it might be via a different route. To call it social engineering is some stretch of the imagination IMO. Does the same not apply then to non-BAME south Londoners who have moved out to the suburbs and come back to visit friends and family?
What I view as 'rat running' is traffic which has no reason to be in an LTN and should be using the main A roads, but chose to avoid them as a perceived short cut - usually thanks to Google maps/Waze/sat navs and the majority of these cars and lorries are not local.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 21, 2020)

LOL. Check out sparkybird with the apps news ..

I'm interested in ideas about 'social engineering' and 'segregtion' but what's been said so far isn't going to resonate. These arguments need to be properly grounded - they're not goingto get the same emotional-led latitude as, for example, some of the BLM themes.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> That means that essential checks and balances that communities have to protect themselves are lost, with huge unforeseen consequences. One of the distasteful things about LTN’s is ‘born & bread’ city locals who move out of borough ie: many Brixton born folk more to Croydon, Norwood, Streatham ect will return to support & care  for family members on a daily basis, multi visits in a week. These South Londoners are now called’rat runners’ their significance as carers & supporters of local businesses is ignored and has not been factored in.
> In the case of Brixton huge majority of these ‘Brixton born’ residents are BAME. So we have Black South Londoners denied access/ (access made extremely difficult)  to important cultural hubs
> That is social engineering ( unintended perhaps) but it’s happening & the businesses who rely on their custom can’t survive. That’s a feature of an LTN implemented by those who are not local and haven’t investigated the important, delicate balance in multi cultural cohesion & business success.



I'm not sure that access to anywhere has been made extremely difficult. Can you provide some examples of black south Londoners being denied access to important cultural hubs?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 21, 2020)

It's not helpful to just assert this stuff.  Sucks the air out of stronger arguments.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 21, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> It's not helpful to just assert this stuff.  Sucks the air out of stronger arguments.


What are those? something something sharp elbows?


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 21, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> What are those? something something sharp elbows?



Get with the programme mate. "Nonsense drivel sharp elbows house-price rises bitterness (and low bridges) ...."


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 21, 2020)

"Now here! Just simply gaze at my masterful mapping creation in MS Paint at how simly wonderful policy is under the simply magical rule of Fairy God Mother Claire Hollnd" "How much did Foxton's say, dahling - REALLY !"


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 21, 2020)

Is that actually funny when you say it in your head?


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 21, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> I'm not sure that access to anywhere has been made extremely difficult. Can you provide some examples of black south Londoners being denied access to important cultural hubs?


Go and knock  on the doors of all the businesses on Dulwich Rd and ask, ask today they are there they will tell you just like owner of Hamilton’s has posted on LTAG what’s app today.
If you are seriously interested you will investigate, you might don’t like what they say but you will hear for yourself. 
Lambeths ‘shop local’ campaign has missed the point specifically, with all residents best intentions local shoppers are not enough by themselves to keep local businesses afloat.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 21, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Whoa! I didn't see anyone suggesting that people who visit friends/family inside an LTN are a 'rat runners' - they have a reason to be there and can still get exactly to where they need to go, albeit it might be via a different route. To call it social engineering is some stretch of the imagination IMO. Does the same not apply then to non-BAME south Londoners who have moved out to the suburbs and come back to visit friends and family?
> What I view as 'rat running' is traffic which has no reason to be in an LTN and should be using the main A roads, but chose to avoid them as a perceived short cut - usually thanks to Google maps/Waze/sat navs and the majority of these cars and lorries are not local.


The LTN methodology has cut off roads making it very difficult for returning locals to ‘easily access’ families or as carers for those families South Londoners are now having to navigate several LTN’s in order to make their way back home. BAME is spoken about here to very ‘specifically’ identify businesses in this area BAME run and owned that are struggling because their customer base  can’t easily visit. It’s businesses with those specific characteristics that are I trouble, because the blanket approach of an LTN has no nuance approach as to who gets to go where. Go and ask for yourself they will all be down their tonight.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Go and knock  on the doors of all the businesses on Dulwich Rd and ask, ask today they are there they will tell you just like owner of Hamilton’s has posted on LTAG what’s app today.
> If you are seriously interested you will investigate, you might don’t like what they say but you will hear for yourself.
> Lambeths ‘shop local’ campaign has missed the point specifically, with all residents best intentions local shoppers are not enough by themselves to keep local businesses afloat.


You need to explain a plausible reasoning as to why these businesses are suffering as a result of the LTNs. I don't doubt that many businesses are struggling just now. But I can think of some other things that are happening just at the moment.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Go and knock  on the doors of all the businesses on Dulwich Rd and ask, ask today they are there they will tell you just like owner of Hamilton’s has posted on LTAG what’s app today.
> If you are seriously interested you will investigate, you might don’t like what they say but you will hear for yourself.
> Lambeths ‘shop local’ campaign has missed the point specifically, with all residents best intentions local shoppers are not enough by themselves to keep local businesses afloat.


Dulwich road isn't part of the LTN, if anything it should be busier, Covid will also have hit peoples shopping habits.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 21, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> LOL. Check out sparkybird with the apps news ..
> 
> I'm interested in ideas about 'social engineering' and 'segregtion' but what's been said so far isn't going to resonate. These arguments need to be properly grounded - they're not goingto get the same emotional-led latitude as, for example, some of the BLM themes.


Well I’m not a member of the BAME community, but it is very much  a BLM issue as it’s BAME livelihoods that are being affected and with all the best intentions to criticise an LTN in anyway is to find yourself pitted against political progressives who will not accept that something they believe in so passionately might impact a marginalised group, who they seek to empathise with or be affiliated too. so ppl would rather shoot you down then take a step bk and ask what are the ‘specifics’ on the ground where I live. So this is my understanding of what’s happening locally, it’s not my training I’ve just made enquires because I found myself on the ‘wrong side’ of an LTN and so have tried to understand it’s ramifications and I’m supporting and supported by my neighbours in the process. And I’m shitting myself because it worries me that Brixton will be like Nothing Hill gate really really soon, it happened there it’s happening here and I think we could do better.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You need to explain a plausible reasoning as to why these businesses are suffering as a result of the LTNs. I don't doubt that many businesses are struggling just now. But I can think of some other things that are happening just at the moment.


I don’t have to do anything! If you want to make an argument against what I’m saying you go and talk to those ppl and prove me and them wrong! If you’re interested in them and their livelihoods go and ask! I’ve spent two months talking to strangers who clearly don’t care one way or the other. I haven’t got time for you mate. It’s clearly just a strategy to keep ppl occupied. I’m going down to Dulwich road now if you are interested to drop off some leaflets, coming?


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 21, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> LOL. Check out sparkybird with the apps news ..



Wow that's brought a whole lot to the discussion. I guess I'll sink and low as you. Check out Loose meat . .  Knob end


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 21, 2020)

Stay classy, Satnav expert.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> The LTN methodology has cut off roads making it very difficult for returning locals to ‘easily access’ families or as carers for those families South Londoners are now having to navigate several LTN’s in order to make their way back home. BAME is spoken about here to very ‘specifically’ identify businesses in this area BAME run and owned that are struggling because their customer base  can’t easily visit. It’s businesses with those specific characteristics that are I trouble, because the blanket approach of an LTN has no nuance approach as to who gets to go where. Go and ask for yourself they will all be down their tonight.


Ok sorry I hadn't realised you were talking about 'returners' and BAME owned businesses as two separate issues. I was only responding to the first issue regarding so called rat running


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Well I’m not a member of the BAME community, but it is very much  a BLM issue as it’s BAME livelihoods that are being affected and with all the best intentions to criticise an LTN in anyway is to find yourself pitted against political progressives who will not accept that something they believe in so passionately might impact a marginalised group, who they seek to empathise with or be affiliated too. so ppl would rather shoot you down then take a step bk and ask what are the ‘specifics’ on the ground where I live. So this is my understanding of what’s happening locally, it’s not my training I’ve just made enquires because I found myself on the ‘wrong side’ of an LTN and so have tried to understand it’s ramifications and I’m supporting and supported by my neighbours in the process. And I’m shitting myself because it worries me that Brixton will be like Nothing Hill gate really really soon, it happened there it’s happening here and I think we could do better.



If you're saying that LTNs are disproportionately affecting the BAME community it would really help if you gave some specific examples.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Go and knock  on the doors of all the businesses on Dulwich Rd and ask, ask today they are there they will tell you just like owner of Hamilton’s has posted on LTAG what’s app today.
> If you are seriously interested you will investigate, you might don’t like what they say but you will hear for yourself.
> Lambeths ‘shop local’ campaign has missed the point specifically, with all residents best intentions local shoppers are not enough by themselves to keep local businesses afloat.



There's a good amount of evidence that businesses may overestimate the amount of their customers who arrive by car. In particular there was a survey about this that was done about businesses on the Lea Bridge Road in Waltham Forest. Some evidence is here



			http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 21, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> If you're saying that LTNs are disproportionately affecting the BAME community it would really help if you gave some specific examples.


If traffic is diverting of its own accord, or is being sent - by satnav, or whatever - through estates or other areas in which a higher percentage of BAME people live, instead of going the way it used to go pre-LTN, then how can that not be environental-based racism?

Angell Town - with its far higher ethnic population - sees higher air pollution, greater noise pollution, greater danger for the children on the streets, while the Sharp Elbows get their middle-class urban paradise, and a proper Foxton-uptick to boot!


----------



## newbie (Aug 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Needless to say, the Victorians didn't have widespread cars, if any at all. I'm pretty sure Railton road would pre-date motor cars.


Which is why I mentioned a century of use. Trying to pretend that London streets were designed for something other than for Londoners and others to use to get about is just absurd.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> I don’t have to do anything! If you want to make an argument against what I’m saying you go and talk to those ppl and prove me and them wrong! If you’re interested in them and their livelihoods go and ask! I’ve spent two months talking to strangers who clearly don’t care one way or the other. I haven’t got time for you mate. It’s clearly just a strategy to keep ppl occupied. I’m going down to Dulwich road now if you are interested to drop off some leaflets, coming?


Yup, you've no obligation to persuade me or others who are broadly supportive of the LTNs that what you're saying makes sense. But doesn't make sense to me. I think the idea that businesses are struggling primarily due to the introduction of an LTN, and not due to the ongoing covid situation which has disrupted pretty much everything, is misguided, and that there are marginalised groups who can be affected positively in big ways by a transport strategy that includes LTNs. But you're not interested, so fair enough. You'll drop leaflets and I'll type stuff on here.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 21, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> If traffic is diverting of its own accord, or is being sent - by satnav, or whatever - through estates or other areas in which a higher percentage of BAME people live, instead of going the way it used to go pre-LTN, then how can that not be environental-based racism?
> 
> Angell Town - with its far higher ethnic population - sees higher air pollution, greater noise pollution, greater danger for the children on the streets, while the Sharp Elbows get their middle-class urban paradise, and a proper Foxton-uptick to boot!


As it has been pointed out before, most social housing estates are already low traffic neighbourhoods by design and it's not possible to drive through them.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 21, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> As it has been pointed out before, most social housing estates are already low traffic neighbourhoods by design and it's not possible to drive through them.


Depending on the angle of opposition, they are either in areas where there is suddenly loads of polluting traffic due to LTNs, or they are in areas where there's suddenly no traffic due to LTNs and local businesses can't get any customers because they all used to come by car.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 21, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> As it has been pointed out before, most social housing estates are already low traffic neighbourhoods by design and it's not possible to drive through them.


Have you heard of Coldharbour Lane (inc. Barrier Block), Loughborogh Road, Gresham Road and Barrington Road? Look em up on your new satnav system.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> There's a good amount of evidence that businesses may overestimate the amount of their customers who arrive by car. In particular there was a survey about this that was done about businesses on the Lea Bridge Road in Waltham Forest. Some evidence is here
> 
> 
> 
> http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf



One case in Brixton still wrankles.

Reminded of it by one of the cycling campaigners who brought it up recently.

The loss of Brixton Market car park on what is now the Pop site. This was due to the Streatham Council/ Tescos redevelopment of the leisre centre/ ice rink.

Tescos told Lambeth that to finish the scheme the ice rink had to have temporary home.

The home was Brixton Market traders losing the car park.

I supported the market traders on this. The Cllrs were pushing the Green argument.

What annoyed me was the the Council were going to allow Tescos a car park in Streatham but the market traders were going to get theirs taken away.

If Councils are going to have a fair level playing field big companies like Tesco need to be told no parking allowed.

Im all for FAIR transition to Green economy. Its not what Im seeing at local level.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 21, 2020)

Winot said:


> The negative response to LTNs is based on an assumption that there is no real transport option other than driving. It is precisely this cultural assumption that LTNs are looking to challenge (and even then, there is no denial of access).
> 
> We also have the Schrödinger’s LTN - people within the zone are unfairly prejudiced because they must drive further to leave the zone. Also people within the zone are unfairly favoured because their house prices will increase.



IMO the increasing negative response is largely the fault of Lambeth Council not doing the work of consultation. But using the Pandemic to fast track these schemes. Something you have previously posted you are happy with.

Not the only poster here to say that early on in this thread.

Challenging cultural assumptions requires political work by the Labour Council. I remember being told they had learnt lessons from what happened with the LJ road closures and this time the consultation was to be different. Work was to be done to get local communites onside.

Instead they have gone down the route of imposing this on communities.

That is the problem.

It could be that the Council have taken view that this time they can ride out and ignore opposition. Work with favoured groups and stuff the rest.

Have to see if this tactic works. Didn't work in LJ. It also causes long lasting resentments from my experience.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> It could be that the Council have taken view that this time they can ride out and ignore opposition. Work with favoured groups and stuff the rest.
> 
> Have to see if this tactic works. Didn't work in LJ. It also causes long lasting resentments from my experience.


I would have said that it's a different group of politicians making decisions now - as compared with 2015/16 - but people like Jim Dickson should have known, should have seen this coming. Instead he was lauding it as 'necessary becasue of the climate crisis'. Regardless of the merits of the scheme, that's politically clueless.

So on the basis of how they were selling this 8 weeks ago, I would say they (a) didn't expect this level of opposition when it was so obvious and (b) they truly believe they can ride this out. Now, not so much.

What is quite interesting is as well as the Greens turning a deaf 'un, Helen Hayes is staying well away. In the end she came out against the LJ scheme but only near the death. She would have to find different grounds in order to support the Railton area LTN.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 21, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Have you heard of Coldharbour Lane (inc. Barrier Block), Loughborogh Road, Gresham Road and Barrington Road? Look em up on your new satnav system.


Yeah, there isn’t a through road from Loughborough road south onto Shakespeare, why is that?. Because the Moorlands estate is an LTN already.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Needless to say, the Victorians didn't have widespread cars, if any at all. I'm pretty sure Railton road would pre-date motor cars.


They had horses and horse congestion and horse poo. Tonnes of it to shift!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 21, 2020)

newbie said:


> Which is why I mentioned a century of use. Trying to pretend that London streets were designed for something other than for Londoners and others to use to get about is just absurd.


Trying to pretend they were for motor cars which weren’t even invented yet is absurd.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 22, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> If you're saying that LTNs are disproportionately affecting the BAME community it would really help if you gave some specific examples.


ILL D0 IN CAPS. IN THE HOPE YOU ARE LISTENING. TUMBLES LAUNDERETTE ( go and ask him) Paul at Stanley Mini Market (back Monday go ask)
Ahmet Hamilton’s posted today on LTAG hes Turkish but is struggling in the same way (all his points clearly visible today on WhatsApp  although. he’s probably been ignored as that’s the new way to avoid anything that dints ‘the brand’) and relays on businesses outside of the area travelling by car.
( forgot initials but think it K&J audio). the off license, Bugers& Milkshake, V source, Little Ouchie, Pablos Bar, express corner plus all the take away food places you see, & Joe of the Florence, the manager thought cutting roads ‘would’ effect punters ( I asked him a few weeks ago, he might have changed his mind?)
So you go and ask them I have. Next week I’ll be filming them. Now it’s your turn  go and ask them or better still, go and tell them they are mistaken they don’t know their customers because the benefits of the LTN can not be doubted by anyone. An you have the 18yr old paper to prove it. Better still you upload that report now and we can all go through it  for a laugh.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 22, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Ok sorry I hadn't realised you were talking about 'returners' and BAME owned businesses as two separate issues. I was only responding to the first issue regarding so called rat running


No not separate in this area those returning and supporting families are BAME & non BAME but BAME visitors are also committed, regular customers of those BAME owned businesses here in lies another flaw in the LTN scheme which is damaging many local businesses, livelihoods and threatens the diversity of this area.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 22, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> ILL D0 IN CAPS. IN THE HOPE YOU ARE LISTENING. TUMBLES LAUNDERETTE ( go and ask him) Paul at Stanley Mini Market (back Monday go ask)
> Ahmet Hamilton’s posted today on LTAG hes Turkish but is struggling in the same way (all his points clearly visible today on WhatsApp  although. he’s probably been ignored as that’s the new way to avoid anything that dints ‘the brand’) and relays on businesses outside of the area travelling by car.
> ( forgot initials but think it K&J audio). the off license, Bugers& Milkshake, V source, Little Ouchie, Pablos Bar, express corner plus all the take away food places you see, & Joe of the Florence, the manager thought cutting roads ‘would’ effect punters ( I asked him a few weeks ago, he might have changed his mind?)
> So you go and ask them I have. Next week I’ll be filming them. Now it’s your turn  go and ask them or better still, go and tell them they are mistaken they don’t know their customers because the benefits of the LTN can not be doubted by anyone. An you have the 18yr old paper to prove it. Better still you upload that report now and we can all go through it  for a laugh.


Most of those are not on the LTN, surely they are benefiting by an extra traffic coming down dulwich road?. 
Maybe K&J audio have been affected because people don’t want to spend money on car stereos when there’s a f**king pandemic going on??


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 22, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> ILL D0 IN CAPS. IN THE HOPE YOU ARE LISTENING. TUMBLES LAUNDERETTE ( go and ask him) Paul at Stanley Mini Market (back Monday go ask)
> Ahmet Hamilton’s posted today on LTAG hes Turkish but is struggling in the same way (all his points clearly visible today on WhatsApp  although. he’s probably been ignored as that’s the new way to avoid anything that dints ‘the brand’) and relays on businesses outside of the area travelling by car.
> ( forgot initials but think it K&J audio). the off license, Bugers& Milkshake, V source, Little Ouchie, Pablos Bar, express corner plus all the take away food places you see, & Joe of the Florence, the manager thought cutting roads ‘would’ effect punters ( I asked him a few weeks ago, he might have changed his mind?)
> So you go and ask them I have. Next week I’ll be filming them. Now it’s your turn  go and ask them or better still, go and tell them they are mistaken they don’t know their customers because the benefits of the LTN can not be doubted by anyone. An you have the 18yr old paper to prove it. Better still you upload that report now and we can all go through it  for a laugh.



The owner of the Hamilton is Kurdish.  All of these businesses may be doing less trade but you can't claim that's solely, or even partially, because of LTNs. Where's the evidence? Nine of the 11 businesses you mention are outside the LTN and should if anything be seeing an increase in traffic.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah, there isn’t a through road from Loughborough road south onto Shakespeare, why is that?. Because the Moorlands estate is an LTN already.


It's a stuggle to think that after all this discussion, you still haven't got hold of the basics. I'm going to disengage with you after this becasue it's too hard but in case it helps I will say  again; LTNs are not themselves, the issue the problem with the Railton area LTN is the consequences for others - others paying the price for the gain for some.  That's about the 8th time. People in areas like Gresham Road and CHL and Loughborough Road all have a poorer quality of life as a result, and those areas are more BAME.

Fwiw, Moorlands has to be an LTN even if it wasn't designed as such - why, becasue it has railway lines on three sides; you can't go anyway, it will always have low traffic.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 22, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> The owner of the Hamilton is Kurdish.  All of these businesses may be doing less trade but you can't claim that's solely, or even partially, because of LTNs. Where's the evidence? Nine of the 11 businesses you mention are outside the LTN and should if anything be seeing an increase in traffic.


This blokes a ‘wind up merchant’ anyone else plz go and ask the shopkeepers locally, they need your support. If you have access to WhatsApp plz take a look at what the owner of Hamilton’s has to say.If you believe like wurlycurly that BAME traders on Dulwich Rd don’t deserve a voice in all this and their communities are not part of the LTN then it’s a perfect example of what one size fits all planning & lack of full community consultation achieves.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 22, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> It's a stuggle to think that after all this discussion, you still haven't got hold of the basics. I'm going to disengage with you after this becasue it's too hard but in case it helps I will say  again; LTNs are not themselves, the issue the problem with the Railton area LTN is the consequences for others - others paying the price for the gain for some.  That's about the 8th time. People in areas like Gresham Road and CHL and Loughborough Road all have a poorer quality of life as a result, and those areas are more BAME.
> 
> Fwiw, Moorlands has to be an LTN even if it wasn't designed as such - why, becasue it has railway lines on three sides; you can't go anyway, it will always have low traffic.


Gresham road is miles away from Railton, Loughborough is actually a really good example of a road which isn’t a through road, if you want to go south you have to go down to Brixton or LJ. They could have brought it through onto Mayall but they didn’t because of through traffic. Why would there be more traffic on that road?.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 22, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> This blokes a ‘wind up merchant’ anyone else plz go and ask the shopkeepers locally, they need your support. If you have access to WhatsApp plz take a look at what the owner of Hamilton’s has to say.If you believe like wurlycurly that BAME traders on Dulwich Rd don’t deserve a voice in all this and their communities are not part of the LTN then it’s a perfect example of what one size fits all planning & lack of full community consultation achieves.


All shops are struggling because of COVID, but wurlycurlys right - there should be more traffic on dulwich road, so the shops there should do better - that’s how it works, yeah?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> All shops are struggling because of COVID, but wurlycurlys right - there should be more traffic on dulwich road, so the shops there should do better - that’s how it works, yeah?


No, the vehicles have to park and people enter the shops before the shops do better


----------



## editor (Aug 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Gresham road is miles away from Railton


Point of order: they're about 300m apart.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 22, 2020)

editor said:


> Point of order: they're about 300m apart.


It’s a figure of speech. HTH.

if Gresham is busy at the moment, maybe it’s the works on Atlantic rd?


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 22, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> This blokes a ‘wind up merchant’ anyone else plz go and ask the shopkeepers locally, they need your support. If you have access to WhatsApp plz take a look at what the owner of Hamilton’s has to say.If you believe like wurlycurly that BAME traders on Dulwich Rd don’t deserve a voice in all this and their communities are not part of the LTN then it’s a perfect example of what one size fits all planning & lack of full community consultation achieves.



I'm not winding you up. I'd be concerned about your BAME community concerns if you could prove they were justified. My wife is black, diabetic and over 55, ie a high-risk group for Covid. She's been outside once in the past six months (Brockwell Park). I've been supporting her by also strictly avoiding people wherever practical. Almost nobody wears masks in the Hamilton, so my four visits a day (approx) have fallen to zero. I've similarly not used the Chutney, the Golden Canton,  Wish, the newsagent across from the Half Moon, the Florence. I've not been in a pub for six months for the first time in 42 years. Millions of businesses UK-wide are struggling during the pandemic because of behaviour like mine, not because of LTNs.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 22, 2020)

I read the whatsapp screenshots above, of the post form the owner of the Hamilton.

If there's something like a record of Paypoint transactions, that's recorded consistently over a long period, and it shows a significant change happening around the time when the LN was introduced, against a background of no Covid-related change then I think that should be taken seriously. If I was involved in the scheme or a local councillor I'd want to go and talk to him and look at these records. I hope someone's doing that.

Earlier in the thread it was reported that this shop supported the LN scheme at the outset. If that's true, then it adds credence to any concerns they are raising. It should remove suspicion that information is being presented selectively in order to support an already-established position.

I'd want to understand what is going on. I'd want to look at the records over a longer period, and look at weekly averages for a good few weeks prior to and following the introduction. I don't want to dismiss the possibility that this shop has lost some trade from people stopping by in cars - that's not implausible. I'd want to make a best effort at quantifying the impact and I'd want to see if things changed over the next few weeks/months. It raises quite a few questions. It woud appear to suggest that most of this trade was from people outside of the LN area, because as I understand it, if they were driving from within the area then they would still be able to do so now. 

Of course, if it's the case that it represents trade from people passing through, rather than local residents, then that's a direct consequence of the LN succeeding in one of its aims. That of course is of no help to the business owner.

In theory the LN should mean that things like corner shops within the area lose some trade and gain some new trade. If it does mean that some people who previously might have driven to a shop outside the zone now find that less convenient, then they ought to end up doing that less often and using their local shops more often. These kinds of changes take a little while to take effect which would be one reason to keep an eye on what happens in the coming weeks to see if things improve.

I believe that's something that was generally reported during lockdown - some local shops were doing better than normal, because people had changed their shopping habits. Of course, there's also the factor of larger numbers of people working from home.

Interesting that in the whatsapp comment, it's also mentioned that these same payments remained constant and at normal levels throughout lockdown. If the now-missing trade came from people driving through the area between other places - then would you not also expect that trade to have quite significantly dropped during the period of "proper" lockdown?

Anyway, I'd want to look at these payment records if they were offered (I don't mean they should be offered publicly - I mean if a local councillor or MP or Lambeth scheme representative were able to look at them with the owner) and try and get a good picture of what's happening. While the figures as presented do seem quite persuasive, there's not a whole lot that can be concluded without looking at them properly in context.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 22, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Have you heard of Coldharbour Lane (inc. Barrier Block), Loughborogh Road, Gresham Road and Barrington Road? Look em up on your new satnav system.


I know those streets - but last time I walked down them, they were not social housing estates but rather roads with a mix of housing all types and businesses. However, I could be wrong of course, so do you fancy meeting up for a stroll so you can show me? Coffee/tea/beverage of your choice is on me


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 22, 2020)

I'm pretty sure that the takings at the Hamilton are down but as you say, these schemes take time to bed down. Lots of very accurate data of all different types will be available in, say, six months' time. I'm also equally sure that a huge number of cyclists, and walkers, are now using Railton Road. The Hamilton is certain to attract trade from these people, especially if there's somewhere safe to tether their steeds. Amed is panicking a bit because his was The Busiest Shop In The World during the early stages of the pandemic, thanks to his super-diligent and hugely appreciated stock-replenishing efforts (toilet rolls during the panic buying, tins of food, in fact pretty much anything). I strongly suspect his trade will exceed pre-LTN levels when the scheme is fully bedded in, simply because more feet will be passing his shop.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 22, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I know those streets - but last time I walked down them, they were not social housing estates but rather roads with a mix of housing all types and businesses. However, I could be wrong of course, so do you fancy meeting up for a stroll so you can show me? Coffee/tea/beverage of your choice is on me



"Sharp elbows, sharp elbows, house-price rises, MS Paint, elbows, Mmmmm, this coffee's nice."


----------



## teuchter (Aug 22, 2020)

By the way. I've been thinking quite a bit about "North" Shakespeare Rd. Partly because I've been using it as my walking route between Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction recently, to check out what's going on with the LN.

There's no question it's problematic, including it into a Livable Neighbourhood. This, I'd say, is mainly because of bad town planning decisions made in the past.

There are a couple of stretches of Victorian terrace but a lot of it was redeveloped in (I assume) the 80s or 90s, largely on the former railway lands.

If you look at both of those housing developments - the one that stretches along almost all of its east side, and the one on the other side of the road at its north end, you can see they are both done in a kind of cul-de-sac arrangement with off-street parking allocated to all or most of the housing units. It seems they gave everyone parking space, but included no shop units whatsoever. That's now an entirely outdated approach and if the same sites were developed now, that would not happen. It's a great way to generate car dependancy: give everyone a parking space but don't provide any services within easy walking distance.

It's really a very long road to be devoid of a single shop along its length. This is compounded by the fact that it's entirely isolated - you can only get in or out of the street at each end, even as a pedestrian. I don't know if that's by design or just an accident of history. A couple of pedestrian routes through to Loughborough Park, or a bridge over the railway line, would change things substantially.

Furthermore, it's got no public transport running along it (in this it kind of parallels - literally - the Milkwood Bus Chasm).

So, if you live somewhere around the middle of Shakespeare Rd, you have to walk quite a long way (at least by Zone 2 London standards) to access shops or public transport.

What's been created is a kind of enclave of car dependancy, which perhaps makes it less surprising that much of the objection to the LN comes from those living on this street. If you live in something that's been designed to make you use a car, and then one of your two routes out is blocked to cars, then that's going to feel different than it would if you live somewhere that's designed so that you can easily walk to a shop, or to a bus stop. What's being asked of Shakespeare Rd residents is actually different to what's being asked of those in the Railton Rd area, because the "pedestrian" alternatives are not there in quite the same way.

That's not the fault of the residents, it's the fault of decisions made in an era when it was considered ok to pander to the demand for car ownership at the expense of those without.

I don't know what the solution is in the short term. In the longer term - I'd hope that any new developments along the road, especially in its middle parts, would be encouraged to provide space for a couple of shops. I'd look to make pedestrian connections through to Loughborough Park too. Maybe see if a bus route could be provided along Shakespeare Rd.

I'm not keen on the idea of LN resident car owners getting an ANPR free pass for the modal filters. But the more I think about it, I do think it could be justified for N Shakespeare Rd residents because of the unique nature of their situation. If it's technically feasible I think it should be looked at seriously.

Another thought about ANPR passes (more generally) is that they could be offered as grandfather rights - in other words you get one if you live in the area when a scheme is introduced, but if you move in after that point, you don't. So over time the number of people holding them decreases.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> I'm pretty sure that the takings at the Hamilton are down but as you say, these schemes take time to bed down. Lots of very accurate data of all different types will be available in, say, six months' time. I'm also equally sure that a huge number of cyclists, and walkers, are now using Railton Road. The Hamilton is certain to attract trade from these people, especially if there's somewhere safe to tether their steeds. Amed is panicking a bit because his was The Busiest Shop In The World during the early stages of the pandemic, thanks to his super-diligent and hugely appreciated stock-replenishing efforts (toilet rolls during the panic buying, tins of food, in fact pretty much anything). I strongly suspect his trade will exceed pre-LTN levels when the scheme is fully bedded in, simply because more feet will be passing his shop.



And if it doesn't what do you think should happen? Your assuming it will all be ok in the end,

From reading this shopkeeper was a key worker during the worst of the pandemic.

I think if it is proven that small business in a LTN lose out then it should be compensated by the Council.

Another view would be that the environmental and social benefits of LTNs outweigh potential harm to some small  business. Its tough luck.

Doing something for the planet means in that case potentially some will lose out.

If that is the case the Council should say that.

I very much doubt that the Council monitering of this temporary LTN will include in depth analysis of its effect on local small shopkeepers.

I see the shopkeeper is going to email the MP. Good move its pointless emailing Lambeth Local Labour Cllrs on this.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 22, 2020)

So next thing on list of what the Council should be doing is analysis of effect on small shopkeepers in the area of an LTN.

On a side point. When the ice rink/ market car park argument was going on with the Council in central Brixton Council were still going to let Tescos have a car park.

A disadvantage for small shopkeepers is that they bear the brunt of green policies on transport. Id like to see a Council like Lambeth stand up to a large supermarket company and tell them they are going to have parking taken away from them. Its not going to happen.

I use Nine Elms Sainsburys sometimes. Massive car park. This is redevelopment of the old Sainsburys. If changes to transport are to be brought in their must be a fair level playing field.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> And if it doesn't what do you think should happen? Your assuming it will all be ok in the end,
> 
> From reading this shopkeeper was a key worker during the worst of the pandemic.
> 
> ...



Amed has explained the concern about his takings to the council and repeatedly asked them to install bike-racks outside the shop.  They keep saying they'll sort it but haven't done so. It has been an ongoing saga since the Railton Road LTN was implemented and he's justifiably pissed off. It's is a prime example of Lambeth not thinking things through properly. They want to encourage cycling but can't even suss out that some extra bike-racks outside shops may also be a good idea. If his takings continue to take a hit after the scheme has been up for a few months, the council should of course compensate him. I live across from the Hamilton and Railton Road is like the Tour de France on occasion now, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays. That's prime passing trade if there's somewhere for the riders to park their bikes.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 23, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> One case in Brixton still wrankles.
> 
> Reminded of it by one of the cycling campaigners who brought it up recently.
> 
> ...



So the working class customers of Tescos are being favoured over the middle class customers of the market traders. Or is this not about customers at all?


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 23, 2020)

I despair for the future of humans. An LTN is nothing compared to the changes we'll need to make to avoid being wiped out by climate change. We're fucked


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 23, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> So the working class customers of Tescos are being favoured over the middle class customers of the market traders. Or is this not about customers at all?


I don't think the majority of customers of the market traders are middle class??


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 23, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> So the working class customers of Tescos are being favoured over the middle class customers of the market traders. Or is this not about customers at all?



I diidnt say that. Dont read into my posts things Im not saying.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 23, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> So the working class customers of Tescos are being favoured over the middle class customers of the market traders. Or is this not about customers at all?



more like the lawyered up Tax dodgers at Tesco get whatever we want, while little shop keepers get fucked


----------



## Winot (Aug 23, 2020)

Had a pootle around Railton Road and Shakespeare Road this morning on my bike. Sunday 11am is no time to monitor road busyness in Brixton, but for what it’s worth there were more cyclists on Railton Road than I would have expected. Easy way to access Herne Hill market. There were a few cyclists shopping at Hamiltons.

Not sure if it’s been mentioned up thread, but I had forgotten that Evelyn Grace school is on Shakespeare Road. It will be interesting to see the effect of the LTN when school reopens. Hopefully more students cycling/walking to school.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 23, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I know those streets - but last time I walked down them, they were not social housing estates but rather roads with a mix of housing all types and businesses. However, I could be wrong of course, so do you fancy meeting up for a stroll so you can show me? Coffee/tea/beverage of your choice is on me


How can I trust you and your car-owning zealot friends to not throw me in the boot of a diesel-guzzling monster, and dispose of me in the bins behind the Hero of Switzerland ...


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 23, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What's been created is a kind of enclave of car dependancy, which perhaps makes it less surprising that much of the objection to the LN comes from those living on this street. If you live in something that's been designed to make you use a car, and then one of your two routes out is blocked to cars, then that's going to feel different than it would if you live somewhere that's designed so that you can easily walk to a shop, or to a bus stop. What's being asked of Shakespeare Rd residents is actually different to what's being asked of those in the Railton Rd area, because the "pedestrian" alternatives are not there in quite the same way.
> 
> That's not the fault of the residents, it's the fault of decisions made in an era when it was considered ok to pander to the demand for car ownership at the expense of those without.


Well done for thinking it through. If you were there at the weekend you might not have seen/heard/experienced the - now - incessant, re-routed, skip lorry movements.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 23, 2020)

Winot said:


> Not sure if it’s been mentioned up thread, but I had forgotten that Evelyn Grace school is on Shakespeare Road. It will be interesting to see the effect of the LTN when school reopens. Hopefully more students cycling/walking to school.


More importantly, it's on Loughborough Park as well.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 23, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> How can I trust you and your car-owning zealot friends to not throw me in the boot of a diesel-guzzling monster, and dispose of me in the bins behind the Hero of Switzerland ...


Well that's just a chance you'll have to take isn't it. Although you do realise that I am broadly in favour of LTN's and reducing car use don't you, so I will be coming on foot....


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 23, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Well done for thinking it through. If you were there at the weekend you might not have seen/heard/experienced the - now - incessant, re-routed, skip lorry movements.



Are they literally incessant or does the skip depot close overnight? Also, what's the traffic like between, say, 9pm and 7am compared with how it was before the introduction of the LTN?


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 24, 2020)

One Railton were out flyering in Railton Road today, opposing the LTN. Car windscreeens, not letterboxes. Leaflet didn't say much, essentially that they wanted the scheme to be for everyone and urging people to sign their petition.


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2020)

'Lambath' protest on Thurs









						Protest against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in Lambeth announced for Thurs 27th Aug 2020
					

Lambeth’s introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) continues to be a divisive issue, and some residents have organised a march and protest against the recent road closures.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> Are they literally incessant or does the skip depot close overnight? Also, what's the traffic like between, say, 9pm and 7am compared with how it was before the introduction of the LTN?


If anyone would like to post up the times of day at which they are incessant I'd be interested to go along and have a look for myself.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 24, 2020)

editor said:


> 'Lambath' protest on Thurs
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's nearly 800 yards from Concannon Street to the Town Hall. Think I'll take my car.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 24, 2020)

editor said:


> 'Lambath' protest on Thurs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can see the placards:
Pollution for everyone not just the few

Ironically, the march is likely to cause more traffic problems


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> I can see the placards:
> Pollution for everyone not just the few
> 
> Ironically, the march is likely to cause more traffic problems


I don't imagine the police are imagining big numbers but it will be interesting to see how many people come out for this.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 24, 2020)

editor said:


> I don't imagine the police are imagining big numbers but it will be interesting to see how many people come out for this.



And how many black cabs


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Aug 24, 2020)

Can someone summarise these points ahead of Thursday's demo. This thread is way too long already.
I get the bit about zero consultations.


> No to social injustice (how?)
> No to zero consultations (ok ).
> No to dividing communities (how?)


I wish we had this on Elm Park Road, i've really noticed the rise in traffic after lockdown.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 24, 2020)

The social injustice bit seems to mostly crop up in the Railton rd ltn, because part of the area that benefits is well off and the streets which would see an initial rise in traffic are not well off.

Dividing communities is because some people can't drive where they like.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 24, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I get the bit about zero consultations.


Apart from the fact that there have been a number of consultations that got us to this point, and the schemes are being done as trials, with consultation (and changes) ongoing.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 24, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The social injustice bit seems to mostly crop up in the Railton rd ltn, because part of the area that benefits is well off and the streets which would see an initial rise in traffic are not well off.
> Dividing communities is because some people can't drive where they like.


The streets that have seen the big reductions in traffic - Railton Road itself and the northern section of Shakespeare Road are actually the ones with the higher concentrations of social housing. The one area within Railton that has lower than than average socially rented housing - on the Poets roads - were already pretty quiet. So the reverse of the first claim seems to be true.And the source of the social injustice claims (and all the talk of 'segregation') seem to come from people (on Shakespeare Road) who in theory benefit so that doesn't seem to stack up either. 

It does look like this is just a few people who can't drive where they like. 

The roads that had high volumes of through traffic are in pink and red on this image from the commonplace site.  Other than the southern half of Shakespeare, which still had much lower traffic volumes than the northern section, the Poets streets are notable for NOT being highlighted.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 24, 2020)

You completely floor me every time with these hand-drawn pictures, and talk like they're policy documents! Bless those sharp elbows


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Apart from the fact that there have been a number of consultations that got us to this point, and the schemes are being done as trials, with consultation (and changes) ongoing.


I'd wager that the vast majority of people had no idea these consultations were taking place - at least that's the most repeated comment I've heard on social media and on the street.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 24, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> You completely floor me every time with these hand-drawn pictures, and talk like they're policy documents! Bless those sharp elbows


Andy, it's from the councils consultation/evidence page. I'm guessing from your protests that you have difficulty interpreting anything visual?  Is there some way I can make it easier for you to comprehend?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Andy, it's from the councils consultation/evidence page. I'm guessing from your protests that you have difficulty interpreting anything visual?  Is there some way I can make it easier for you to comprehend?


I thought you'd overcome your predilection for including the Moorlands Estate.

Can you link us up?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 24, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The social injustice bit seems to mostly crop up in the Railton rd ltn, because part of the area that benefits is well off and the streets which would see an initial rise in traffic are not well off.


I think that's accurate. All LTNs seem to have their own characteristics. Railton area LTN is a special case imo becasue satnav, etc encourages drivers to divert via roads and estates of predominately social housing. People in those places - especially children with still developing lungs -paying the price for the people at Railton to benefit.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 24, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Railton area LTN is a special case imo becasue satnav, etc encourages drivers to divert via roads and estates of predominately social housing.


Except it doesn't, as has been shown already - there's far more social housing within the area that benefits than there is on the surrounding roads, and in fact, the boundary roads don't seem to be predominantly social housing at all.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 24, 2020)

editor said:


> I'd wager that the vast majority of people had no idea these consultations were taking place - at least that's the most repeated comment I've heard on social media and on the street.



As it seems to be on any scheme like this, no matter how much notice there is. It's a bit of a weird complaint really - lots of policy changes and general 'stuff' happens without everyone being consulted (or at least you don't know about them in advance if you're not paying attention and plugged into either the news (at a national level) or community groups (at a local level).  If you agree with a change you don't then scream and shout about a lack of consultation. If you don't agree with it maybe you do.  But what does that change - presumably if they'd been asked the people complaining about a lack of consultation would be saying "we want to be able to drive wherever we like" and at some point the answer would have been "sorry, but that's not what we're asking you".  

There was years of consultation in Dulwich about Dulwich Village, and about Rosendale Road but still people were complaining about a lack of consultation. Ultimately the only consultation people are happy with is one that matches their own views...


----------



## editor (Aug 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> As it seems to be on any scheme like this, no matter how much notice there is. It's a bit of a weird complaint really - lots of policy changes and general 'stuff' happens without everyone being consulted (or at least you don't know about them in advance if you're not paying attention and plugged into either the news (at a national level) or community groups (at a local level).  If you agree with a change you don't then scream and shout about a lack of consultation. If you don't agree with it maybe you do.  But what does that change - presumably if they'd been asked the people complaining about a lack of consultation would be saying "we want to be able to drive wherever we like" and at some point the answer would have been "sorry, but that's not what we're asking you".
> 
> There was years of consultation in Dulwich about Dulwich Village, and about Rosendale Road but still people were complaining about a lack of consultation. Ultimately the only consultation people are happy with is one that matches their own views...


So you're just going to dismiss the huge amounts of local anger from people who feel they weren't consulted enough/at all based on your anecdote about Dulwich Village? 

And your patronising blanket dismissal of everyone who is against the scheme isn't on either:  there's plenty of people who are for LTNs but are against the implementation and the lack of community involvement in these ones.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Except it doesn't, as has been shown already - there's far more social housing within the area that benefits than there is on the surrounding roads, and in fact, the boundary roads don't seem to be predominantly social housing at all.


nah. It's what you want to be the case, but it isn't. 

Besdies, how much is the value of social housing increasing, Mr Foxtons?


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 24, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> nah. It's what you want to be the case, but it isn't.


I know you don’t like pictures do maybe you could make me a spreadsheet or something with numbers to back up your case? Or could we just have some more catch phrases?. That’s more your thing isn’t it? You must have more than two. Can you try humour again? That was funny for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 24, 2020)

editor said:


> So you're just going to dismiss the huge amounts of local anger from people who feel they weren't consulted enough/at all based on your anecdote about Dulwich Village?


The point was that the level of opposition and the arguments made by those opposing don't seem to change in cases where there has been long periods of consultation.



editor said:


> And your patronising blanket dismissal of everyone who is against the scheme isn't on either:  there's plenty of people who are for LTNs but are against the implementation and the lack of community involvement in these ones.


and then the question becomes "what would you change?".  These are being pitched as trials with an ongoing consultation - these people ARE being consulted, the community IS being involved as it goes on (stuff has been changed at Oval already). So the underlying complaints must go beyond 'we weren't consulted' or surely they would engage with the consultation now instead of marching on the town hall....


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> The point was that the level of opposition and the arguments made by those opposing don't seem to change in cases where there has been long periods of consultation.


Except, there hasn't been a long period of consultation and a lot of people have had other things on their minds recently. 



thebackrow said:


> These are being pitched as trials with an ongoing consultation - these people ARE being consulted, the community IS being involved as it goes on (stuff has been changed at Oval already).


_Some_ people are getting involved with the consultation but its clear an awful lot aren't, and that's why they're pissed off. Judging but what I've read elsewhere, many had absolutely no idea that this was even happening, let alone there was a consultation supposedly going on.  And even if people did find the confusingly-named websites, how many people are going to know what a 'node' is when it comes to their streets?

Thing is, I'm all for LTNs, but the reasons and the benefits need to be properly explained to locals who may be affected by them, and it's not fair to keep dismissing their concerns when it's clear many feel very strongly that there really hasn't been a comprehensive community consultation in advance of these changes.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 25, 2020)

The last few posts about consultation were initiated by this:



In other words, answering the claim that there has been "zero consultation".

This thread records when the ideas were first made public, which was May 2019.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 25, 2020)

editor said:


> Except, there hasn't been a long period of consultation and a lot of people have had other things on their minds recently.
> 
> _Some_ people are getting involved with the consultation but its clear an awful lot aren't, and that's why they're pissed off. Judging but what I've read elsewhere, many had absolutely no idea that this was even happening, let alone there was a consultation supposedly going on.  And even if people did find the confusingly-named websites, how many people are going to know what a 'node' is when it comes to their streets?
> 
> Thing is, I'm all for LTNs, but the reasons and the benefits need to be properly explained to locals who may be affected by them, and it's not fair to keep dismissing their concerns when it's clear many feel very strongly that there really hasn't been a comprehensive community consultation in advance of these changes.



May 2019 Buzz covered the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood looks to make the area more walking and cycling-friendly
Feb 2020 Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood wants your feedback on how your streets could be improved specific to Railton.
Covered by Brixton Blog/Bugle as well. A shout-out for help with Brixton’s roads crisis - 22000 letters and flyers, businesses visited, schools, community groups. 

There's a fair few people on this thread heavily involved in local community groups - if those groups are representative they would have surely reached out into the communities.  

It's obvious that the people organising these protests know about the consultation but for some reason rather than telling people that they're protesting which is why I'm really not convinced that any amount of comms would have led to a different outcome now.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 25, 2020)

editor said:


> Except, there hasn't been a long period of consultation and a lot of people have had other things on their minds recently.
> 
> _Some_ people are getting involved with the consultation but its clear an awful lot aren't, and that's why they're pissed off. Judging but what I've read elsewhere, many had absolutely no idea that this was even happening, let alone there was a consultation supposedly going on.  And even if people did find the confusingly-named websites, how many people are going to know what a 'node' is when it comes to their streets?
> 
> Thing is, I'm all for LTNs, but the reasons and the benefits need to be properly explained to locals who may be affected by them, and it's not fair to keep dismissing their concerns when it's clear many feel very strongly that there really hasn't been a comprehensive community consultation in advance of these changes.



The LTNs are an emergency measure in reaction to the pandemic. The changes haven't been fully implemented, they're being actively tested. People can easily make their views clear now. It's pretty much the purest form of consultation.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> In other words, answering the claim that there has been "zero consultation".
> 
> This thread records when the ideas were first made public, which was May 2019.


Its just  game, surely you know that.

Do you think the people who feel the negative impact of this LTN in their lungs around Angell Town were consulted?
Do you think Claire Holland 'gamed' the response of satnav algorithyms to her traffic management policies?
Do you honestly think Lambeth Labour is that competent, or actually thinks that well?
'Would you like additional pollution on the streets around your children's school?'
'Would you like more danger on the streets here so others can benefit by £30,000'
'How about £50,000?'

Hope someone brings a sign to this protest: Black Lungs Matter


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 25, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> The LTNs are an emergency measure in reaction to the pandemic. The changes haven't been fully implemented, they're being actively tested. People can easily make their views clear now. It's pretty much the purest form of consultation.


Bless you for trying


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 25, 2020)

The One Lambeth Facebook group is one whole weird set of anti Khan / TFL loonery.

Warning letters for passing through the Railton ANPR (HH end) are going out now.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 25, 2020)

Nobody's been dismissing stuff on this thread, even in the face of a lot of sniping.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 25, 2020)

What definitely could have been done better is communication on what will happen, because a lot of the anger seems to be around -" they're shutting this street, all the traffic will just go down there"...


----------



## nick (Aug 25, 2020)

small section on this on Radio 4 you and Yours @ around 1105 today


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> What definitely could have been done better is communication on what will happen, because a lot of the anger seems to be around -" they're shutting this street, all the traffic will just go down there"...


Exactly.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 25, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Hope someone brings a sign to this protest: Black Lungs Matter


Why leave it to someone else? Can't you do it, since you feel so strongly about it? BTW my offer of a stroll, coffee and chat still stands as I'd like to listen to your concerns rather than just playing post ping pong on the internet.....


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Aug 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The last few posts about consultation were initiated by this:
> 
> View attachment 227810
> 
> ...


What I meant is people always feel under consulted whatever you do  i.e. i understand that complaint.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 25, 2020)

editor said:


> There's a fair few people on this thread heavily involved in local community groups - if those groups are representative they would have surely reached out into the communities.



Yes. In Loughborough Junction . In LJ there is not a lot of support for Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood. So far the Council have left LJ alone.

Consultation on the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood in LJ ( LJ is in the boundary) had started but was cut short due to the pandemic.

Council have wisely not tried to impose a LTN on LJ using emergency powers they have during pandemic.

There has been local support for pavement widening in LJ.

I look at what is happening in other areas and feel the Council didnt learn the lessons of the failed road closures in LJ.

Fact is the consultation on Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood was only in early stages. Pandemic cut it short.

Council decided to put in place schemes without full consultation using emergency powers it has during pandemic

No wonder some people aren't happy. They might be the people who wold oppose it anyway. Doing it the way the Council has means they are left open to accusation of not consulting. Which they haven't.

There is also the suspicion by some that these schemes are permanent. That the Council are not being genuine when they say full consultation will happen later.

Council could deal with this by saying the emergency LTNs are temporary and they will consult later. People will get choice to keep them or get rid of them. Or alter them ( example remove Shakespeare road filter. )


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> There is also the suspicion by some that these schemes are permanent. That the Council are not being genuine when they say full consultation will happen later.
> 
> Council could deal with this by saying the emergency LTNs are temporary and they will consult later. People will get choice to keep them or get rid of them. Or alter them ( example remove Shakespeare road filter. )


Everything I've read and heard about LTN's (from officers and Cllrs as well LBL online info) indicate to me that this is exactly what is happening. They are a temporary measure put in place due to the need for quick action, they will be consulted on 'in real time', changes will be made according to feedback during the course of the 18 month trial and if, at the end of the 'experiment' the data shows that things have not worked then they will not become permanent. Now is the chance for people to have a say


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 25, 2020)

Perhaps it's coincidental that the Railton LTN in particular feeds into the council leaderships almost fetishising of a pseudo bistro culture along the bottom end of Atlantic Road.  Absolutely no one at the town hall is girding their loins at the prospect of people pouring out of the Oval/Brixton theatre and marvelling at the range of outdoor eateries extending along ye olde Frontline. Meanwhile, those in social housing can eat cake.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2020)

Interesting report here from Walthamstow's scheme






			http://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Village-Review-Report-FINAL.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3_KVylEFYc9kb921Wgr06reBTfs6fpzuclpVyKbzrL6gtafuPCWCYpUpc


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 25, 2020)

'pretty_pictures/residents'? This is the people who live inside the LTN? Not the people in surrounding areas who pay the price?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 25, 2020)

Ahh Walthamstow. The poster boy of the LTN crowd. What does it show us? From other forums:

This is all from the data the council released:
_


Traffic reduced by one percent. Walking and cycling up heavily but bear in mind there is the possibility of dirty data -  original survey was September (possibly bad weather, schools, etc) and follow up survey was June/July -(so better weather and possibly schools closed.
Residents view on journeys. Heavy swing to worse - i.e even if you are in an LTN....you're surrounded by traffic when you want to get out.
Net results shows traffic swing to only have improved by 1%
When residents decided to leave a comment it was 'open the roads please'.
Only 2...not 2%...just two visitors to the area said the LTN made them decide to change their method of transport (and it doesn't say what the change was!)
47% of businesses say customer numbers decreased. 53% say turnover decreased. They do not split out 'increased' and 'stayed the same' which is worrying from an analysis point of view
56% of businesses said their suppliers had difficulty reaching them
46% of businesses against the scheme
_


----------



## teuchter (Aug 25, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Ahh Walthamstow. The poster boy of the LTN crowd. What does it show us? From other forums:
> 
> This is all from the data the council released:
> 
> ...


You did all this already, a few days ago. Or was that someone else?


----------



## Winot (Aug 26, 2020)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 26, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> 'pretty_pictures/residents'? This is the people who live inside the LTN? Not the people in surrounding areas who pay the price?


Presumably you've got some reports to back this up?.
 I can't wait to see the pictures - you been slagging everyone elses.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 26, 2020)

The point was, geographically,  no one knows what the term 'Residents' actually represents


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 26, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The point was, geographically,  no one knows what the term 'Residents' actually represents


Exactly. Could be both inside and outside the LTN.
PS how's your banner coming on?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 26, 2020)

Coldharbour Lane today around lunchtime. I felt that there was less traffic than there was around the same time a few weeks ago, but I am not a neutral observer. And photos are with the usual disclaimers.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 26, 2020)

Some of the new Railton LTN street furniture. The camera is now up on the Shakespeare filter.

Herne Hill is a bit chaotic due to the bridge works (after someone crashed into it last week).

The planter is by Hamilton’s


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 26, 2020)

Also the pedestrianised bit by the station is busier than pre covid now even during the day. Mixed communities not the usual Florence clientele.

I’m assuming some people WFH shopping and eating locally more.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 26, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Everything I've read and heard about LTN's (from officers and Cllrs as well LBL online info) indicate to me that this is exactly what is happening. They are a temporary measure put in place due to the need for quick action, they will be consulted on 'in real time', changes will be made according to feedback during the course of the 18 month trial and if, at the end of the 'experiment' the data shows that things have not worked then they will not become permanent. Now is the chance for people to have a say



I find what the Council say ambiguous :


> There is an urgent need to rapidly alter London’s streets to serve unprecedented demand for walking and cycling at a time when public transport capacity is very limited. The Government have made £250 million available for swift, emergency interventions to make cycling and walking safer. The Mayor of London is working with boroughs on three keys areas, one of which is reducing traffic on residential streets to create low traffic neighbourhoods.
> 
> Normally we would engage extensively with stakeholders before acting but this isn't possible if we are to act quickly. We know that the temporary scheme won't get everything right. This website allows us to receive your feedback on what is working and what isn't. We can use this feedback to help us develop plans to create a more permanent low traffic neighbourhood in the Railton area.











						Have your say
					

Have your say and help shape the future of your community.




					rtstreets.commonplace.is
				




Way I read this is Council saying they have not consulted. The temporary scheme is in. Comments wiill feed into a permanent scheme.

So imo the Council should make clear local communities will have option to reject an LTN.

This ambiguity feeds into opposition to these LTNs.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 26, 2020)

Agree, that Lambeth did not/are not consulting before putting in the temporary schemes - there has not been time to do this - as we know consultations can take years...
I guess the way I read 'a more permanent LTN' is different. Some measures might actually work in reducing traffic without major knock on effects and these could be kept. What I find sad is this outright rejection of something which could improve residents lives - not even wanting to try something different for the sake of the future generations.
But I also agree that the way the 'PR' has been handled by Lambeth is terrible and has not helped the situation. But hey, after 25 years in the borough, I've sort of come to expect this.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 26, 2020)

nick said:


> small section on this on Radio 4 you and Yours @ around 1105 today


I heard this. It was very much on the one hand and on the other hand quoting both sides - the main issue being non consultation.
I suppose that is fair enough for a magazine programme called From Our Home Correspondent BBC Radio 4 - From Our Home Correspondent, 25/08/2020


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 26, 2020)

https://twitter.com/RoadWorksMedia


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

Joint statement 









						Community groups release joint statement in support of Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood Trials
					

The introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes across Lambeth has become something of a political battleground, with numerous neighbourhood groups pledging their support or opposition …



					bit.ly


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 27, 2020)

ffs. Who's idea was it to have a protest at 3.30 on a Thursday afternoon - could you get any more obtuse ..


----------



## teuchter (Aug 27, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> ffs. Who's idea was it to have a protest at 3.30 on a Thursday afternoon - could you get any more obtuse ..


Hope your banner's waterproof


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

If anyone is going could they please take some pics for Buzz because I really can't be arsed.


----------



## eno (Aug 27, 2020)

Overall this is just YET another chance for Lambeth Council to raise money by fining motorists.

We need A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD HERE.

Cyclists should have to pay towards costs of Cycle Lanes - and I don't wanna here grit about WE ALL PAY ALREADY!


Giving priority to one group is an outrage.

It's quite clear the division this ill considerered scheme has caused & the affect on local businesses is devastating.

It's interesting to read cyclist now saying ELECTRIC VEHICLES are even more dangerous as they can't be heard!

BTW what about the large of electrically assisted bikes¿

The myriad of cyclists who regularly ride on walkways, jump traffic light, exceed the speed limit should be prosecuted


CEO's have the power to issue Fixed Penalties but continue only to harass motorists.

When fast food deliveries vastly increase their costs maybe these selfish morons will think again.

The Ferdale LTN has been introduced with scant consultation using false arguments & without the necessary legal requirements.

To get to the Post Office by car, only 100 yards or so, I would now have to travel via Clapham or go through Stockwell Road & Up Brixton Road & then down again!

We need to rid ourselves of the likes of Joshua Lindsey & his cohorts.

It's obscene there are THREE COUNCILLORS for Ferndale alone.

WE MUST FORCE LAMBETH TO LISTEN TO US & not to the ridiculous bunch of self-appointed dictators claiming to represent US!

They don't.

Ýūk!


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> To get to the Post Office by car, only 100 yards or so, I would now have to travel via Clapham or go through Stockwell Road & Up Brixton Road & then down again!


You could just walk


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Overall this is just YET another chance for Lambeth Council to raise money by fining motorists.
> 
> We need A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD HERE.
> 
> ...



"To get to the Post Office by car, only 100 yards or so." Priceless.  Leaving that aside, I thought it was a very balanced, nuanced post, though.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> To get to the Post Office by car, only 100 yards or so, I would now have to travel via Clapham or go through Stockwell Road & Up Brixton Road & then down again!


Why the hell do you need to DRIVE 100 yards?


----------



## eno (Aug 27, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> You could just walk


Unfortunately I am severely disabled & unable to walk.

Presumably you reckon I should just have to stay indoors.

You are SO typical of the ignorant, selfish, dictatorial twats polluting Brixton.

Ůģh!


----------



## eno (Aug 27, 2020)

editor said:


> Why the hell do you need to DRIVE 100 yards?


'Cos I am PHYSICALLY unable to walk no bed.

Vómit!


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Unfortunately I am severely disabled & unable to walk.
> 
> Presumably you reckon I should just have to stay indoors.
> 
> ...


Think it’s you making assumptions about me, not the other way round. How am I supposed to know you are disabled if you don’t mention it in your rant.


----------



## eno (Aug 27, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> "To get to the Post Office by car, only 100 yards or so." Priceless.  Leaving that aside, I thought it was a very balanced, nuanced post, though.


Øh Nice Dearié.

You're just YET ANOTHER ignoramus who doesn't give s damn for others but who just wants to use these forums to spout bile & slag people off WITHOUT any thought whatsoever.

I happen to be unable to walk.

You are a piece of garbage.

Ůgh!





Not a Vet said:


> Think it’s you making assumptions about me, not the other way round. How am I supposed to know you are disabled if you don’t mention it in your rant.


'Cos you're a presumptuous twat.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Øh Nice Dearié.
> 
> You're just YET ANOTHER ignoramus who doesn't give s damn for others but who just wants to use these forums to spout bile & slag people off WITHOUT any thought whatsoever.
> 
> ...


Fuck off troll


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> 'Cos I am PHYSICALLY unable to walk no bed.
> 
> Vómit!


And the only possible way for you to move 100 yards is in a car?


----------



## eno (Aug 27, 2020)

editor said:


> And the only possible way for you to move 100 yards is in a car?


Erm...


YES.

You really can't be that thick can yoú¿


And that's the reaśon I have a Motability vehicĺe.

No doubt you would stőp that tôò.

What are your medical qualifications BTW¿

ÝÙĶ!


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Erm...
> 
> 
> YES.
> ...


What kind of mobility vehicle? Instead of hurling out random insults, why not take the time to explain your situation properly? That way you won't come over as belligerent prick.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 27, 2020)

We all do pay towards roads, they come out of general taxation and council tax, that’s whether you have a car or not.

As for one group having priority, that’s a fucking joke, take a look at the amount of space and money given over to cars versus anything else.


----------



## eno (Aug 27, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Fuck off troll


Reported.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Reported.


But you think it's OK for you to call people 'pieces of garbage' and 'twats'?


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Reported.


I really want to know where you've reported them too.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

Comment on Buzz: 



> I was assaulted & pushed into the traffic outside Lambeth Town Hall today by two of the anti road closures demonstrators. My crime was to give them a thumbs gown & shout “I want to breathe cleaner air!” In their direction while standing on the opposite side of the pavement… This was witnessed by all present & none of them lifted a finger to restrain their comrades who fled the scene.
> Poor turnout as it turns out. There can’t have been more than a couple of dozen of them.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 27, 2020)

editor said:


> Comment on Buzz:



I shouted "Love LTNs" at them at 4.55 but I'm Scottish and not to be messed with.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> To get to the Post Office by car, only 100 yards or so, I would now have to travel via Clapham or go through Stockwell Road & Up Brixton Road & then down again!


Is there a maximum size of shop you can visit then? It must be nearly 100 yards from the disabled parking spaces to the back of Tesco and presumably places like shopping malls are out of the question - somewhere like Westfield must be 500m from end to end?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 27, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> I shouted "Love LTNs" at them at 4.55 but I'm Scottish and not to be messed with.



Sorry - was that "eleven"?


----------



## eno (Aug 27, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Is there a maximum size of shop you can visit then? It must be nearly 100 yards from the disabled parking spaces to the back of Tesco and presumably places like shopping malls are out of the question - somewhere like Westfield must be 500m from end to end?


Clearly yõu have no idea of reality whatsóever.

The disabled bays at Tesco's Acre Lane are âbout 20 yards from the store entřance. 

And what the hell has WESTFIELD gót to dó with anything¿

Why not BŮTT OŮT of things that you have Naff All knowledğe of¿

ŮĢH!


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> The disabled bays at Tesco's Acre Lane are âbout 20 yards from the store entřance.


But what do you do once you get into the store?  or do they let you take your car up and down the aisles?


----------



## Aristocrat (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Cyclists should have to pay towards costs of Cycle Lanes - and I don't wanna here grit about WE ALL PAY ALREADY!



Since you asked... taxpayers all pay towards the cost of cycle lanes, including cyclist taxpayers, of which I'm one.

And we all pay towards the cost of roads, and the much more significant wear and tear created to roads by cars, even those of us including me which don't own a car.

Those of us that don't own cars also pay through our taxes whenever a lunatic drives his or her car into street infrastructure, as has happened regularly along Coldharbour Lane, Dulwich Rd and Railton Rd in the past few months. Repair costs often run into the £ tens of thousands.

We also pay through our taxes for the health costs which are borne (by people obviously but also) by the NHS of pollution created by cars.

When someone chooses to smoke, mostly, these days, laws protect other people from their smoke (although not immediate members of their family, sadly), and the taxes on cigarettes outweigh the costs to society.

But when someone chooses to drive, the negative costs for everyone else are shared equally by the whole of society, not just the person choosing to drive.

Very unfair.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Why not BŮTT OŮT of things that you have Naff  ll knowledğe of¿
> ŮĢH!



Also, not sure if you've noticed, but there seems to be a problem with your keyboard.  Looks like they're under a tenner on Amazon - we could have a whip round to get you one that works if you like?






						Logitech K120 Wired Business Keyboard for Windows or Linux, USB Plug-and-Play, Full-Size, Spill Resistant, Curved Space Bar, PC/Laptop, QWERTY UK Layout - Black: Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories
					

Buy Logitech K120 Wired Business Keyboard for Windows or Linux, USB Plug-and-Play, Full-Size, Spill Resistant, Curved Space Bar, PC/Laptop, QWERTY UK Layout - Black at Amazon UK. Free delivery and return on eligible orders.



					www.amazon.co.uk


----------



## eno (Aug 27, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> But what do you do once you get into the store?  or do they let you take your car up and down the aisles?


Secónd wôrd is OFF Dearié.

ÝÙĶ!


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 27, 2020)

eno said:


> Secónd wôrd is OFF Dearié.
> 
> ÝÙĶ!


I don't know what you tried but that hasn't fixed your keyboard problem, or answered the question.


----------



## editor (Aug 27, 2020)

This discussion has gone a bit weird since the Keyboard Special Characters King showed up.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 27, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I don't know what you tried but that hasn't fixed your keyboard problem, or answered the question.



I'm genuinely not trying to be funny but I quite like the random word tagged on the end, like some sort of weird sign-off. It's very powerful.

Uuuurgh!


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 28, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Agree, that Lambeth did not/are not consulting before putting in the temporary schemes - there has not been time to do this - as we know consultations can take years...
> I guess the way I read 'a more permanent LTN' is different. Some measures might actually work in reducing traffic without major knock on effects and these could be kept. What I find sad is this outright rejection of something which could improve residents lives - not even wanting to try something different for the sake of the future generations.
> But I also agree that the way the 'PR' has been handled by Lambeth is terrible and has not helped the situation. But hey, after 25 years in the borough, I've sort of come to expect this.


I don’t think it was an outright rejection just a daunting realisation, that ppl on the outside of the LTN grid were experiencing disadvantages from day one and these  unwelcome changes got ‘worse’ but voices ‘in side’ the LTN (who appeared to be way ahead of the game) brushed off these concerns as ‘some inconvenience’ so an obvious resentment grew which   changed to incredulity as the examples of prior LTN  success being quoted at residents were revealed to be so dreadful!  Waltham Forest 1% reduction in traffic with a 53% reduction in business revenue! ( one examp) So who flogged this to local council & residents that they are so roundly impressed with such evidence and their neighbours are considered ungrateful or divisive for not going along with it?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Waltham Forest 1% reduction in traffic


Again: not true.


----------



## eno (Aug 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Again: not true.


Is that the besť yøu cañ dø Dearię¿


Ůģh!


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 28, 2020)

I dunno Brassed off , I see alot of these petitions and groups calling for LTNs to to stopped, which to me seems like a rejection.
Some of the language I find quite alarming... comparing it to like living in a dictatorship, Communist country, being 'kettled' etc. 
It's such a shame that something that aims improve the quality of life for people has become so devisive by the way it's been implemented


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 28, 2020)

eno said:


> Is that the besť yøu cañ dø Dearię¿
> 
> 
> Ůģh!



I've been browsing Eno's twitter posts. Non-stop stream of insane, racist, misogynistic, anti-Scottish bile.

YUK


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 28, 2020)

I don't think you're allowed to post IRL names here wurlycurly. Suggest you delete if that's true...


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 28, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I don't think you're allowed to post IRL names here wurlycurly. Suggest you delete if that's true...


Thanks. It was a non de plume but I've deleted it anyway.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 28, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> Edit


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> It also doesn't prove that there will be no problems with displaced traffic.
> 
> ...


It’s already displacing Traffic! Ask them on Milkwood, Coldharbour, Acre Land! And there is barely any Traffic in London at the moment  many ppl still away.Although LTN are already causing chaos at many times of the day! Fiire Engine stuck OneFerndale LTN,yesterday & a local GP on camera calling out poor LTN planning and extreme difficulty for her and her district nurses. You are determined to leave any criticism of LTN unaddressed! The concerns they raise are not going away however much you wish they would.


----------



## newbie (Aug 28, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> It's such a shame that something that aims improve the quality of life for people has become so devisive by the way it's been implemented


It's not just the implementation, these schemes are intended to be divisive.  The explicit aim is to frustrate local drivers out of their cars.  The health & wellbeing benefits are mostly for insiders, though not spread evenly, as insiders with disabilities or mobility restrictions are particularly aggrieved about the effect on them. Anticipated financial gains are reserved for insider homeowners and landlords. Additional pressure on the surrounding arteries means those who live or work there are likely to see their quality of life fall.

That is all divisive and is all by design. 

It's also by design that they are being imposed at a time when division is least appropriate. We've witnessed extraordinary cohesive mutuality in the face of the virus and no-one knows what will be required in the future.  To deliberately stir up communities at this time is pretty much the opposite of what's needed, particularly when so many people are frightened of public transport and, with so many working from home, commuting is way down anyway.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 28, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> There’s one worker for a local hospital / NHS trust who is very against it. Turns out they’re the local physical activity champion tasked with delivery a community health programme where one of its main delivery methods is promoting active travel (walking and cycling as part of an social prescription programme).


Yes! And?? That’s exactly what that nurse does and she and many other health care professionals are very concerned about a scheme that pushes more pollution on to already polluted residential main roads! She is doing her job she alone pointed out Lambeth had not produced an EIA and the one they  subsequently then  cobbled together is inadequate and is being looked into by disabilities charities currently. A GP on Ferndale LTN yesterday, just like our nurse resident, was on camera yesterday calling out how the LTN’s disadvantage disabled, sick & dying neighbours in her community. Stop brushing ppls concerns under the carpet they are genuine.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2020)

Of course, before any of these schemes were started, there was no division. Harmony on the roads, and an extensive consensus about which road users should have priority where. Sure, a bit of congestion and air pollution and a few cars smashed into bus stops and so on, but the status quo was working just fine and the community was agreed on that.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 28, 2020)

newbie said:


> The explicit aim is to frustrate local drivers out of their cars.



I didn't quote all your post as this is the bit I want to respond to. Absolutely this is the aim - for those who have the option to use an alternative such as walking, cycling, scooting - YES. Then there will be more space/less congestion on the roads for those who have to use their cars. Example - a good friend of mine who lives 10 minutes walk from me always drives to visit me. Why? - no other reason than he can. He has two good legs and even a bike! I would never drive to his house. If we can encourage people like him to walk, then this means less cars. I'm working on him...., thinking of not letting him in unless he's left his car behind!

I know it's not this simple, but we have to try and do something to cut unnecessary car journeys. People just won't do it unless they are made to


----------



## eno (Aug 28, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> I've been browsing Eno's twitter posts. Non-stop stream of insane, racist, misogynistic, anti-Scottish bile.
> 
> YUK
> [/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## eno (Aug 28, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> Thanks. It was a non de plume but I've deleted it anyway.


It appearś wurlycurly makes å habit of postiņg inapprõpriate, illegal, libelous cańt.

It has béěn repőrted.

Ýúk!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2020)

Yesterday's protest looks like it was a bit underwhelming.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 28, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> I've been browsing Eno's twitter posts. Non-stop stream of insane, racist, misogynistic, anti-Scottish bile.
> 
> YUK


Self-important and presumptuous to think anyone cares enough about what you think to act on this. If you have something to report or something you want to share, go ahead, otherwise it's just smearing someone you disagree with.


----------



## eno (Aug 28, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Self-important and presumptuous to think anyone cares enough about what you think to act on this. If you have something to report or something you want to share, go ahead, otherwise it's just smearing someone you disagree with.


ABSŐLŮTELY TRUĖ.

Unfortunately wurlycurly is so typical of the sôrt of unbalanced bigøt whose prejudices are so deeply ingrained he regularly resorts to personal abuse in place of reasoned argument.

This forum needs to rid itself of such maliģn influences.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 28, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I dunno Brassed off , I see alot of these petitions and groups calling for LTNs to to stopped, which to me seems like a rejection.
> Some of the language I find quite alarming... comparing it to like living in a dictatorship, Communist country, being 'kettled' etc.
> It's such a shame that something that aims improve the quality of life for people has become so devisive by the way it's been implemented


Well sparkybird your community has 1000’s of voices and they may not all dovetail into ‘perfect’ measured presentation, but none the less they all want clean green schemes to walk cycle and live with clean air, but when communities know they are repeatedly being handed the ‘shitty end’ of the stick they are not fools. What so frustrating is Lambeths slow peeved inabilities to acknowledge this! Many of Those deeply committed to the scheme have gone out of their way to belittle and marginalise those who have concerns. Still no one knows the metrics for success we are repeatedly linked Waltham Forest report which talks of overall improvement to car journeys as 1% is that what Lambeth have bought into? Schools streets/timed bollards/ play streets/ electric cars & busses/ Speed cams everywhere at 20mph. and not schemes where councillors & MPs trash their neighbours& constituents.


----------



## eno (Aug 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Well sparkybird your community has 1000’s of voices and they may not all dovetail into ‘perfect’ measured presentation, but none the less they all want clean green schemes to walk cycle and live with clean air, but when communities know they are repeatedly being handed the ‘shitty end’ of the stick they are not fools. What so frustrating is Lambeths slow peeved inabilities to acknowledge this! Many of Those deeply committed to the scheme have gone out of their way to belittle and marginalise those who have concerns. Still no one knows the metrics for success we are repeatedly linked Waltham Forest report which talks of overall improvement to car journeys as 1% is that what Lambeth have bought into? Schools streets/timed bollards/ play streets/ electric cars & busses/ Speed cams everywhere at 20mph. and not schemes where councillors & MPs trash their neighbours& constituents.


Excellent stuff!

Bravò.

🙃


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Yesterday's protest looks like it was a bit underwhelming.




So some guy from Islington, the ex UKIP indie mayoral candidate, some aggro Taxi driver from Hackney who turns up to protest pretty much anything (and always wears the same outfit).  It's looking like most of these people aren't even from south of the river, let alone local. 

Çȁñ Ū điĢ iẗ¿  RiĢhẗ ÕN!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 28, 2020)

I wonder what the reaction would be to RTS protests on these boards now?....


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 28, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I dunno Brassed off , I see alot of these petitions and groups calling for LTNs to to stopped, which to me seems like a rejection.
> Some of the language I find quite alarming... comparing it to like living in a dictatorship, Communist country, being 'kettled' etc.
> It's such a shame that something that aims improve the quality of life for people has become so devisive by the way it's been implemented


Wanting things to remain as they are, it’s small c conservatism, add in the status that car ownership has to some people, the “freedoms” that are being taken away etc. 
It’s no accident that it’s left leaning councils are the ones trying this out.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> So some guy from Islington, the ex UKIP indie mayoral candidate, some aggro Taxi driver from Hackney who turns up to protest pretty much anything (and always wears the same outfit).  It's looking like most of these people aren't even from south of the river, let alone local.
> 
> Çȁñ Ū điĢ iẗ¿  RiĢhẗ ÕN!


I’m not sure ‘repeat outfits is a crime’ certainly ex ukippers is an issue and he won’t be invited again, (former revolutionary communist Brexiteers & XR 5G anti Vaxers posting Trump tweets  are all big on lobbying against council ‘group think’, so yes with fast growing protest groups you have to be vigilant! who gets in!) ) as 4  black cab drivers, I’ve taken many a cab journey over the years if they can go electric across the board, that’s fine by me. But the majority where local residents from Ferndale & some of us from RailtonLTN. It was hastily organised as the  Main speaker ( a mother of disabled son struggling to get him to school) felt compelled to ‘get out there! Local businesses came and a  local ward councillor from Stockwell. Who was inside talking with Claire Holland on a local LTN matter and supporting his constituents, that’s what ppl are asking for ppl to listen & not just tow the party line because it’s convenient. If businesses go under the entire community will loose! I want local businesses to be supported, I don’t expect them to be patronised and trashed. If you value the diverse community you live in, listen to it, find solutions so everyone wins without damaging others.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 28, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Wanting things to remain as they are, it’s small c conservatism, add in the status that car ownership has to some people, the “freedoms” that are being taken away etc.
> It’s no accident that it’s left leaning councils are the ones trying this out.


Respectfully you don’t sound like someone who is going to loose their livelihood over this? You sound like you are happy to watch the ‘experiment unfold’ without having much skin in the game! IDK, I don’t want to be rubbish you, there is way too much of that going on. This community is open to changed and if comprehensively engaged with would have really surprised you! If Waltham Forest had reported 40-50% car journey reductions it might have been a  price worth paying for transformative change. But at 1% decrease! What the feck’ is going on? A why is that acceptable to impose across a highly populated inner city borough!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> If Waltham Forest had reported 40-50% car journey reductions it might have been a  price worth paying for transformative change.


Ok then. What would the measure be, that would satisfy you? Residents travel 40-50% fewer miles by car? 40-50% of residents report using their car less? Residents see a 40-50% drop in traffic on their street? What do you mean when you say "40-50% car journey reductions"?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Respectfully you don’t sound like someone who is going to loose their livelihood over this? You sound like you are happy to watch the ‘experiment unfold’ without having much skin in the game! IDK, I don’t want to be rubbish you, there is way too much of that going on. This community is open to changed and if comprehensively engaged with would have really surprised you! If Waltham Forest had reported 40-50% car journey reductions it might have been a  price worth paying for transformative change. But at 1% decrease! What the feck’ is going on? A why is that acceptable to impose across a highly populated inner city borough!


I won’t lose my livelihood over this you’re right, but I am also taking warnings from shopholders with a massive pinch of salt at the moment because I see shops all over struggle because of covid. Can you explain why I’m wrong?. People are furloughed and worried about losing their jobs, that’s why they’re not going into shops and spending money.


I can also see the potential for moving away from a polluting mode of transport, if you build it they will come..


----------



## eno (Aug 28, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Wanting things to remain as they are, it’s small c conservatism, add in the status that car ownership has to some people, the “freedoms” that are being taken away etc.
> It’s no accident that it’s left leaning councils are the ones trying this out.


With respect @Lambeth_council impősing these vilë #LTN's on us withoůt ANY consultatiôn whatsoevėr & barely any notiće & withøut due proçess is DICTATORIAL indêêd.

No ifs nø buťs.

These are facts & therefore why you feél it inapprøpriate to meńtion this is a mysterý to mè!


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 28, 2020)

Bikes v cars v bus v pedestrians. This is why our city is dominated by the motor vehicle. Look at the cars when you're walking around and you'll see most of them have one occupant. Some of them will be driving down to the local shop.  Or the local Post Office. Change is long overdue.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 28, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I won’t lose my livelihood over this you’re right, but I am also taking warnings from shopholders with a massive pinch of salt at the moment because I see shops all over struggle because of covid. Can you explain why I’m wrong?. People are furloughed and worried about losing their jobs, that’s why they’re not going into shops and spending money.
> 
> 
> I can also see the potential for moving away from a polluting mode of transport, if you build it they will come..


Well it’s important that you ask yourself, otherwise my anecdotal feedback will not be enough for you. Ppl would be open to talk, I hope you can engage.
What has been said to me is that things were picking up after Covid 1st wave and when the road closed especially Railton it was as if the tap had been turned off (hardly surprising) and if you are an LTN fan the first big sign of success I guess.
I come from Liverpool, left home at 18. I didn’t stay local I moved 250miles away if I had, if my parents were still alive I’d be driving in to see them doing their shopping, taking them to and from appointments ( if they were independent enough)  point is this is a big working class borough, and many visitors ( by car) are returning locals doing just that supporting family & shopping locally for them, this is also a large BAME working class community and what I’m repeated told is a lot of former residents are out in Croydon they are returning from there and all over the borough to support family see friends, work! As you know Brixton it a culturally iconic hub! That’s why ppl fought for Nour it’s significance to many in the community that’s where BAME businesses are being hit hard and they don’t have much resilience in the way of deep pockets .
So those returning visitors are not ‘rat runners’ but valued customers and their ability to support the local community has been hugely underestimated.
10,000 small businesses in Lambeth many small & micro businesses employing 9 or less ppl. If these observations are dismissed as ‘rubbish, it’s Covid, it’s furlough when why are ppl in Herne Hill cafe and shops doing ok? I don’t know who you are but I worry that your reluctance to accept ‘their truth’ is more to do with an unshakable faith in the LTN model?
so if LTN’s are seen to damage livelihoods should those inside pay a levy to support such business? IDK?It certainly doesn’t look like it removes traffic, or improves pollution, but only gives the impression it does for those sailing through from one LTN grid to another, was that the plan?


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 28, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> View attachment 228233
> 
> Bikes v cars v bus. This is why our city is dominated by the motor vehicle. Look at the cars when you're walking around and you'll see most of them have one occupant. Some of them will be driving down to the local shop.  Or the local Post Office. Change is long overdue.


Yes that’s a very powerful image! Then the real challenge is curb side parking make it unprofitable to have cars outside homes. Across the board. Not just allowing the ‘in grid’ comfortably off to drive around at their ease! Less popular I imagine!


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Yes that’s a very powerful image! Then the real challenge is curb side parking make it unprofitable to have cars outside homes. Across the board. Not just allowing the ‘in grid’ comfortably off to drive around at their ease! Less popular I imagine!



If adding a few minutes to _some_ journeys is the first horseman of the apocalypse, I'd imagine a ban on kerbside parking would be the other three rocking up all at once.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Wanting things to remain as they are, it’s small c conservatism, add in the status that car ownership has to some people, the “freedoms” that are being taken away etc.
> It’s no accident that it’s left leaning councils are the ones trying this out.



What is forgotten is that section of the working class use roads to make a living. These are people I know. I personally know Black Cab drivers, Uber drivers, moped delivery guys. and van drivers. 

Was helping friend who is van driver yesterday. Road "filtering" around City is not making his life easier. He does not get paid more if delivery job takes longer. 

Its the reason , whilst Im a non car owning cyclist I understand the other side of it. 

Its not small "c" conservatism to not be happy with road "filtering"

Its an issue that is cross class.

When I cycle around a lot of traffic is people working. Not just people using cars to get around as they don't want to walk to friends or shops.

Its Uber, delivery vehicles, builders etc.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 28, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> If adding a few minutes to _some_ journeys is the first horseman of the apocalypse, I'd imagine a ban on kerbside parking would be the other three rocking up all at once.


Rationing parking permits? I reckon they'll be thinking of joining QAnon.

I don't have particularly strong views on this topic - never having owned a car, but:

- would it help of all cars were electric - or is it not really about pollution?

- I think the council is in  a slightly hypocritical postion on the whole issue. Until council house building ceased mid-Thatcher, it was absolutely essential to provide for car ownership and car parling on council estates. Some of this provision has been blocked up due to alleged drug taking in underground car parks etc, but in many estates car ownership is an assumed right - whatever people on here or in the traffic engineers department think.

- I have personally suffered because of selfish car owners in my terrace who petitioned to bring in parking controls almost as soon as they were invented thirty odd years ago. This is highly inconvenient when you need someone to do a week's work replacing a boiler, or renewing the roof.

- your raising parking rationing is not the best idea in my opinion. Something more like a local car tax supplement would be what I would argue for. Just to make car ownership less attractive. Frankly getting rid of the ACPOA traffic wardens would be quite liberating I would think.

Alternatively how about introducing LTN Toll Gates as in Dulwich? If the council are worried about ACPOA staff facing redundancy they could be redeployed to protective toll gates surrounding the Liveable Neighbourhoods. It seems Dulwich charge 1.20  for a single journey. That could be quite remunerative.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Well it’s important that you ask yourself, otherwise my anecdotal feedback will not be enough for you. Ppl would be open to talk, I hope you can engage.
> What has been said to me is that things were picking up after Covid 1st wave and when the road closed especially Railton it was as if the tap had been turned off (hardly surprising) and if you are an LTN fan the first big sign of success I guess.
> I come from Liverpool, left home at 18. I didn’t stay local I moved 250miles away if I had, if my parents were still alive I’d be driving in to see them doing their shopping, taking them to and from appointments ( if they were independent enough)  point is this is a big working class borough, and many visitors ( by car) are returning locals doing just that supporting family & shopping locally for them, this is also a large BAME working class community and what I’m repeated told is a lot of former residents are out in Croydon they are returning from there and all over the borough to support family see friends, work! As you know Brixton it a culturally iconic hub! That’s why ppl fought for Nour it’s significance to many in the community that’s where BAME businesses are being hit hard and they don’t have much resilience in the way of deep pockets .
> So those returning visitors are not ‘rat runners’ but valued customers and their ability to support the local community has been hugely underestimated.
> ...


if you are driving from Croydon though, how long are you spending stuck in traffic?. Is an extra 10 minutes really going to mean you don't do shopping for your parents?

There is no " faith" in an LTN model, they already exist all over the place, including in Brixton and they work. It's why estates don't have through roads. This isn't some new idea, it's been around for decades.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2020)

Also a lot of people are using transport indirectly. Buying onlline, using Uber for example. They don't own a car.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> if you are driving from Croydon though, how long are you spending stuck in traffic?. Is an extra 10 minutes really going to mean you don't do shopping for your parents?
> 
> There is no " faith" in an LTN model, they already exist all over the place, including in Brixton and they work. It's why estates don't have through roads. This isn't some new idea, it's been around for decades.



Its not as simple as that.

Take my area LJ. Council brought in CPZ. Not a lot of local opposition. As Council estate residents had on estate parking. It is only new developments which dont have right to a parking space.

For example i could still get a parking permit if I bought a car. As I still have that right.

So whilst some estates have no through road one could still own and park a car in the area.


----------



## wurlycurly (Aug 28, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Rationing parking permits? I reckon they'll be thinking of joining QAnon.
> 
> I don't have particularly strong views on this topic - never having owned a car, but:
> 
> ...



 I never raised the subject of the rationing of parking.  I was responding to Brassed Off, who did.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2020)

CH1 said:


> - I have personally suffered because of selfish car owners in my terrace who petitioned to bring in parking controls almost as soon as they were invented thirty odd years ago. This is highly inconvenient when you need someone to do a week's work replacing a boiler, or renewing the roof.



I tried to book the Council bulky waste disposal a while back. It now is service one pays for but its not to expensive. The online booking kept saying my address cannot have this service. 

When i managed to talk to them an issue was the CPZ - can't park.

This leaves me stuck with broken fridge,,cooker and old mattress. 

Hardly surprising that my street sees a lot of stuff put out on pavement at night.


----------



## eno (Aug 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> What is forgotten is that section of the working class use roads to make a living. These are people I know. I personally know Black Cab drivers, Uber drivers, moped delivery guys. and van drivers.
> 
> Was helping friend who is van driver yesterday. Road "filtering" around City is not making his life easier. He does not get paid more if delivery job takes longer.
> 
> ...


Bravö for being a decent, fair-minded persön who clearly understands there arĕ many differing views on the sůbject.

It's a pity môre people aren't less entřenchéd iń theiř viěws.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 28, 2020)

Attended this yesterday Onlne meeting.









						Coldharbour ward – Lambeth online meeting to ‘discuss community resilience and safety in your area,’ Thurs 27th Aug 2020
					

Lambeth is inviting residents to an online a meeting about the Coldharbour ward on Thursday August 27th, which will provide a, “new opportunity to discuss community resilience and safety in y…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




It is new Council initiative. I will comment on it more later on different thread. 

Someone from One Lambeth came to voice opposition to the Railton LTN. They did speak well.

She was local person and a nurse.

Those not happy with the Railton LTN have had meetings with the local Cllrs,

There were three Cllrs at the online meeting last night. 

Surprisingly she was not cut off. Had grumbling from one Cllr who always has go at anyone who criticises Council.

Got distinct feeling that the recent opposition has got the Labour Cllrs rattled.

Which I like to see. As ususally they think the can dismiss and belittle any oppositon. 

I must say Cllr Jacqui Dyer handled it well. I dont know her as a Cllr.

Gist of what the nurse said was that the Railton LTN was dividing commnity on racial / class lines ( gentrification) through Council placed barriers, pushing pollution onto other roads, pushing traffic onto roads around the LTN, making it less safe for women to walk home as streets were not busy and affecting badly BAME business.

So she was saying the Council imposed LTN was undermining community. 

She also complained of bullying by the cyclists supporting the LTN. She said she didnt like the way the senior Cllr in charge of this had treated people opposing the scheme.

To my surprise the Cllrs present did not cut her off. Or give her a hard a time. Except one who didnt surprise me. 

I did not agree with everything she said but its good to see the Cllrs on a back foot for once. That takes something.

The oppsitiion to the LTN are well organised lot.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 29, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Rationing parking permits? I reckon they'll be thinking of joining QAnon.
> 
> I don't have particularly strong views on this topic - never having owned a car, but:
> 
> ...



Interesting fact about electric cars....I only recently found out that exhaust emissions are only part of the problem with petrol/diesel cars - small, harmful particles are generated by wear and tear on brake pads and also the from the road itself. As petrol cars have got 'greener' these wear and tear emissions start to account for more of the bad stuff. And of course they still happen with electric cars - maybe more so as they can be heavier (due to the batteries). I used to think electric cars were the answer...not so much now.

Regarding the CPZ - as a tradeswomen I can tell you I leap for joy when my client lives in a CPZ as I know I will be able to park near the job. If there's no CPZ and I can find a space it's often far away and I might spend as much time walking between the job and my vehicle with my tools as doing the job - and that cost of course gets charged to the client. So conversely forking out £5 a day for a visitor permit might save money! A few times I have had to cancel a job as there was simply nowhere to park - and I now I don't do jobs in certain streets anymore, as I know there will be problems.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Attended this yesterday Onlne meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's important to say some arguments against the Railton area LTN are powerful and can't be ignored.

It literally is pushing pollution onto other - primarily poorer areas - so the generally more affluent area benefits. All  you have to do to prove that is sit in your car at the Oval end of Brixton Road and switch on a satnav app. That isn't just unfair and immoral - talking specifically about Railton still - there is a strong argement against it in public law and I have pointed that out to councillors. General principles:









						Decision Making by public bodies: How to avoid legal challenge
					

This article was first published in Practical Law Company in December 2008.




					www.fieldfisher.com


----------



## CH1 (Aug 29, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I think it's important to say some arguments against the Railton area LTN are powerful and can't be ignored.
> 
> It literally is pushing pollution onto other - primarily poorer areas - so the generally more affluent area benefits. All  you have to do to prove that is sit in your car at the Oval end of Brixton Road and switch on a satnav app. That isn't just unfair and immoral - talking specifically about Railton still - there is a strong argement against it in public law and I have pointed that out to councillors. General principles:
> 
> ...


How interesting.
All you have to do is sit in your car and switch on the StaNav.
How about the majority of the population round here who don't have a car to sit in?

BTW are you threatening - or do you know of - legal action pending against the council on these schemes?
Or is this Trumpish hot air designed to destabilise the conversation?


----------



## Rushy (Aug 29, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> So conversely forking out £5 a day for a visitor permit might save money! A few times I have had to cancel a job as there was simply nowhere to park - and I now I don't do jobs in certain streets anymore, as I know there will be problems.


I think you mean £20.91 per day. 

*



			Traders Permits: Who can use this service
		
Click to expand...

*


> Trades people, such as plumbers, electricians, painters and decorators, carrying out works or services at residences and business in Lambeth controlled parking zones (CPZ).
> Residents or businesses living within a CPZ who are having works done on their property, may purchase traders permits, to be used by the tradesperson.



Visitor permits are £5 a day and are not supposed to be used by traders. Lambeth's online permit shop warns: _If your require permits for a trade persons working on your property for example, plumbers, decorators and builders, you'll need to purchase traders permits to allow them to park near your property._

The idea is that it's not supposed to be a no-brainer for trades to pay only £5. It is supposed to make trades and their clients think hard about whether there is an alternative to driving about  - particularly on multi day jobs - when for so many visits a bike or motorbike would suffice.

The system is clearly open to regular abuse by residents and traders. Just 100 misuses per day would cost the council almost £500,000pa - the cost of implementing several LTNs. Given that some trades will need multiple permits a day this is probably a very conservative figure. Scrupulous traders should refuse to use visitors permits in the same way that they should refuse doing a cheap cash deal. Using visitor permits is just another form of casual theft from cash strapped council services.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 29, 2020)

CH1 said:


> How interesting.
> All you have to do is sit in your car and switch on the StaNav.
> How about the majority of the population round here who don't have a car to sit in?
> 
> ...


Why would I want to engage with someone who's first act is to be a patronising little shit.

How about you 'parachute' yourself into another thread, or maybe read a little.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 29, 2020)

LBL take 10-14 days to issue the trader permits after the householder has submitted a letter from their tradesperson with a quote for the work - this is not really a workable solution for small jobs which are often done and dusted from phone call to job completed within a week and even less for emergency work.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Aug 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So she was saying the Council imposed LTN was undermining community.






Gramsci said:


> The oppsitiion to the LTN are well organised lot.



Seems like an example of brilliant Tory divide and rule. Cummings at work.

1> DofT promotes scheme to reduce traffic demand with central funding and local implementation, and st atutory authority:





__





						Traffic Management Act 2004: network management to support active travel
					






					www.gov.uk
				



2> cash-strapped neoliberal council takes the hook, which is anyway in line with their plan to reduce auto usage:









						Love Lambeth
					

The Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) have announced today that Lambeth Council has been successful in its multi-million bid to TfL’s ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ fund.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk
				



3> DofT forces Mayor to take punitive measures to keep public good (TfL) operating when covid tanksfare receipts (having previously set this up by forcing the workers to fund transit through fares rather than the employers through taxes) which exacerbate the situation for the automobile-obsessed:









						Transport for London extraordinary funding and financing
					

Support funding package for Transport for London in order to keep vital public transport services running in London.




					www.gov.uk
				










						Khan forced to hike congestion charge after TfL bail-out
					

Sadiq Khan has been forced to hike the congestion charge to £15 a day to help fill a financial black hole in London’s transport system caused by coronavirus, the Evening Standard can reveal. Under the terms of a government bailout, the Mayor must also end his fares freeze, meaning tickets for...




					www.standard.co.uk
				



4. local tory groups “spontaneously” fund, staff, and organise resistance and disinformation campaign aimed at rolling back scheme and laying blame on labour (mayor and council)









						English councils backpedal on cycling schemes after Tory backlash
					

‘Cycling revolution’ at risk as local Conservatives lobby to remove funded cycle routes




					www.theguardian.com
				


​10 years of tory rule, but its all Sadiq’s fault. How is this not the ‘play’?

I’m in favour of a serious look at how our roads work. These LTNs seem flawed in execution, lacking an overall framework/vision, and  intended to divide from the outset.  The bad blood is a feature, not a bug. I hope we get decent data out of them and dont just cancel them and bin the opportunity to learn something.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 29, 2020)

Visitors permits take the same time.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 29, 2020)

Yes but people generally have visitors permits to hand. For trader permits you have to have a letter from the trader before you apply, then 10-14 days. It's only workable for large jobs booked way in advance. Whoever devised the scheme didn't think about how it would work in practice for smaller jobs....


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> What is forgotten is that section of the working class use roads to make a living. These are people I know. I personally know Black Cab drivers, Uber drivers, moped delivery guys. and van drivers.
> 
> Was helping friend who is van driver yesterday. Road "filtering" around City is not making his life easier. He does not get paid more if delivery job takes longer.
> 
> ...


Just because they're wc doesn't mean they're not small or even big c conservatives, especially in the case of black cab drivers. If we do want to ease congestion we should be curbing the 110k phv licenses in London..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2020)

eno said:


> Is that the besť yøu cañ dø Dearię¿
> 
> 
> Ůģh!



Cunt off, fucknuts.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2020)

eno said:


> Is that the besť yøu cañ dø Dearię¿
> 
> 
> Ůģh!


What is remarkable is that when this person went to make a reported post, there was not a single special character to be seen. The post was all normal letters, which rather makes me think they're on a wind up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> It’s already displacing Traffic! Ask them on Milkwood, Coldharbour, Acre Land! And there is barely any Traffic in London at the moment  many ppl still away.Although LTN are already causing chaos at many times of the day! Fiire Engine stuck OneFerndale LTN,yesterday & a local GP on camera calling out poor LTN planning and extreme difficulty for her and her district nurses. You are determined to leave any criticism of LTN unaddressed! The concerns they raise are not going away however much you wish they would.



According to a source at the "Lambeth Council Highways Team", very little was done in the way of current traffic flow analysis in projected LTNs, so displacement will most likely be a matter of opinion, with the views of supporters & non-supporters differing wildly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2020)

eno said:


> It appearś wurlycurly makes å habit of postiņg inapprõpriate, illegal, libelous cańt.
> 
> It has béěn repőrted.
> 
> Ýúk!



Cunt off, fucknuts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Well sparkybird your community has 1000’s of voices and they may not all dovetail into ‘perfect’ measured presentation, but none the less they all want clean green schemes to walk cycle and live with clean air, but when communities know they are repeatedly being handed the ‘shitty end’ of the stick they are not fools. What so frustrating is Lambeths slow peeved inabilities to acknowledge this! Many of Those deeply committed to the scheme have gone out of their way to belittle and marginalise those who have concerns. Still no one knows the metrics for success we are repeatedly linked Waltham Forest report which talks of overall improvement to car journeys as 1% is that what Lambeth have bought into? Schools streets/timed bollards/ play streets/ electric cars & busses/ Speed cams everywhere at 20mph. and not schemes where councillors & MPs trash their neighbours& constituents.



What Lambeth COULD have done, but chose not to, was to undertake traffic surveys last yr when they declared a "climate emergency", to see which roads could be usefully & safely pedestrianised, without shifting the traffic load asymmetrically onto neighbouring roads. They chose not to, because their declaration of a "climate emergency" was a) to steal a march on the Green Party, and b) to garner some cheap publicity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I wonder what the reaction would be to RTS protests on these boards now?....



Kind of a different thing. RTS usually blocked main roads, LTNs supposedly divert traffic onto main roads, so wouldn't RTS be anti-LTN?


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 29, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> What Lambeth COULD have done, but chose not to, was to undertake traffic surveys last yr when they declared a "climate emergency", to see which roads could be usefully & safely pedestrianised, without shifting the traffic load asymmetrically onto neighbouring roads. They chose not to, because their declaration of a "climate emergency" was a) to steal a march on the Green Party, and b) to garner some cheap publicity.


Jim Dickson. Literally a rebranded estate agent.


----------



## editor (Aug 29, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> Kind of a different thing. RTS usually blocked main roads, LTNs supposedly divert traffic onto main roads, so wouldn't RTS be anti-LTN?


They were also temporary - as in half a day or so - and were created in response to pro-car/pro road building government policy at the time. I really don't see any meaningful comparisons at all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2020)

eno said:


> With respect @Lambeth_council impősing these vilë #LTN's on us withoůt ANY consultatiôn whatsoevėr & barely any notiće & withøut due proçess is DICTATORIAL indêêd.
> 
> No ifs nø buťs.
> 
> These are facts & therefore why you feél it inapprøpriate to meńtion this is a mysterý to mè!




Life is a mystery to you.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 29, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Jim Dickson. Literally a rebranded estate agent.


You’re not wrong there!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Jim Dickson. Literally a rebranded estate agent.



Love it that the man with the Twitter handle of @jimdickslambeth calls himself a "Comms Consultant", and actually DOES dick Lambeth! He's a truly repulsive individual in person, and arguably the originator of the shift among Lambeth cllrs to supporting a neoliberal approach to housing in the borough.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 29, 2020)

editor said:


> They were also temporary - as in half a day or so - and were created in response to pro-car/pro road building government policy at the time. I really don't see any meaningful comparisons at all.



Because there aren't any meaningful comparisons beyond "both block roads".


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 29, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Just because they're wc doesn't mean they're not small or even big c conservatives, especially in the case of black cab drivers. If we do want to ease congestion we should be curbing the 110k phv licenses in London..



Cant see what being big c or small c has to do with it. 

This stereotype that all Black Cab drivers are right wing is a lazy stereotype.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2020)

Going back to the stuff about people driving into Brixton to take care of elderly relatives... I'm not going to question that there's a pattern of younger folk who may have grown up around Brixton, moving further out, whether that's to Streatham or West Norwood or Croydon or wherever, and for sure their parents or grandparents may well still live in Brixton. This scenario will be familiar to anyone who knows the area. And of course those younger people will be making frequent trips back to see relatives, either just socially or to help with care or to do things like help with shopping.

The thing is, if you genuinely want to see less traffic on the roads, and less pollution, and all the rest of it, then you have to be prepared to say that some of those people will have to adjust their travel habits. You have to be able to question whether the best way to help an elderly parent with their shopping is to drive all the way from outer London, perhaps drive to a supermarket, drive to their house, then drive all the way home again. _If_ we genuinely want to reduce traffic then some of that has to change. There will be some people for whom there might not be alternatives, for all sorts of reasons, but why can't we ask some people who are currently doing that to rethink things? Driving to a supermarket is not the only way to get shopping, especially now that online ordering and delivery has become more common. I'm not suggesting that folk should stop visiting their elderly parents, but there will be plenty of cases where there are alternatives to driving. Public transport exists in London (I know things are made more complicated right now - I am talking more about the long term).

As usual, the discussion on this "use case" seems to focus on those for whom a car is an option. What about all those who need to support elderly relatives but don't have a car? We focus on the inconvenience caused to those who drive, and for whom the journey takes 10 minutes longer, but why not talk about the people who need to make those visits by bus or on foot or by bike? These schemes are supposed to be making things easier for them. And while someone young(ish) and healthy is driving to see their elderly relative, they are adding their bit to the traffic or congestion or pollution that negatively affects someone else's elderly relatives.

And on the subject of doing supermarket shopping by car - this simply doesn't work somewhere like zone 2 London if anything more than a relatively small portion of the population does it. But aside from that, shouldn't this be considered alongside the concern that's being expressed about local, small shops? Anyone driving to a supermarket is taking trade away from those shops... the kind of shops as it happens (unlike large car-serviced supermarkets) that can potentially remain accessible to those who have restricted mobility but can perhaps walk a short distance. I think we should be focussing on doing stuff that keeps services like shops close to people, and gives people as much independence as possible, rather than worrying about inconvenience to those who choose to do shopping by car.

In any case I'm not entirely clear about the logic of the narrative about local shops suffering because they aren't getting passing trade from people driving by car to see their elderly relatives. What's happening instead? Is a slightly longer journey resulting in it being too much effort to go and see people? If people are still doing it by car, but taking a little longer, that portion of shops' passing trade is still going to be there. Those people will still be driving into the LN zones. If they've switched to bus or foot or bike, then there should be more trade for local shops and businesses, not less.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Cant see what being big c or small c has to do with it.
> 
> This stereotype that all Black Cab drivers are right wing is a lazy stereotype.


Remind me of the difference in racial diversity between Hackney carriage black cabs and private hire vehicles. 

Any regulated industry where the workforce is something like 97% white British and has consistently been like that for a long time doesn’t strike me as particularly left leaning. 

Also UTAG twitter is awash with All Lives Matter types. 

I’m aware that I’m making generalisations and there are exceptions to this, but in 30+ years of London black cab use the Thatcherite ethos is what I remember most. 

The flip side is that as a regulated industry they were forced to be physically accessible. But travelling often with wheelchair using friends, they’d ignore/blank you or make excuses trying to hail them (or tell you they were on their way home) as much as when I was with a group of black colleagues. 

That’s not saying that private hire is much better. Doug Paulleys twitter account is general him documenting inaccessible and illegal travel practices as part of the transport for all campaigning group.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 29, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cunt off, fucknuts.


Good to see you back on here


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I tried to book the Council bulky waste disposal a while back. It now is service one pays for but its not to expensive. The online booking kept saying my address cannot have this service.
> 
> When i managed to talk to them an issue was the CPZ - can't park.
> 
> ...


Council services are disjointed and siloed aren’t they. The estate I live on has a weekly Lambeth truck that turns up and collects waste goods (anything that’s not rubbish or recycling) as there’s no access for the booking service. Do you want me to ask them next week whether the same thing is offered in Loughborough?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 29, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Good to see you back on here


That was genuine btw - reading back I’m aware that it could be interpreted as sarcasm.


----------



## Brassed off (Aug 29, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Ok then. What would the measure be, that would satisfy you? Residents travel 40-50% fewer miles by car? 40-50% of residents report using their car less? Residents see a 40-50% drop in traffic on their street? What do you mean when you say "40-50% car journey reductions"?


do you mean, that 1% is acceptable? Who sold these appalling stats to the council and why didn’t any of you question them? I’m a resident with feck all knowledge of traffic planning but I can see this isn’t fair or equitable! Yet you all comfortable bought in to it! What do you expect from ‘traffic evaporation in local car numbers? Because none of us have been ‘gifted’ with the metrics of success? I’m just told by ppl on here that concerns by local businesses ppl about loss of customer due to closures should be ‘taken with a pinch of salt!’ what a mess.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> do you mean, that 1% is acceptable? Who sold these appalling stats to the council and why didn’t any of you question them? I’m a resident with feck all knowledge of traffic planning but I can see this isn’t fair or equitable! Yet you all comfortable bought in to it! What do you expect from ‘traffic evaporation in local car numbers? Because none of us have been ‘gifted’ with the metrics of success? I’m just told by ppl on here that concerns by local businesses ppl about loss of customer due to closures should be ‘taken with a pinch of salt!’ what a mess.


Are you declining to answer my question then?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 29, 2020)

editor said:


> They were also temporary - as in half a day or so - and were created in response to pro-car/pro road building government policy at the time. I really don't see any meaningful comparisons at all.


Let’s reclaim the streets, but only temporarily!


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 29, 2020)

Lets Reclaim the Side Streets


----------



## Aristocrat (Aug 30, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Remind me of the difference in racial diversity between Hackney carriage black cabs and private hire vehicles.
> 
> Any regulated industry where the workforce is something like 97% white British and has consistently been like that for a long time doesn’t strike me as particularly left leaning.
> 
> ...



The irony of cabbies protesting LTNs in Brixton is that when I first moved here twenty years ago, you couldn't get a cabbie from central London to take you to Brixton. Racism, I assumed.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 30, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> The irony of cabbies protesting LTNs in Brixton is that when I first moved here twenty years ago, you couldn't get a cabbie from central London to take you to Brixton. Racism, I assumed.


No. You might remember the phrase was 'south of the river'. Never, even had racial connartations, except it seems in your head.

The calculation is 'when I drop off the customer, will I get a pick up to take me on, and referably back to the centre'. It's about, as they call it, 'dead mileage'.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Remind me of the difference in racial diversity between Hackney carriage black cabs and private hire vehicles.
> 
> Any regulated industry where the workforce is something like 97% white British and has consistently been like that for a long time doesn’t strike me as particularly left leaning.
> 
> ...



Ones I know were motorbike couriers. I also used to know an ancient old school East End Jewish cab driver as we used the same cafe. Nice guy.
Several Londoners i know have family tradition of some of them being Cabbies. Its the last of the jobs a working class londoner could earn good money. Docks/ Printing has all gone. The markets aren't what they were- that was another way to earn good money.  So it can come across as out of place in the modern world. Apart from the pandemic the Gig economy is threatening them. Uber. The growth of supermarkets did it for the markets. Cabbies survived as the growth of the City as intermational financial hub under Thatcher meant they had plenty of custom. They are now struggling. Ive heard rent for cabs has been reduced as so many Cabs are lying idle. 

Some of the argument here has been of the Black Cab drivers are racist / conservative implying they deserve no sympathy.

My view is that well paid jobs for ordinary people should be supported.

Criticising some Cabbies opposing LTNs should be about whether LTNs are really that bad for their business or not. Not based on what perceptions people have of them.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 30, 2020)

plus, the breaking of unions in some industries, partic in the Thatcher era.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2020)

I cycled down Railton road last Thursday about 4pm. It was a lot nicer with no traffic. 

I did see Hamiltons looking somewhat forlorn on its own. So wonder how much passing trade he is losing. 

On Friday came back nearby and CHL was at a standstill at 7pm. From Ritzy to Gresham road. I'd like to know how much of this is due to the Railton LTN.


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> On Friday came back nearby and CHL was at a standstill at 7pm. From Ritzy to Gresham road. I don't know Id like to know how much of this is due to the Railton LTN.


There's no doubt in my mind that there's been a huge leap in traffic levels at some times of the day on CHL.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 30, 2020)

Non-private schools are back this week (no idea about private)? I think we'll get a fairer representation beginning in a couple of weeks - obv. still a lot of non-commuting homeworking, as well.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Ones I know were motorbike couriers. I also used to know an ancient old school East End Jewish cab driver as we used the same cafe. Nice guy.
> Several Londoners i know have family tradition of some of them being Cabbies. Its the last of the jobs a working class londoner could earn good money. Docks/ Printing has all gone. The markets aren't what they were- that was another way to earn good money.  So it can come across as out of place in the modern world. Apart from the pandemic the Gig economy is threatening them. Uber. The growth of supermarkets did it for the markets. Cabbies survived as the growth of the City as intermational financial hub under Thatcher meant they had plenty of custom. They are now struggling. Ive heard rent for cabs has been reduced as so many Cabs are lying idle.
> 
> Some of the argument here has been of the Black Cab drivers are racist / conservative implying they deserve no sympathy.
> ...


Should we really be designing our cities around what businesses want?. Especially one as polluting and wasteful as black cabs.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 30, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Should we really be designing our cities around what businesses want?. Especially one as polluting and wasteful as black cabs.



and way more expensive than Uber


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 30, 2020)

alex_ said:


> and way more expensive than Uber


To be fair, their fares are set by TFL as well as mandating lots of other rules, such as the vehicles that can be used so it’s an expensive business whereas Uber does not but leaving aside the driver’s politics, I’d rather ( not that I do very much) get a black cab than an Uber


----------



## alex_ (Aug 30, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> To be fair, their fares are set by TFL as well as mandating lots of other rules, such as the vehicles that can be used so it’s an expensive business whereas Uber does not but leaving aside the driver’s politics, I’d rather ( not that I do very much) get a black cab than an Uber



TfL set a maximum price.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Should we really be designing our cities around what businesses want?. Especially one as polluting and wasteful as black cabs.



They are moving to electric. 

I didn't say "we" should design cities around what business want.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2020)

alex_ said:


> and way more expensive than Uber



That is because Uber drivers ( I know a few) have to work long hours to make decent money.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 30, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Should we really be designing our cities around what businesses want?. Especially one as polluting and wasteful as black cabs.



Another thing. I keep getting told that LTNs only add a few minutes driving to car drivers who need to access an address in an LTN. I take it from that that LTNs aren't about stopping Black Cabs//Uber cabs going about their business.

Or did  get I that wrong?

Given that the idea is that accessing an address in an LTN is possible I would like to see evidence that its really harming the cab trade. It could be that the cab trade should wait to see how the LTNs go and there fears are groundless.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 30, 2020)

If a decrease in car ownership can be achieved then that ought to be good news for cab drivers. 

Uber are largely about undermining public transport (and its revenue stream) through a loss-leader long game, whereas black cabs at least in theory should be part of an overall public transport system regulated by tfl. I'd not mind too much if uber were given the boot from london.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 30, 2020)

Spray-paint wars as of this afternoon


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Another thing. I keep getting told that LTNs only add a few minutes driving to car drivers who need to access an address in an LTN. I take it from that that LTNs aren't about stopping Black Cabs//Uber cabs going about their business.
> 
> Or did  get I that wrong?
> 
> Given that the idea is that accessing an address in an LTN is possible I would like to see evidence that its really harming the cab trade. It could be that the cab trade should wait to see how the LTNs go and there fears are groundless.


It's giving people an alternative to cars, that's why they don't like it, they're been really against other things like cycle superhighways also.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Good to see you back on here



Cheers. Good to be back!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's giving people an alternative to cars, that's why they don't like it, they're been really against other things like cycle superhighways also.


I guess cabbies are going to have a problem with anything that appears like it impedes their freedom to move around the roads, and maybe at a personal (rather than business) level they are likely to be "car" people - but I think Gramsci is right that they shouldn't necessarily fear the changes that LTNs aim to bring about. In general, a lower level of car ownership and private car use ought to mean more, rather than less business for them. There will always be journeys that people don't want to tackle by bus/train/bike/foot - for those journeys, the choice comes down to use of a private car (if available...and could include spot rental like zipcar) or a taxi. Isn't private car ownership and use effectively in direct competition with the taxi business? I wonder if a well targeted campaign could seek to persuade them of this and get them on side.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 31, 2020)

It's an indusrtry in semi-managed decline. How can it not be when what you take 5 years or so to study is availble on Google Maps, with route options and traffic congestion - in real time. I think TfL and the Mayor will let the market and technology have its way while doing what they can in terms of EV.

The next nail in the coffin would seem to be Crossrail - from all Heathrow terminals right across central London and into Essex. 200metre proper trains every few minutes, fully accessible stations.

I still sometimes - albeit very rarely - see a 'knowledge boy' and wonder if they're super-optimistic or counter-intuitive.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 31, 2020)

The Telegraph chimes in:

"Nicholas Lyes, RAC’s head of roads policy, said: "While low traffic neighbourhoods are well intentioned, the speed of implementation and lack of local consultation has meant residents were not informed of changes and weren’t able to advise local authorities of any unintended consequences those particular schemes might bring.

“The irony is that schemes that were originally designed to reduce traffic might end up increasing congestion if badly thought out. The real litmus test will come when some form of morning rush hour returns, which could be as early as this coming week when schools fully reopen."​
Who knew!








						Anger over green road closures threatens to boil over with return to school traffic
					

Motoring organisations fear traffic congestion could spiral out of control this week as parents choose to drive their children to school




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## CH1 (Aug 31, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The Telegraph chimes in:
> 
> "Nicholas Lyes, RAC’s head of roads policy, said: "While low traffic neighbourhoods are well intentioned, the speed of implementation and lack of local consultation has meant residents were not informed of changes and weren’t able to advise local authorities of any unintended consequences those particular schemes might bring.
> 
> ...


Yes the school run. And how will that fare on the number 3 bus? I've noticed mores buses lately sailing past bus stops waving their BUS FULL signs - and school hasn't yet started.

Pre Covid I was dead against the school run in  principle. Now I guess they are simply moving about in their family Covid free BUBBLE - with full government backing.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 31, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> They are moving to electric.
> 
> I didn't say "we" should design cities around what business want.



they are moving to plugin hybrid, which unless you charge them are just very very heavy regular cars.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 31, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The Telegraph chimes in:
> 
> "Nicholas Lyes, RAC’s head of roads policy, said: "While low traffic neighbourhoods are well intentioned, the speed of implementation and lack of local consultation has meant residents were not informed of changes and weren’t able to advise local authorities of any unintended consequences those particular schemes might bring.
> 
> ...


Right wing paper who despise people losing their freedom to do whatever they like and a pro-car organisation are anti LTN, wow who’d thought of that.


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 31, 2020)

I quoted The RAC?


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 31, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I quoted The RAC?


Telegraph have also had a leader comment against it


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 31, 2020)

I'm sure they have a lot of leaders. It's a newspaper.

What has that to do with anything you quoted in my post from, you know, the RAC organisation?

You see, the point was it was a quote from The RAC. The Royal Automobile Club


----------



## editor (Aug 31, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I'm sure they have a lot of leaders. It's a newspaper.
> 
> What has that to do with anything you quoted in my post from, you know, the RAC organisation?
> 
> You see, the point was it was a quote from The RAC. The Royal Automobile Club


RAC in pro-motorist opinion shocker!


----------



## Loose meat (Aug 31, 2020)

Looks factual to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 31, 2020)

alex_ said:


> they are moving to plugin hybrid, which unless you charge them are just very very heavy regular cars.



I thought they were moving to all electric. With small petrol engine to top up battery if no charging points are near.

So not a hybrid.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 31, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I'm sure they have a lot of leaders. It's a newspaper.
> 
> What has that to do with anything you quoted in my post from, you know, the RAC organisation?
> 
> You see, the point was it was a quote from The RAC. The Royal Automobile Club


So you don’t think I pro car organisation such as the RAC could have a skewed opinion on an anti car journey scheme?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2020)

The RAC and AA are simply "concerned".

No doubt we can trace a long history of them each making proactive suggestions as to how to reduce car dependancy and use, without causing any of these concerns.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 31, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> The Telegraph chimes in:
> 
> "Nicholas Lyes, RAC’s head of roads policy, said: "While low traffic neighbourhoods are well intentioned, the speed of implementation and lack of local consultation has meant residents were not informed of changes and weren’t able to advise local authorities of any unintended consequences those particular schemes might bring.
> 
> ...



He's wrong though, the test will be in a few months time to see if these schemes have had any effect, you would expect more congestion to start with. Traffic is not going to flow as freely, that's the point..


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 31, 2020)

I’ve just realised that failed UKIPPER David Kurten spoke at the town hall event.

He’s an anti vaxx / anti mask, anti immigrant, anti LGBTQ, culture war conspiraloon isn’t he?


----------



## CH1 (Sep 1, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> I’ve just realised that failed UKIPPER David Kurten spoke at the town hall event.
> 
> He’s an anti vaxx / anti mask, anti immigrant, anti LGBTQ, culture war conspiraloon isn’t he?


He's been to three universities apparently. What does that say about University education?


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 1, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If a decrease in car ownership can be achieved then that ought to be good news for cab drivers.
> 
> Uber are largely about undermining public transport (and its revenue stream) through a loss-leader long game, whereas black cabs at least in theory should be part of an overall public transport system regulated by tfl. I'd not mind too much if uber were given the boot from london.



Although Uber's _technology_ seems a superior way to match cabs to people than either black cabs (circling empty and flagged down) or old school mini-cabs (sent from a local office but almost certain to do a return trip back to the office empty).


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 1, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I still sometimes - albeit very rarely - see a 'knowledge boy' and wonder if they're super-optimistic or counter-intuitive.


It seems even we have some things in common.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I thought they were moving to all electric. With small petrol engine to top up battery if no charging points are near.
> So not a hybrid.











						LEVC TX review: London's new electric taxi driven
					

We drive London's new, electric black cab



					www.carmagazine.co.uk
				




_[under the bonnet you'll find] a 1.5-litre Volvo petrol engine – but it doesn’t deliver any power to the rear wheels. Instead, it’s used solely to top up the car’s batteries. This important detail makes the TX a range-extending EV rather than a hybrid. LEVC says the TX is good for 377 miles between top ups, though only 80 of those miles would be using batteries alone.

Rough figures put the old taxi at around 18-22 mpg, and the new one at 35 mpg_

That's pretty poor fuel consumption for new and truly terrible for old.


----------



## BusLanes (Sep 1, 2020)

I saw on Twitter just now someone has published LTN related research today 





__





						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: what is the evidence from the mini-Holland interventions? – Rachel Aldred
					





					rachelaldred.org


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Although Uber's _technology_ seems a superior way to match cabs to people than either black cabs (circling empty and flagged down) or old school mini-cabs (sent from a local office but almost certain to do a return trip back to the office empty).



Pre pandemic Uber cabs also circuled around empty in West End and City. Why the Black Cab drivers I know correctly imo saw Uber as a hail and ride service in direct competition to them that should have been banned . As it was not  traditional mini cab service.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> LEVC TX review: London's new electric taxi driven
> 
> 
> We drive London's new, electric black cab
> ...



So its not a hybrid then.

Not sure what is your point. Do you want to see end of Black Cabs?


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So its not a hybrid then.
> Not sure what is your point. Do you want to see end of Black Cabs?



There were a few guesses about what the new cabs actually were. I didn't know so I looked them up.

Seems a bit of a grey area.  My understanding is that a 'plug in hybrid' only has to be able to cover 20miles on full electric. the new black cabs claim 80, which is a lot more than that but also a lot less than  full electric vehicles and probably less than a black cab drives in a normal shift.  So their emissions will depend on whether they are actually charged or just driven on the engine.  I've seen reports that most plug in hybrids are just bought as a company car tax dodge and never actually get plugged in - don't know if that's true or not.  I'm guessing the cost saving is probably enough to ensure Black Cabs _do_ get used electric as much as possible.  The fuel consumption for both new and old seems poor.

Do I want to see the end of black cabs? No, but nor am I sure they should necessarily be preserved in aspic.   Having cars driving round empty looking for business seems wrong whether their black cabs or Ubers. Ubers do it presumably because they're not allowed on cab ranks.  Black cabs presumably do it because they don't have Uber style matching to find customers.  "The knowledge" seems to have much less value than it did when google or Waze will give a live routing that takes into account current traffic (and most black cabs seem to use it outside the smallish central zone that they're required to know about.

We definitely need disabled accessible taxis but does every taxi need to be disabled accessible? Maybe not once you're matching customers taxis with an app rather than flagging one down. I don't know. I rarely use black cabs but as a non-disabled passenger their main benefit seemed to be that they could carry 4 or 5 passengers rather than 2 or 3 in a conventional car but in less comfort.


----------



## Ol Nick (Sep 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So its not a hybrid then.
> 
> Not sure what is your point. Do you want to see end of Black Cabs?



Personally I don't see the point of them. No other city has them. Obviously it's someone's livelihood, but I don't see the point of them. Take the bus. Cycle.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> There were a few guesses about what the new cabs actually were. I didn't know so I looked them up.
> 
> Seems a bit of a grey area.  My understanding is that a 'plug in hybrid' only has to be able to cover 20miles on full electric. the new black cabs claim 80, which is a lot more than that but also a lot less than  full electric vehicles and probably less than a black cab drives in a normal shift.  So their emissions will depend on whether they are actually charged or just driven on the engine.  I've seen reports that most plug in hybrids are just bought as a company car tax dodge and never actually get plugged in - don't know if that's true or not.  I'm guessing the cost saving is probably enough to ensure Black Cabs _do_ get used electric as much as possible.  The fuel consumption for both new and old seems poor.
> 
> ...



An experienced Black Cab driver ( pre Covid) didnt spend much time circling around. Circling around is waste of time.

They would come out at certain times to get the trade. For example when the West End shows start to end in evening. Taking people home or to railway stations.

Or do the hotels. Which were pretty exclusive. Had friend who just passed knowledge. Went to Black Cab rank outside a big hotel. Was ignored by the Doorman. The "regular" Black Cab drivers snubbed him. He learnt his lesson and realised they had it sewn up and didn't go again

Black Cab trade depended on London being a place for business people, wealthy tourists and entertainment.

Like a lot of us London work is based on servicing the rich or City. That is just how it is.

So a lot of workers are having a hard time now..

Talked to a few Cab and van drivers today. The new road restrictions around Liverpool street, Bishopgate, north of Old Street and Euston road are giving them a headache. Form their point of view they are struggling anyway due to Covid. So this is just more to deal with. 

Uber drivers are variable. Some know their way around. Others spend their time doing U turns in front of me as they have missed turning the Satnav told them to use.


----------



## BusLanes (Sep 1, 2020)

When I lived in NZ and Aus there was no such thing as a black cab or minicabs (or at least where I lived, Australia is a big place) - but there were taxi cabs that were normal sedans/vans that were badged/signed as taxis - and they sat in ranks inbusy areas, could be ordered or flagged.  They were not necessarily that much better than black cabs for the paying customer, but they seemed a little more user friendly and slightly cheaper.  Although the proof was in the pudding as they still were monstered by Uber, just like the blackcabs.


----------



## Aristocrat (Sep 1, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> No. You might remember the phrase was 'south of the river'. Never, even had racial connartations, except it seems in your head.
> 
> The calculation is 'when I drop off the customer, will I get a pick up to take me on, and referably back to the centre'. It's about, as they call it, 'dead mileage'.


Ha. You sound so certain about that. Before I stopped hailing black cabs because I was so sick and tired of the racist, homophobic bile I used to hear from about 20% of them, especially late at night, I developed quite a good sample of the cabbie culture. Not pretty. There were also some extremely nice guys, of course. But as previous posters have pointed out, it's also a fairly closed shop as a profession if you're not white and male. So the facts speak for themselves.

Refusing to pick someone up because of "dead miles" is outside the terms of the license, as you presumably know.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 1, 2020)

sure, 'racism' serves the narrative better doesn't it. That whole 'south of the river' thing was always bogus. Thank goodness we have you on watch.

Perhaps you could draw us something in MS Paint to illustrate the point, it's all the rage to prove facts.


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 1, 2020)

[QUOTE="thebackrow, post: 16702902, member: 

We definitely need disabled accessible taxis but does every taxi need to be disabled accessible? 
[/QUOTE]

On this point: yes.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 3, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> LEVC TX review: London's new electric taxi driven
> 
> 
> We drive London's new, electric black cab
> ...



That is AWFUL. I assume 35mpg is city driving only but still......a half decent diesel (cough) engine was doing at least 40-45mpg city YEARS ago.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I thought they were moving to all electric. With small petrol engine to top up battery if no charging points are near.
> 
> So not a hybrid.



you are describing a hybrid


----------



## newbie (Sep 4, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> That is AWFUL. I assume 35mpg is city driving only but still......a half decent diesel (cough) engine was doing at least 40-45mpg city YEARS ago.


Idling time?  I'd guess Uber or Addison Lee drivers also get far smaller mpg than their engine is capable of because it's part of the way they operate.  Cabs of all sorts mostly seem to leave their engine running during pickup, setdown and waiting, and black cabs have theirs running while they edge forward on ranks at stations etc.

Idling engines are a bit of a bee in bonnet for me tbh, the sooner all combustion vehicles have auto stop-start engines with a stationary cut-off the better.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2020)

Fuck this quite frankly, my son is looking at an addition of 45min on to his school journey either way.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 4, 2020)

nagapie said:


> Fuck this quite frankly, my son is looking at an addition of 45min on to his school journey either way.


No option but to drive?


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> No option but to drive?


Yes. Unless you can fly him to his specialist provision in Greenwich.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 4, 2020)

nagapie said:


> Yes. Unless you can fly him to his specialist provision in Greenwich.


Blue badge holders should be allowed through, I’ve said it to my councillor. Does it really take 45 mins extra to get out of Brixton?. The rush hour traffic yesterday didn’t seem that bad.


----------



## happyshopper (Sep 4, 2020)

nagapie said:


> Fuck this quite frankly, my son is looking at an addition of 45min on to his school journey either way.


Can you just provide some more detail to back this up? Where does the extra time arise?


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Blue badge holders should be allowed through, I’ve said it to my councillor. Does it really take 45 mins extra to get out of Brixton?. The rush hour traffic yesterday didn’t seem that bad.


But they're not, there is no provision to let blue badge holders through. All the side roads that they would normally cut through are closed off, they have to go down Dulwich way which apparently is jam packed like never before with traffic so now going to try through Camberwell which they traditionally avoided as too busy and time consuming. Cabbie is saying he might have to  refuse the job.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2020)

alex_ said:


> you are describing a hybrid



No it's different. The petrol engine tops up the battery. Does not drive the wheels.

It's meant only as a back up.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 4, 2020)

As an enthusiastic supporter of LTNs, I'm delighted to report some very high-class lacrosse action under the Shakespeare Road railway bridge tonight. Initially mistook it for shinty but knew it was too good to be true.


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> As an enthusiastic supporter of LTNs, I'm delighted to report some very high-class lacrosse action under the Shakespeare Road railway bridge tonight. Initially mistook it for shinty but knew it was too good to be true.


Gentrification. Right. There.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Gentrification. Right. There.



A loose version of lacrosse was played in 1100AD. It's one of the toughest, most violent, games in the world. Hardly gentrification.


----------



## editor (Sep 4, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> A loose version of lacrosse was played in 1100AD. It's one of the toughest, most violent, games in the world. Hardly gentrification.


Oh come on. 









						Lacrosse's Rich White People 'Problem' Is A Feature, Not A Bug
					

I apologize for the cliched headline, but it was the clearest thing I could think of after I saw a piece by ESPN's Quint Kessenich in Inside Lacrosse that lamented the sport's very pale status as it noted February 13's opening men's varsity game by Hampton University. It's the first historically...




					www.forbes.com
				







__





						9 Sports for Rich People
					

9 Sports for Rich People




					www.totalprosports.com


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 4, 2020)

Lacrosse was only played by the hard nuts when I was in school...I went to a comprehensive in Wales... although that was a long time ago


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 4, 2020)

editor said:


> Oh come on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lazy stereotype. Lots of working-class people play shinty or lacrosse.

England's Sam Patterson explaining why the team could not afford to defend their European title four years ago: "We do the best we can, and that means being self-motivated and self-dependent - if you don't have money and resources you need to find other ways of doing things." Patterson estimates  he has forked out upwards of £20,000 of his own money during more than a decade with the England team. A lot of this goes towards travel, but equipment costs are not cheap either, especially for a team whose makeup is very much working-class. More than half of the 27-man international squad are based in Manchester, where there are several top-level teams, and many work as tilers, joiners or similar when they're not representing their country. Consequently, he doesn't begrudge those who decide to move away from the sport once things like families and mortgages come into the equation."








						JOE meets the European champions who can't afford to defend their title | JOE.co.uk
					

You can help them get there




					www.joe.co.uk


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2020)

nagapie said:


> Fuck this quite frankly, my son is looking at an addition of 45min on to his school journey either way.



But you will be pleased to know that Lacrosse can be played in the car free streets. That is progress. So your son's inconvience is minor now that sport can be played in the street.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 4, 2020)

i heard this woman on Radio 4 Today programme this morning. She is campainer for improving air quality. Her daughter died of asthma. Here is her view of recent LTN in her area.


> Ms Kissi-Debrah said it was “unforgivable” to make the changes during a pandemic.
> 
> She said: “The numbers from the BAME community on this side are more than on the other side. The other side is more affluent.
> 
> “It’s environmental racism.











						Mum whose daughter may have died of pollution poisoning condemns toxin-cutting road measures
					

By Grainne Cuffe, Local Democracy Reporter A leading environmental campaigner whose daughter’s death may have been linked to air pollution said the surge in traffic by her home following traffic ca…




					londonnewsonline.co.uk
				




Basically she is saying LTNs displace traffic onto main roads. In London a lot of people live on what are classified as main roads. Causing more pollution on those rods.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> But you will be pleased to know that Lacrosse can be played in the car free streets. That is progress. So your son's inconvience is minor now that sport can be played in the street.



And my son is not alone, this means that every single child with additional needs who receives school transport will be affected. And many children travel out of borough to access the correct provision, already on long journeys because the resources are scant in their local neighbourhoods.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 5, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> But you will be pleased to know that Lacrosse can be played in the car free streets. That is progress. So your son's inconvience is minor now that sport can be played in the street.


Yeah, let’s have kids indoors where they belong.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yeah, let’s have kids indoors where they belong.



As somesome who campaignned to save the local Adventure playground I dont think that at all.

I do think that parents who need to use transport to get children to school should be listened to.


----------



## newbie (Sep 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> i heard this woman on Radio 4 Today programme this morning. She is campainer for improving air quality. Her daughter died of asthma. Here is her view of recent LTN in her area.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've mentioned her and her daughter a number of times on this thread. The points she she makes in that article seem pretty much right to me


> “What I’m most annoyed about is councillors’ patronising responses, as if people on this side are stupid. For example ‘you need to give it time’. I need to give it time?
> “Not only did they not consult us when they closed off roads – where did they think the traffic was going to go?”
> 
> Ms Kissi-Debrah said it was “unforgivable” to make the changes during a pandemic.
> ...




A new inquest is (was?) scheduled for later this year, looking specifically at main road air pollution and including " Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which triggers an enhanced inquest that looks at whether the state failed in its duty to keep a person safe. "


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2020)

Heard about this on the radio this morning.

Shapps is now backtracking and blaming Councils for implementing what is government policy.




> In a direct message to council leaders, he says: “Where some councils have abused the cash, my message is clear: speak to local residents, get it fixed or no more cash.”






> Writing in _The Telegraph_, the Secretary of State for Transport says he will personally intervene to scrap the worst examples where local authorities have ruined high streets and residential roads in an attempt to build cycle lanes and promote social distancing for pedestrians


.

Grant Shapps tells councils to stop abusing £250m fund meant for green transport revolution

So the Tories are going to blame  Councils for this. Lesson- dont work with a right wing Tory government.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> I've mentioned her and her daughter a number of times on this thread. The points she she makes in that article seem pretty much right to me
> 
> A new inquest is (was?) scheduled for later this year, looking specifically at main road air pollution and including " Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which triggers an enhanced inquest that looks at whether the state failed in its duty to keep a person safe. "



That’s fine, let’s work on reducing main road traffic also, let’s not forget Brixton had bad pollution long before the pandemic and the LTNs happened, so we need to reduce motor usage and make alternatives more viable.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2020)

Whole point of LTNs is to make traffic use what are designated as main roads. Stop traffic cutting through areas designated for LTNs.

In my area Coldharbour lane and Brixton road.

So increase onto main roads is a given. It is part of the design of them.

If you support LTNs that is part of it.


----------



## editor (Sep 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Whole point of LTNs is to make traffic use what are designated as main roads. Stop traffic cutting through areas designated for LTNs.
> 
> In my area Coldharbour lane and Brixton road.
> 
> ...


I walked along Railton Road yesterday and it was lovely and quiet. I'd like that for Coldharbour Lane too, please.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2020)

editor said:


> I walked along Railton Road yesterday and it was lovely and quiet. I'd like that for Coldharbour Lane too, please.



Its not going to happen on CHL. So I will live with the consequences.

What I would like is getting the basics right. Supposed to be 20mph on CHL. Signs up saying so. As you know several accidents recently on that stretch of road from LJ to Brixton Village.

Got letter saying works will be done on the LJ bit of CHL from Tescos under the railway bridge to make that section more safe. This is due to excessive regular speeding on this stretch. Over 50mph is normal acording to the letter i got from Council. Which i can well believe. I see a lot of traffic speeding on that section.

ULEZ extension and speed cameras are needed on CHL.


----------



## co-op (Sep 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Whole point of LTNs is to make traffic use what are designated as main roads. Stop traffic cutting through areas designated for LTNs.
> 
> In my area Coldharbour lane and Brixton road.
> 
> ...



Seriously man, this is horseshit. Main roads get used to capacity - however that is defined by those who use them. If you restrict traffic on rat runs, yes you get a bit of short term kick back on to main roads and then they go back to where they were. Rat runs are always extra capacity for cars - take them away, you reduce usage. Lots of people don't get it because they haven't done the data, but yes it's what happens. 

I've literally seen it myself, I've commuted (by car) on a dual carriageway that used to back up to the last roundabout; it got cut to one lane a couple of years ago, the queues were a nightmare (I wanted to turn off at the roundabout, it was annoying, this wasn't "my" traffic jam) within 2 months, the quesues had got back to normal. Then after about 6 months the second lane came back and for a couple of weeks it flowed like water, then it got back to exactly where it had been before everything began.

Exactly what happened I don't know but it's obvious that if you supply extra capacity, it gets taken up with more journeys, if you remove it, journeys drop.

How in gods name you can claim that more car journeys are good for poor people is well beyond me. Cars are great for rich people, quite good for middling people and shit for the poor. Simple as that.

It's fucking crazy. Get cars out of Lambeth full stop. 90% of people would be better off, I dont[ care about the other 10%.


----------



## newbie (Sep 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> That’s fine, let’s work on reducing main road traffic also, let’s not forget Brixton had bad pollution long before the pandemic and the LTNs happened, so we need to reduce motor usage and make alternatives more viable.


A little girl died, that's not remotely 'fine'.

The main roads have bad traffic.  Address that, don't make it worse.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> A little girl died, that's not remotely 'fine'.
> 
> The main roads have bad traffic.  Address that, don't make it worse.


Do you honestly think that’s what I meant?. That’s a bit low, even with the sniping you’ve been doing on here.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 6, 2020)

co-op said:


> Seriously man, this is horseshit. Main roads get used to capacity - however that is defined by those who use them. If you restrict traffic on rat runs, yes you get a bit of short term kick back on to main roads and then they go back to where they were. Rat runs are always extra capacity for cars - take them away, you reduce usage. Lots of people don't get it because they haven't done the data, but yes it's what happens.
> 
> I've literally seen it myself, I've commuted (by car) on a dual carriageway that used to back up to the last roundabout; it got cut to one lane a couple of years ago, the queues were a nightmare (I wanted to turn off at the roundabout, it was annoying, this wasn't "my" traffic jam) within 2 months, the quesues had got back to normal. Then after about 6 months the second lane came back and for a couple of weeks it flowed like water, then it got back to exactly where it had been before everything began.
> 
> ...



Well I live here. It remains to be seen how LTNs will work here.

LTNs are a specific way to reduce through traffic in a designated area. Lambeth are doing that on local neighbourhood basis. A road like CHL is not part of it. I may find more traffic on my road. At certain times of day that looks like the case. I do hope the Council will do proper monitering of this to see affect on roads around the LTNs. 

Where did I claim that more car journey are good for poor people?  I don't remember saying that.

Im not sure what you are saying to me. You appear to be saying that cars should be banned from Lambeth. Which is step more than the LTN concept I think.


----------



## newbie (Sep 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you honestly think that’s what I meant?. That’s a bit low, even with the sniping you’ve been doing on here.



You meant something other than what you said?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> You meant something other than what you said?


I absolutely didn’t say that. A bit low, even for you.


----------



## newbie (Sep 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I absolutely didn’t say that. A bit low, even for you.


absolutely didn't say what?  You've lost me.  The posts are there to be read.  I have no idea what you think your words meant, but if you want to go back and edit, I'll edit my reply and we can all move on.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> absolutely didn't say what?  You've lost me.  The posts are there to be read.  I have no idea what you think your words meant, but if you want to go back and edit, I'll edit my reply and we can all move on.


I didn’t say that it was fine a girl had died, my posts are clear enough.


----------



## newbie (Sep 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I didn’t say that it was fine a girl had died, my posts are clear enough.


Obviously they're not. I can't see anything in the post I wrote and you quoted that I'd describe as fine.    It was all about the death and forthcoming inquest of a little girl who lived close to a main road.

I'll quote again what her mother said, none of which is fine.



> “What I’m most annoyed about is councillors’ patronising responses, as if people on this side are stupid. For example ‘you need to give it time’. I need to give it time?
> “Not only did they not consult us when they closed off roads – where did they think the traffic was going to go?”
> 
> Ms Kissi-Debrah said it was “unforgivable” to make the changes during a pandemic.
> ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> Obviously they're not. I can't see anything in the post I wrote and you quoted that I'd describe as fine.    It was all about the death and forthcoming inquest of a little girl who lived close to a main road.
> 
> I'll quote again what her mother said, none of which is fine.


What do you think this sentence means?



> That’s fine, let’s work on reducing main road traffic also



I’m agreeing with her.


----------



## newbie (Sep 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> What do you think this sentence means?



You've raised the possibility that the first bit was intended to mean something other than what it says.  What were you describing as fine?

I dealt with the second bit by saying " _The main roads have bad traffic.  Address that, don't make it worse_. "

I couldn't make much sense of the word 'also' given that LTNs are designed to increase the traffic on main roads.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2020)

newbie said:


> You've raised the possibility that the first bit was intended to mean something other than what it says.  What were you describing as fine?
> 
> I dealt with the second bit by saying " _The main roads have bad traffic.  Address that, don't make it worse_. "
> 
> I couldn't make much sense of the word 'also' given that LTNs are designed to increase the traffic on main roads.


What I was describing as fine is the argument that there should be less traffic on main roads, and when I said “let’s work on reducing that also” I meant let’s come up with ways of having less traffic on the main roads. LTNs are part of a solution, not just existing by themselves.
Understand now?.


----------



## newbie (Sep 6, 2020)

I just spotted your edit.


sleaterkinney said:


> I’m agreeing with her.





sleaterkinney said:


> What I was describing as fine is the argument that there should be less traffic on main roads, and when I said “let’s work on reducing that also” I meant let’s come up with ways of having less traffic on the main roads. LTNs are part of a solution, not just existing by themselves.
> Understand now?.



So you're agreeing with someone who says " *where did they think the traffic was going to go?...   it was “unforgivable” to make the changes during a pandemic. ... The other side is more affluent.... It’s environmental racism.... People live on these main roads, and it’s the poorer people who live on them.... Gloating that your children can now go out and play or cycle does not help things....  Does that mean my children do not deserve to do that? ...  It is as if now that the traffic is not in their neighbourhood, they are not concerned where the traffic was. * "?

  Good.  Her campaigning over the last few years has been very persistent and I'm pleased her message is finally getting through. Her child's life matters.  

There are 40,000 premature deaths a year due to air pollution and although traffic is only part of that it's pretty obvious that those who live or work on the main roads bear the brunt of the pollution from traffic.  I posted the local map a few pages back, which clearly shows that bad air is not on the backstreets, it's on the main roads, .  

And yet, you're agreeing with her (and me) that there should be less traffic on main roads but somehow you support LTNs which- I repeat- are designed to increase the traffic on main roads, and which she is campaigning against.  I'm not sure I can agree your posts are clear, especially as just before all this you were commenting positively about (some) children being able to play outside without mentioning those who don't ever open their windows because of the noise and filth.  

tbh I think you, and others, have been conned into supporting a project to gentrify and suburbanise for the benefit of comfortable insiders regardless of the health and wellbeing effects on  less affluent people who have to live on the main roads, where few with any real choice would seek to be.  If you really do agree with her then the last thing an LTN should be described as is 'part of a solution'.  It's not, it's a way of making the problems worse.


----------



## Aristocrat (Sep 7, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> Can you just provide some more detail to back this up? Where does the extra time arise?


Looks like previously it took negative 3 minutes.


----------



## co-op (Sep 7, 2020)

newbie said:


> I just spotted your edit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've not been following this whole massive thread so maybe I've missed something key but Cars (/private vehicles) Are The Problem. Ideally we would have a phased plan to get them out of our cities full stop. Because of vested interests we don't and we're not going to get one (my first anti-car protest was in the 1970s, in London, the incredible lack of movement on this issue is depressing).

So we have to welcome anything that (a) allows more people to safely and enjoyably use bicycles or walk - without impeding public transport and (b) reduces car use (and you never get (a) without (b)).

LTNs do this. It's not the best way, but it's a step.

But wait! Oh what a surprise! In some aspects of their implementation, they also reproduce existing power structures in a neo-liberal economy, specifically they generally favour richer households in smaller streets. IE exactly how things were before, and how things would be if there were no LTNs.

But then again, since poor households don't have access to cars (over 50% of Lambeth population live in households with no access to a car) and therefore suffer all the negative impacts of cars but without any of the benefits, making safe routes through Lambeth for non-car users and improving the reliability and speed of public transport also disproportionately _benefits_ the poor. So it's not even like there's a simple cost-benefit analysis here - it's inevitably complex.

Yes LTNs will displace some traffic onto major roads. The evidence is that that displacement is temporary and that every time you reduce capacity, you eventually reduce car use - just as we know that if you increase capacity, you increase car use - which is why road-building has never got rid of traffic jams.

Maybe it would be better if we could divert all these bloody things onto the back streets of the rich but it's pretty obvious that would be a battle we'd lose. Apart from which the operations of the housing market would simply reverse itself and poor people currently living on roads like the the South Circular would be hoiked out pretty quick and replaced with the well-off.

Of all battles to choose, to line up on the side of the car, just because measures to control its (literally) stifling grip on our streets don't also overthrow modern capitalism, seems bizarre to me.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 7, 2020)

Why are you talking like all LTNs are the same?

If you reduce pollution in area A and increase it in the adjoining area B, and area A is predominately owner-occupied and white while area B is predominately social housing and BAME,  the cost/benefit is  immoral and unjust and almost certaily illegal.

Plus, if you live in the Railton LTN you made £30,000-£50,000 so there is that, esp. when  many in area B already rely on foodbanks.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 7, 2020)

co-op said:


> Of all battles to choose, to line up on the side of the car, just because measures to control its (literally) stifling grip on our streets don't also overthrow modern capitalism, seems bizarre to me.


All you have to do is sell the car. You don't need posh Tory bollards with flower beds to do that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 7, 2020)

newbie said:


> I just spotted your edit.
> 
> 
> So you're agreeing with someone who says " *where did they think the traffic was going to go?...   it was “unforgivable” to make the changes during a pandemic. ... The other side is more affluent.... It’s environmental racism.... People live on these main roads, and it’s the poorer people who live on them.... Gloating that your children can now go out and play or cycle does not help things....  Does that mean my children do not deserve to do that? ...  It is as if now that the traffic is not in their neighbourhood, they are not concerned where the traffic was. * "?
> ...


Like I pointed out to you very patiently, I agree with her that there should be less traffic on main roads. I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this.



newbie said:


> And yet, you're agreeing with her (and me) that there should be less traffic on main roads but somehow you support LTNs which- I repeat- are designed to increase the traffic on main roads, and which she is campaigning against.  I'm not sure I can agree your posts are clear, especially as just before all this you were commenting positively about (some) children being able to play outside without mentioning those who don't ever open their windows because of the noise and filth.
> 
> tbh I think you, and others, have been conned into supporting a project to gentrify and suburbanise for the benefit of comfortable insiders regardless of the health and wellbeing effects on  less affluent people who have to live on the main roads, where few with any real choice would seek to be.  If you really do agree with her then the last thing an LTN should be described as is 'part of a solution'.  It's not, it's a way of making the problems worse.


Again, it's not the case where all the existing traffic will get moved off these roads and sent down that one road. That's one thing which has been really badly communicated by the council. And it's also not the case that the changes stop at just LTNs.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2020)

co-op said:


> I've not been following this whole massive thread so maybe I've missed something key but Cars (/private vehicles) Are The Problem. Ideally we would have a phased plan to get them out of our cities full stop. Because of vested interests we don't and we're not going to get one (my first anti-car protest was in the 1970s, in London, the incredible lack of movement on this issue is depressing).
> 
> So we have to welcome anything that (a) allows more people to safely and enjoyably use bicycles or walk - without impeding public transport and (b) reduces car use (and you never get (a) without (b)).
> 
> ...



This post shows you have not been following this thread.

newbie hasn't been lining up on the side of the car.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2020)

co-op said:


> I've not been following this whole massive thread so maybe I've missed something key but Cars (/private vehicles) Are The Problem. Ideally we would have a phased plan to get them out of our cities full stop. Because of vested interests we don't and we're not going to get one (my first anti-car protest was in the 1970s, in London, the incredible lack of movement on this issue is depressing).
> 
> So we have to welcome anything that (a) allows more people to safely and enjoyably use bicycles or walk - without impeding public transport and (b) reduces car use (and you never get (a) without (b)).
> 
> ...


I think you have missed some useful posts, yes.  Like the evidence produced from a (pre-Covid) flagship LTN in Waltham Forest which showed just 1% reduction in car use. 


A couple of other points about your post.  There are about 100,000 private hire vehicles in London, catering mainly for those under 40, and Uber has some 3.5 million users.  I haven't found a figure for the number of rides, but their turnover was £68m in 2018, and the number of drivers has almost doubled since then, so there must have been a lot of rides at a few quid each.  I also can't find sensible figures for the number of doorstep van deliveries from Amazon, Ebay, supermarkets etc, but the increase over the last few years is clear and obvious.   To pretend that none of those users live in Lambeth or tick a box saying 'no access to a car' would be absurd.  Add in taxis, Addison Lee etc and Zipcars and consider the local over representation of the under 40s and the bald 'no access to a car' figure appears somewhat misleading (as is the presumption all such households are 'poor').  Just look around at what's on the road and cabs (all of the various sorts), deliveries and trades/businesses make up the vast majority.  Private cars are a bit tip of the iceberg, especiall;y since lockdown started,  commuting withered and streets became much, much quieter.

Your glib "_Yes LTNs will displace some traffic onto major roads._" goes alongside "_90% of people would be better off, I dont[ care about the other 10%_." The little girl discussed above is one of that 10%. Her life matters.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2020)

Really object to way anyone who posts anything even mildly critical of LTNs is regarded as car nut.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Like I pointed out to you very patiently, I agree with her that there should be less traffic on main roads. I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this.
> 
> Again, it's not the case where all the existing traffic will get moved off these roads and sent down that one road. That's one thing which has been really badly communicated by the council. And it's also not the case that the changes stop at just LTNs.


If you support the imposition of LTNs you are supporting pushing more traffic onto main roads.  Displaced traffic is nothing to do with bad council communication, its a design feature.

It's LTNs we're discussing, I'm not aware anyone has objected to increased cycling infrastructure, pavement widening and the other Covid responses, I certainly haven't.


----------



## newbie (Sep 7, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Really object to way anyone who posts anything even mildly critical of LTNs is regarded as car nut.


cheers, me too.  I've also been accused of being a tory amongst other slurs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 7, 2020)

newbie said:


> I think you have missed some useful posts, yes.  Like the evidence produced from a (pre-Covid) flagship LTN in Waltham Forest which showed just 1% reduction in car use.


And the other report which followed loads of similar schemes in different countries, but if you have other figures - let’s see them.


----------



## co-op (Sep 7, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> This post shows you have not been following this thread.
> 
> newbie hasn't been lining up on the side of the car.



Fair enough, apologies to newbie - and you if I'm going over-binary on this one. The thread ran out of the size that I can keep up with these days.


If I get twitchy about this is because it's cars that are the problem and yet every tiny, minimalist little scheme to do anything at all about restricting them is always met with this massive wailing. I'm so old I can remember when Miles Street in Vauxhall was closed to cars, my god the outcry! Who even notices now? Except the decades of multitudes of cyclists and pedestrians who can now safely use that road.

Cars are the problem; that's the beginning of this whole issue and they've been winning my whole life, with a few tiny little defeats on the way. And they kill thousands of people every year, never mind the indirect killings and damage they inflict via loss of community cohesion, loss of active transport, mental health damage, visual damage, sound damage, smell damage, space theft, the thuggish aggressive behaviour they elicit from a minority of drivers.

And yes, it's got more complex - there are multiple intermediate modes of car use - we've always had minicabs and I used to use them when I was car free. Also electric bikes/trikes/cars are blurring other boundaries. But the starting point should be that streets are for people not machines. If that were true we'd all be massively better off. 

Re the issue of whether LTNs reduce overall use; this will be down to whether they are introduced in some meaningful wider strategy or the usual cowardly piecemeal, one-at-a-time, do-it-by-stealth bullshit that is the only way we're allowed to do anything about the car problem in the UK.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 7, 2020)

co-op said:


> Fair enough, apologies to newbie - and you if I'm going over-binary on this one. The thread ran out of the size that I can keep up with these days.
> 
> 
> If I get twitchy about this is because it's cars that are the problem and yet every tiny, minimalist little scheme to do anything at all about restricting them is always met with this massive wailing. I'm so old I can remember when Miles Street in Vauxhall was closed to cars, my god the outcry! Who even notices now? Except the decades of multitudes of cyclists and pedestrians who can now safely use that road.
> ...



Im going to have to repeat myself a bit. 

When the Brixton Liiveable Neighbourhood was first put forward by the Council they said lessons had been learnt from the LJ debacle. 

That this time they were going to go spend a lot of effort consulting people, getting local communities on side. They would not be imposing Liveable Neighbourhood on people. 

This was ditched when Covid meant they could do it without consultation. 

Argument put forward by some early on in thread ( Winot was one of them) is that this setting aside of local democray was a good thing. That consultation means it all gets delayed or watered down due to oppostion by some local residents. 

More recent line taken on this thread is to smear any opposition with being racist and right wing. Or being taken in by shady right wing funding of Facebook groups. 

I find both lines of argument aren't ones I can agree with. 

This Council does not like consulting people imo. When it does it tries to subvert the findings. Seen this over the Culture2020 consultation, consultation on LJ masterplan and way residents have been consulted over estate regeneration. I don't think it is good to encourage them by supporting this imposition of LTNs on people without the proper consultation. It encourages the Council to think its fine to do things this way. At recent online meeting Council officer said one thing they had learnt over the pandemic is to be more "nimble". Unrestrained from the normal local democracy officers have liked being able to just get on with what they think is right without having to deal with pesky residents. 

This is not good. 

The second line of argument reminds me of how Brexit supporters are viewed.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Sep 8, 2020)

I agree with you Gramsci that this should have had more consultation, could have been better designed, lacks democratic legitimacy, and has real drawbacks; and yet the opposition is very oddly organised, well funded, replete with threads on nextdoor started by people who dont seem to exist online outside of said threads, and many other things that scream ‘grant shapps’ (or did i mean ‘michael green’).  Both can be true.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im going to have to repeat myself a bit.
> 
> When the Brixton Liiveable Neighbourhood was first put forward by the Council they said lessons had been learnt from the LJ debacle.
> 
> ...


Why should they consult with the people when the people clearly don't know what's in their own best interests?


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 8, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Why should they consult with the people when the people clearly don't know what's in their own best interests?


Think that was one of the main things that got up people’s noses in the brexit argument not that I’m going there


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 8, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Think that was one of the main things that got up people’s noses in the brexit argument not that I’m going there


And look how well that’s turning out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Think that was one of the main things that got up people’s noses in the brexit argument not that I’m going there


Sadly we're all going there, over Niagara Falls in a shitty barrel of Boris Johnson's design


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 8, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> And look how well that’s turning out.


Well it took my wife an hour each way to drive from brixton to Vauxhall today and she came back really stressed. Still trying to source a bike as she’s happy to give cycling a go but we’ve been messed around by a seller. Seems to be a lot of anger about it now but who will blink first? I’m hoping that behaviour will change particularly around these short journeys but the car lobby won’t back down without a fight.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 8, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I agree with you Gramsci that this should have had more consultation, could have been better designed, lacks democratic legitimacy, and has real drawbacks; and yet the opposition is very oddly organised, well funded, replete with threads on nextdoor started by people who dont seem to exist online outside of said threads, and many other things that scream ‘grant shapps’ (or did i mean ‘michael green’).  Both can be true.



My experience of the LJ road closures was the campaign against them was well organised and sucessful.

I know for a fact it was initiated by residents of the Loughborough Estate ( Council tenants). They produced the leaflets organised on the estate and lobbied the Council. Working class people can do things on their own initiative if they are pissed off enough.

When opposition to the State/ Local State occurs its a surprise to some that ordinary people can get organised and do things.

I find it rather patronising that if opposition to the State seems to be getting some ground it can't possibly be down to the ordinary populace.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 8, 2020)

Slow day today and I was looking at my FB and Twitter.

Awful lot of posts on One Lambeth by people complaining about longer journey times. 

I didnt realise but there are a lot of LTNs in Lambeth that are starting up. Not just in Brixton / Oval area. Plus Wandsworth. 

Wandsworth has LTN that is , according to the FB posts , having a knock on effect on Lambeth.

See ex LD Cllr Jeremy Clyne is commenting on adverse effect of LTNs.

Going to have to see if the anger on the FB is translated into people turning up to the demo on Saturday.

Organisers of One Lambeth are correctly telling people to put all their criticisms on the Lambeth Commonplace websites. As that is the official consultation pages.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 8, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Well it took my wife an hour each way to drive from brixton to Vauxhall today


Has she thought about walking? I don’t know where in Brixton or Vauxhall but it’s possibly only about 45 minutes.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 8, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Slow day today and I was looking at my FB and Twitter.
> 
> Awful lot of posts on One Lambeth by people complaining about longer journey times.


On an astroturfed anti-LTN site the are lots of people complaining about LTNs?



> I didnt realise but there are a lot of LTNs in Lambeth that are starting up. Not just in Brixton / Oval area. Plus Wandsworth.


Are you serious? . You missed this? . They are all over London.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 8, 2020)

Wandsworth made me laugh out loud a couple of weeks ago:


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 8, 2020)

While  out and about earlier someone who should know about these things said there is a march against LTNs on Saturday, starting at the Oval Triangle and coming down to Windrush Sq. Thinks it might be more mainstream than the tin foil brigade last week.


----------



## madolesance (Sep 8, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> While  out and about earlier someone who should know about these things said there is a march against LTNs on Saturday, starting at the Oval Triangle and coming down to Windrush Sq. Thinks it might be more mainstream than the tin foil brigade last week.


Hope that bloke who failed to get nominated for ukip and his followers from north London come along again to to Lambeth Town Hall. Fairly sure he'll get a better welcome this time. He's got a great way at talking in public. South London's going to go nuts for him!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> On an astroturfed anti-LTN site the are lots of people complaining about LTNs?
> 
> 
> Are you serious? . You missed this? . They are all over London.



Im aware of that. Ive seen them. The van and motorbike delivery people I know say its increasing times for some deliveries.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Has she thought about walking? I don’t know where in Brixton or Vauxhall but it’s possibly only about 45 minutes.


Yes she has and does but she’s a full on primary school teacher so 8-6 is a normal day for her and then you have to add on a walk, it’s a long day, everyday.


----------



## co-op (Sep 9, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Yes she has and does but she’s a full on primary school teacher so 8-6 is a normal day for her and then you have to add on a walk, it’s a long day, everyday.




I don't get why your wife's right to drive to work trumps my right to cycle to work.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Sep 9, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I find it rather patronising that if opposition to the State seems to be getting some ground it can't possibly be down to the ordinary populace.



My comments have been about the current anti-LTN situation, much of which looks and smells like astroturf (im sure there are real, local people in it too) and which has had explicit tory support since the beginning, not my opinion but as reported in the guardian and elsewhere. Of course ordinary people can effect change, but not nearly often enough. What is patronising is your using the fallacy of the converse to tar me with a belief i don’t hold, as above. so please don't.

cars sure bring out bad emotions in people!


----------



## editor (Sep 9, 2020)

Update: Protest planned against Lambeth Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes, Sat 12th Sept 2020


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 9, 2020)

You're welcome.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 9, 2020)

co-op said:


> I don't get why your wife's right to drive to work trumps my right to cycle to work.


It doesn’t and I didn’t claim it would. Like I have said repeatedly, she is changing her behaviour to drive less by cycling and walking, I was just replying about the length of the walk


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 9, 2020)

To be fair to ferndale, they’ve hooked the daily mail and their rabid readers into making it front page news


----------



## ash (Sep 9, 2020)

The initial concerns about Ferndale Rd itself being clogged with traffic have changed as the scheme has embedded in. It’s no more busy than it used to be imo maybe a bit quieter


----------



## co-op (Sep 9, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> It doesn’t and I didn’t claim it would.



The thing is, it's a zero-sum game. The more our streets are made safer, quicker and more comfortable for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users, the more that car-drivers lose out in terms of capacity and speed. There's no way you can get both.

So when car-drivers complain about extra jams/extra journey time, they are effectively asking for everyone else to take a hit - and I fully get that when I demand safer, more usable streets for non-drivers, I'm asking drivers to take a hit. I think it's more justified that way round.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 9, 2020)

co-op said:


> The thing is, it's a zero-sum game. The more our streets are made safer, quicker and more comfortable for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users, the more that car-drivers lose out in terms of capacity and speed. There's no way you can get both.
> 
> So when car-drivers complain about extra jams/extra journey time, they are effectively asking for everyone else to take a hit - and I fully get that when I demand safer, more usable streets for non-drivers, I'm asking drivers to take a hit. I think it's more justified that way round.


Pollution 'takes a hit'; becasue cars are diverted around a LTN, on increased congestion on boundary roads, on the consequence of  longer journey times as the knock on effect causes vechiles who would have used boundary roads make route decisions further away.  LTNs often cause pollution, just not in the streets that have been protected.


----------



## co-op (Sep 9, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Pollution 'takes a hit'; on cars that are diverted, on incresing queues of traffic, on the consequence of  longer journey times.  LTNs often cause pollution, just not in the streets that have been protected.



  

I know things have reached Peak Silly when people pushing car use start complaining about air pollution caused by schemes to reduce car dependence.. 

If you don't like air pollution and the hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and disabilities it produces each year in London, half the solution is to get rid of cars. There's no evidence that LTNS increase pollution.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 9, 2020)

Christ you don't get it do you.

Do you think the traffic is magiced (sic) away by the magic traffic fairy, or is the traffic pushed onto already busy boundary roads. Why do you think people here are talking about substantially longer journey times.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 9, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> To be fair to ferndale, they’ve hooked the daily mail and their rabid readers into making it front page news


Although it looks like the fire brigade have said they weren't delayed, it wasn't an emergency (someone was locked out of their house - isn't that a job for a locksmith rather than the fire service? Shouldn't they be charged for the call out?) and they support the Ferndale LTN.

Also a stay-at-home mum who drives to Clapham Nando's and a short school run.  

I'm not sure Ferndale opponents have really made a strong case.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I'm not sure Ferndale opponents have really made a strong case.


Well that's that then. The Sharp Elbows have judged the merits. How easy the judgements come.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 9, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Well that's that then. The Sharp Elbows have judged the merits. How easy the judgements come.



once again you've put a poor attempt at an insult above making any sense whatsoever.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 9, 2020)

It's an observation of a statement. If you want to be insulted I can probably help you out.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 9, 2020)

I walked down Coldharbour Lane from the Domino Club as far as the Satay Bar at 4.40 this afternoon.
The road was chocca. An ambulance was trying to get through - same direction East to West - and was only able to move at my walking pace, despite lights flashing and siren going.

I think Gramsci mentioned here or on another thread that CHL is getting very congested.
I have to agree. It was ridiculous late this afternoon.

Didn't stop a massive 40 tonne Palm Oil lorry parking up outside Brixton Village/The Laundry however. Very environmental Palm oil. 

Someone at the council needs to look at whether the Railton LTN in conjunction with the ?temporary? closure of Atlantic Road is actually causing a traffic-led biohazard to ambulance customers -  who could have been knifed, or dying of a heart attack.


----------



## ash (Sep 9, 2020)

Living in the Ferndale area the main opponents to the scheme seem to be those who want it to take 5 mins to drive to Tesco’s on Acre Lane rather than the 15 mins it now takes.
Ferndale Rd was chaos the first few weeks but has calmed down now and I imagine it will get quieter still as the scene embeds.  Too may people see driving as a privilege. At least two of my neighbours - young people are never seen walking any further than their car!!


----------



## co-op (Sep 9, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Christ you don't get it do you.
> 
> Do you think the traffic is magiced (sic) away by the magic traffic fairy, or is the traffic pushed onto already busy boundary roads. Why do you think people here are talking about substantially longer journey times.





Nope, it's you that don't get it. The evidence is that people drive to a time - increase the time and eventually they shift mode or don't make the journey. So yes, there's always a temporary increase in jams, and then they get back to normal as people stop making that journey. There's some evidence for that on this very thread.

This is why, no matter how many roads you build, how many extra lanes you put in, no matter how many fences you stick up to stop pedestrians crossing roads etc etc traffic jams never go away. All that happens is that into the - temporary - increase in capacity you get a load more journeys being made.

Do you think we should resurrect the plan to build a 4 lane motorway down Coldharbour Lane? Or a 4 lane motorway down South Lambeth Rd? These were serious plans - look at the footprint of all the adjacent council housing on these roads, they were built with 4 lane motorways as part of the plan. Do you seriously think this would have reduced journey times from Brixton to Vauxhall? Or - most laughably - that they would have improved air quality? The answers are bloody obvious, in case you can't get there on your own, they are "no" and "no".


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 9, 2020)

A modal shift in residential property values, is about the size of it.


----------



## co-op (Sep 9, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> A modal shift in residential property values, is about the size of it.



LOL. Like that hasn't been the story of the last 40 years in Lambeth and won't continue to be, and like it has anything to do with cars.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 9, 2020)

co-op said:


> The thing is, it's a zero-sum game. The more our streets are made safer, quicker and more comfortable for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transport users, the more that car-drivers lose out in terms of capacity and speed. There's no way you can get both.
> 
> So when car-drivers complain about extra jams/extra journey time, they are effectively asking for everyone else to take a hit - and I fully get that when I demand safer, more usable streets for non-drivers, I'm asking drivers to take a hit. I think it's more justified that way round.


The point again I was trying to make again was that we are absolutely prepared to change how we get to work or indeed other journeys by car which is what the LTNs are trying to achieve. However I was reporting that traffic delays have accelerated (no pun) that change. I don’t drive myself, only cycle, walk or public transport. I am proud to say I live in the brixton co-op and we have a number of properties on Railton so benefit directly from this scheme but not because house prices might increase


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> My comments have been about the current anti-LTN situation, much of which looks and smells like astroturf (im sure there are real, local people in it too) and which has had explicit tory support since the beginning, not my opinion but as reported in the guardian and elsewhere. Of course ordinary people can effect change, but not nearly often enough. What is patronising is your using the fallacy of the converse to tar me with a belief i don’t hold, as above. so please don't.
> 
> cars sure bring out bad emotions in people!



I don't quite understand this. This initiative is coming from central Government. Councils Tory or Labour are using Government money to do these schemes.

So its not a left right issue.

Some grassroots Tories may be involved in anti LTN groups. Some Labour party members I know are active supporting LTNs.

Imo its perfectly legitimate for local political experienced activists of left or right to organise in their own areas.

If grass roots Tories are supporting anti LTN groups then its against a Boris led government.

Not sure what you are saying. Are saying the same Tory government that is putting money into this is also funding anti LTN groups?

I know Shapps is now saying some Councils are "abusing" the money that governnment has put forward for these schemes. But its still Tory government policy. To get people walking and cycling. He is reacting to the oppostion that has sprung up. Is Shapps playing two sides? Promoting this and trying to undemine it? Does not make sense to me.

Im not being emotional btw. Im neither enthusiastic supporter or hard line against. I do think proper consultation should have been done. And that Pandemic should not have been used as excuse to do these schemes.

What I do see is hardening of both sides. This happened in LJ. The campaign was started by pissed off Council tenants. Once public meetings were held the car nuts turned up.

Their were locals who wanted some traffic calming/ rat run closures. But not the whole road closure thing. This got lost as the two hard line factions got involved.

The anti car make them walk brigade versus why cant I drive my car where I want Brigade its my human right.

There was imo a possibility of a local consensus on dealing with through traffic. That got lost due to Council not talking to local people properly.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 9, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Pollution 'takes a hit'; becasue cars are diverted around a LTN, on increased congestion on boundary roads, on the consequence of  longer journey times as the knock on effect causes vechiles who would have used boundary roads make route decisions further away.  LTNs often cause pollution, just not in the streets that have been protected.


Even if traffic is flowing freely down residential streets it’s creating pollution. Brixton had bad air long before LTNs.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2020)

co-op said:


> I don't get why your wife's right to drive to work trumps my right to cycle to work.



As I cycle every day on these road to central London just like to say Im don't feel Not a Vet wife driving to Vauxhall is an issue for me.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 9, 2020)

co-op said:


> Nope, it's you that don't get it. The evidence is that people drive to a time - increase the time and eventually they shift mode or don't make the journey. So yes, there's always a temporary increase in jams, and then they get back to normal as people stop making that journey. There's some evidence for that on this very thread.
> 
> This is why, no matter how many roads you build, how many extra lanes you put in, no matter how many fences you stick up to stop pedestrians crossing roads etc etc traffic jams never go away. All that happens is that into the - temporary - increase in capacity you get a load more journeys being made.
> 
> Do you think we should resurrect the plan to build a 4 lane motorway down Coldharbour Lane? Or a 4 lane motorway down South Lambeth Rd? These were serious plans - look at the footprint of all the adjacent council housing on these roads, they were built with 4 lane motorways as part of the plan. Do you seriously think this would have reduced journey times from Brixton to Vauxhall? Or - most laughably - that they would have improved air quality? The answers are bloody obvious, in case you can't get there on your own, they are "no" and "no".



Thing is a lot of people dont own cars. They do use cabs/ Depend on deliveries.

During lockdown my partner made more use of online deliveries. As this was safer.

Going around West End today and most traffic I saw was Cabs/ Builders/Delivery vehicles.

Not private cars. The assumption around LTNs is that this is about selfish car owners who go down the shops

My experience of being on the road all day is that is not the case.

My van /motorcycle delivery friends are getting extra time on deliveries and they aren't being paid for that time. You get paid per drop.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 9, 2020)

co-op said:


> like it has anything to do with cars.


Bingo. A central Gov Tory policy dreampt up in Downing St, funded by the Treasuary through the DTI, enforced without consultaion has ... a significant effect on residential propery values. Crazy days.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2020)

Grant Shapps warns councils to make roads more accessible for everyone | SWLondoner
					

More than 130 community groups released a joint statement last week in support of the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhood




					www.swlondoner.co.uk
				




Oval Triangle resident Francois Jardin, general manager of the Fentiman Arms pub, believes his quality of life has improved significantly with the reduction of noise pollution in particular.

Mr Jardin has also seen a positive impact socially with the LTN. He said: “I think the community forgot about the fact that they live next to each other and I think that is the impact that, socially speaking, is very beneficial.”

However, Mr Shapps acknowledged that when done well, the emergency measures have proved hugely popular with the ‘silent majority’.

“Millions of people, the vast majority of them non-cyclists, have already benefited from measures to reduce rat-running through narrow residential streets, cut danger to children around schools, make walking easier and provide safe space for cycling on main roads,” he wrote.

Probably the only thing I would agree with Shapps on.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 10, 2020)

I lose track slightly; is the new definition of 'rat-running' any journey that doesn't take place on an A or B road?


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 10, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> I lose track slightly; is the new definition of 'rat-running' any journey that doesn't take place on an A or B road?


Nope - here you go though....








						Rat running - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Slow day today and I was looking at my FB and Twitter.
> 
> Awful lot of posts on One Lambeth by people complaining about longer journey times.



I asked to join One Lambeth and was honest about being a supporter but wanted to understand arguments from both sides, not to argue. But they turned me down, so I think any discussion there will just be committed antis.


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 10, 2020)

A UK citizen's assembly, made up of people from all works of life, with a mix of ages, genders, ethnic backgrounds and education levels, but also a range of views about the climate crisis, has issued it's report today on how to deal with climate change









						UK climate assembly: tax frequent flyers and ban SUVs as part of Covid recovery
					

Assembly made up of members of public says recovery should drive move to net zero carbon emissions




					www.theguardian.com
				




One of their recommendations was reducing care usage by 2-5% per decade, and I do think that LTNs will help to play a role in this.


----------



## co-op (Sep 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Thing is a lot of people dont own cars. They do use cabs/ Depend on deliveries.
> 
> During lockdown my partner made more use of online deliveries. As this was safer.
> 
> ...



Yes, the % of the standard private car as a proportion of all traffic is obviously dropping steadily but this is still not imo an argument against LTNs. Local van drop - last mile logistics - really should all be done by electric cycle van for all the usual reasons. LTNs make this far more likely and possible.

I do know about multi-drop driving as I've done a bit - I'm so old that I was a despatcher back in the 80s. It's a real problem as they are basically paid to drive like arseholes, and I speak as someone who probably did that. But the traffic has always been an issue for drop driving.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 10, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> A UK citizen's assembly, made up of people from all works of life, with a mix of ages, genders, ethnic backgrounds and education levels, but also a range of views about the climate crisis, has issued it's report today on how to deal with climate change
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bless.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 10, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Bless.


Are you being sarcastic because you don’t think climate change is real or object to people having suggestions about how to deal with it? At some point, humanity is going to have to deal with what is happening to our planet


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 10, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Grant Shapps warns councils to make roads more accessible for everyone | SWLondoner
> 
> 
> More than 130 community groups released a joint statement last week in support of the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhood
> ...



In the article you posted Shapps also says:



> Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, writing in the Telegraph over the weekend, criticised the introduction of barriers in town centres and warned councils must consult with local residents or risk the withdrawal of funding.



The "silent majority" line of argument is typical right wing argument.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 10, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> A UK citizen's assembly, made up of people from all works of life, with a mix of ages, genders, ethnic backgrounds and education levels, but also a range of views about the climate crisis, has issued it's report today on how to deal with climate change
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How were the people chosen? Its not clear from the article. Unless I missed something.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 10, 2020)

co-op said:


> Yes, the % of the standard private car as a proportion of all traffic is obviously dropping steadily but this is still not imo an argument against LTNs. Local van drop - last mile logistics - really should all be done by electric cycle van for all the usual reasons. LTNs make this far more likely and possible.
> 
> I do know about multi-drop driving as I've done a bit - I'm so old that I was a despatcher back in the 80s. It's a real problem as they are basically paid to drive like arseholes, and I speak as someone who probably did that. But the traffic has always been an issue for drop driving.



I talk to van drivers on a regular basis.

As one said to me today before bringing in these schemes they should have talked to those who use roads to make a living.

Make a living and provide an essential service to people during the pandemic.

Now the worst of the pandemic is over they are no longer "key workers" so can be brushed aside.

If LTNs affect their capacity to make a living thats tough.

TBF I think that is shit way to treat Key workers.

They already have enough on their plate with ULEZ. Chatting to van driver today and he is going to buy new van. Gets help with scraping his old van. Its still a risk.

Lot of these guys feel neither government or companies really care if they are out of a job due to all this added expense/ difficulty getting around.

And they are doing a job that is needed.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Update: Protest planned against Lambeth Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes, Sat 12th Sept 2020


I've just had a leaflet throught my door about a LTN in our neighbourhood (Tulse Hill). We've had a leaflet that states, as well as residents "Visitors & deliveries are able to drive to you and park just like they do now"

I wonder is that different to other schemes. It seems fine by me.

The bottom line for me is
a) you could pay people to walk and cycle and they won't
b) Lambeth is one of London's most polluted boroughs


----------



## T & P (Sep 10, 2020)

I've posted a tongue-in-cheek observation on the following subject on another transport related thread, but I thought it might merit a more meaningful discussion ITT. Nobody is talking about the effects of LTNs on bus users from a London-wide perspective. The Railton Road LTN is the only one I can think of where bus journey times of the single bus route serving it will have either improved or remained the same. But on a great many other bus routes journey times have increased significantly.

There are scores of major through roads used by multiple bus routes that have no bus lanes. And whereas giving motor vehicles no other option but to use a given major road and the hell with how much more congested it has become might (eventually) result in a single-digit percentage reduction in car usage, the many buses caught in it are now experiencing horrendous conditions on a regular basis.

I have counted seven buses stuck in gridlock over a mere 300-metre stretch of road alone. Colleagues at work have reported their bus taking 45 min+  to clear just a mile of road going through a busy junction or on the approach to a bridge. That just isn't right or fair to them, however satisfying or a valid weapon against car use constant gridlock conditions might seem to some.


----------



## editor (Sep 10, 2020)

This video has just come out from 'OneWandsworth'


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 10, 2020)

Impressive production.  Sharp Elbows won't be happy.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Impressive production.  Sharp Elbows won't be happy.


Can you stop this 'sharp elbows' nonsense please.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 11, 2020)

Not keen on censorship.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 11, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The "silent majority" line of argument is typical right wing argument.



“However, Mr Shapps acknowledged that when done well, the emergency measures have proved hugely popular with the ‘silent majority’.”

Yes, this statement literally says nothing !


----------



## alex_ (Sep 11, 2020)

editor said:


> This video has just come out from 'OneWandsworth'




Impressive production for a “grassroots” effort


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

alex_ said:


> Impressive production for a “grassroots” effort


Looks like a strong sharp elbows effort to me.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

T & P said:


> I've posted a tongue-in-cheek observation on the following subject on another transport related thread, but I thought it might merit a more meaningful discussion ITT. Nobody is talking about the effects of LTNs on bus users from a London-wide perspective. The Railton Road LTN is the only one I can think of where bus journey times of the single bus route serving it will have either improved or remained the same. But on a great many other bus routes journey times have increased significantly.
> 
> There are scores of major through roads used by multiple bus routes that have no bus lanes. And whereas giving motor vehicles no other option but to use a given major road and the hell with how much more congested it has become might (eventually) result in a single-digit percentage reduction in car usage, the many buses caught in it are now experiencing horrendous conditions on a regular basis.
> 
> I have counted seven buses stuck in gridlock over a mere 300-metre stretch of road alone. Colleagues at work have reported their bus taking 45 min+  to clear just a mile of road going through a busy junction or on the approach to a bridge. That just isn't right or fair to them, however satisfying or a valid weapon against car use constant gridlock conditions might seem to some.


You make a big assumption that all this is caused by LTNs rather than lots of people currently avoiding public transport and driving instead. And the resumption of the school run.

There's not any way of knowing what would happen if all the LTNs were now removed (well, unless they get removed because all the councils lose their nerve), but it's entirely plausible that all the main roads would still be congested, loads of rat-run roads would also be full of traffic, it would be even less attractive for non-car-owning people to cycle and walk and there would be even more people trying to get on those buses which would still be stuck in the traffic caused by car drivers.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

There's a bit about the multiple bridge closures here by the way - decide for yourselves whether it's because there are actual structural problems, or the result of an anti-motor vehicle conspiracy.









						London’s Bridges Really Are Falling Down
					

Three major crossings on the Thames are closed to cars — one of them considered too dangerous even to walk across. Even the landmark Tower Bridge was recently shut for two days.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## T & P (Sep 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You make a big assumption that all this is caused by LTNs rather than lots of people currently avoiding public transport and driving instead. And the resumption of the school run.
> 
> There's not any way of knowing what would happen if all the LTNs were now removed (well, unless they get removed because all the councils lose their nerve), but it's entirely plausible that all the main roads would still be congested, loads of rat-run roads would also be full of traffic, it would be even less attractive for non-car-owning people to cycle and walk and there would be even more people trying to get on those buses which would still be stuck in the traffic caused by car drivers.


Well, I've travelled on Christchurch Road every single day for my daily commute for more than twenty years, and am very well versed with the average levels of congestion and instances of traffic jams out of a given week or month. And since the NIMBY-tastic Hillside LTN went live recently, Christchurch Rd has gone from Tulse Hill-to-Brixton-Hill bumper to bumper traffic once every 10- 14 days, to every single day so far, apart from a solitary morning in which the queue was slightly shorter, but still significant. That is simply not an amazing coincidence.


----------



## T & P (Sep 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There's a bit about the multiple bridge closures here by the way - decide for yourselves whether it's because there are actual structural problems, or the result of an anti-motor vehicle conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So bad in the case of London Bridge that double decker buses chug along as merrily as before, along with taxis. Because buses are much, much lighter than private cars.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There's a bit about the multiple bridge closures here by the way - decide for yourselves whether it's because there are actual structural problems, or the result of an anti-motor vehicle conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The article is entertaining - but points up the difference between fund-holding, construction and maintenance in London and Genoa. Mussolini made the trains run on  time - and those services the UK government wishes to cut it delegates to local authorities who seek to avoid responsibility.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

T & P said:


> So bad in the case of London Bridge that double decker buses chug along as merrily as before, along with taxis. Because buses are much, much lighter than private cars.


I expect they are a lot lighter, per person carried, which is why if there's a limited weight capacity, it makes sense.

But you'll be pleased that at least here buses are given priority, because of your concerns about bus passengers being delayed.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

T & P said:


> the NIMBY-tastic Hillside LTN


Which one is this?


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Mussolini made the trains run on  time ....


Sorry to be pedantic, but that's a myth!



> The Italian railway system had fallen into a rather sad state during World War I, and it did improve a good deal during the 1920s, but Mussolini was disingenuous in taking credit for the changes: much of the repair work had been performed before Mussolini and the fascists came to power in 1922. More importantly (to the claim at hand), those who actually lived in Italy during the Mussolini era have borne testimony that the Italian railway’s legendary adherence to timetables was far more myth than reality.
> 
> The myth of Mussolini’s punctual trains lives on, albeit with a different slant: rather than serving as a fictitious symbol of the benefits of fascism, it is now offered as a sardonic example that something good can result even from the worst of circumstances.











						Mussolini and On-Time Trains
					

Did Mussolini make the trains run on time?




					www.snopes.com


----------



## T & P (Sep 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I expect they are a lot lighter, per person carried, which is why if there's a limited weight capacity, it makes sense.
> 
> But you'll be pleased that at least here buses are given priority, because of your concerns about bus passengers being delayed.


That has nothing to do with the issue of whether London Bridge is so critically weak it must close to private cars and it absolutely cannot wait until Vauxhall Bridge reopens in a few weeks.

If a bridge is in urgent need of structural/ remedial work, you close down all motorised traffic, including buses. See Battersea Bridge when a barge hit it some years ago, Albert Bridge when they did a thorough refurbishment of the structure, or Hammersmith Bridge at the moment.

You do not need to have a degree in engineering to just know that it is extraordinarily fucking unlikely both bridges asbolutely have to be closed suddenly and at the same exact time to motorsied traffic, while restricting traffic on Wandsworth Bridge to boot as an added fuck you to everyone not on a bicycle.


----------



## T & P (Sep 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Which one is this?


The massive area between Christchurch Road and Streatham Hill.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

T & P said:


> If a bridge is in urgent need of structural/ remedial work, you close down all motorised traffic, including buses.



Why?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

T & P said:


> The massive area between Christchurch Road and Streatham Hill.


Ok, so it's only been in operation for 2 or 3 weeks.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2020)

editor said:


> This video has just come out from 'OneWandsworth'




Several business are saying takings are down due to the LTN. As they have lost passing trade. Couple of them say it has almost halved.

Whatever one might think of "One Wandsworth" I don't think these people would have wanted to be in the video if the LTN had improved business.


----------



## T & P (Sep 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Why?


Because if a bridge goes suddenly into allegedly essential repairs yet remains structurally safe and sound enough for an unrestricted amount of 15t vehicles to use it at the same time, there is no way those repairs couldn’t have waited just a few more weeks until another vital bridge also undergoing work reopened.

Either that, or the repairs take place now after all but private vehicles continue to be allowed on it. It is absurd to even entertain the notion it couldn’t be any other way.


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 11, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> How were the people chosen? Its not clear from the article. Unless I missed something.



This article explains how the participants were chosen.









						'Chuffed to be chosen': participants attend first UK climate assembly
					

Sir David Attenborough thanked the 110 people gathered in Birmingham for giving up their time




					www.theguardian.com
				




Done well, citizens' assemblies are a great model - they've used them formally in Ireland for example to tackle thorny issues: 'Transparency and fairness': Irish readers on why the Citizens' Assembly worked


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 11, 2020)

T & P said:


> Well, I've travelled on Christchurch Road every single day for my daily commute for more than twenty years, and am very well versed with the average levels of congestion and instances of traffic jams out of a given week or month. And since the NIMBY-tastic Hillside LTN went live recently, Christchurch Rd has gone from Tulse Hill-to-Brixton-Hill bumper to bumper traffic once every 10- 14 days, to every single day so far, apart from a solitary morning in which the queue was slightly shorter, but still significant. That is simply not an amazing coincidence.



There are lots of things going on besides the LTNs - there are bridges closed and lots of roadworks, and overall traffic levels are higher than a year ago as more people return to work but shun public transport. I cycled to work yesterday for the first time and the roads the whole way seemed worse than my normal, pre-covid cycle. I'm not saying the LTNs aren't contributing but there are plenty of other unusual things going on too - the map in this article shows that there is congestion all over London not just in LTN areas









						Rush hour traffic in London soars by 25% in a week
					

London journeys (pictured) were blighted by roadworks, full buses and new cycle schemes as the capital struggles to ramp up services for the increase in passengers.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

T & P said:


> Because if a bridge goes suddenly into allegedly essential repairs yet remains structurally safe and sound enough for an unrestricted amount of 15t vehicles to use it at the same time, there is no way those repairs couldn’t have waited just a few more weeks until another vital bridge also undergoing work reopened.
> 
> Either that, or the repairs take place now after all but private vehicles continue to be allowed on it. It is absurd to even entertain the notion it couldn’t be any other way.



It seems that both of your preferred solutions are aimed at minimising inconvenience for private vehicles. You did start out on this claiming that it's your bus-using colleagues you are so terribly concerned about.

The solution that has been chosen allows buses to continue to flow across London Bridge at the same time as repairs are carried out. But you want to clog up that flow with a load of private vehicles, massively reducing the number of people who can use it to get across the river.


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 11, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Several business are saying takings are down due to the LTN. As they have lost passing trade. Couple of them say it has almost halved.
> 
> Whatever one might think of "One Wandsworth" I don't think these people would have wanted to be in the video if the LTN had improved business.


There’s only so much a shopper can carry on a bike. I totally would like to see less cars but for a lot of disabled people, mums with young kids, people wanting to buy larger objects or arms full of clothes, a car can be pretty essential. If there’s nowhere to park and it becomes more arduous to drive through places then surely those shoppers are even more likely to head for the big shopping centres which cater for drivers. With increasing competition from the likes of Westfield where the choice is enormous and you don’t get wet or struggle crossing roads bags and turkeys in arms, and the unstoppable advance of the likes of Amazon, one of the only advantages I can think of for the small Local shopping roads Is speed and convenience. If you cut out car drivers you are bound to lose some much needed business and more unaffordable eateries like the ones that are infesting the covered market already will be the only places that can afford the rents. 
. During the lockdown I built a wildlife pond to have something to do. For the first time I bought stuff from amazon and I have to say i was amazed at the convenience. For me to walk or bus to Brixton which is my closest proper high st just to shop with very limited choice or brave Oxford st when I can Look on my phone push a button and it turns up the next morning with piss easy returns  it’s hard to make effort whereas when I had my car (which I got rid of about 15 years ago because I could  never park near my flat despite paying for a permit), I would often nip out to Brixton  or Wandsworth to buy stuff. That has become more arduous if I want things for my garden or diy etc so I probably buy less stuff which is good, but now I’ve spent a fortune without realising it and stuck money into the hands of a tax dodging billionaire rather than some of it going to local shops. Electric cars are prohibitively expensive as there is no 2nd hand market established yet so car driving is likely to become a reserve for the wealthy and the parent with small kids, disabled, and those Who need a car for work will be disadvantaged.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> There’s only so much a shopper can carry on a bike. I totally would like to see less cars but for a lot of disabled people, mums with young kids, people wanting to buy larger objects or arms full of clothes, a car can be pretty essential. If there’s nowhere to park and it becomes more arduous to drive through places then surely those shoppers are even more likely to head for the big shopping centres which cater for drivers.


So what's your solution - to make local neighbourhoods more like Westfield, so that they are convenient for car drivers? We'll need to knock down quite a few houses to widen roads and provide all the parking - is that ok?

Or we accept that online ordering with local delivery is a much better solution for getting large/bulky items to people. And then the smaller things can be bought locally - and probably more locally than before.


----------



## girasol (Sep 11, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Several business are saying takings are down due to the LTN. As they have lost passing trade. Couple of them say it has almost halved.
> 
> Whatever one might think of "One Wandsworth" I don't think these people would have wanted to be in the video if the LTN had improved business.





editor said:


> This video has just come out from 'OneWandsworth'




I'm in that group (and very familiar with Franciscan Rd) and there are people from all walks of life in there, including me.  The woman who made that video is a local working mum.  Don't believe whatever nasty lies and rumours are being spread, it's most certainly not right wing, there are cyclists in there, there are lots of women there and whenever someone starts ranting against any road user there's an outcry.  We are united not divided and everyone should have a say on how the roads work.  Workers who drive for a living are having to work longer hours without extra pay and spending an average 90 minutes a day longer at work, due to to traffic.  The outcry was so strong that council has decided to suspend them for now and apparently local roads will be reopened.  If you haven't been in the group then your impression of it may not be accurate at all and it's probably clouded by prejudice and lies.  There are 3.7k people in that group.

Most people want the same thing: safer roads for ALL, less pollution for ALL (not just a few lucky streets, usually where rich people live) and freedom of movement for ALL, including those who need to drive for a living and those who can't use other modes of transport.  The LTNs in Tooting achieved NONE of that.  Changes that work for everyone should look into subsidisation of low emission vehicles (they are too expensive!), more charge points, more one way streets, 20mph on all streets (Wandsworth still has a few 30mph roads), fixing potholes so cyclists can cycle without fear of falling, better, greener and cheaper public transport.









						Low Traffic Neighbourhood trials suspended - Wandsworth Borough Council
					






					wandsworth.gov.uk
				




ANOTHER THING TO NOTE 0Wansworth is a fake account (with zero in front), the real one is 0Wandsworth (with an O).  It's astonishing someone had the time to set one up and spent the last 3 weeks spreading misinformation about the original group.  And also really quite sad.  Too much time on their hands.

Now, if you're not going to take the word of someone who's been here for over 15 years and is most defo as far from the right as one can be, then I don't know whose word you'll take!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

girasol said:


> I'm in that group and there are people from all walks of life in there, including me.  The woman who made that video is a local working mum.  Don't believe whatever nasty lies and rumours are being spread, it's most certainly not right wing, there are cyclists in there, there are lots of women there and whenever someone start ranting against any road user there's an outcry.  We are united not divided and everyone should have a say on how the roads work.  Workers who drive for a living are having to work longer hours without extra pay and spending an average 90 minutes a day longer at work, due to to traffic.  The outcry was so strong that council has decided to suspend them for now and apparently local roads will be reopened.  If you haven't been in the group then your impression of it may not be accurate at all and it's probably clouded by prejudice and lies.  There are 3.7k people in that group.
> 
> Most people want the same thing: safer roads for ALL, less pollution for ALL (not just a few lucky streets, usually where rich people live) and freedom of movement for ALL, including those who need to drive for a living and those who can't use other modes of transport.  The LTNs in Tooting achieved NONE of that.
> 
> ...



Ok... so the Tory administration of Wandsworth has decided to suspend its trials, less than a month after their introduction, for different reasons than the ones discussed in that video.

I haven't been following things there ... so maybe it's true that they have collided badly with TfL changes (although really a month is much too short a time to know) or maybe there genuinely are other problems.

I wonder though, what do you think is going to happen next - will there be a round of constructive consultation followed another trial of a modified version? Or will some kind of alternative measures be put into place instead? What would they be? Do you reckon you're going to gain safer roads, less pollution and freedom of movement for ALL or even for MOST in the foreseeable future?

Will the organisation "One Wandsworth" actively push for alternative measures or will it disappear as the status quo is restored?


----------



## girasol (Sep 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Ok... so the Tory administration of Wandsworth has decided to suspend its trials, less than a month after their introduction, for different reasons than the ones discussed in that video.
> 
> I haven't been following things there ... so maybe it's true that they have collided badly with TfL changes (although really a month is much too short a time to know) or maybe there genuinely are other problems.
> 
> ...



The Tory administration were the ones who installed it in the first place, people can see through that, also there was a lot of blame shifting and that didn't go down well either.  In the end most people wanted to keep politics and political campaigning out and just remove the blocks and start again, from a more reasonable starting point rather than the "sledgehammer to crack a nut" approach they took.

A lot of the people in the group want a discussion and other alternatives, as I put on my post. (I must have edited to add after you quoted it  ). Other people are just exhausted by the stress of it all - the much longer journeys, asthma sufferers who live on affected routes have had it rough, the hate and division it has created between drivers and cyclists and they just want things back to"normal".

This was my edit to my post above:
Most people want the same thing: safer roads for ALL, less pollution for ALL (not just a few lucky streets, usually where rich people live) and freedom of movement for ALL, including those who need to drive for a living and those who can't use other modes of transport. The LTNs in Tooting achieved NONE of that. Changes that work for everyone should subsidisation of low emission vehicles (they are too expensive!), more charge points, more one way streets, 20mph on all streets (Wandsworth still has a few 30mph roads), fixing potholes so cyclists can cycle without fear of falling, better, greener and cheaper public transport.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> This article explains how the participants were chosen.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes the Irish model looks interesting.

If the Council had set up a Citizen's Assembly on road use on the Irish model the present situation might have been avoided.

Instead the Council used pandemic to implement these changes to roads without proper consultation.

Leading to division and resentment.

The Irish model of Citizen Assembly was thorough and well organized.

Lambeth could learn something from this.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 11, 2020)

this doesn't read well does it?

As protests go what does it want?  "high" traffic, as much traffic as possible?


----------



## co-op (Sep 11, 2020)

T & P said:


> And since the NIMBY-tastic Hillside LTN went live recently, Christchurch Rd has gone from Tulse Hill-to-Brixton-Hill bumper to bumper traffic once every 10- 14 days, to every single day so far, apart from a solitary morning in which the queue was slightly shorter, but still significant. That is simply not an amazing coincidence.



This is kind of inevitable whenever any new anti rat run scheme comes in. What you described before sounds about right to me every week and half Brixton Hill is really crap, mostly it flows - slowly - but predictably. But this is what happens with a road system that's basically at capacity; it only takes a small extra thing to jam it - a breakdown or a minor crash, a badly-parked lorry on a delivery, a row in the street, 20 extra journeys randomly added to the normal load - background statistical noise in terms of 'why' but enough to jam up the road.

This is how our roads operate, and it is how they will always operate. The number of potential journeys is infinite and since car use keeps getting cheaper and more reliable the only restraint on use is the extent to which the journey is literally possible within the time that makes it worthwhile. The system always returns to this level of capacity (at peak hours - ie 8-8 in London). 

It will get back to a new normal which will be very similar to the old normal, only with fewer cars making the journey. It was the same when Brixton Hill was nearly all a 4 lane road with no bus lanes and no parking, i.e had nearly twice the capacity. Every time something changes the traffic jams, then it returns to the basic level.


----------



## editor (Sep 11, 2020)

Update: 










						New survey claims ‘huge support’ for Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

Rarely has a local issue proved as divisive and as controversial as Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme, which has seen borough-wide road closures implemented in an attempt to re…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 11, 2020)

girasol said:


> I'm in that group (and very familiar with Franciscan Rd) and there are people from all walks of life in there, including me.  The woman who made that video is a local working mum.  Don't believe whatever nasty lies and rumours are being spread, it's most certainly not right wing, there are cyclists in there, there are lots of women there and whenever someone starts ranting against any road user there's an outcry.  We are united not divided and everyone should have a say on how the roads work.  Workers who drive for a living are having to work longer hours without extra pay and spending an average 90 minutes a day longer at work, due to to traffic.  The outcry was so strong that council has decided to suspend them for now and apparently local roads will be reopened.  If you haven't been in the group then your impression of it may not be accurate at all and it's probably clouded by prejudice and lies.  There are 3.7k people in that group.
> 
> Most people want the same thing: safer roads for ALL, less pollution for ALL (not just a few lucky streets, usually where rich people live) and freedom of movement for ALL, including those who need to drive for a living and those who can't use other modes of transport.  The LTNs in Tooting achieved NONE of that.  Changes that work for everyone should subsidisation of low emission vehicles (they are too expensive!), more charge points, more one way streets, 20mph on all streets (Wandsworth still has a few 30mph roads), fixing potholes so cyclists can cycle without fear of falling, better, greener and cheaper public transport.
> 
> ...



The thing is lots of those groups have appeared OneDulwich, OneRailton etc all with swish websites, twitter accounts etc but no details on who is truly behind them. The right have traditionally been against things done to curb pollution or deal with climate change or just come in through plain nimbyism.

Maybe the LTNs in Tooting were badly designed, and need to be tweaked, but it's not cause LTNs are a bad idea themselves, They exist already all over London. 

Traffic, even when it's flowing freely is kicking off pollution and that was a problem in London before COVID. People will be anxious about getting on Public transport now - the answer can't be to go to cars and add more pollution on top of what was there already.


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 11, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Yes the Irish model looks interesting.
> 
> If the Council had set up a Citizen's Assembly on road use on the Irish model the present situation might have been avoided.
> 
> ...



I think Citizens' Assemblies are a great model for recommending an approach to complex issues, and get round some of the problem with traditional consultations - the problem is of course that they are more complex to organise and more expensive. It would be nice to see the council at least explore the idea in future, as it helps as a consensus builder.


----------



## co-op (Sep 11, 2020)

editor said:


> Update:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Surprise. Car drivers are vociferous and very very vocal but they are a minority in places like Lambeth and everyone else loses out big time as a result of them. I remember 10 years ago some dickhead of a Labour councillor telling me that Lambeth Labour (who had just won I think 59 out of 63 seats, ie had carte blanche) that they "couldn't" introduce a borough wide 20mph speed limit because it'd be "too unpopular" so we started a bit of local campaigning, door knocking etc and it was 4,5,6 to 1 in favour on the doorstep. Needless to say most Lambeth labour councillors drive everywhere themselves - or certainly all the only ones I ever saw did. I'll give Nigel Hasleden a pass here, I've actually seen him on a bike.


----------



## girasol (Sep 11, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The thing is lots of those groups have appeared OneDulwich, OneRailton etc all with swish websites, twitter accounts etc but no details on who is truly behind them. The right have traditionally been against things done to curb pollution or deal with climate change or just come in through plain nimbyism.
> 
> Maybe the LTNs in Tooting were badly designed, and need to be tweaked, but it's not cause LTNs are a bad idea themselves, They exist already all over London.
> 
> Traffic, even when it's flowing freely is kicking off pollution and that was a problem in London before COVID. People will be anxious about getting on Public transport now - the answer can't be to go to cars and add more pollution on top of what was there already.



This is just one example of what people are going through - how is that ok? The vast majority of driving done in London during the week days are already essential, be it for health or work reasons. So I'm not sure FORCING people off their vehicles is actually fair.

"After being stuck indoors because of the restrictions I had to suffer it at the weekend to make an essential journey from tooting to earlsfield to collect medication as I am not a well person on a daily basis the hysteria, aggression and absolute chaos caused me a great deal of stress and heightened my anxiety symptoms and has me terrified to get in the car to get my essentials. I made an online order to get some supplies that was meant to arrive yesterday between 12 and 1. The driver finally arrived at 2.20 really stressed and upset. He has a 9 hour shift with a quota of 5 deliveries an hour he was already 2.5 hours behind. I gave him a drink and a had a chat while he was unloading. These restrictions have caused him such stress and worry and it's just not fair. I now have to go and pick up yet more medication that is essential but wasnt available at the weekend and I'm already stressing and worrying about having to make the journey and wondering where I'm gonna be able to park and how far from my destination. I don't think the powers that be have any idea the negative side effects of these changes. I dont think I can take much more and am worried that I'm going to become a forced recluse."

As for the group's origin, it's really not hard to set these things up, once one started, obviously it was used as a template for the ones that followed, purely because it saves time and also from a branding perspective...  I mean what is the alternative?  Someone is controlling all the groups?  To destroy the planet by stopping LTNs?   I can knock a video or website together and it's really not that hard.  It just needs someone with a bit of time on their hands, and let's face it, there's a lot of tech people on furlough right now.


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 11, 2020)

editor said:


> New survey claims ‘huge support’ for Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood
> 
> 
> Rarely has a local issue proved as divisive and as controversial as Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme, which has seen borough-wide road closures implemented in an attempt to re…
> ...



That seems like a well produced report. Obviously the sample was self-selecting but it's good to see that the support is generally high, with support for some tweaks, and only 23% fully opposed.

Some of the critical campaigns are confidently stating the majority oppose these schemes, whereas this suggests it is around a quarter.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 11, 2020)

girasol said:


> This is just one example of what people are going through - how is that ok? The vast majority of driving done in London during the week days are already essential, be it for health or work reasons. So I'm not sure FORCING people off their vehicles is actually fair.
> 
> "After being stuck indoors because of the restrictions I had to suffer it at the weekend to make an essential journey from tooting to earlsfield to collect medication as I am not a well person on a daily basis the hysteria, aggression and absolute chaos caused me a great deal of stress and heightened my anxiety symptoms and has me terrified to get in the car to get my essentials. I made an online order to get some supplies that was meant to arrive yesterday between 12 and 1. The driver finally arrived at 2.20 really stressed and upset. He has a 9 hour shift with a quota of 5 deliveries an hour he was already 2.5 hours behind. I gave him a drink and a had a chat while he was unloading. These restrictions have caused him such stress and worry and it's just not fair. I now have to go and pick up yet more medication that is essential but wasnt available at the weekend and I'm already stressing and worrying about having to make the journey and wondering where I'm gonna be able to park and how far from my destination. I don't think the powers that be have any idea the negative side effects of these changes. I dont think I can take much more and am worried that I'm going to become a forced recluse."
> 
> As for the group's origin, it's really not hard to set these things up, once one started, obviously it was used as a template for the ones that followed, purely because it saves time and also from a branding perspective...  I mean what is the alternative?  Someone is controlling all the groups?  To destroy the planet by stopping LTNs?   I can knock a video or website together and it's really not that hard.  It just needs someone with a bit of time on their hands, and let's face it, there's a lot of tech people on furlough right now.


Like I said previously on this thread and I have written to my councillor about it, I do think blue badge holders should be able to go through the filters, don’t have a problem with that at all.

I do honestly think someone has paid for an agency to set these up, it 100% looks like an astroturfing effort, and yeah there are parts of the motoring lobby like that.


----------



## Winot (Sep 11, 2020)

There is history of astroturfing in relation to the cycle superhighways. The Canary Wharf property group (iirc) set up and funded a group to oppose them. The CEO was annoyed that his chauffeur was held up driving him from Knightsbridge to Canary Wharf. So it’s been done before.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

girasol said:


> In the end most people wanted to keep politics and political campaigning out and just remove the blocks and start again, from a more reasonable starting point rather than the "sledgehammer to crack a nut" approach they took.



I genuinely hope you can quote this back at me in a few months and prove me wrong: but I bet you, there will be absolutely no "starting again" of a real effort in that group to change anything meaningful - the group will fizzle out as soon as the danger of anything meaningful happening has passed. No one will come up with any magic solutions that allow you to reduce traffic and pollution without upsetting some people. The voices making a lot of noise about how they _really do want things to change, just not quite like this_ - they will disappear. The people, whoever they are, investing lots of time making well produced propaganda videos anti the LTNs will not move on to making well produced videos persuading people to make changes to their transport habits. Either the council will manage to re-instate something smaller within the next couple of months, which might manage to be "better than nothing" or things will just stay as they are for another ten or twenty years and a load more people will suffer ill health from pollution related stuff and you'll continue with crappy, congested, noisy streets that are unwelcoming to pedestrians and cyclists. In fact it looks depressingly likely that things are just going to get worse and worse post covid, anywhere that doesn't manage to make some big changes right now.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 11, 2020)

Wandsworth have caved in:


----------



## co-op (Sep 11, 2020)

girasol said:


> This is just one example of what people are going through - how is that ok? The vast majority of driving done in London during the week days are already essential, be it for health or work reasons. So I'm not sure FORCING people off their vehicles is actually fair.



No the vast majority of driving is discretionary which is why it goes down when capacity goes down and goes up when capacity goes up. But you can increase capacity as much as you like and you will never get rid of jams, nor stressed out drivers. We know this because we tried increasing capacity to meet predicted needs for 60 or 70 years and it failed again and again, everywhere. It just created more car-dependent people, jobs, roles etc. 

Capacity in general now is hugely reduced from 10 or 20 years ago; Wandsworth Rd, Camberwell Rd, Brixton Hill, all used to be 4 lane roads, and without bus lanes. Do you honestly think that if we put motorways down Coldharbour Lane or South Lambeth Rd (which was originally the plan in the 1960s, before widespread anti-road protests stopped them) - that this would mean that people would now be swooping from Brixton to Vauxhall in minutes, or that air pollution would go down? It really is literally unbelievable isn't it?


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 11, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> Wandsworth made me laugh out loud a couple of weeks ago:




It was so epic.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2020)

Winot said:


> There is history of astroturfing in relation to the cycle superhighways. The Canary Wharf property group (iirc) set up and funded a group to oppose them. The CEO was annoyed that his chauffeur was held up driving him from Knightsbridge to Canary Wharf. So it’s been done before.



So what group is funding the anti LTN campaigns?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2020)

girasol said:


> I'm in that group (and very familiar with Franciscan Rd) and there are people from all walks of life in there, including me.  The woman who made that video is a local working mum.  Don't believe whatever nasty lies and rumours are being spread, it's most certainly not right wing, there are cyclists in there, there are lots of women there and whenever someone starts ranting against any road user there's an outcry.  We are united not divided and everyone should have a say on how the roads work.  Workers who drive for a living are having to work longer hours without extra pay and spending an average 90 minutes a day longer at work, due to to traffic.  The outcry was so strong that council has decided to suspend them for now and apparently local roads will be reopened.  If you haven't been in the group then your impression of it may not be accurate at all and it's probably clouded by prejudice and lies.  There are 3.7k people in that group.
> 
> Most people want the same thing: safer roads for ALL, less pollution for ALL (not just a few lucky streets, usually where rich people live) and freedom of movement for ALL, including those who need to drive for a living and those who can't use other modes of transport.  The LTNs in Tooting achieved NONE of that.  Changes that work for everyone should look into subsidisation of low emission vehicles (they are too expensive!), more charge points, more one way streets, 20mph on all streets (Wandsworth still has a few 30mph roads), fixing potholes so cyclists can cycle without fear of falling, better, greener and cheaper public transport.
> 
> ...



Actuallly Im the only one here who has not been arguing that those who are anti LTN aren't just being used by shadowy right wing groups. That people can't think for themselves and are willing fools to be manipulated by the right is not something I agree with.

If one goes back to the earlier part of this thread you will find posters like Winot , who has been posting that opposition to LTN is being bankrolled by the Right, was quite happy to see these schemes imposed on communities without consultation. As consultation just held what they wanted up. No great interest in local democracy from that quarter. Yet quite happy to go on about the "right".

Ive also been saying that proper consultation should have been done. As Lambeth promised, pre Covid, when Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood idea was first started.

Im  as I keep saying am supportive of some of the LTN ideas. Ive tried to be balanced to see both sides.

If the Council had put in the political work to get support for changes to roads I would be more supportive. 

i really object to way Council are relishing their new found power during the pandemic.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 11, 2020)

Hang on, so the people who wants a transparent democratic process including consultation are frothing right wing nut jobs, or are manipulated by them. 

The peole who want LTNs are perfectly sensible, rational types who do know what's best for everyone.

Is that a summary of today in U75 world?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 11, 2020)

Probably one of the existing ones...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 11, 2020)

Tbh the government and local authorities are not doing enough about the pandemic...


----------



## girasol (Sep 11, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Actuallly Im the only one here who has not been arguing that those who are anti LTN aren't just being used by shadowy right wing groups. That people can't think for themselves and are willing fools to be manipulated by the right is not something I agree with.
> 
> If one goes back to the earlier part of this thread you will find posters like Winot , who has been posting that opposition to LTN is being bankrolled by the Right, was quite happy to see these schemes imposed on communities without consultation. As consultation just held what they wanted up. No great interest in local democracy from that quarter. Yet quite happy to go on about the "right".
> 
> ...



I can't be bothered with this internet willy waving to be honest with you.  Life is too short, I know who I am, I know I haven't been manipulated by anyone (how patronising to think people are that stupid). I know what the group I was in was trying to achieve and I know a lot of people who support LTNs don't realise the real impact this has had on working people - but all they have to do is take the time to speak to delivery drivers, tradespeople, binmen, paramedics, firemen, care workers, health workers, blue badge holders, parents of special needs children, elderly, infirm, local shop owners and yes, even the police...  the list is long.  Just listen to what people have been saying about the negative impact it has had in many areas of London.  And now even getting on a bus is a challenge, they are not only full a lot of the time but they are also stuck in traffic.  Even cyclists are suffering with the increase in pollution, I know I did when I cycled to from Tooting to Fulham this week during the evening rush hour.  The air on Wandsworth Bridge and Wandsworth Bridge Rd. was absolutely disgusting.

Many people who support LTNs are working from home and/or can cycle.  They might also have the luxury of having time to take longer journeys on foot.  Anyway, I'm out of this thread I think.  I posted in here, about Wandsworth, as I thought it might be useful.  Hope it was.  I also go to Lambeth a lot, by bike, by public transport and also by car - as a woman, I don't feel safe cycling at night, so I drive sometimes.  Cars give me freedom and safety.   Stopping cars isn't the solution, but rather, making them zero emission is the future - I've been dreaming about the solar/electric car for years, as the panels get lighter, I hope they will be a reality sooner rather than later.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 11, 2020)

New survey claims ‘huge support’ for Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

Rarely has a local issue proved as divisive and as controversial as Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme, which has seen borough-wide road closures implemented in an attempt to re…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




Considering posters here have been criticising oppositon to LTN as being funded by shadowy right wing groups Im surprised that no one has wondered where the funding comes form for this pro LTN survey.

It clear from the info that its been done by people who are pro the Railton LTN.

Does not necessarily invalidate it.

Just seems to me this questioning of groups for and against seems partisan to me.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 11, 2020)

girasol said:


> Cars give me freedom and safety.   Stopping cars isn't the solution, but rather, making them zero emission is the future


If this is your position then it's not surprising that you're part of an anti LTN group. 

Your solution for the future simply doesn't work in London, unfortunately.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2020)

Anti LTN protest outside Town Hall


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2020)




----------



## girasol (Sep 12, 2020)

Protest in Tooting was very good natured! Ambulance drivers, bus drivers all tooting horns in support. Even the police was waving...


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2020)

At the anti LTN( outside the Town Hall )demo a lot of local people Including a good percentage of local Black people.

So I don't think the anti LTN protests can be categorised as being pushed by "racist" Cabbies, the "right" or EDL supporters.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2020)

At the Town Hall demo speakers included local business and local people. 

Ferndale road seems to be issue. The speaker said the Ferndale road LTN had caused extra traffic on Ferndale Road.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 12, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So what group is funding the anti LTN campaigns?


Excuse if I'm repeating old info - this thread is so vibrant I can't read all of it.
This One....  is not just local - they have OneLevenshulme -Manchester - and OneKingsheath - Birmingham offered as things to subscribe to on Twitter.
So I think its is quite possible no-one is funding it, Its just a sort of spontaneous Twitter enhanced  citizens outrage with tea cakes.
I'm saying that because the essential model of discontent is surely the Gillet Jaunes in France,
Except that the Gillet Jaunes throw half bricks and get tear gassed, the One movements are so far exerting pressure on unpopular details of the measures the government and councils have introduced using emergency powers. They don't yet seem to have even done any direct action.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Excuse if I'm repeating old info - this thread is so vibrant I can't read all of it.
> This One....  is not just local - they have OneLevenshulme -Manchester - and OneKingsheath - Birmingham offered as things to subscribe to on Twitter.
> So I think its is quite possible no-one is funding it, Its just a sort of spontaneous Twitter enhanced  citizens outrage with tea cakes.
> I'm saying that because the essential model of discontent is surely the Gillet Jaunes in France,
> Except that the Gillet Jaunes throw half bricks and get tear gassed, the One movements are so far exerting pressure on unpopular details of the measures the government and councils have introduced using emergency powers. They don't yet seem to have even done any direct action.



I agree with your analysis.

From what I saw today this opposition comes from pissed off local people who feel that Council / Shapps have imposed this on them with no consultation.

Its not simple Left /Right thing that some posters here are trying to make out.

The atmosphere at demo is that its "them" doing what they want using pandemic as excuse.

As this is Lambeth Council they are talking about I sympathise with how they feel.

Even though I think LTNs are worth a go.

The Council has implemented it with its usual contempt for the those they have power over.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2020)

It's hard to tell from the photos but it looks like another rather small gathering at the protest.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 12, 2020)

As opposed to the massive rally in support of LTNs?

What do we want: More unearned wealth!


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2020)

The rallies in favour of mask-wearing or general covid related public health measures also have not been very massive.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 12, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I agree with your analysis.
> 
> From what I saw today this opposition comes from pissed off local people who feel that Council / Shapps have imposed this on them with no consultation.
> 
> ...


The pandemic is not an excuse, it’s a reason. We weren’t consulted over pavement widening or masks either - some people ignore those too.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The pandemic is not an excuse, it’s a reason. We weren’t consulted over pavement widening or masks either - some people ignore those too.



Going to have to disagree with this.

The demo was about LTNs. It was not about if people should wear masks or not. Nor was it about opposing pavement widening.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2020)

So now the tack is to try to link anti LTN protests to the kind of people who go on anti mask demos.

Anything to make out these people are from the lunatic fringe. 

I was at the demo today. To go and see what it was like and the kind of people who turned up.

Ive shown these people aren't racist car nuts who are EDL supporters. They are I saw ordinary local people. Whose views might differ from some posting here.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 12, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Going to have to disagree with this.
> 
> The demo was about LTNs. It was not about if people should wear masks or not. Nor was it about opposing pavement widening.


I gave those as examples of stuff we weren’t consulted over.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 12, 2020)

From what I saw at the demo today the Ferndale LTN is particularly unpopular.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 12, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Excuse if I'm repeating old info - this thread is so vibrant I can't read all of it.
> This One....  is not just local - they have OneLevenshulme -Manchester - and OneKingsheath - Birmingham offered as things to subscribe to on Twitter.
> So I think its is quite possible no-one is funding it, Its just a sort of spontaneous Twitter enhanced  citizens outrage with tea cakes.
> I'm saying that because the essential model of discontent is surely the Gillet Jaunes in France,
> Except that the Gillet Jaunes throw half bricks and get tear gassed, the One movements are so far exerting pressure on unpopular details of the measures the government and councils have introduced using emergency powers. They don't yet seem to have even done any direct action.



This is a preposterous analogy and really doesn't help. There is no sign of the One movement having either the grassroots support or the inclination to take direct action. It's fantasy, comparing chalk and cheese. Where are the tens of thousands of people on the streets? Where is the overaching sense of injustice?  The million-strong petitions? I'd wager a pro-LTN march would be very well attended. The planters and road-warning signs were removed in Tooting today. Large queues of idling cars are already filling the newly-reopened streets. Covid is back with a bang.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 12, 2020)

It'll be interesting to see if the traffic disappears, ambulances no longer get stuck in traffic and businesses report an upsurge in business now the Wandsworth LTNs have been removed.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> It'll be interesting to see if the traffic disappears, ambulances no longer get stuck in traffic and businesses report an upsurge in business now the Wandsworth LTNs have been removed.


Yup.


----------



## girasol (Sep 12, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> It'll be interesting to see if the traffic disappears, ambulances no longer get stuck in traffic and businesses report an upsurge in business now the Wandsworth LTNs have been removed.



There was a lot less traffic on the A24 (between Tooting Bec & Broadway) during the protest already today (they started removing planters in the morning)... When it started at 14:00 the traffic was quite dense, but already less than it had been and it slowly thinned out throughout the afternoon - I think people were realising they were gone and using the old routes.  Previously it had been at an almost standstill every day and evenings too.

If people want to think the very diverse mix of people of all ages who showed up are EDL/far right/covid deniers/blah blah, they are in denial, and, of course, they weren't there.  I was, and I know what I saw.



Oh, just found video for the march in Islington - didn't know that was going on.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2020)

girasol said:


> There was a lot less traffic on the A24 (between Tooting Bec & Broadway) during the protest already today (they started removing planters in the morning)... When it started at 14:00 the traffic was quite dense, but already less than it had been and it slowly thinned out throughout the afternoon - I think people were realising they were gone and using the old routes.  Previously it had been at an almost standstill every day and evenings too.


This kind of anecdata is meaningless. You need to look at real data over a period of time. I suppose that Wandsworth will be sufficiently hopeless in doing any measurements that there will be hardly any useful hard evidence coming out of this experiment, abandoned long before things had been given anywhere near enough time to settle down.

If you want anecdata, it so happened that I drove from Wandsworth to Loughborough Junction this afternoon around 5/6pm. First time driving in London since 2018 I think. Anyway, the B237/B229 (perimeter road to one of the ex-LTNs) was virtually stationary. And so was the B234 and the A3 (both nowhere near the ex-LTNs) until somewhere around Clapham Common. Barely got out of 1st gear the whole time. It wasn't too busy at all along Acre Lane, a bit slow through Brixton town centre and along Coldharbour Lane until you got past the Dogstar.

My anecdata is fairly meaningless too, other than an account of excessive traffic in London (that I contributed to this afternoon, in a Zipcar).


----------



## girasol (Sep 12, 2020)

ok then


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 12, 2020)

Was this the protest?


----------



## editor (Sep 12, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Was this the protest?
> View attachment 230125


That's the one. There's more pictures on Buzz and loads of comments arguing the toss.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 12, 2020)

editor said:


> That's the one. There's more pictures on Buzz and loads of comments arguing the toss.


Hardly seems like massive opposition does it?.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Hardly seems like massive opposition does it?.


I don't know. I wasn't there so can't comment. I fucking hate car culture but I can see why some people are annoyed at the lack of consultation.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 13, 2020)

The absence of consultation is one thing, paying the environmental cost for people who already have more privilege  than they understand should also weigh heavily.

Looking at the council's own excel data, the owner-occupied residents of Coldharbour ward - most of Railton Rd, most of the roads off it - made 130% on their homes during the 10 years of austerity. Average values went from £350K to £750K. And now they want to make even more, entirely on the back of dumping their pollution on the poorest in the ward.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 13, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The thing is lots of those groups have appeared OneDulwich, OneRailton etc all with swish websites, twitter accounts etc but no details on who is truly behind them. The right have traditionally been against things done to curb pollution or deal with climate change or just come in through plain nimbyism.



I went to the protest on Saturday and I understood why. When you meet any of them in person they are more than happy to chat and explain who they are and what they do.

However there have been MANY incidents of people writing letters to their employers after finding who they work for on Facebook or other sites. Pasting their personal information on twitter and other sites. One person who started one of the 'one' sites for their areas was forced to stand down as they kept writing to their employer and they had to put their livelihood first. There have been tradesmen who have received 1 star google reviews for customers they never heard of or things that didn't happen. Appointments made for various businesses where no one turns up (occasional is to be expected but 3/4 a day??). The people doing this have gone ultra-personal and I couldn't believe it when I heard that.

So i'm not surprised people hide. They are not funded by OPEC or anyone, they are literally worried about their livelihoods and seeing these 'parody' twitter accounts I can see the sort of behavior that is occurring. It made me think twice about what I post on Facebook because I also don't need that in my life but at the same time if I stop....doesn't that mean the scare tactics are working?


----------



## alex_ (Sep 13, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I went to the protest on Saturday and I understood why. When you meet any of them in person they are more than happy to chat and explain who they are and what they do.
> 
> However there have been MANY incidents of people writing letters to their employers after finding who they work for on Facebook or other sites. Pasting their personal information on twitter and other sites. One person who started one of the 'one' sites for their areas was forced to stand down as they kept writing to their employer and they had to put their livelihood first. There have been tradesmen who have received 1 star google reviews for customers they never heard of or things that didn't happen. Appointments made for various businesses where no one turns up (occasional is to be expected but 3/4 a day??). The people doing this have gone ultra-personal and I couldn't believe it when I heard that.
> 
> So i'm not surprised people hide. They are not funded by OPEC or anyone, they are literally worried about their livelihoods and seeing these 'parody' twitter accounts I can see the sort of behavior that is occurring. It made me think twice about what I post on Facebook because I also don't need that in my life but at the same time if I stop....doesn't that mean the scare tactics are working?



good post Dimitri


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 13, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I went to the protest on Saturday and I understood why. When you meet any of them in person they are more than happy to chat and explain who they are and what they do.


And who pays for the websites etc?


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 13, 2020)

Probably not self-regarding Etonians being easy with public funds, so unlike the LTNs.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 13, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> And who pays for the websites etc?



im sure they are paid for by a  diverse range of people from many backgrounds who support different political parties


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> And who pays for the websites etc?


Not sure what the etc is, but you can set up a website for next to nothing/free. The OneOval lot are using Wix which offers some free websites/hosting. 

Most of these group's activities are on FB anyway.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 13, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> And who pays for the websites etc?



I don't know much about computers but don't they cost <£50 per year? All it takes is time to make content.

A Facebook group is free


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 13, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I went to the protest on Saturday and I understood why. When you meet any of them in person they are more than happy to chat and explain who they are and what they do.
> 
> However there have been MANY incidents of people writing letters to their employers after finding who they work for on Facebook or other sites. Pasting their personal information on twitter and other sites. One person who started one of the 'one' sites for their areas was forced to stand down as they kept writing to their employer and they had to put their livelihood first. There have been tradesmen who have received 1 star google reviews for customers they never heard of or things that didn't happen. Appointments made for various businesses where no one turns up (occasional is to be expected but 3/4 a day??). The people doing this have gone ultra-personal and I couldn't believe it when I heard that.
> 
> So i'm not surprised people hide. They are not funded by OPEC or anyone, they are literally worried about their livelihoods and seeing these 'parody' twitter accounts I can see the sort of behavior that is occurring. It made me think twice about what I post on Facebook because I also don't need that in my life but at the same time if I stop....doesn't that mean the scare tactics are working?



Jeanette.  I'm puzzled by this as it doesn't reflect what I've heard.  At both of the Brixton protests I was told someone who supported the LTNs being physically assaulted and someones 'despite some unpleasantness which I won't go into' comment on the Brixton Buzz story suggests there was similar this time.

I know this forum is anonymous and has a policy of not revealing identities even if they are obvious, and that's fine.

However, what _really_ puzzles me is why anti-LTN campaigners would need to be anonymous otherwise.  None (or at least very few) of the supporters are.  There's nothing illegal about objecting traffic schemes and, unless your protest campaign had a conflict of interest with your day job (in which case it should be declared) why would anyone's employer have any concern that someone was objecting to a scheme in their area?  If your'e not doing anything unethical or illegal there should be no issue.

But the reality was that some of the anti campaigners have been physically and verbally abusive to people, there have been photos taken and published of peoples homes and their home addresses published online.  There have been videos edited to change their meaning and repeatedly posted online by anonymous accounts.

Now that _is_ illegal - that's defamation and harassment.

Posting bad reviews for traders is shitty and that shouldn't happen whether supporting or opposing but only today I've heard one of the Railton supporters has had multiple instances of pizzas sent to their home that they haven't ordered.  Given that the supporters are nearly all open about their identities it would be good if you identified who this has happened to as I'd personally like it to stop.

Basically, anyone operating behind an anonymous account because their afraid their employer would have issues with their behaviour needs to have a hard think about how they are behaving.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2020)

alex_ said:


> good post Dimitri



What is this supposed to mean?

I hope you are not trying to make out that Jeanette Moo is some kind of russian bot.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> This is a preposterous analogy and really doesn't help. There is no sign of the One movement having either the grassroots support or the inclination to take direct action. It's fantasy, comparing chalk and cheese. Where are the tens of thousands of people on the streets? Where is the overaching sense of injustice?  The million-strong petitions? I'd wager a pro-LTN march would be very well attended. The planters and road-warning signs were removed in Tooting today. Large queues of idling cars are already filling the newly-reopened streets. Covid is back with a bang.



From what I saw yesterday at the demo it's a grass roots movement.

CH1 was making a analogy between the way both are organised.

As more than once here the allegation has been made that the anti LTN groups are funded by shadowy right wing groups who are racist.

It seems to be beyond some posters understanding that ordinary people can organise quickly.

Social media has made this much easier.

It however does mean that oppositon can be short lived. No long term movement will come out of it

It can also mean the argument goes on in internet. With people not turning up for demos. 

Which has its plus and minus sides.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2020)

I was at the Brixton Town Hall protest and didn't see any unpleasantness.

It looked good natured to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2020)

At the Brixton Town Hall demo I got there around three thirty The demo was from two to five.

I saw people coming and going. So over the time span looks like good turnout.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2020)

If Lambeth Council had done proper consultation on this rolling out of LTNs then some of the alleged nastiness and division in local communiites might not have happened.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> This is a preposterous analogy and really doesn't help. There is no sign of the One movement having either the grassroots support or the inclination to take direct action. It's fantasy, comparing chalk and cheese. Where are the tens of thousands of people on the streets? Where is the overaching sense of injustice?  The million-strong petitions? I'd wager a pro-LTN march would be very well attended. The planters and road-warning signs were removed in Tooting today. Large queues of idling cars are already filling the newly-reopened streets. Covid is back with a bang.



How about you organise a pro LTN march? If that is what you think.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 13, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Jeanette.  I'm puzzled by this as it doesn't reflect what I've heard.  At both of the Brixton protests I was told someone who supported the LTNs being physically assaulted and someones 'despite some unpleasantness which I won't go into' comment on the Brixton Buzz story suggests there was similar this time.
> 
> I know this forum is anonymous and has a policy of not revealing identities even if they are obvious, and that's fine.
> 
> ...



I dont know of anyone being assaulted. I was this at this one portest.

I'm just conveying what I heard about abuse, peoples livelihoods being targeted, people work being contacted. Noone said they hid their identity to go on the offence - it was all about supporting while being on the defense - not having someone target you. It's not about behavior - a letter can be sent making all sorts of allegations and then you have to defend yourself - yeah you may survive but that promotion you were maybe angling for suddenly doesn't go your way.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 13, 2020)

editor said:


> Not sure what the etc is, but you can set up a website for next to nothing/free. The OneOval lot are using Wix which offers some free websites/hosting.
> 
> Most of these group's activities are on FB anyway.


The etc is all the on brand leaflets, Facebook groups, twitter accounts. It does take money to design, print these things.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 13, 2020)

Must be Putin funding it.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 13, 2020)

I live off Elm Park Road. The traffic is worse it's ever been. It's really noticeable after lockdown. Wish we could have a LTN here if I'm honest. Much of our traffic is just people using it as rat run etc


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 13, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The etc is all the on brand leaflets, Facebook groups, twitter accounts. It does take money to design, print these things.



I saw the flyers at the protest, they were being handed out. I don't know if they are a 'pro job' but looking online at the place I got my wedding invites done you can get 20000 printed for under £200 delivered


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 13, 2020)

Get back to me when there something sensible to respond to.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I live off Elm Park Road. The traffic is worse it's ever been. It's really noticeable after lockdown. Wish we could have a LTN here if I'm honest. Much of our traffic is just people using it as rat run etc


It's a big problem with the timing of this - hard to disentangle congestion which people believe is caused by the LTNs from the congestion that seems to be going on everywhere since lockdown was eased.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The etc is all the on brand leaflets, Facebook groups, twitter accounts. It does take money to design, print these things.


You're talking to someone who has done all of these things to promote club nights and they really do cost next to nothing. Twitter/FB/Instagram is all free and mass printing is a cheap as chips these days.

I'm not defending them by the way, but the claims that they must big have money backers because they've got online activity and some leaflets printed are all a bit spurious.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (Sep 14, 2020)

editor said:


> You're talking to someone who has done all of these things to promote club nights and they really do cost next to nothing. Twitter/FB/Instagram is all free and mass printing is a cheap as chips these days.
> 
> I'm not defending them by the way, but the claims that they must big money backers because they've got online activity and some leaflets printed are all a bit spurious.



Can get thousands for 10s of pounds....

delivered straight to me evil lair....


----------



## Janeernie (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Jeanette.  I'm puzzled by this as it doesn't reflect what I've heard.  At both of the Brixton protests I was told someone who supported the LTNs being physically assaulted and someones 'despite some unpleasantness which I won't go into' comment on the Brixton Buzz story suggests there was similar this time.
> 
> I know this forum is anonymous and has a policy of not revealing identities even if they are obvious, and that's fine.
> 
> ...


----------



## Janeernie (Sep 14, 2020)

The bit you have quoted from BB , was regarding a bug supporter of Railton LTN turning up to the protest on his bike taking pictures , which is acceptable and it’s a free world , but maybe not idea to come into the crowd . There was no violence


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 14, 2020)

I've ust seen on Twitter that a key local supporter of the Railton LTN has been threatened. It's been reported to the police


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 14, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I've ust seen on Twitter that a key local supporter of the Railton LTN has been threatened. It's been reported to the police



Pictures? I don't use twitter


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 14, 2020)

editor said:


> You're talking to someone who has done all of these things to promote club nights and they really do cost next to nothing. Twitter/FB/Instagram is all free and mass printing is a cheap as chips these days.
> 
> I'm not defending them by the way, but the claims that they must big have money backers because they've got online activity and some leaflets printed are all a bit spurious.


tbh the OneRailton one and leaflets were so well designed yet tone deaf it's only something an agency could have come up with, it def was not someone local.


----------



## editor (Sep 14, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> tbh the OneRailton one and leaflets were so well designed yet tone deaf it's only something an agency could have come up with, it def was not someone local.


Again, that's nonsense. It's a piece of piss to create professional looking websites/logos/leaflets from easily available free templates. Or maybe they've got a mate who's a designer. If you want to discredit them, or suggest that they've got big outside funding, pointing out the quality of their leaflets really isn't a productive way to go about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> tbh the OneRailton one and leaflets were so well designed yet tone deaf it's only something an agency could have come up with, it def was not someone local.


no local agencies i suppose. i would be absolutely astonished if there were no professionals in the brixton area who could create leaflets. some of them might even offer their design skills for free. and that's beyond what editor says about ordinary people being able to create well-designed material. what next from you, 'lenin must be hiring bourgeois western artists for his propaganda posters as no russians can paint'?


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 14, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Pictures? I don't use twitter


Me neither, I just read it on Mr SBs phone, honestly!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 14, 2020)

editor said:


> Again, that's nonsense. It's a piece of piss to create professional looking websites/logos/leaflets from easily available free templates. Or maybe they've got a mate who's a designer. If you want to discredit them, or suggest that they've got big outside funding, pointing out the quality of their leaflets really isn't a productive way to go about it.


It could well be, I just think that the way these websites sprang up is shady and doesn’t seem like grassroots efforts to me. I have no solid proof of that but that would be hidden away anyway.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 14, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Pictures? I don't use twitter



Here you go.  Someone's also set up an account pretending to be Sarah. This is deeply creepy and unpleasant behaviour.  

So I'll ask again, why are the people opposing these schemes worried about their identities being known, or their employers knowing that they are campaigning against the low traffic neighbourhoods if they're not doing anything illegal?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Here you go.  Someone's also set up an account pretending to be Sarah. This is deeply creepy and unpleasant behaviour.
> 
> So I'll ask again, why are the people opposing these schemes worried about their identities being known, or their employers knowing that they are campaigning against the low traffic neighbourhoods if they're not doing anything illegal?



So this is the lady that got Pizza?

I think both sides need to grow up. Making it personal doesn't put people off it escalates things and I know there are parody accounts on both sides as someone showed me a parody sites of Onelambeth or Wandsworth? There are likely a few individuals on each side who are instigating this stuff and both sides need come down heavy on them and anyone in their own ranks abusing, ridiculing or any such behavior.

From a personal perspective if I could go back in time a couple of months I would go anonymous. I can have as say and also hide my identity, because there is nothing stopping me doing so and i'm not out to harm anyone. The internet has always been nicknames but if you want to see real support , real peopel they are all on Facebook giving their opinions under their real names, with pictures of their families for all to see.

I can't have letters sent to my employer - even if i've done nothin that stuff gets seen, read, picked up on and actioned. I have a daughter to support and half of our team has already gone because of COVID. No one is hiring and i'm scared by the stories of letters being sent to peoples work. That's just.......no. Just no. That's....I don't have words for my feelings on that.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> So I'll ask again, why are the people opposing these schemes worried about their identities being known, or their employers knowing that they are campaigning against the low traffic neighbourhoods if they're not doing anything illegal?


What's yours, btw?


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 14, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I know there are parody accounts on both sides as someone showed me a parody sites of Onelambeth or Wandsworth? There are likely a few individuals on each side who are instigating this stuff and both sides need come down heavy on them and anyone in their own ranks abusing, ridiculing or any such behavior.
> 
> From a personal perspective if I could go back in time a couple of months I would go anonymous. I can have as say and also hide my identity, because there is nothing stopping me doing so and i'm not out to harm anyone. The internet has always been nicknames but if you want to see real support , real peopel they are all on Facebook giving their opinions under their real names, with pictures of their families for all to see.
> 
> I can't have letters sent to my employer - even if i've done nothin that stuff gets seen, read, picked up on and actioned. I have a daughter to support and half of our team has already gone because of COVID. No one is hiring and i'm scared by the stories of letters being sent to peoples work. That's just.......no. Just no. That's....I don't have words for my feelings on that.



That's not a parody account - that's targeted harassment of a young woman. It's 'I know where you live'.  It's trying to scare her. 

And I'll ask again - what would anyone write to your employer and say?  that "Jeanette Moo was at a protest and held a banner". Your employer isn't going to care. If your'e not doing anything wrong you don't need to hide your identity.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's not a parody account - that's targeted harassment of a young woman. It's 'I know where you live'.  It's trying to scare her.
> 
> And I'll ask again - what would anyone write to your employer and say?  that "Jeanette Moo was at a protest and held a banner". Your employer isn't going to care. If your'e not doing anything wrong you don't need to hide your identity.



HR will act on any letter, even if it is to just discuss what it is all about. I spent my youth in HR (don't recommend this to anyone btw), I know everything gets kept, I know even if it's untrue or unfounded it can hold you back or put you next on the list for the chop.

"Dear xyz company, It has come to our attention that one of your employees, JM, is campaigning against a number of local initiatives to provide clean air, reduce deaths [insert words which make you out to be some kind of nazi]. Here are some facebook screenshots of her talking down these schemes and opposing them, rallying others to fight them. I'm sure as you are a company in the healthcare industry you understand the importance of xyz and to have someone in your employ fighting agianst them is seen as very bad for a company of your reputation in the market. It's not the kind of publicity you would want"


----------



## editor (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's not a parody account - that's targeted harassment of a young woman. It's 'I know where you live'.  It's trying to scare her.
> 
> And I'll ask again - what would anyone write to your employer and say?  that "Jeanette Moo was at a protest and held a banner". Your employer isn't going to care. If your'e not doing anything wrong you don't need to hide your identity.


I've had all this kind of crap happen to me in the past - including people writing to companies I was working for - and it's a horrible thing to experience.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 14, 2020)

editor said:


> I've had all this kind of crap happen to me in the past - including people writing to companies I was working for - and it's a horrible thing to experience.



It makes me feel sick thinking about it. Sabotaging someone life because they have a different opinion / needs.

The things sent to that lady Sarah. Also sick.

It's on everyone to root out this type of abuse. Don't laugh if you see or hear about these things - tell them it's not needed to win or get yuor point across.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> If your'e not doing anything wrong you don't need to hide your identity.


----------



## editor (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> So I'll ask again, why are the people opposing these schemes worried about their identities being known, or their employers knowing that they are campaigning against the low traffic neighbourhoods if they're not doing anything illegal?


Because that's their fucking prerogative and even most children know the dangers of exposing your full identity online to potential trolls, ne'er do wells, weirdos, stalkers etc.

But given your stance on this, why haven't you included your full name and address in your profile here? _Got something to hide, eh?_


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 14, 2020)

editor said:


> Because that's their fucking prerogative and even most children know the dangers of exposing your full identity online to potential trolls, ne'er do wells, weirdos, stalkers etc.
> 
> But given your stance on this, why haven't you included your full name and address in your profile here? _Got something to hide, eh?_



No, but I understood this forum was a 'safe space' where there is a somewhat unusual code of effective anonymity even when people do know each others identities.  It also has you as a moderator and you're pretty good at monitoring the site and dealing with any bad behaviour. 

The issue is  where someone has been open about their own identity and someone else has set up an anonymous account which they use to harass/Doxx/threaten/defame on a platform (Twitter) that has a very poor record of dealing with that kind of behaviour.  As I understand it the Oval campaigners were doing exactly that and now it seems to have moved on to Brixton as well. 

I assume you think that's ok do you ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 14, 2020)

Hows it going in Tooting after those planters have been removed?


----------



## editor (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I assume you think that's ok do you ?


Why would you assume that exactly?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Hows it going in Tooting after those planters have been removed?



What a surprise, eh. 

I hope some folk are out to get some photos of emergency vehicles stuck in the traffic jams. We know that the anti LTN people are terribly concerned about emergency vehicles being delayed so no doubt they'll be urgently thinking of solutions if the removal of the LTNs has proven to be ineffective.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> No, but I understood this forum was a 'safe space' where there is a somewhat unusual code of effective anonymity even when people do know each others identities.  It also has you as a moderator and you're pretty good at monitoring the site and dealing with any bad behaviour.
> 
> The issue is  where someone has been open about their own identity and someone else has set up an anonymous account which they use to harass/Doxx/threaten/defame on a platform (Twitter) that has a very poor record of dealing with that kind of behaviour.  As I understand it the Oval campaigners were doing exactly that and now it seems to have moved on to Brixton as well.
> 
> I assume you think that's ok do you ?



When you say the "Oval Campaigners were doing exactly that" who do you mean exactly? Its quite a generalisation.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 14, 2020)

Wandsworth said planters would all be removed by Tuesday


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 14, 2020)

No one knew who was going to water them anyway. Everyone water metered. LTN support only goes so far


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> So I'll ask again, why are the people opposing these schemes worried about their identities being known, or their employers knowing that they are campaigning against the low traffic neighbourhoods if they're not doing anything illegal?


Let me ask again as you seem to have missed it on the past page: what's your name?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2020)

On the if you have nothing to hide you should not care if someone informs your employer of your out of work time political activities. If they are legal then one should be open and not concerned about employer knowing. 

That might all be well if one works in some public service job for a Labour Council or in voluntary sector.

Working in the private sector its somewhat different. 

I certainly have never gone to work and told my management I was at an anti Tory demo on the weekend. As I hate the Tories. 

Not a great idea.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 14, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I certainly have never gone to work and told my management I was at an anti Tory demo on the weekend. As I hate the Tories.



I somehow suspect that your employers and the people you work with would have no trouble at all guessing your political views.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I somehow suspect that your employers and the people you work with would have no trouble at all guessing your political views.



You are an unpleasant poster.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 14, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> You are an unpleasant poster.


The clue was casual bullying; the judgements, the name shaming, the belittling. And in one case starting a post with what he thought was/thinks is the quoted posters real name.


----------



## girasol (Sep 14, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The etc is all the on brand leaflets, Facebook groups, twitter accounts. It does take money to design, print these things.



You are not going to change your mind no matter what evidence is given. Even when someone you know personally, who is in one of the groups tells you her experience from the inside. LTNs have divided communities good and proper. Shame. Believe what you want.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 14, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> You are an unpleasant poster.


I don't understand why you'd interpret that as unpleasant - I thought you might find that funny. perhaps I should have added an emoji. I reckon I'd be able to guess the political views of most of my workmates over the years.  You hold very strong opinions and, at least on here, don't hold back from sharing them.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I don't understand why you'd interpret that as unpleasant. I reckon I'd be able to guess the political views of most of my workmates over the years.  You hold very strong opinions and, at least on here, don't hold back from sharing them.



Your previous posts and interaction with Jeanette Moo  show to me you don't understand that some of us don't want our employers know what we are up to out of hours. Not that ive done anything "illegal".


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2020)

girasol said:


> LTNs have divided communities good and proper.



The main division has not been caused by the LTNs - it's been brought into focus by them. The division is between those who think things need to change, and those who don't want things to change and it's been around for at least 3 or 4 decades now.

There's probably quite a few folk who have barely thought about this before because they've not previously been asked to make changes to how they approach their transport decisions. Maybe it appears to them that these LTNs have appeared from nowhere and created division - but there are other people who have been very aware of this division for many years. Anyone who's tried to push through the smallest changes - anyone who's worked on trying to improve cycle routes, anyone campaigning for pedestrian safety, anyone who's tried to cycle to work for the first time and had someone shout at them or deliberately scare them with a close pass, even anyone who's tried to close their street for just one day to have a street party - they'll have come up against heavy resistance and in many cases aggression. They have been aware of this division.

Of course it's not entirely as simple as that, and there's room for negotiation about exactly what changes happen but fundamentally, if you are pushing for them, you are up against a portion of the community who don't really think there should be any restriction placed on their freedom to drive.

The groups who oppose these LTNs will always claim that they are not against change in principle, and there will be some people in those groups who do proactively want to explore alternatives, but these groups, if they get their way, pretty much always disappear into the ether shortly afterwards, as I've said before, and I'll wait for "one Wandsworth" to prove me wrong.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 14, 2020)

We all want 'change'. It's just some don't want you to finacially and environmentally prosper at their socio-environmental cost.

Until now there has been a social compact - that we together pay the price of improving the UKs contribution to the climate emergency. Boris Johnson and friends decided on a different wheeze - to throw a little more cash at the folks who already had a very good austerity.


----------



## newbie (Sep 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The main division has not been caused by the LTNs - it's been brought into focus by them. The division is between those who think things need to change, and those who don't want things to change and it's been around for at least 3 or 4 decades now.


The current division is caused by authoritarians who insist others have to bow to their will, because they know best.  Their chosen strategy is to force people out of their cars by increasing frustration.  It's unsurprising that those who feel they're being targetted should resist.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The main division has not been caused by the LTNs - it's been brought into focus by them. The division is between those who think things need to change, and those who don't want things to change and it's been around for at least 3 or 4 decades now.
> 
> There's probably quite a few folk who have barely thought about this before because they've not previously been asked to make changes to how they approach their transport decisions. Maybe it appears to them that these LTNs have appeared from nowhere and created division - but there are other people who have been very aware of this division for many years. Anyone who's tried to push through the smallest changes - anyone who's worked on trying to improve cycle routes, anyone campaigning for pedestrian safety, anyone who's tried to cycle to work for the first time and had someone shout at them or deliberately scare them with a close pass, even anyone who's tried to close their street for just one day to have a street party - they'll have come up against heavy resistance and in many cases aggression. They have been aware of this division.
> 
> ...



There have always been those against change. Those who object when someone wants to cut down a hedge or even extend their house. I wouldn't say this group falls into that category from what i have seen.....but then I don't really know how to spot either category _shrug_

What I see in the Facebook group there is a group of very normal people from all walks of life who have been negatively impacted by these schemes. Could be they cant do their trade anymore, their bus journey has doubled, they can't drive on their own road, can't visit their patients, the kids run now takes 60 minutes and not 15. It's not about freedom to drive its the change in their life. Whatever their reason they are slowly finding each other - joining through word of mouth or forums or flyers. They are asking how to make a difference, who should they be writing to. How can they help? Some can't give time but ask if there is a gofundmepage. Some can't give money but they will knock on doors and visit businesses. There's no sponsorship. Just a load of people with time and some who are willing to throw cash into a pot to buy a PA system and other hings.

Blame it on an age old division of some kind but on Saturday I saw a group of mixed race, mixed background, mixed profession, mixed ability, mixed ages all coming together. Most are not hardened protesters. Some had before, many had not and if we do get our way I hope people do disappear. Get back to life.

One person speaking on saturday said to the crowd at the end of his speech - 'how do you feel? does it feel good to be out here?' Everyone nodded, it did. It was a good vibe, everyone felt they were doing something, it was positive to be there. I'd protest again after that day - not just for this topic but for other things.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 14, 2020)

girasol said:


> You are not going to change your mind no matter what evidence is given. Even when someone you know personally, who is in one of the groups tells you her experience from the inside. LTNs have divided communities good and proper. Shame. Believe what you want. View attachment 230388


I don’t have proof of whoever is behind it or if anyone is behind it at all, I just found it suspicious how all these One... groups suddenly started up with the aim of taking down the LTNs completely. 
Cars are polluting and we need to be working out ways of not designing our towns around them and LTNs are a part of that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 14, 2020)

LTNs aren’t some weird new experiment either, this is one that exists in Tooting already:


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> There have always been those against change. Those who object when someone wants to cut down a hedge or even extend their house. I wouldn't say this group falls into that category from what i have seen.....but then I don't really know how to spot either category _shrug_



I think you misunderstand - I'm saying, specifically, there are people who believe it's crucial we change the way we deal with transport in urban areas, and there are people who do not want to change the way we deal with transport in urban areas. These changes will have negative effects for some, yes, of course, although usually not as bad as portrayed, but keeping things as they are has negative effects for loads of other people, and it's been having those negative effects for years, and it's time to put a stop to it.


----------



## girasol (Sep 15, 2020)

For those interested, here is the full LTN report for Wandsworth
https://t.co/NixLu1xxnY?amp=1

and here, what triggered its review and eventual removal




Someone posted yet another video of cyclists going on the pavement/jumping red lights on the group - and once again a few of us are telling them to stop posting finger pointing bullshit. The group isn't "mono thought", and having cyclists in there helped educate, and minimise, divisive, hateful finger pointing and keep it objective. The admins were also strict on this too. 

The point of the group was to unite against LTNs, not to be dickheads about other road users.  There were people hating on 4x4 drivers too, of course.  Lots of virtue signalling from all directions.  Instead of trying to understand other people's motivations and find solutions, some people resorted to directing their anger at other road users.  Fortunately there were enough people in there who kept saying that's not ok and that they need to direct their energy towards the council.  Common sense really.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 15, 2020)

Road congestion levels in outer London higher than before lockdown
					

Exclusive: congestion climbed above 2019 levels in August as people went back to using cars after lockdown




					www.theguardian.com
				



This supports my observations over the last 4-5 months that there are more cars in the burbs as people avoid public transport and less in the centre as people avoid going in.
It'll be interesting to see the effect that the ULEZ has when it's extended to the south circular next year.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 15, 2020)

girasol said:


> For those interested, here is the full LTN report for Wandsworth
> https://t.co/NixLu1xxnY?amp=1
> 
> and here, what triggered its review and eventual removal
> ...


It’s not the final report, that would have come six months or more later, some of the planters were only in there for days, it’s not enough time for any change to bed in.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 15, 2020)

Re the objections from the blue light services. I wonder if wands protecting cyclists on already busy roads such as through Tooting were preventing vehicles from getting out of the way as emergency vehicles tried to come through. However we will never really know because as other posters have said, it needed more time to see the good, bad and ugly.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 15, 2020)

Just cycled back from the school run and observed a car coming through albeit slowly the Shakespeare Road gate. I told them there was a camera there but the driver said, no that sign means only cars and bikes can come through. I know it’s part of the Highway Code to be able to understand road signs but again I’m wondering if that needs to be enforced with complimentary signage or education.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 15, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> What I see in the Facebook group there is a group of very normal people from all walks of life who have been negatively impacted by these schemes. Could be they cant do their trade anymore, their bus journey has doubled, they can't drive on their own road, can't visit their patients, the kids run now takes 60 minutes and not 15. It's not about freedom to drive its the change in their life.


From what I've seen on SM, there's a lot of fear mongering about the impact the LTNs will have on an individual. And it's just not true that people can't do their trade, drive on their own road or visit their parents. They can do all these things, but it might take longer or be less convenient for them - and there's the rub. I see a lot of 'well I'm inconvenienced by 10 minutes, so I'm not doing it' so tough luck to the school children who have to walk along the polluted street to school, or the old man who can't use his front garden as the pollution is so bad.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 15, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Just cycled back from the school run and observed a car coming through albeit slowly the Shakespeare Road gate. I told them there was a camera there but the driver said, no that sign means only cars and bikes can come through. I know it’s part of the Highway Code to be able to understand road signs but again I’m wondering if that needs to be enforced with complimentary signage or education.


Big discussion on my local FB group about this - I actually thought people were joking when they asked what the sign meant and they thought it was pretty funny that they didn't! Comments along the lines of well I took my test ages ago, how can I be expected to remember!!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 15, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Re the objections from the blue light services. I wonder if wands protecting cyclists on already busy roads such as through Tooting were preventing vehicles from getting out of the way as emergency vehicles tried to come through. However we will never really know because as other posters have said, it needed more time to see the good, bad and ugly.


I don't think any cyclist has been on that blue paint before, it's a car park normally.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Just cycled back from the school run and observed a car coming through albeit slowly the Shakespeare Road gate. I told them there was a camera there but the driver said, no that sign means only cars and bikes can come through. I know it’s part of the Highway Code to be able to understand road signs but again I’m wondering if that needs to be enforced with complimentary signage or education.


Every single time I've walked past that gate I've seen several cars go through.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

It's not as black and white as being for LTNs or not. 

In Loughborough junction I know local people had concerns about traffic. The Council didn't consult properly. It didn't listen. 

When the Council tried to impose its version of traffic reduction ( supported by LJAG) it meant in end many locals opposed the scheme.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> From what I've seen on SM, there's a lot of fear mongering about the impact the LTNs will have on an individual. And it's just not true that people can't do their trade, drive on their own road or visit their parents. They can do all these things, but it might take longer or be less convenient for them - and there's the rub. I see a lot of 'well I'm inconvenienced by 10 minutes, so I'm not doing it' so tough luck to the school children who have to walk along the polluted street to school, or the old man who can't use his front garden as the pollution is so bad.



Post 1904 and others by nagapie tells of impact on her child.









						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

I saw on Twitter just now someone has published LTN related research today   http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-evidence/




					www.urban75.net


----------



## happyshopper (Sep 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Post 1904 and others by nagapie tells of impact on her child.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I still haven't seen an explanation of how LTNs add 45 minutes each way to Greenwich.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 15, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> I still haven't seen an explanation of how LTNs add 45 minutes each way to Greenwich.



right now - ie peak school run, Waze says 54 minutes from Brixton hill to Greenwich.

so - they don’t


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> It's not as black and white as being for LTNs or not.
> 
> In Loughborough junction I know local people had concerns about traffic. The Council didn't consult properly. It didn't listen.
> 
> When the Council tried to impose its version of traffic reduction ( supported by LJAG) it meant in end many locals opposed the scheme.


The opposition to it mainly wanted the scheme abandoned entirely. And that's what they got.

What are the latest posts on the LJ road madness facebook page? They are from 2016 celebrating the removal of the final two blocks. Since then, nothing about seeking some kind of alternative solution to air pollution or anything else. LTN gone, job done, no further action.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The opposition to it mainly wanted the scheme abandoned entirely. And that's what they got.
> 
> What are the latest posts on the LJ road madness facebook page? They are from 2016 celebrating the removal of the final two blocks. Since then, nothing about seeking some kind of alternative solution to air pollution or anything else. LTN gone, job done, no further action.



Incorrect

There was follow up consultation on remodeling the Loughborough road/ Coldharbour lane junction.

Plans were developed and finished for this which the Council did not implement.

Even though they had support from all sections of the community.

Much later officers cited cost as reason not to go ahead.

What I said was I know that some residents did want measures to alter traffic/ traffic calming measures.

The Council didn't consult properly.

End result was, as seen now, ending up with two opposing groups. With no possibility of local compromise.

In LJ there were also local factor. Dislike of LJAG amongst some of the Council tenants. As LJAG supported the scheme they didn't. Whether that was fair or not is another question. But it was a factor.

My view was that this was a bungled Council scheme. The Labour party in Lambeth have no real links to the working class.

Opposing the LJ road closure was also seen as way to stick it to the Council. Bit like Brexit vote.

So factors not all related to traffic.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Every single time I've walked past that gate I've seen several cars go through.


At LJ in 2015/16,  in the end - once they understood the cctv wasn't working or the council wasn't issuing tickets - there was mass civil disobedience from car owners.

There really was an extraordinary outpouring of entitlement on SM (twitter, anyway) from the Railton/Herne Hill area people who needed their short cut - for example,  the outrage of Stella Duffy her partner and their internet chums was something to behold.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 15, 2020)

alex_ said:


> right now - ie peak school run, Waze says 54 minutes from Brixton hill to Greenwich.
> 
> so - they don’t


It's called the south circ. How is Camberwell/Peckham .. stupid games.


----------



## girasol (Sep 15, 2020)

Not LTN, but TFL, from Facebook. It's terrifying the number of drivers who don't check for cyclists before turning left, but it seems since wands were installed these types of collision have increased. It's all eye witness accounts for now, so for those who must have official reports for everything you'll have to wait a bit longer for the stats...


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Incorrect
> 
> There was follow up consultation on remodeling the Loughborough road/ Coldharbour lane junction.
> 
> Plans were developed and finished for this which the Council did not implement.



I know about that, but they were very minor alterations weren't they? They would have been better than nothing and I would have liked to see them implemented. But they were miles away from an LTN approach; they would have had minimal impact on anything other than the very local conditions at the junction.


----------



## paolo (Sep 15, 2020)

There’s two blockages near me, one in Lambert Road, one in Lyham Road.

I have a car and bicycle.

Should I join an action group?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2020)

girasol said:


> Not LTN, but TFL, from Facebook. It's terrifying the number of drivers who don't check for cyclists before turning left, but it seems since wands were installed these types of collision have increased. It's all eye witness accounts for now, so for those who must have official reports for everything you'll have to wait a bit longer for the stats...


Great, some anecdata aimed at getting rid of the TfL cycle lanes now.


----------



## girasol (Sep 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Great, some anecdata aimed at getting rid of the TfL cycle lanes now.


I don't think that's the intention (certainly not what I'm saying)... The cycle lanes have been there for years, but the poles have been there for about a month.

Also, what's wrong with winess accounts? This is from someone who sees that part of the street every day.


----------



## girasol (Sep 15, 2020)

Like I said, will have to wait for longer for official data...


----------



## alex_ (Sep 15, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> It's called the south circ. How is Camberwell/Peckham .. stupid games.



waze says 39 minutes at school leaving time, so still no


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2020)

girasol said:


> I don't think that's the intention (certainly not what I'm saying)... The cycle lanes have been there for years, but the poles have been there for about a month.
> 
> Also, what's wrong with winess accounts? This is from someone who sees that part of the street every day.


Ok, I was assuming it had been posted on an anti LTN page, and that it might have been someone who doesn't like the wands separating off the cycle lanes so that vehicles can't dodge into them. That assumption may have been unfounded. 

We don't know how these observed accidents relate to the TfL data, which will only cover reported ones, and we don't know how they define 'casualty' and so on. And if there has been an increase in cyclists and or motor traffic post covid then that has to be factored in.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I know about that, but they were very minor alterations weren't they? They would have been better than nothing and I would have liked to see them implemented. But they were miles away from an LTN approach; they would have had minimal impact on anything other than the very local conditions at the junction.



Perhaps local people wanted what you might call minor alterations. Perhaps local people don't see it the way you do.

Ive heard no complaints about the consultation after the Council imposed road closures were withdrawn.

The closure of Loughborough road was clearly not wanted.

I do think the Council could have talked to the residents group on north end of Loughbororugh road. They had ideas for traffic calming they wanted.

Also there is I think support for the closure of the Padfield road closure. As it is a rat run.

But I dont think their is local support for what you term LTN.

A possibilty is that incremental changes could have been made in conjunction with the local community.

Once people had seen these work, they see that they are listened to then further changes could have been proposed leading to an LTN of some sort.

This kind of poliitcal / consultation work is something this Council could learn to do. After all its supposed to be a Cooperative Council.

Doing things with the community not to them because they know best.

What the Council has managed to do is cause hardline divisions. This did not have to happen.

The Council have decided to use pandemic to impose LTNs on local communities. This has caused backlash. This was predicatable. Shows the Council have learnt nothing from LJ failure.

It could be the Council can ride this out. Whatever happens this is not good for local democracy.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Perhaps local people wanted what you might call minor alterations. Perhaps local people don't see it the way you do.
> 
> Ive heard no complaints about the consultation after the Council imposed road closures were withdrawn.
> 
> ...


You could do all the incremental stuff you wanted - a bit of traffic calming here and there (which is something that's actually been happening most places, including around LJ) - but as soon as you propose to make somewhere a no-through route, you'll get the same people kicking off about it.

If you want to do stuff incrementally - try and get some of these schemes currently proposed to stick. If they can be made to work, then 2 or 3 years after their implementation show them to people in other areas. I think you'd be more likely to persuade people of the benefits that way.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You could do all the incremental stuff you wanted - a bit of traffic calming here and there (which is something that's actually been happening most places, including around LJ) - but as soon as you propose to make somewhere a no-through route, you'll get the same people kicking off about it.
> 
> If you want to do stuff incrementally - try and get some of these schemes currently proposed to stick. If they can be made to work, then 2 or 3 years after their implementation show them to people in other areas. I think you'd be more likely to persuade people of the benefits that way.



The "same people".

Always comes back to that.

Ive tried to explain myself more than once and I don't think you get it.

The Council said at beginning of the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood consultation they had learnt the lessons of LJ fiasco. That they would not be implementing the BLN if they could not get support. That the consultation process this tiime would be different. To get the full funding they would have to show the Mayor and TFL that there was local support and they had consulted properly.

Pandemic comes along and Council find they can ditch that and implement it anyway.

Im not supporting these LTNs wholeheartedly for that reason.

After all in LJ it should have been easy for the party of the workers to get Council tenants of Loughbororugh Estate to support no through traffic from the better of suburbs using their Council estate as commuter route.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You could do all the incremental stuff you wanted - a bit of traffic calming here and there (which is something that's actually been happening most places, including around LJ) - but as soon as you propose to make somewhere a no-through route, you'll get the same people kicking off about it.
> 
> If you want to do stuff incrementally - try and get some of these schemes currently proposed to stick. If they can be made to work, then 2 or 3 years after their implementation show them to people in other areas. I think you'd be more likely to persuade people of the benefits that way.



And an anecdote.

After the LJ road closure failure I ws chatting to a senior Council officer.

They started to blame LJAG for the fiasco.

Lesson. Don't ever trust the Council. They will sell people down the river to protect themselves.

I did stick up for LJAG. As I thought this ws unfair. 

Said it was the Counciil decision to do this not LJAGs.

Officer didn't like that at all.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

When I saw Council had persuaded various community groups to support the LTNs my heart sank. 

My view would be Council has taken this decision to implement LTNs. It's up to Council in that case. I would advice any group Im in to stay neutral.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 15, 2020)

girasol said:


> I don't think that's the intention (certainly not what I'm saying)... The cycle lanes have been there for years, but the poles have been there for about a month.
> 
> Also, what's wrong with winess accounts? This is from someone who sees that part of the street every day.


Do you think the poles should be removed?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

girasol said:


> For those interested, here is the full LTN report for Wandsworth
> https://t.co/NixLu1xxnY?amp=1
> 
> and here, what triggered its review and eventual removal
> ...



I see the report saying that emergency services raised significant concerns in Wandsworth in relation to response times once the LTNs were put in place has been ignored by posters here.

So the discussion has been displaced onto conjectures about poles.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

Perhaps the emergency services in Wandsworth are all car nuts.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I see the report saying that emergency services raised significant concerns in Wandsworth in relation to response times once the LTNs were put in place has been ignored by posters here.
> 
> So the discussion has been displaced onto conjectures about poles.


Why are you stirring like this?.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 15, 2020)

You don’t own and police this thread, as much as you’d like to.


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 15, 2020)

The Low Traffic Neighbourhoods do have genuinely radical consequences and they do mean that people will have to change their travel behaviour, change their lifestyles. change the location of their leisure activities. change where they live and change where they work and how they organise their work. This is the long term path to sustainability and it is no surprise that people feel uncomfortable about it and their is a lot of conservatism with a small c. On a specific level changing travel behaviour is not just a change in consumer choice like choosing brand A over brand B it involves consideration of a vested interest - a material purchase of an expensive piece of machinery (a private car). Also an emotional investment in car-owning status. The majority of people in London especially Inner London (who do not own a car) are not in that situation. They do suffer every day from the externaliities of car dominated streets. 

Sometimes it feels like us non car owners are somehow now not proper adults and car owners are.  This is unfair.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

girasol said:


> For those interested, here is the full LTN report for Wandsworth
> https://t.co/NixLu1xxnY?amp=1
> 
> and here, what triggered its review and eventual removal
> ...



The quotes from Council report are from page 110.

The report also says that the Council will be monitering the situation. That the pandemic has altered road use. More car journeys possibly due to people not wanting to use buses.



> 32. Officers will continue to monitor the network at and around the suspended LTN areas
> and to continue to gather data that will help the Council better understand the impact
> of the TfL measures on the road network and the effects of removing the
> LTNs. Officers will also continue to monitor the network generally and to gather
> ...



Looking through other parts of the Council report and Wandsworth are bringing in "pop up" cycle lanes, in one area making car free on weekends to encourage local business / pedestrian use and making some bus lanes extended hours.

So using pandemic powers to encourage cycle use , public transport, local business and pedestrians.

These measures have had positive feedback.

Its the LTNs that had negative feedback.

So the picture in Wandsworth is mixed. Support for some alterations to road use and not others.

So idea that its LTNs or nothing is wrong.

(Not saying you are saying this. Its that looking at the Wandsworth Council report and its a mixed bag. Its that some posters here see situation as LTNs and nothing else is good enough)


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 15, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> The Low Traffic Neighbourhoods do have genuinely radical consequences and they do mean that people will have to change their travel behaviour, change their lifestyles. change the location of their leisure activities. change where they live and change where they work and how they organise their work. This is the long term path to sustainability and it is no surprise that people feel uncomfortable about it and their is a lot of conservatism with a small c. On a specific level changing travel behaviour is not just a change in consumer choice like choosing brand A over brand B it involves consideration of a vested interest - a material purchase of an expensive piece of machinery (a private car). Also an emotional investment in car-owning status. The majority of people in London especially Inner London (who do not own a car) are not in that situation. They do suffer every day from the externaliities of car dominated streets.
> 
> Sometimes it feels like us non car owners are somehow now not proper adults and car owners are.  This is unfair.



Individualist response to a social issue.

Its up to the the individual to change.

This shows how neo liberal thinking has permeated into society as common sense.

BTW Im a non car owner.


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Individualist response to a social issue.
> 
> Its up to the the individual to change.
> 
> ...



No not right wing. Yes it is bit of a Big Green Brother kind of thing. But its 'gentle' very gentle. None of the radical things I mentioned in my last post need to happen today or in a few months time.  But lets think about how we are living.  Low Traffic Neighbourhoods bring very great benefits to the majority of the population in urban areas. The minority of car owners are the short term losers. And ultimately it is agreed on a community level between you and your neighbours.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> You don’t own and police this thread, as much as you’d like to.



What on earth are you going on about?

How can I "police" this thread?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Individualist response to a social issue.
> 
> Its up to the the individual to change.
> 
> ...


This doesn't make any sense. The individualist response is the car. LTNs are all about encouraging use of communal resources and sharing them as equitably as possible.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This doesn't make any sense. The individualist response is the car. LTNs are all about encouraging use of communal resources and sharing them as equitably as possible.



I was referrig to the post. It was full of "people will have to change" this and that. Their "lifestyles" for example. 

I didnt think LTNs were about encouragiing use of communal resources or sharing them. 

LTNs are specifically about stopping through traffic/ stopping rat runs. Hence the name.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> No not right wing. Yes it is bit of a Big Green Brother kind of thing. But its 'gentle' very gentle. None of the radical things I mentioned in my last post need to happen today or in a few months time.  But lets think about how we are living.  Low Traffic Neighbourhoods bring very great benefits to the majority of the population in urban areas. The minority of car owners are the short term losers. And ultimately it is agreed on a community level between you and your neighbours.



Well that is my issue with how they have been implemented. Its not been agreed at community level. As was promised pre pandemic.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This doesn't make any sense. The individualist response is the car. LTNs are all about encouraging use of communal resources and sharing them as equitably as possible.



Exactly.  Mass private car ownership and the failure to penalise/sufficiently tax the externalities caused by their use is the about as tory 'no such thing as society' as you can get as a policy.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Well that is my issue with how they have been implemented. Its not been agreed at community level. As was promised pre pandemic.


The situation has changed with the pandemic. There was no consultation on masks either.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

What I was refering to was the idea of a policy like LTNs being about forcing individual people to change their "lifestyles" , where they work etc.

If green economy is to be made in future it needs to be about giving people choice. Not just enacting a policy and pushing people to just deal with.

For example Im sure a lot of people could do without the daily commute. They could do with services, work and facilities to be near them.

That requires a change in the economy.

Take housing. Its difficult to live near work if one cannot afford to buy or rent in the area that work is. So rent controls need to be brought in. Developers need to be forced to build social housing as part of large developments.

I don't see any of that happening.

What I object to is putting the onus on individuals without giving them reasonable alternative choices.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> What I was refering to was the idea of a policy like LTNs being about forcing individual people to change their "lifestyles" , where they work etc.
> 
> If green economy is to be made in future it needs to be about giving people choice. Not just enacting a policy and pushing people to just deal with.
> 
> ...


People are still free to make these choices, what it is about though is making one of those choices more difficult and that needs to be done because all of us suffer because of pollution.


----------



## editor (Sep 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> People are still free to make these choices, what it is about though is making one of those choices more difficult and that needs to be done because all of us suffer because of pollution.


It can be a tough call though when people have to swim against a tide of seductive advertising for bigger and 'safer' cars promising even more 'freedom,' influential bellends like Clarkson constantly making out non-car users are some sort of inferior species, and a lack of consultation and co ordination from the council coupled with overdue improvements to public transport.


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> What I was refering to was the idea of a policy like LTNs being about forcing individual people to change their "lifestyles" , where they work etc.
> 
> If green economy is to be made in future it needs to be about giving people choice. Not just enacting a policy and pushing people to just deal with.
> 
> ...


Absolutely right. With the state of our public transport where in rush hour commuters who spend thousands a year for season tickets To cram into train carriages to then squash into the tube trains to get to work, if you live in the suburbs why on earth wouldn’t you want to drive your car especially with the new Covid risk?
 And absolutely right, people who live in the suburbs are not all stinking rich, in fact they look enviously at those of Us who live Within touching distance of central London and can manage their lives with a bicycle, but as you point out are forced to live further and further away from their place of work. With Covid if I lived in Medway for example I would drive if I could rather than risk the trains. The roads are not the sole preserve of the people that live in them like extensions to their front gardens they are throughfares and yes proper consultation should take place before changes are made but that consultation should also take into account the needs of local businesses in these horrendous times when so many were struggling before Covid never mind now, and yes, the needs of the people that use our roads to drive through in their way to work etc.  People own and drive cars for many reasons, but they are not all rich inconsiderate petrol-heads. Disabled people, Needing to do the family shop with toddlers in tow, deliverY drivers, couriers, And people who work at dispersed sites. At present public transport does not provide an effective alternative. My friend bought his first house in Chatham as it was the closest place he could afford. He works in Southwark and his season ticket is around 6K a year. The trains are often late or cancelled and often he gets no seat, however he jumps in a car with a colleague and shares petrol costs. It’s cheaper, safer and he gets to work on time. This shouldn’t be the case but it is. With Covid and the need for vulnerable people To socially distance I am feeling a lot more sympathetic to car users. As for Lambeth council jumping in with ill thought out road closures etc, my cynical mind says Jack and Co are only too aware of how the greens are Chasing their tail in the south of the borough and are trying to create a facade of being a green minded council to nick a few votes of them. Politicians always make decisions with the next election in mind.


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> So what's your solution - to make local neighbourhoods more like Westfield, so that they are convenient for car drivers? We'll need to knock down quite a few houses to widen roads and provide all the parking - is that ok?
> 
> Or we accept that online ordering with local delivery is a much better solution for getting large/bulky items to people. And then the smaller things can be bought locally - and probably more locally than before.


I think you need to talk to small shop owners in our high streets and ask them how they feel about having lost a lot of passing trade with each measure taken to deter car drivers. And no don’t be daft I really can’t see it being viable Or desirable to convert Brixton or streatham to a new Westfield, however, until public transport can meet the needs of people who currently drive I wouldn’t cuss someone for wanting to drive and to have somewhere to park when they do.  People drive cars for all sorts of reasons and bullying people Into giving them up while it is currently the safest way for a vulnerable person to travel and avoid exposure to Covid. Until there are viable alternatives they should be allowed to continue to drive to our local shopping streets and to be able to park when they get there


----------



## technical (Sep 16, 2020)

One thing that bugs me about this argument is that seems to be forgotten that all these road closures are only temporary - the Council cannot implement them permanently as things stand. Which essentially makes the current arrangements an extended consultation period - let's see how it goes and take decisions based on evidence across several months rather than based on (IMHO) knee jerk reactions that have no basis in fact. If it doesn't work, or if there are unintended consequences that it's felt don't outweigh the benefits then fair enough scrap them. But we need to do something to address the issues that come with current levels of car use and to me this is a start.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 16, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> Absolutely right. With the state of our public transport where in rush hour commuters who spend thousands a year for season tickets To cram into train carriages to then squash into the tube trains to get to work, if you live in the suburbs why on earth wouldn’t you want to drive your car especially with the new Covid risk?
> And absolutely right, people who live in the suburbs are not all stinking rich, in fact they look enviously at those of Us who live Within touching distance of central London and can manage their lives with a bicycle, but as you point out are forced to live further and further away from their place of work. With Covid if I lived in Medway for example I would drive if I could rather than risk the trains. The roads are not the sole preserve of the people that live in them like extensions to their front gardens they are throughfares and yes proper consultation should take place before changes are made but that consultation should also take into account the needs of local businesses in these horrendous times when so many were struggling before Covid never mind now, and yes, the needs of the people that use our roads to drive through in their way to work etc.  People own and drive cars for many reasons, but they are not all rich inconsiderate petrol-heads. Disabled people, Needing to do the family shop with toddlers in tow, deliverY drivers, couriers, And people who work at dispersed sites. At present public transport does not provide an effective alternative. My friend bought his first house in Chatham as it was the closest place he could afford. He works in Southwark and his season ticket is around 6K a year. The trains are often late or cancelled and often he gets no seat, however he jumps in a car with a colleague and shares petrol costs. It’s cheaper, safer and he gets to work on time. This shouldn’t be the case but it is. With Covid and the need for vulnerable people To socially distance I am feeling a lot more sympathetic to car users. As for Lambeth council jumping in with ill thought out road closures etc, my cynical mind says Jack and Co are only too aware of how the greens are Chasing their tail in the south of the borough and are trying to create a facade of being a green minded council to nick a few votes of them. Politicians always make decisions with the next election in mind.



Most poor people do not own cars. LTNs create safer spaces for cycling, walking and scootering, the plan being to link LTNs London-wide to ease the pressure on public transport. That would be particularly handy during a winter wave of Covid, during flu season, when people are going to be justifiably reluctant to use buses, trains, tubes etc, for obvious reasons. Everybody piling into cars they don't own does not seem like the best solution.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 16, 2020)

Edit


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> What I was refering to was the idea of a policy like LTNs being about forcing individual people to change their "lifestyles" , where they work etc.
> 
> If green economy is to be made in future it needs to be about giving people choice. Not just enacting a policy and pushing people to just deal with.
> 
> ...


Yes it would be great if the economy could be changed, rent controls brought in etc. But realistically that's not going to happen for a some little while, so back in the real world, what do we do? Nothing? 
As individuals should we not make choices and changes for the good of society if we are able? Even if we are mildly inconvenienced? After all, my one less unnecessary car journey leaves more space on the road for those who have no choice but to drive (disabled people, delivery drivers,  tradespeople etc) and means a little less pollution going into the lungs of the school kids in the playground.
I really feel people who can make changes cannot just sit back and do nothing. But most of them won't make changes until they are forced to. That's just human nature sadly


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 16, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> Most poor people do not own cars. LTNs create safer spaces for cycling, walking and scootering, the plan being to link LTNs London-wide to ease the pressure on public transport. That would be particularly handy during a winter wave of Covid, during flu season, when people are going to be justifiably reluctant to use buses, trains, tubes etc, for obvious reasons. Everybody piling into cars they don't own does not seem like the best solution.


Depending on how you define poor, I can assure you a lot of ordinary people on average pay or below own cars.


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 16, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Yes it would be great if the economy could be changed, rent controls brought in etc. But realistically that's not going to happen for a some little while, so back in the real world, what do we do? Nothing?
> As individuals should we not make choices and changes for the good of society if we are able? Even if we are mildly inconvenienced? After all, my one less unnecessary car journey leaves more space on the road for those who have no choice but to drive (disabled people, delivery drivers,  tradespeople etc) and means a little less pollution going into the lungs of the school kids in the playground.
> I really feel people who can make changes cannot just sit back and do nothing. But most of them won't make changes until they are forced to. That's just human nature sadly


Perhaps people make other changes as their contribution towards a new economy. I know people who drive cars who are fastidious when it comes to recycling or They are enthusiastically boasting about how they avoid fast fashion etc. End of the day the state of the environment is a byproduct of capitalism that demands ever increasing consumerism and that forces people to travel often great distances to get to work.. it’s the rich people that consume the most do I don’t see why anyone should expect the hard pressed working person to sacrifice what is at the Moment often their cheapest and safest mode of transport. I would hate to see commuters forced back onto the packed cattle trucks ( if they can afford the fares) during this Covid crisis. Talk to any business that relies on deliveries at the moment and ask them what they think about the continuous increases in costs and time to meet their customers demands. We are on the verge of a massive economic catastrophe, and anything that addd to business costs should be reconsidered. It’s like when people demand the closure of nuclear power stations. I’m anti-nuclear myself, but it’s easy for me to say close then down and replace them with alternatives, but then the unions have to remind the metropolitan Middle class CND crowd that they are talking about taking away people’s livelihoods. I see this crusade against cars in a similar light. Yes let’s phase private ownership of Petrol cars out Maybe but before doing that there have to be cost effective alternative means of transport, and our public transport is expensive, uncomfortable and often not a viable alternative to many ordinary people. People like my brother. 70 years old, drives an Old car he’s Owned since new. He is not disabled but he would struggle getting busses to his voluntary work, Picking up something from the shops or when he’s caring for his granddaughter . He is not a big consumer and it shouldn’t fall on him to make What would be a massive sacrifice, and during this time of Covid I feel a lot happier knowing he’s driving around than if he was bussing it or jumping on trains. To me it seems some people live in inner London Yet yearn for village life and traffic free streets. I moved in to  this area because it was vibrant and exciting compared to the suburbs and moving close to major roads I sort of expected the traffic as part of the deal.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 16, 2020)

Less than half of Lambeth households have access to a car. Your plan for people to self-isolate in cars needs a major rethink.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 16, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> Absolutely right. With the state of our public transport where in rush hour commuters who spend thousands a year for season tickets To cram into train carriages to then squash into the tube trains to get to work, if you live in the suburbs why on earth wouldn’t you want to drive your car especially with the new Covid risk?
> And absolutely right, people who live in the suburbs are not all stinking rich, in fact they look enviously at those of Us who live Within touching distance of central London and can manage their lives with a bicycle, but as you point out are forced to live further and further away from their place of work. With Covid if I lived in Medway for example I would drive if I could rather than risk the trains. The roads are not the sole preserve of the people that live in them like extensions to their front gardens they are throughfares and yes proper consultation should take place before changes are made but that consultation should also take into account the needs of local businesses in these horrendous times when so many were struggling before Covid never mind now, and yes, the needs of the people that use our roads to drive through in their way to work etc.  People own and drive cars for many reasons, but they are not all rich inconsiderate petrol-heads. Disabled people, Needing to do the family shop with toddlers in tow, deliverY drivers, couriers, And people who work at dispersed sites. At present public transport does not provide an effective alternative. My friend bought his first house in Chatham as it was the closest place he could afford. He works in Southwark and his season ticket is around 6K a year. The trains are often late or cancelled and often he gets no seat, however he jumps in a car with a colleague and shares petrol costs. It’s cheaper, safer and he gets to work on time. This shouldn’t be the case but it is. With Covid and the need for vulnerable people To socially distance I am feeling a lot more sympathetic to car users. As for Lambeth council jumping in with ill thought out road closures etc, my cynical mind says Jack and Co are only too aware of how the greens are Chasing their tail in the south of the borough and are trying to create a facade of being a green minded council to nick a few votes of them. Politicians always make decisions with the next election in mind.


Pollution:
Long before the current crisis when LTNs weren't about and traffic could run free as a bird Brixton Road used up it's annual NO2 pollution limit in just five days. You're talking about adding to this when there's a global pandemic going on which targets the lungs.

Congestion:
London had bad traffic and congestion before the pandemic

Infrastructure:
In my office there are maybe 30 car park spaces for 300 people. A lot of offices have zero spaces.

I reckon if even 10% of the people who use public transport decided to drive it wouldn't work. Everyone just hopping in their car isn't an option, there has to be alternatives and things like LTNs, protected cycleways are this.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Yes it would be great if the economy could be changed, rent controls brought in etc. But realistically that's not going to happen for a some little while, so back in the real world, what do we do? Nothing?
> As individuals should we not make choices and changes for the good of society if we are able? Even if we are mildly inconvenienced? After all, my one less unnecessary car journey leaves more space on the road for those who have no choice but to drive (disabled people, delivery drivers,  tradespeople etc) and means a little less pollution going into the lungs of the school kids in the playground.
> I really feel people who can make changes cannot just sit back and do nothing. But most of them won't make changes until they are forced to. That's just human nature sadly



So your view of human nature is that individuals only do things if forced to. That is an argument for an authoritarian state.

I really find the "real world" argument irritating.

Reminds me I read a sci fi novel a while back set in near future in where the rich live in Eco Towers and the poor make do as best they can.

A possible future green economy.

The Water Knife

Either there is a just transition to a green economy or an unjust one ( as in the scenerio in the sci fi novel) There is nothing about green politics that is essentially about social justice.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I really feel people who can make changes cannot just sit back and do nothing. But most of them won't make changes until they are forced to. That's just human nature sadly



So there is the common herd who need to be prodded into making changes and a minority who know what is best for them. 

I dont see this as particularly progressive.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 16, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> Perhaps people make other changes as their contribution towards a new economy. I know people who drive cars who are fastidious when it comes to recycling or They are enthusiastically boasting about how they avoid fast fashion etc. End of the day the state of the environment is a byproduct of capitalism that demands ever increasing consumerism and that forces people to travel often great distances to get to work.. it’s the rich people that consume the most do I don’t see why anyone should expect the hard pressed working person to sacrifice what is at the Moment often their cheapest and safest mode of transport. I would hate to see commuters forced back onto the packed cattle trucks ( if they can afford the fares) during this Covid crisis. Talk to any business that relies on deliveries at the moment and ask them what they think about the continuous increases in costs and time to meet their customers demands. We are on the verge of a massive economic catastrophe, and anything that addd to business costs should be reconsidered. It’s like when people demand the closure of nuclear power stations. I’m anti-nuclear myself, but it’s easy for me to say close then down and replace them with alternatives, but then the unions have to remind the metropolitan Middle class CND crowd that they are talking about taking away people’s livelihoods. I see this crusade against cars in a similar light. Yes let’s phase private ownership of Petrol cars out Maybe but before doing that there have to be cost effective alternative means of transport, and our public transport is expensive, uncomfortable and often not a viable alternative to many ordinary people. People like my brother. 70 years old, drives an Old car he’s Owned since new. He is not disabled but he would struggle getting busses to his voluntary work, Picking up something from the shops or when he’s caring for his granddaughter . He is not a big consumer and it shouldn’t fall on him to make What would be a massive sacrifice, and during this time of Covid I feel a lot happier knowing he’s driving around than if he was bussing it or jumping on trains. To me it seems some people live in inner London Yet yearn for village life and traffic free streets. I moved in to  this area because it was vibrant and exciting compared to the suburbs and moving close to major roads I sort of expected the traffic as part of the deal.



I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that no-one should be allowed to drive a car - rather that when someone had to option and ability to use a non car form of transport, they could think about this instead and use the car only when it is necessary.
I'm sure many people would love to live in the countryside, where is there is pretty much zero public transport and a car is an essential. However, for the majority I would imagine, they have to be in or near a city for work. Why should they and their children be penalised for this and expected to put up with unnecessary traffic, accidents and pollution?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Pollution:
> Long before the current crisis when LTNs weren't about and traffic could run free as a bird Brixton Road used up it's annual NO2 pollution limit in just five days. You're talking about adding to this when there's a global pandemic going on which targets the lungs.



I did not think Brixton road was included in the LTNs. Like my road Coldharbour lane its classified as a main road.

There are less people going into central London as home working is still the norm. Despite Boris.

If Boris had extended the furlong people would not feel made to commute.

Its not like a lot of people want to brave public transport when the virus is still around. Now furlong is ending if they dont lose their jobs they might have to travel one way or another. Its not Southlondon causing the problem its this government. 

My partner tried to get the train from LJ today to work. Trains were cancelled. Same thing happened on way back. This is regular occurance.

What Southlondon is also saying is that public transport needs sorting out. Needs to be much cheaper. Needs to be reliable. I dont think this is unreasonable.

It requires, however, proper investment. Why it can appear to be not real world suggestion.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So your view of human nature is that individuals only do things if forced to. That is an argument for an authoritarian state.
> 
> I really find the "real world" argument irritating.
> 
> ...



Well, maybe our real worlds are just very different. I have friends and neighbours who will drive their cars rather than walk 10 minutes, which they are quite capable of doing. We've talked about this, they know my views and listened to my reasoning and even agreed that it would be better to not use a car for trips which don't require it, yet still they continue. Shall we just wait for them to change their habits?

I remember when it was legal to drive without a seatbelt. Would you rather the law had not been changed and we just waited for everyone to realise that it was probably better to wear one?? I'm genuinely struggling to understand how this is more progressive.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Well, maybe our real worlds are just very different. I have friends and neighbours who will drive their cars rather than walk 10 minutes, which they are quite capable of doing. We've talked about this, they know my views and listened to my reasoning and even agreed that it would be better to not use a car for trips which don't require it, yet still they continue. Shall we just wait for them to change their habits?
> 
> I remember when it was legal to drive without a seatbelt. Would you rather the law had not been changed and we just waited for everyone to realise that it was probably better to wear one?? I'm genuinely struggling to understand how this is more progressive.



What your were implying was my view of a just transition to a Green economy is not "real world".

My reply was that a possible future scenerio is change to green economy that still contains inequality. I do think that could happen.

Secondly during the lockdown i was doing a bit of volunteering at the Brixton Rec Food Hub ( food bank). So many people on furlong were volunteering that it was sometimes difficult to get shifts.

For many people the lockdown was an eye opener. Volunteering is "work" but not as it normally is. Talking to some of the volunteers and they liked working for the social good. Very different from normal "work". With all the pressures on one.

I think that given the oppurtunity people will do things not just for their personal selfish interests.

The last thirty years has tried to make people think that if you dont look after number one your a mug.

Basically I think social policy should be about giving people oppurtunities and space to do them. A positive social policy not a negative one.


----------



## co-op (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Basically I think social policy should be about giving people oppurtunities and space to do them. A positive social policy not a negative one.



Right. And if you stop putting all your focus on car drivers you'd surely be able to acknowledge that LTNs - in a linked network - give ordinary people the _opportunity and space_ to travel through Lambeth without being effectively forced to choose between the cost and inflexibility of public transport or the private car. You actually allow people to choose to cycle or to walk. This - for many - is currently barely an option. The commonest single reason for not cycling, or not letting your child cycle is "it's too dangerous". And even for the most serious advocate of building a greener, healthier, more congenial city, it's pretty hard to argue that's not true.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

co-op said:


> Right. And if you stop putting all your focus on car drivers you'd surely be able to acknowledge that LTNs - in a linked network - give ordinary people the _opportunity and space_ to travel through Lambeth without being effectively forced to choose between the cost and inflexibility of public transport or the private car. You actually allow people to choose to cycle or to walk. This - for many - is currently barely an option. The commonest single reason for not cycling, or not letting your child cycle is "it's too dangerous". And even for the most serious advocate of building a greener, healthier, more congenial city, it's pretty hard to argue that's not true.



Im not a car owner.

I cycle or use publlc transport.

So please stop trying to make out Im part of the car lobby.

I don't need to repeat what Ive posted previously.

I keep on saying Im critically supportive.

There have been many posts here pointing out these LTNS are temporary.

They imo should be allowed to a length of time to so evidence can be gathered about their effect.

Then local communities should have right to amend, remove or keep them at a later stage.


----------



## co-op (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im not a car owner.
> 
> I cycle or use publlc transport.
> 
> So please stop trying to make out Im part of the car lobby.



De facto you are of the car lobby; LTNs are precisely the sort of thing that lets people safely cycle and walk through Lambeth. Since it's a zero-sum game here, that means cars lose some privileges. 

You're supporting the restoration of those privileges and the re-relegation of cyclists (including those not confident, like you, to use the roads now) and pedestrians to the bottom of the pile.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 16, 2020)

co-op said:


> De facto you are of the car lobby; LTNs are precisely the sort of thing that lets people safely cycle and walk through Lambeth. Since it's a zero-sum game here, that means cars lose some privileges.
> 
> You're supporting the restoration of those privileges and the re-relegation of cyclists (including those not confident, like you, to use the roads now) and pedestrians to the bottom of the pile.



I don't need to repeat what Ive posted previously.

I keep on saying Im critically supportive.

There have been many posts here pointing out these LTNS are temporary.

They imo should be allowed to a length of time  so evidence can be gathered about their effect.

Then local communities should have right to amend, remove or keep them at a later stage.

Im actually getting put off LTNs by the way people like you go on.

However I will try to ignore it.


----------



## Loose meat (Sep 16, 2020)

co-op said:


> De facto you are of the car lobby; LTNs are precisely the sort of thing that lets people safely cycle and walk through Lambeth. Since it's a zero-sum game here, that means cars lose some privileges.
> 
> You're supporting the restoration of those privileges and the re-relegation of cyclists (including those not confident, like you, to use the roads now) and pedestrians to the bottom of the pile.


So ... how much do you think the LTN is worth to you - to the nearest £10K?


----------



## co-op (Sep 16, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> So ... how much do you think the LTN is worth to you - to the nearest £10K?



Precisely £0. What about you?


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> What your were implying was my view of a just transition to a Green economy is not "real world".
> 
> My reply was that a possible future scenerio is change to green economy that still contains inequality. I do think that could happen.
> 
> ...


I sincerely hope you're right for the sake of the human race. I guess we'll find out.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 16, 2020)

Loose meat said:


> So ... how much do you think the LTN is worth to you - to the nearest £10K?


You are obsessed by house prices. Is it that you own a house and are worried that you can’t sell, lowers the price or what? I don’t own my house and frankly if you own your house in poets corner, it’s fairly academic if a LTN puts the prices up as they are our of reach of most people anyway


----------



## Southlondon (Sep 16, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that no-one should be allowed to drive a car - rather that when someone had to option and ability to use a non car form of transport, they could think about this instead and use the car only when it is necessary.
> I'm sure many people would love to live in the countryside, where is there is pretty much zero public transport and a car is an essential. However, for the majority I would imagine, they have to be in or near a city for work. Why should they and their children be penalised for this and expected to put up with unnecessary traffic, accidents and pollution?


I wouldn’t have thought of Medway as countryside, it’s commuter belt now and a lot of ordinary Working people live there and work in London. it’s hard to rent a family home in London on average wages it’s more affordable there, and For first time buyers it was until recently just about affordable to still buy a 2bed terrace house on a modest income. 
I don’t think bricklayer enjoys living that far out from their work it’s generally because it’s all they can afford or there’s no work out There  so locals have to travel in. Either way don’t assume everyonr commuting into London is a stockbroker , they’re tradesmen, nurses, tube workers etc. A lot of people do it out of necessity and maybe at lest recognise you are asking a lot of exploited ordinary working class people To just roll over and accept not just a longer working day, but increased risk of Covid by expecting them to crowd onto our substandard public transport. Thetr need to effective alternatives put in place


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> You are obsessed by house prices. Is it that you own a house and are worried that you can’t sell, lowers the price or what? I don’t own my house and frankly if you own your house in poets corner, it’s fairly academic if a LTN puts the prices up as they are our of reach of most people anyway



Loose Meat; Total posts on U75, 109. Posts on the Brixton LTN thread 107. 

Meh. 

They're only here for the trolling. Desperately trying to prove that cars are a rich-poor issue and that the poor support and benefit from cars - that's a pretty tough gig. You can see why s/he prefers talking about house prices. Not sure if they've noticed that practically no one on the Brixton forum owns a house in an LTN - leastways not that I've picked up in the last 15 years on here.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> Either way don’t assume everyonr commuting into London is a stockbroker , they’re tradesmen, nurses, tube workers etc. A lot of people do it out of necessity and maybe at lest recognise you are asking a lot of exploited ordinary working class people To just roll over and accept not just a longer working day, but increased risk of Covid by expecting them to crowd onto our substandard public transport. Thetr need to effective alternatives put in place



Who's assuming that the only people who commute into London are stockbrokers? Anyone who's ever worked or lived in London knows that people in all walks of life commute from all over the south east to work in London. We all know this and we know it's stupid for multiple reasons, none of which we can do anything about.

But what's your proposal for people wanting to drive in because of covid? Build new roads in London? Reintroduce the 60s plan for Brixton, motorways down Coldharbour Lane, down South Lambeth Rd? 

Road-building will not get rid of traffic jams, so anyone who chooses to, or has to, drive will still have a longer working day, goes with working in London, get used to it. Any fantasy that the car will solve any transport issues in London, except possibly for shift workers in the middle of the night is just that; a fantasy.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> You actually allow people to choose to cycle or to walk. This - for many - is currently barely an option. The commonest single reason for not cycling, or not letting your child cycle is "it's too dangerous". And even for the most serious advocate of building a greener, healthier, more congenial city, it's pretty hard to argue that's not true.



It's not the backstreets that are too dangerous, it's the main roads.  The backstreets, whether part of an LTN or not, have always been comparatively safe.  Can you produce stats showing otherwise?

People keep talking about LTNs  - _in a linked network_ - making cycling safer, like there's some magic way to get from one to the next without using the main roads and the main pinchpoint junctions. Especially as the vast majority of journeys which begin and end somewhere outside an LTN. 

It's twaddle. Potentially dangerous twaddle and new cyclists who've been seduced into believing it during lockdown will get hurt if they're not properly on the case as the evenings draw in and the weather gets worse. Encouraging people to cycle without providing proper training or any safety advice strikes me as grossly irresponsible. 

I'm all in favour of marked up Quiet Routes and so on, but realistically they are icing on cake.  Getting from eg the West End to Brixton can be done mostly on backroads but not one route doesn't involve a bridge with a difficult and dangerous junction at each end, plus one or more major junctions this side of the river.  That's where people get hurt, including very experienced cyclists.

So IMO they're right to say "it's too dangerous" (even when that isn't a convenient excuse).


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's not the backstreets that are too dangerous, it's the main roads.  The backstreets, whether part of an LTN or not, have always been comparatively safe.  Can you produce stats showing otherwise?
> 
> People keep talking about LTNs  - _in a linked network_ - making cycling safer, like there's some magic way to get from one to the next without using the main roads and the main pinchpoint junctions. Especially as the vast majority of journeys which begin and end somewhere outside an LTN.
> 
> ...



I strongly agree with this. I fell for the 'new safe cycling" spiel and bought a second-hand bike. The reality is much different. I do back streets and then walk with my bike on the pavement when things get scary. Not a great look but some junctions etc are frightening for a novice.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 17, 2020)

Double post


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> Getting from eg the West End to Brixton can be done mostly on backroads but not one route doesn't involve a bridge with a difficult and dangerous junction at each end, plus one or more major junctions this side of the river.  That's where people get hurt, including very experienced cyclists.



The Oval LTN provides a safe link from the Larkhall Rise Quietway to Harleyford Rd. From there you can cycle on segregated/quiet routes all the way to Marble Arch. Vauxhall Bridge is safe and segregated. No dangerous junctions. 

The Ferndale LTN _almost_ reaches the Larkhall Rise Quietway, although there is a nasty bit around Clapham North where an inexperienced cyclist might want to push. My 12 year-old can manage it however.


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

Good summary on BBC









						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: Anger, hate and the politics of the planter
					

It is difficult to remember transport schemes attracting such vitriol as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's not the backstreets that are too dangerous, it's the main roads.  The backstreets, whether part of an LTN or not, have always been comparatively safe.  Can you produce stats showing otherwise?


My neighbours did a traffic count last year on our backstreets which showed almost 10,000 vehicles a day on some streets. That's not quiet by any stretch of the imagination. I would say a good 25% of cyclists use the pavements, which aren't wide.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 17, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> I wouldn’t have thought of Medway as countryside, it’s commuter belt now and a lot of ordinary Working people live there and work in London. it’s hard to rent a family home in London on average wages it’s more affordable there, and For first time buyers it was until recently just about affordable to still buy a 2bed terrace house on a modest income.
> I don’t think bricklayer enjoys living that far out from their work it’s generally because it’s all they can afford or there’s no work out There  so locals have to travel in. Either way don’t assume everyonr commuting into London is a stockbroker , they’re tradesmen, nurses, tube workers etc. A lot of people do it out of necessity and maybe at lest recognise you are asking a lot of exploited ordinary working class people To just roll over and accept not just a longer working day, but increased risk of Covid by expecting them to crowd onto our substandard public transport. Thetr need to effective alternatives put in place


I'm not entirely sure how you went from village life and traffic free streets in the countryside to Medway and stockbrokers?

But I'm genuinely interested to learn what your suggestions for effective alternatives are? More cars? More roads? More parking?


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2020)

Winot said:


> The Oval LTN provides a safe link from the Larkhall Rise Quietway to Harleyford Rd. From there you can cycle on segregated/quiet routes all the way to Marble Arch. Vauxhall Bridge is safe and segregated. No dangerous junctions.
> 
> The Ferndale LTN _almost_ reaches the Larkhall Rise Quietway, although there is a nasty bit around Clapham North where an inexperienced cyclist might want to push. My 12 year-old can manage it however.
> 
> View attachment 230647


I'm not sure what you've used to produce that route, since I can't coerce Maps or CityMapper to offer it (and that's ignoring that Marble Arch isn't even on that map ).  The cycle routes at the south end of Vauxhall Bridge involve crossing roads, crossing each other and mixing with pedestrians on pavements and at all the lights controlled crossings.  They're not, imo, particularly good and while I'll use them in preference to arguing with the traffic, in general I avoid that bridge completely.   From there I'm being told to go straight along Wandsworth Road past Sainsburys, which is pretty horrid, take the cobbles at Wilcox, dogleg across fastish traffic on Lansdowne onto the equally fast bit of Larkhall Lane, then wriggle to the awful Gauden Road junction where I'm supposed to cross the traffic and head up Clapham High St to Aristotle in order to dogleg across Bedford onto Sandmere and then cross Acre Lane where there are no lights.

Your route is slightly better I agree, and I suppose you're welcome to describe it as lovely but it's not really, not in any meaningful sense of the word.  There are too many sections of main road which are now even more seething with frustrated drivers closing gaps and being impatient.  

Whether or not a few backstreets have even less traffic now than they did this time last year is of almost no consequence.    What matters is the traffic on the main through routes and it is impossible to avoid that..


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's not the backstreets that are too dangerous, it's the main roads.  The backstreets, whether part of an LTN or not, have always been comparatively safe.  Can you produce stats showing otherwise?
> 
> People keep talking about LTNs  - _in a linked network_ - making cycling safer, like there's some magic way to get from one to the next without using the main roads and the main pinchpoint junctions. Especially as the vast majority of journeys which begin and end somewhere outside an LTN.
> 
> ...


Railton road was definitely dangerous, so much so that I wouldn't cycle down it if I could - and I go on A roads sometimes.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> My neighbours did a traffic count last year on our backstreets which showed almost 10,000 vehicles a day on some streets. That's not quiet by any stretch of the imagination. I would say a good 25% of cyclists use the pavements, which aren't wide.


10 per minute over an 18 hour day on a backstreet?    How many were on the ones that weren't thoroughfares?


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> But I'm genuinely interested to learn what your suggestions for effective alternatives are? More cars? More roads? More parking?



^^This. I keep asking, should we resurrect the motorway plans of the 60s and increase capacity? Does anyone believe even for a minute that this will solve the problem - given that it's never succeeded anywhere in the world for the nigh on 100 years that planners have been trying it. All we've got from that is blighted urban spaces, bad health, noise, death, and traffic jams.

But no answer.

So what's the vision people? How do we deal with the transport issue and keep cars at the centre? What's the plan?


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> I'm not sure what you've used to produce that route, since I can't coerce Maps or CityMapper to offer it (and that's ignoring that Marble Arch isn't even on that map ).  The cycle routes at the south end of Vauxhall Bridge involve crossing roads, crossing each other and mixing with pedestrians on pavements and at all the lights controlled crossings.  They're not, imo, particularly good and while I'll use them in preference to arguing with the traffic, in general I avoid that bridge completely.   From there I'm being told to go straight along Wandsworth Road past Sainsburys, which is pretty horrid, take the cobbles at Wilcox, dogleg across fastish traffic on Lansdowne onto the equally fast bit of Larkhall Lane, then wriggle to the awful Gauden Road junction where I'm supposed to cross the traffic and head up Clapham High St to Aristotle in order to dogleg across Bedford onto Sandmere and then cross Acre Lane where there are no lights.
> 
> Your route is slightly better I agree, and I suppose you're welcome to describe it as lovely but it's not really, not in any meaningful sense of the word.  There are too many sections of main road which are now even more seething with frustrated drivers closing gaps and being impatient.
> 
> Whether or not a few backstreets have even less traffic now than they did this time last year is of almost no consequence.    What matters is the traffic on the main through routes and it is impossible to avoid that..



I'm sorry that you don't feel safe on that route, but getting rid of LTNs will make that worse not better.

I'd be happy to cycle the route with you from Brixton with a beer/cuppa at either end. How about it?

[The map was an old one I happened to have saved on my phone (I prepared it myself). It goes to the bottom corner of St James' Park - to get to Marble Arch there are segregated cycle routes along the south of St James' to Buck House then along the south of Green Park to Hyde Park Corner. There are then two options - the cycle route through HP or the new segregated route up Park Lane to Marble Arch.]


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Railton road was definitely dangerous, so much so that I wouldn't cycle down it if I could - and I go on A roads sometimes.


Sure.  I don't use it much but  I hope it's improved for cyclists, there has to be some positives from all this.  My point however, is that in itself it's not much use except for a few very local trips. For most journeys you'll have to contend with the snarling, dangerous mess at each end, which is where the real dangers are.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> It's not the backstreets that are too dangerous, it's the main roads.  The backstreets, whether part of an LTN or not, have always been comparatively safe.  Can you produce stats showing otherwise?
> 
> People keep talking about LTNs  - _in a linked network_ - making cycling safer, like there's some magic way to get from one to the next without using the main roads and the main pinchpoint junctions. Especially as the vast majority of journeys which begin and end somewhere outside an LTN.
> 
> ...



So much nonsense on this thread; my favourite up until now is that reducing car use and dependence will be bad for air quality (cars are _so good_ for our air aren't they!), although "it's the poor who will be hardest hit" is a good 'un (because we all know how powerful the poor are, and how their interests are defended to the hilt, and it's a no-brainer that expensive, capital intensive things like car-ownership are massively concentrated amongst poor people ) but I think you might have found another classic; reducing car use and dependence and making car free travel zones is making life _more dangerous_ for cyclists - Won't someone think of the cyclists?! 

I think there might be a logic problem here somewhere too - if LTNs only happen in places which are so safe, then presumably that's because there are hardly any cars so they should have basically no impact on traffic - or hang on, they are a critical part of the car road network and closing leads to chaos, chaos I tells ya, - erm in which case they aren't safe for cyclists - oh whatever, logic's got nothing to do with this has it? 

All I can say is that if you think roads like Railton Rd or Shakespeare Rd are in any meaningful way "safe" for cyclists then you literally haven't got a clue. Narrow backstreets and rat-runners are some of the most unpleasant and potentially aggressive encounters between cyclists and drivers, experienced cyclists will use any road but there's no way we're going to encourage any one onto bikes if it involves playing chicken with rat-runners, let alone get children cycling to school etc. It's pure bullshit to argue otherwise.

The UK has the lowest cycling rate of any northern European country - that's because the car has been given priority at every stage. If you give even half a shit about anything from climate change to social justice to basic quality of urban life it's the only way to go. Yet always this shrill chorus of squawking and wailing when anything is done. It's pathetic.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 17, 2020)

[/QUOTE]


Winot said:


> The Oval LTN provides a safe link from the Larkhall Rise Quietway to Harleyford Rd. From there you can cycle on segregated/quiet routes all the way to Marble Arch. Vauxhall Bridge is safe and segregated. No dangerous junctions.



Plus of course if you carry on with QW5 it takes you over to Baylis Road. The Cut is meant to be closed to through traffic soon which means you link to the segregated tracks on Blackfriars Road, which will take you all the way up to north of  Kings Cross.

There's now a good segregated route on the north bank of the river all the way from Chelsea Bridge to the East End (the section from Lambeth Bridge to Parliament is still shit but most people could manage it for that sort of distance).


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> The cycle routes at the south end of Vauxhall Bridge involve crossing roads, crossing each other and mixing with pedestrians on pavements and at all the lights controlled crossings.  They're not, imo, particularly good and while I'll use them in preference to arguing with the traffic, in general I avoid that bridge completely.   From there I'm being .



Let me tell you it's a thousand times better than cycling round Vauxhall fucking gyratory which I did many thousands of times through the 1980s and 90s and yes, car drivers whined and snivelled at every step of its proposal and implementation. Do you think car drivers will get where they want to go faster if we remove those paths?


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

The Cut is meant to be closed to through traffic soon 
[/QUOTE]




But that'll make the air quality worse! And it'll be dangerous for cyclists! And won't someone think of the poor!


OMG it's so WRONG.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> For most journeys you'll have to contend with the snarling, dangerous mess at each end, which is where the real dangers are.



Right so LTNs should be linked by cycle-safe junctions (eg like the ones put in at the south end of Vauxhall bridge which you have disparaged in a post above). 

Simple.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2020)

Winot said:


> I'm sorry that you don't feel safe on that route, but getting rid of LTNs will make that worse not better.
> 
> I'd be happy to cycle the route with you from Brixton with a beer/cuppa at either end. How about it?
> 
> [The map was an old one I happened to have saved on my phone (I prepared it myself). It goes to the bottom corner of St James' Park - to get to Marble Arch there are segregated cycle routes along the south of St James' to Buck House then along the south of Green Park to Hyde Park Corner. There are then two options - the cycle route through HP or the new segregated route up Park Lane to Marble Arch.]


I didn't say I didn't feel safe on that or any other route.  Nor that that getting rid of the recent LTNs will make cycling particularly better- my point remains that backstreets are not where the main dangers lie, and LTNs do not make overall journeys significantly safer.

I'm confident and experienced and I know and understand the roads and junctions and know how to avoid the bits I don't like.  I was talking about new, inexperienced cyclists who have been induced to think that these so called linked LTNs have magically made London cycling safe, because they got into it during lockdown and have believed irresponsible propaganda.  They're not in a position to handcraft their own routes based on their knowledge of cycling through junctions (and I sure wouldn't suggest they follow my route which involves the ridiculous roundabout at the south end of Lambeth Bridge).  They'll follow what Maps, which doesn't have a quiet route option I've ever found or Citymapper, which does, offers them (I didn't like Waze when I tried it but just d/l'd it; it doesn't even have a bike option).


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> Sure.  I don't use it much but  I hope it's improved for cyclists, there has to be some positives from all this.  My point however, is that in itself it's not much use except for a few very local trips. For most journeys you'll have to contend with the snarling, dangerous mess at each end, which is where the real dangers are.


Well, local trips letting people get between Loughborough Junction, Herne Hill and Brixton.  And then you've just been shown that there are very nearly good safe routes to both the city and west end. 

If other boroughs are doing the same (which from all the noise it sounds like they are) then presumably you can go beyond the centre to areas on the other side of town. And maybe cycling rather than driving or public transport becomes a real option for more people to get around.


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> LTNs do not make overall journeys significantly safer.



Neither of us have official figures yet and it is early days but I predict that you are wrong here.

It cannot be the case that LTNs are simultaneously calamitously restrictive to motor vehicles _and_ have no effect on cycle safety.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

It seems weird to argue that the quiet routes that the LTNs allow are no good because of the messy bits joining them where you have to get across a main road. Surely the solution to that is not to abandon the idea of the LTNs but to improve those main road bits? (Which has actually happened, to some extent, as part of the 'emergency measures' with some bits of main road being coned off).

(Of course then you get people complaining about the sections of coned off road, because they are stuck in a traffic jam in a car watching cyclists go along with plenty of space.)


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> Let me tell you it's a thousand times better than cycling round Vauxhall fucking gyratory which I did many thousands of times through the 1980s and 90s and yes, car drivers whined and snivelled at every step of its proposal and implementation. Do you think car drivers will get where they want to go faster if we remove those paths?


The cycle routes through Vauxhall could be better but absolutely they are infinitely better than trying to negotiate that horrible gyratory on the road. I'd have avoided any route through there previously, but it's now one of the routes that I use to get from Loughborough Junction to central London.

When I've used it in recent weeks/months it's often been pretty busy with cyclists (not unusual to be in a queue of cyclists at the lights) which indicates that there's a lot of demand for it.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2020)

Winot said:


> Neither of us have official figures yet and it is early days but I predict that you are wrong here.
> 
> It cannot be the case that LTNs are simultaneously calamitously restrictive to motor vehicles _and_ have no effect on cycle safety.


Of course it can if the rates of people being knocked off their bikes on quiet backstreets remain of limited significance but those on the main roads increase.  

Are you predicting that across London cycling will increase but cycling casualties will fall?  Let's revisit this when someone produces some numbers.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> Of course it can if the rates of people being knocked off their bikes on quiet backstreets remain of limited significance but those on the main roads increase.
> 
> Are you predicting that across London cycling will increase but cycling casualties will fall?  Let's revisit this when someone produces some numbers.



In the past, TfL have justified the push for more cycling by saying that the dangers of injury whilst doing it are outweighed by the health benefits of the exercise. Not everyone will be happy with this argument but I don't see why it should change just now.

It's also generally the case that the more cyclists there are, the safer it is for everyone, because motorists become accustomed to watching out for them, and better practiced at stuff like passing them safely.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The cycle routes through Vauxhall could be better but absolutely they are infinitely better than trying to negotiate that horrible gyratory on the road.



Unless they are explicitly designed to accommodate cyclists, all gyratories are a fucking cyclist's nightmare, they are absolutely intrinsically dangerous - unless you jumped lights and got across lanes in car-free periods, which is one of the reason so many of us did exactly that when these things were everywhere- causing all sorts of wailing from car drivers and police - i.e. the same people who give not one shit about the traffic laws they prefer to ignore, like speed limits.





teuchter said:


> When I've used it in recent weeks/months it's often been pretty busy with cyclists (not unusual to be in a queue of cyclists at the lights) which indicates that there's a lot of demand for it.



You can almost date the cyclists queuing at London lights from the 7/7 bombing. Never really saw it before, never really seen anything else since. Incredible really that it took a bunch of headbangers blowing up tube trains in pursuit of a literal fantasy to start changing London's transport policy to a more rational path - it's like there is literally no rational argument whatsoever that will ever achieve it.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2020)

hmm, that post above is poorly written.  'Of course it can' isn't really what I mean, I'm trying to say that cycling safety will not be improved.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> Of course it can if the rates of people being knocked off their bikes on quiet backstreets remain of limited significance but those on the main roads increase.
> 
> Are you predicting that across London cycling will increase but cycling casualties will fall?  Let's revisit this when someone produces some numbers.



The problem of road killings is not cyclists, the problem is cars. Get rid of cars you get rid of road traffic casualties. Are you really so far down the wormhole that you are arguing that cars are the solution to road deaths?


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> Of course it can if the rates of people being knocked off their bikes on quiet backstreets remain of limited significance but those on the main roads increase.
> 
> Are you predicting that across London cycling will increase but cycling casualties will fall?  Let's revisit this when someone produces some numbers.



Cyclists will switch from main routes to quieter routes.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

Winot said:


> Cyclists will switch from main routes to quieter routes.




Also people who currently cycle are by definition those who are not intimidated off the roads as they are. They are still a small minority - not surprisingly. Back in 2010 Lambeth surveyed school pupils on how they would most want to travel to school, 40% wanted to cycle, 2% actually did. These are the kind of journeys that may start to happen - the one-two mile local ones.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> Sure.  I don't use it much but  I hope it's improved for cyclists, there has to be some positives from all this.  My point however, is that in itself it's not much use except for a few very local trips. For most journeys you'll have to contend with the snarling, dangerous mess at each end, which is where the real dangers are.


It helps though, and they've brought in wands down by the side of Brockwell park, once you get down to Brixton you can use a Bus lane all the way up to Oval and get on the Cycle super highways there.


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

Also many bus lanes going 24/7 which will help enormously.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

Winot said:


> Also many bus routes going 24/7 which will help enormously.


Bus lanes you mean?


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Bus lanes you mean?



Yes sorry lanes - have edited.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Railton road was definitely dangerous, so much so that I wouldn't cycle down it if I could - and I go on A roads sometimes.


I just don't get this. I am by no means a hardened cyclist but I cycled the length of Railton every day - more often than not with a child on board. Yes it can be luxuriously empty now (of bikes and cars) but it was also rarely the hell track I hear described on here. There were random speeders before and there are random speeders still. Buses still floor it. People still overtake just to cut you up at junctions from time to time. Occasionally drivers even try to push past me in the new gates, which is hairy. I still cycle almost daily between Brixton to Herne Hill and usually choose to cycle on the Dulwich road because it is so very slightly shorter than via Railton and also does not feel dangerous.

Same with St Matthews Road (which still has no cameras by the way).

The more I think about LTNs and read the polar arguments on here the more I think that gates which only immediate locals are allowed to use are probably the answer for the time being. Like they are trialing in Fulham. At least to start with. I suspect this would remove the bulk of local resistance and deliver most of the rat run benefits and push non local traffic onto main roads. I'd probably  allow services such as waste collection through (even if just on collection days) - I just can't see much advantage in their having to drive extra miles to skirt the gates. If it didn't deliver then it could be easily changed.

I guess that to use the gates you would have apply and register your vehicle. Perhaps there would be a one off registration fee to cover admin costs.

To discourage short local journeys, I'd combine it with smaller parking zones which make it more difficult to, for instance, drive from the top of Brixton Hill and park a bit closer to the town center. (I met someone the other day who had driven down from Clapham end Ferndale Road to park in St Matthews Road (both zone BR) to walk into the center - WTF?)

I appreciate that this is not the purist vision but baby steps are the path to least resistance.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> The more I think about LTNs and read the polar arguments on here the more I think that gates which only immediate locals are allowed to use are probably the answer for the time being. Like they are trialing in Fulham. At least to start with. I suspect this would remove the bulk of local resistance and deliver most of the rat run benefits and push non local traffic onto main roads. I'd probably  allow services such as waste collection through (even if just on collection days) - I just can't see much advantage in their having to drive extra miles to skirt the gates. If it didn't deliver then it could be easily changed.



I think these would be a massive improvement and have argued for them in my time but they've always been rejected in the past as too expensive. 

This is the sort of thing that I have in mind when I keep asking - so what do we do then? Build more motorways? The pro-car lobby never seems to have a better plan, it's just complaining about an obviously unsolvable problem (ie how to base our urban transport policy around cars, or the desires of car-drivers, and also have an urban transport policy that even remotely works for most people).


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> I think these would be a massive improvement and have argued for them in my time but they've always been rejected in the past as too expensive.


By whom? I can believe it was too expensive in the past but I don't imagine that the main tech is all that different from what is now being used to monitor the gates (which three months on they still have not fitted in St Matthews Road). But I don't know.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I am by no means a hardened cyclist



You might underestimate the extent to which you are "hardened" though - in relative terms to others including new cyclists.

It seems that lots of people now find it more appealing to cycle down Railton Rd. Even if you could show that the level of danger had not changed all that much, perceptions are very important and affect journey choices, and this is supposed to be about encouraging people to change their journey choices.

Someone might well be likely to choose to cycle, where there they hadn't before, even if you could prove to them that the level of danger had not changed: they would choose to do it because it previously felt stressful and unpleasant and now it doesn't.


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I just don't get this. I am by no means a hardened cyclist but I cycled the length of Railton every day - more often than not with a child on board. Yes it can be luxuriously empty now (of bikes and cars) but it was also rarely the hell track I hear described on here. There were random speeders before and there are random speeders still. Buses still floor it. People still overtake just to cut you up at junctions from time to time. Occasionally drivers even try to push past me in the new gates, which is hairy. I still cycle almost daily between Brixton to Herne Hill and usually choose to cycle on the Dulwich road because it is so very slightly shorter than via Railton and also does not feel dangerous.
> 
> Same with St Matthews Road (which still has no cameras by the way).
> 
> ...



I'd be prepared to compromise on this. Would want the current LTNs to be trialled for 6 months first though and data collected.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> To discourage short local journeys, I'd combine it with smaller parking zones which make it more difficult to, for instance, drive from the top of Brixton Hill and park a bit closer to the town center. (I met someone the other day who had driven down from Clapham end Ferndale Road to park in St Matthews Road (both zone BR) to walk into the center - WTF?)



This seems like a good suggestion. I wonder if it would meet with resistance? Would you get the same objections about short but essential car journeys being frustrated, as we see with the LTNs?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This seems like a good suggestion. I wonder if it would meet with resistance? Would you get the same objections about short but essential car journeys being frustrated, as we see with the LTNs?


It's been done before. No resistance. BIR zone.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> By whom? I can believe it was too expensive in the past but I don't imagine that the main tech is all that different from what is now being used to monitor the gates (which three months on they still have not fitted in St Matthews Road). But I don't know.



I'm going back 10 years or more, I was arguing for them on a rat run in Stockwell where I lived at the time (in response to a consultation which resulted in all that remodelling around the Dorset estate between South Lambeth and Clapham Rd). 

I have no idea about the real cost figures, but this was the standard response to the smart gate suggestion from council officers and councillors - but then again as Gramsci has pointed out, Lambeth consultations are basically bullshit and they are just ticking a box before doing what they had always decided to do, so god knows if the cost objection was true.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

Fairly sure that kind of technology must be significantly cheaper than it would have been 10-20 years ago.


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I cycled down Railton road last Thursday about 4pm. It was a lot nicer with no traffic.
> 
> I did see Hamiltons looking somewhat forlorn on its own. So wonder how much passing trade he is losing.
> 
> On Friday came back nearby and CHL was at a standstill at 7pm. From Ritzy to Gresham road. I'd like to know how much of this is due to the Railton LTN.


Sounds like you have encapsulated the entire issue in three sentences.


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I just don't get this. I am by no means a hardened cyclist but I cycled the length of Railton every day - more often than not with a child on board. Yes it can be luxuriously empty now (of bikes and cars) but it was also rarely the hell track I hear described on here. There were random speeders before and there are random speeders still. Buses still floor it. People still overtake just to cut you up at junctions from time to time. Occasionally drivers even try to push past me in the new gates, which is hairy. I still cycle almost daily between Brixton to Herne Hill and usually choose to cycle on the Dulwich road because it is so very slightly shorter than via Railton and also does not feel dangerous.
> 
> Same with St Matthews Road (which still has no cameras by the way).
> 
> ...


That’s a great response thanks for being honest. That’s all we are saying, allow some flexibility in the decision taken. Don’t just steam ahead at all costs if right across London communities are flagging up the same issues. Find a flexibility, pause and consult the parts of the communities who are telling you they are struggling and LAMBETH  don’t call residents in Shakespeare Rd who set up www.onerailton.co.uk website ‘members of the BNP with shady funding’!!! (Yep! that’s what they are saying!!) just because we disagreed with you and think traffic evaporation is a ‘myth’!! Lizzie Berrington ( that’s my ‘not shady’ Equity Union  
name.) thnx ( Sorry Rushy I hijacked that post with my message to Lambeth would tell fibs!)


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 17, 2020)

newbie said:


> 10 per minute over an 18 hour day on a backstreet?    How many were on the ones that weren't thoroughfares?


Yup, that sounds about right, it's a major rat run. In fact Lambeth identified the ward as the one with the second highest traffic problems in the borough (after Oval). Still waiting for an LTN though....
Not sure I understand your second question? Do you mean how many are on the main roads? No idea - that would be data from TFL I think.
Or how much of that is rat running? At a guess I would say 90% at least, I think Lambeth have some figures from 18/19 which I'm trying to get hold of


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You might underestimate the extent to which you are "hardened" though - in relative terms to others including new cyclists.


And you might be conveniently overestimating how "hardened" I am because it fits your narrative. My post was comparing experiences of two everyday local London cyclists on a specific road which we both know. Of course I might look "hardened" to _you _as you rarely ride bikes. My three year old on his balance bike is probably indistinguishable from Kyle Evans from where you are googling. Nevertheless, your own reluctance to travel on two wheels does not make me a hardened cyclist.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Sounds like you have encapsulated the entire issue in three sentences.



"CHL at a standstill from Ritzy to Gresham road"? Lawks! 

Except - I lived in Brixton for 25 years from 1985 to 2010 and I've seen that literally on a weekly basis, it's absolutely normal, always has been. There's a reason; roads fill to the capacity available, one little thing goes wrong, boom they're fucked. Nothing can be done about this, it's just what cars do.

In the 60s the plan was to turn CHL into a motorway and I can guarantee you that if they had, that on a regular basis, that road would have been blocked from the smouldering ashes of the demolished Ritzy (ffs it's just a shitty old cinema, everyone's going to be watching tv in a couple of years) through to the Gresham Rd slipway. I guess you could claim there'd be some progress - your motorway would be containing at least twice as many cars as CHL currently does, but then again since they'd be standing still the same amount it looks rather like a bad outcome - but maybe you disagree?

Does anyone support building the CHL motorway? Does anyone think that increasing capacity leads to smoothly flowing traffic? I keep asking.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> Does anyone support building the CHL motorway? Does anyone think that increasing capacity leads to smoothly flowing traffic? I keep asking.



They'll continue to ignore this question along with mine about whether the logic should be carried through to re-open all streets that are already blocked to through traffic and which in many cases have been for years.


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> They'll continue to ignore this question along with mine about whether the logic should be carried through to re-open all streets that are already blocked to through traffic and which in many cases have been for years.



How about that great 1980s bit of Thatcherite 'blue-skies' policy proposing that we close all of London's suburban commuter trains and convert them into roads? 

After all no one wants to go by train any more, and at the same time you'd solve the capacity problem for cars, huzzah! 

I remember thinking these morons are just fanatically pro-car enough to do this and shaking my head, but luckily it turned out that lots of tory voters in outer boroughs _do _want to use trains having worked out for themselves that all trying to drive in to the centre at the same time is stupid so we were saved.

Maybe the carheads on this thread should be blaming this short-sighted bit of political opportunism for our current mess rather than LTNs? Imagine, no trains! Surely that would make car travel easier?


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> "CHL at a standstill from Ritzy to Gresham road"? Lawks!
> 
> Except - I lived in Brixton for 25 years from 1985 to 2010 and I've seen that literally on a weekly basis, it's absolutely normal, always has been. There's a reason; roads fill to the capacity available, one little thing goes wrong, boom they're fucked. Nothing can be done about this, it's just what cars do.


CHL has been a lot busier recently.  I obviously don't like it because I live on the street and am going to suffer from the increased pollution. I'd like to have what those lucky people on Railton Road have got please!


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

editor said:


> CHL has been a lot busier recently.  I obviously don't like it because I live on the street and am going to suffer from the increased pollution. I'd like to have what those lucky people on Railton Road have got please!



I do sympathise, I guess this is mostly displaced off the Shakespeare Rd cut through? But the shitter it gets, ultimately the fewer people will do it.


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> "CHL at a standstill from Ritzy to Gresham road"? Lawks!
> 
> Except - I lived in Brixton for 25 years from 1985 to 2010 and I've seen that literally on a weekly basis, it's absolutely normal, always has been. There's a reason; roads fill to the capacity available, one little thing goes wrong, boom they're fucked. Nothing can be done about this, it's just what cars do.
> 
> ...


I have lived here 30 years I walk, tube and use the car about twice a week next year with ULEZ that will go. I think their must be flexibility, the current roll out of LTN’s without addressing issues on RMR’s isn’t fair. I don’t have answers it’s not my job I’m hearing things here and there. But after this experience certainly will be learning more I I realise to only take the stance of No, no, no!’ is useless. So ppl opposing the LTN in its current form are not all metal heads we are just saying that businesses are struggling, what other measures are there to mitigate their difficulties because there is real distress which will fester. Why let that happen? I’ve got work to do so probably won’t post much more! L


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> I do sympathise, I guess this is mostly displaced off the Shakespeare Rd cut through? But the shitter it gets, ultimately the fewer people will do it.


That’s the theory again but unfortunately the hard evidence isn’t there. I’m not persuaded by the ‘disappearing traffic’ argument at all. This is really what everything hangs on!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> That’s the theory again but unfortunately the hard evidence isn’t there. I’m not persuaded by the ‘disappearing traffic’ argument at all. This is really what everything hangs on!


Where is your hard evidence that it doesn't exist?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

The idea of allowing residents in LTNs to be able to use bus gates using ANPR has been suggested previously on this thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> "CHL at a standstill from Ritzy to Gresham road"? Lawks!
> 
> Except - I lived in Brixton for 25 years from 1985 to 2010 and I've seen that literally on a weekly basis, it's absolutely normal, always has been. There's a reason; roads fill to the capacity available, one little thing goes wrong, boom they're fucked. Nothing can be done about this, it's just what cars do.
> 
> ...



As has been pointed out on earlier posts there appears to be more traffic on CHL. 

I live on CHL and certain times of day its busy.

I do hope the Council are doing traffic studies to either show traffic is evaporating or main road like CHL has increased traffic displaced from LTNs.

All I'm asking at moment is for Council to do proper job of monitoring the LTNs over the temporary period.


----------



## editor (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Where is your hard evidence that it doesn't exist?


Anecdotally there does seem to be a fairly substantial increases in traffic on CHL, but no one can be sure unless the council is independently monitoring traffic levels and seeing if it is dropping off over time.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> That’s the theory again but unfortunately the hard evidence isn’t there. I’m not persuaded by the ‘disappearing traffic’ argument at all. This is really what everything hangs on!


This is a more recent study on Walthamstow:




__





						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: what is the evidence from the mini-Holland interventions? – Rachel Aldred
					





					rachelaldred.org
				




_



			LTNs have reduced residents’ car ownership and/or use, and the already demonstrated increase in active travel from mini-Holland schemes is higher in LTNs.
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The idea of allowing residents in LTNs to be able to use bus gates using ANPR has been suggested previously on this thread.


Yep - I linked to the Fulham trial when I read about it. I was not all that convinced it was an appropriate compromise at the time. But done appropriately - and combined with other things such as smaller parking zones - I am beginning to think it might possibly be better.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

Winot said:


> I'd be prepared to compromise on this. Would want the current LTNs to be trialled for 6 months first though and data collected.


Does anyone know what data is being collected?
And what was collected before implementation (specific to the LTNs)?
I thought I'd heard that pre-implementation data had not been collected because of the panic emergency?
(May have missed this info as this thread slightly does my head in and I avoided it for a while).


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> So ppl opposing the LTN in its current form are not all metal heads we are just saying that businesses are struggling, what other measures are there to mitigate their difficulties because there is real distress which will fester. Why let that happen?



There's a big topic here but there's no simple positive relationship between car access and businesses doing well, in many ways it can be argued the opposite (e.g. the reason out-of-town shopping centres have historically done so well is because people loved not having to deal with cars, the environment was so much nicer). But the High St has been in steady decline for 10 years for a multitude of reasons and the idea that LTNs are the reason is impossible to stand up. One reason that they are blamed is that shopkeepers, i.e. petit-bourgeois small business men typically are also typical car-users and they over-estimate the number of their customers who use cars and overlook the numbers who walk  or cycle.

There's some data here but it's pretty hard to nail exactly what makes people go where, too many variables except to say there's no simple relationship between cars and shopping, simple as that.



			https://www.livingstreets.org.uk/media/3890/pedestrian-pound-2018.pdf


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 17, 2020)

The council have put vehicle count devices on many of the roads where traffic had been displaced to. Seen them on Dulwich and water lane but there are probably others. Been lots of chatter about the problems at the Herne hill railway bridge. I do sympathise with car drivers if you are routed onto main roads but then they are full of roadworks, hardly helps traffic flow


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

But what do we do about somewhere like Herne Hill bridge? It's always been a problem, last improvement meant cutting a slice off the park so that they could make a left hand slip lane into Dulwich Rd, maybe we should build a new relief road across Brockwell Park from say the end of Croxted Rd, joining Dulwich Rd just by the Lido, that would cut all that traffic straight out of the Herne Hill junction.

Does anyone think that would solve the Herne Hill junction? Make it "flow smoothly"?

Or just ruin the bottom end of Brockwell Park and suck in more cars?


If the logic that limiting capacity just moves cars elsewhere is right then surely increasing capacity will create space elsewhere, right? Or am I missing something?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> That’s the theory again but unfortunately the hard evidence isn’t there. I’m not persuaded by the ‘disappearing traffic’ argument at all. This is really what everything hangs on!


There's plenty of evidence for it.

But if you don't believe that decreasing road capacity decreases the amount of traffic that then uses it, you must believe that demand for road space essentially stays at a constant level regardless of how much road space is provided.

And if you believe that, then you must believe that simply increasing road capacity somewhat would solve all the congestion pollutions - rather than just encouraging more people to try and use them (which is what loads and loads of evidence shows is what happens).

This is why co-op keeps asking whether your proposed solution to congestion is to increase road capacity.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Not left or right.......

“We really need to discourage councils from their war against the motorist,” Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg told parliament, September 17.

“We should be backing the motorist,” he continued. “Driving is a great sign of one’s independence, liberty and exercise of historic freedoms.”


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

This implementation of LTNs is encouraged by Boris government. Who are also giving funds for it.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Does anyone know what data is being collected?
> And what was collected before implementation (specific to the LTNs)?
> I thought I'd heard that pre-implementation data had not been collected because of the panic emergency?
> (May have missed this info as this thread slightly does my head in and I avoided it for a while).


I also heard that the council will be using sat nav data to determine traffic volumes pre and post. I have no idea how this works or how much they'll have to cough up to google etc


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not left or right.......
> 
> “We really need to discourage councils from their war against the motorist,” Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg told parliament, September 17.
> 
> “We should be backing the motorist,” he continued. “Driving is a great sign of one’s independence, liberty and exercise of historic freedoms.”



That is slightly selective quoting. The same article is in various media and carries on:


_



*However, the supposed “war against the motorist”—with pop-up cycleways, widened sidewalks and other measures aimed at encouraging active travel during the pandemic—is government policy.*

In May, the Department for Transport (DfT) told English local authorities that millions of pounds will be “released as soon as possible so that work can begin at pace on closing roads to through traffic, installing segregated cycle lanes and widening pavements.”

£250 million of “Emergency Active Travel Funding” had been announced earlier in the month.

“To receive any money under this or future tranches, you will need to show us that you have a swift and meaningful plan to reallocate road space to cyclists and pedestrians, including strategic corridors,” said the letter to local authorities, signed by Rupert Furness, a deputy director of the Department for Transport in London.

The letter told local authorities that walking and cycling were now “essential” forms of transport that can “help us avoid overcrowding on public transport systems as we begin to open up parts of our economy.”

Furness, who works for the Active and Accessible Travel unit within the DfT, stressed: “We have a window of opportunity to act now to embed walking and cycling as part of new long-term commuting habits and reap the associated health, air quality and congestion benefits.”
		
Click to expand...

_


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> That is slightly selective quoting. The same article is in various media and carries on:


That is a quote from Rees Mogg today, I didn't misquote him.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> That is a quote from Rees Mogg today, I didn't misquote him.


I did not say that you misquoted Rees Mogg. As the article which you _selectively _quoted from goes on to say, Rees Mogg is arguing against current and recent Tory government policy, which is to reallocate road space to cyclists. It is clearly not the left / right issue you so desperately want it to be.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> But what do we do about somewhere like Herne Hill bridge? It's always been a problem, last improvement meant cutting a slice off the park so that they could make a left hand slip lane into Dulwich Rd, maybe we should build a new relief road across Brockwell Park from say the end of Croxted Rd, joining Dulwich Rd just by the Lido, that would cut all that traffic straight out of the Herne Hill junction.
> 
> Does anyone think that would solve the Herne Hill junction? Make it "flow smoothly"?
> 
> ...


Well the proper way to do it (and I’m no highways expert) would be adjust the traffic light sequencing to better meet demand, so called smart traffic systems with cameras that react and prioritise accordingly. You could also adopt a pedestrian crossing like that at Oxford Circus where you can cross anywhere as all traffic is stopped. Probably cost a fortune. There’s got to be a role for technology


----------



## co-op (Sep 17, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Well the proper way to do it (and I’m no highways expert) would be adjust the traffic light sequencing to better meet demand, so called smart traffic systems with cameras that react and prioritise accordingly. You could also adopt a pedestrian crossing like that at Oxford Circus where you can cross anywhere as all traffic is stopped. Probably cost a fortune. There’s got to be a role for technology



You say this is the "proper" way like it's a no-brainer, but what you're saying is you can increase capacity by using technology. But that increase will be marginal compared to the huge increase in capacity that you can get by building a new road - why not just do that? Like I say the obvious candidate to me seems to be Croxted Rd to Dulwich Rd across the park. Do you think that will solve the Herne Hill car problem (or any other one?).

Maybe do both?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I did not say that you misquoted Rees Mogg. As the article which you _selectively _quoted from goes on to say, Rees Mogg is arguing against current and recent Tory government policy, which is to reallocate road space to cyclists. It is clearly not the left / right issue you so desperately want it to be.


I don't think I posted which article I got it from? Or indeed if I got it from an article at all.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> You say this is the "proper" way like it's a no-brainer, but what you're saying is you can increase capacity by using technology. But that increase will be marginal compared to the huge increase in capacity that you can get by building a new road - why not just do that? Like I say the obvious candidate to me seems to be Croxted Rd to Dulwich Rd across the park. Do you think that will solve the Herne Hill car problem (or any other one?).
> 
> Maybe do both?


New roads are horrendously expensive and routes have to be found. I’m not necessarily saying that you need to build more capacity for traffic only that by using technology (self driving cars anyone?) you can improve through flow but that could be for all modes of transport


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> That is a quote from Rees Mogg today, I didn't misquote him.



Come on. You know what you were trying to do  Rees Mogg is well known Tory.

You were trying to link opposition to LTNs to the right 

This line of attack has persisted in this thread.

As Rushy and previous posts have pointed out Councils are enacting the policy of the present Tory government on road use.

Its not simple right / left division.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

51% support their local Low Traffic Neighbourhood. 16% against.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> 51% support their local Low Traffic Neighbourhood. 16% against.




51% in support subject to a consultation process for individual schemes.

I would support them on that basis. As long as the consultation was genuine


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> 51% support their local Low Traffic Neighbourhood. 16% against.




Ive been trying to find the actual poll. Can you post it up please. As I can't see it.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't think I posted which article I got it from? Or indeed if I got it from an article at all.



You did not need to say which article it came from. I simply googled the entire extract you posted which, word for word, matches the opening paragraphs of one article. Either you selectively quoted from the original article. Or you uncritically regurgitated a Twitter or Facebook post from someone else who selectively quoted from the original article. Either way, the article from which your post borrowed Mogg's quotes immediately follows them with _" However, the supposed “war against the motorist”—with pop-up cycleways, widened sidewalks and other measures aimed at encouraging active travel during the pandemic—is government policy. " _i.e. the views expressed by Mogg are at odds with the actions of the government.

If you remain convinced that this proves that LTNs are a left / right issue, would you clarify which of the two you consider is the left - is it Mogg, or HM Government?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

Can anyone help out here. Ive been trying to find the TFL LTN survey. I can't find it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> You did not need to say which article it came from. I simply googled the entire extract you posted which, word for word, matches the opening paragraphs of one article. Either you selectively quoted from the original article. Or you uncritically regurgitated a Twitter or Facebook post from someone else who selectively quoted from the original article. Either way, the article from which your post borrowed Mogg's quotes immediately follows them with _" However, the supposed “war against the motorist”—with pop-up cycleways, widened sidewalks and other measures aimed at encouraging active travel during the pandemic—is government policy. " _i.e. the views expressed by Mogg are at odds with the actions of the government.
> 
> If you remain convinced that this proves that LTNs are a left / right issue, would you clarify which of the two you consider is the left - is it Mogg, or HM Government?


You just need to take back the comment that I selectively quoted something - you have no idea where I got it from. I couldn’t give a shit what your google search turned up.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I also heard that the council will be using sat nav data to determine traffic volumes pre and post. I have no idea how this works or how much they'll have to cough up to google etc



I'm wondering how much that will say.

People who use regular routes won't be using Sat Nav. So won't come up on the data.

LTNs may see rise in use of Sat Nav to work out way around.

So could end up with looking like more traffic volume as regular non sat nav users use it to work out way around the LTN.

Problem is the Council brought this in during pandemic.

Any results of Sat Nav use will be affected by how pandemic changes.

Could be that wfh will stay for next year,

"normal" road use will not come back for over a year.

As the LTNs were rushed in there was no benchmark of traffic evaluated before LTNs were implemented.

What Im saying is that even if Sat Nav data is used its not going to be conclusive.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> You just need to take back the comment that I selectively quoted something - you have no idea where I got it from. I couldn’t give a shit what your google search turned up.



So a different tack.

An individual who is a Tory does not like LTNs.

Tory government policy is to support these changes to road use.

Therefore this is not simple left or right issue.

You would agree with that?

Thanks for making it known that an individual who happens to be a Tory is against these LTNs


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So a different tack.
> 
> An individual who is a Tory does not like LTNs.
> 
> ...


I would say that the Tory party has a long tradition of backing motorists, remember thatcher and only losers take the bus?. The pandemic has forced the tories to do things they wouldn’t normally do, like the furlough scheme, and this.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would say that the Tory party has a long tradition of backing motorists, remember thatcher and only losers take the bus?. The pandemic has forced the tories to do things they wouldn’t normally do, like the furlough scheme, and this.


And it's left the nutters like Rees Mogg, on the right-libertarian fringe of the conservative party as the ones still banging on about the "war on the motorist". Because for them the car represents individual freedom.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would say that the Tory party has a long tradition of backing motorists, remember thatcher and only losers take the bus?. The pandemic has forced the tories to do things they wouldn’t normally do, like the furlough scheme, and this.



I'm talking about the present Tory government. Its led by Boris who built cycle lanes in London.

So your argument that a Tory would not do this does not hold.

It was City of London who pre Covid started to reduce traffic around the Bank junction.

What pandemic has done is accelerate some of these schemes.

For example I was hanging out in the City pre Covid and there was a City of London consultation going on about making the City more pedestrian friendly. As at that time a lot of people worked in the City. The idea being to make more parklets/ car free side roads for the City workers. Make it more pleasant space for those who worked there.

So things have moved on since Thatcher.

You selectively post a quote from old school Tory. This has you keep being told is not government policy.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I'm talking about the present Tory government. Its led by Boris who built cycle lanes in London.
> 
> So your argument that a Tory would not do this does not hold.
> 
> ...


I am saying were it not for the pandemic things like this and the furlough scheme would not be government policy.


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As has been pointed out on earlier posts there appears to be more traffic on CHL.
> 
> I live on CHL and certain times of day its busy.
> 
> ...


There is currently sooo little traffic in London at the moment! The west end is dead due to the virus! What exactly will they be measuring? There is no way it will be anything like precious levels! Seriously is that going to be passed off as evidence af traffic evaporation? They are also measuring the traffic on RailtonL Rd now, just like Waltham Forest you know the data where they say “Oh, look!traffic down by 80%, just coz we cut off roads in nearly all directions!” I mean why bother with that one it’s just embarrassing!


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> There is currently sooo little traffic in London at the moment! The west end is dead due to the virus! What exactly will they be measuring? There is no way it will be anything like precious levels! Seriously is that going to be passed off as evidence af traffic evaporation? They are also measuring the traffic on RailtonL Rd now, just like Waltham Forest you know the data where they say “Oh, look!traffic down by 80%, just coz we cut off roads in nearly all directions!” I mean why bother with that one it’s just embarrassing!


* previous levels not precious


----------



## Winot (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> There is currently sooo little traffic in London at the moment! The west end is dead due to the virus! What exactly will they be measuring? There is no way it will be anything like precious levels! Seriously is that going to be passed off as evidence af traffic evaporation? They are also measuring the traffic on RailtonL Rd now, just like Waltham Forest you know the data where they say “Oh, look!traffic down by 80%, just coz we cut off roads in nearly all directions!” I mean why bother with that one it’s just embarrassing!



Congestion levels outside of central London (i.e. outside of the congestion zone) are higher than at 2019 levels.









						Road congestion levels in outer London higher than before lockdown
					

Exclusive: congestion climbed above 2019 levels in August as people went back to using cars after lockdown




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 17, 2020)

Winot said:


> Congestion levels outside of central London (i.e. outside of the congestion zone) are higher than at 2019 levels.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I saw that but our LTN is central and the city is dead! So why are we experiencing congestion locally at all? Imagine when it really starts to return to normal? It’s no going to ‘evaporate’


----------



## Rushy (Sep 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> You just need to take back the comment that I selectively quoted something - you have no idea where I got it from.


Yes I agree. It is obvious that you had no idea what article the quote you posted had been lifted from.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Yes I saw that but our LTN is central and the city is dead! So why are we experiencing congestion locally at all? Imagine when it really starts to return to normal? It’s no going to ‘evaporate’


Your geography seems a bit confused. Brixton is not in central London.

But in any case you seem to have no interest in understanding what is meant by 'traffic evaporation' or why it happens.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Yes I agree. It is obvious that you had no idea what article the quote you posted had been lifted from.


You don’t.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 17, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Yes I saw that but our LTN is central and the city is dead! So why are we experiencing congestion locally at all? Imagine when it really starts to return to normal? It’s no going to ‘evaporate’


Bridge works in Herne Hill? The traffic will change as people’s behaviour changes. My wife is switching (largely, not sure if is pissing down) to cycling to work rather than driving. Local businesses need to adapt to changing market conditions


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 17, 2020)

[QU


sleaterkinney said:


> You don’t.



If you are going to quote something it is not unreasonable to be asked to link to where the quote comes from. So can you post up where you got that quote from.

Whilst Im on this you posted up twitter about TFL survey on LTNs saying 51% support them. I can't find it. Can you post up link to full survey.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 18, 2020)

The 51% support comes from a  TFL sample of 1,007 Londoners between Aug 24 until Sep 6. It's on the Twitter feed of the BBC's Tom Edwards. Here's a link to the twitter feed but I can't find the original data.


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 18, 2020)

Another complication to note is that the DfT has changed its traffic counting methodology.  This is messing with the baseline.   So no one really knows what the traffic levels were before LTNs were introduced.   https://assets.publishing.service.g...511/traffic-statistics-methodology-review.pdf


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> The 51% support comes from a  TFL sample of 1,007 Londoners between Aug 24 until Sep 6. It's on the Twitter feed of the BBC's Tom Edwards. Here's a link to the twitter feed but I can't find the original data.




I cant find the original either.

As sleaterkinney posted up the twitter I want to see the actual survey.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> [QU
> 
> 
> If you are going to quote something it is not unreasonable to be asked to link to where the quote comes from. So can you post up where you got that quote from.
> ...


Maybe the BBC were _selectively quoting_ too!


----------



## co-op (Sep 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Yes I saw that but our LTN is central and the city is dead! So why are we experiencing congestion locally at all? Imagine when it really starts to return to normal? It’s no going to ‘evaporate’



Yes it almost certainly is going to evaporate. Remember when the Congestion Charge was introduced? I can’t be certain of how long the CC effect lasted but there definitely was one - suddenly Central London has loads fewer cars and everyone was driving fast - I remember it well, as a cyclist it made me realise that actually traffic jams are quite safe for us. Anyway all the non CC traffic was displaced somewhere or evaporated. There was the usual wailing and then everything went back to normal; central London pretty jammed mostly and all the areas around it the same. The number of urban car journeys that are literally “necessary” is tiny, nearly all are actually discretionary - regardless of the fact that 90% of urban drivers will swear blind that they “need” a car etc. If you make more capacity available more journeys will be made, if you take capacity away, fewer journeys will be made. People drive to a level of inconvenience, when they reach it suddenly their journey isn’t necessary.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 18, 2020)

Behold, the moment when anti LTN fuckwits reached peak cunt:


----------



## Winot (Sep 18, 2020)




----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Maybe the BBC were _selectively quoting_ too!



So you're just going to post up Twitter posts and quotes without reference to where the info comes from.

That's really not helpful.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So you're just going to post up Twitter posts and quotes without reference to where the info comes from.
> 
> That's really not helpful.


It's a BBC Journalist quoting a TFL survey. If you think it's made up then I can't really help you.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's a BBC Journalist quoting a TFL survey. If you think it's made up then I can't really help you.



That's not the point I was making.

Putting up Twitter posts or quotes without supplying the original sources is not helpful at all.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's a BBC Journalist quoting a TFL survey. If you think it's made up then I can't really help you.



I was not implying that at all.

As you say its a quote. Where is the whole survey?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> That's not the point I was making.
> 
> Putting up Twitter posts or quotes without supplying the original sources is not helpful at all.


If you are accusing me of misquoting Rees Mogg, here is the quote, in an answer to Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)









						Business of the House - Thursday 17 September 2020 - Hansard - UK Parliament
					

Hansard record of the item ' Business of the House' on Thursday 17 September 2020.




					hansard.parliament.uk
				




I am absolutely fine with posting up twitter posts from BBC journalists, like I said if you think it's made up then I can't really help you.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> There is currently sooo little traffic in London at the moment! The west end is dead due to the virus! What exactly will they be measuring? There is no way it will be anything like precious levels! Seriously is that going to be passed off as evidence af traffic evaporation? They are also measuring the traffic on RailtonL Rd now, just like Waltham Forest you know the data where they say “Oh, look!traffic down by 80%, just coz we cut off roads in nearly all directions!” I mean why bother with that one it’s just embarrassing!


What you mean is there is so little traffic in central London. Elsewhere traffic levels have risen as people use their cars to move around locally instead of the bus, tram, train or tube. I live in Lambeth and definitely there is more traffic in my neighbourhood than pre-covid. And with second waves etc, it's not going to change, probably it will get worse. Many of these local journeys are made by people who could do them on foot or bike. That would take their car off the road, leaving more space for someone who has no choice but to use a car.


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 18, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> What you mean is there is so little traffic in central London. Elsewhere traffic levels have risen as people use their cars to move around locally instead of the bus, tram, train or tube. I live in Lambeth and definitely there is more traffic in my neighbourhood than pre-covid. And with second waves etc, it's not going to change, probably it will get worse. Many of these local journeys are made by people who could do them on foot or bike. That would take their car off the road, leaving more space for someone who has no choice but to use a car.


Truth is we don’t really know. But with intro of ULEZ  and change in commuter behaviour in ‘west end city’ ect why do you need punishing LTN’s that hurt business & those whose disability is impaired. It would be grt to see them paused adapted to benefit sections of  communities that feel excluded and I’m going to say ‘cheated’!
It’s evident radical change is needed but ‘roll out’ on this scale without full consultation’first’ ( I completely understand why that happened) has thrown up inequities, to say it hasn’t is to ignore there magnitude across London and the huge sense of unfairness which is corrosive.
Dulwich have approach Southwark about timed bollards, for instance ect.. there must be so many other ways to mitigate their damage.
Waiting 18months will kill certain shops,they are already begging for someone to listen. Got to go but you get my drift.


----------



## co-op (Sep 18, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Behold, the moment when anti LTN fuckwits reached peak cunt:





If you needed proof that this has got nothing to do with logic or reason, this is a pretty perfect example. It’s pure emotion, borderline crazy really.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 18, 2020)

For all you MS paint fans, this is the next one going into Lambeth:


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> you get my drift.


No, I don't. What you have written seems completely incoherent.


----------



## co-op (Sep 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Truth is we don’t really know. But with intro of ULEZ  and change in commuter behaviour in ‘west end city’ ect why do you need punishing LTN’s that hurt business & those whose disability is impaired. It would be grt to see them paused adapted to benefit sections of  communities that feel excluded and I’m going to say ‘cheated’!
> It’s evident radical change is needed but ‘roll out’ on this scale without full consultation’first’ ( I completely understand why that happened) has thrown up inequities, to say it hasn’t is to ignore there magnitude across London and the huge sense of unfairness which is corrosive.
> Dulwich have approach Southwark about timed bollards, for instance ect.. there must be so many other ways to mitigate their damage.
> Waiting 18months will kill certain shops,they are already begging for someone to listen. Got to go but you get my drift.


Why bother post up more “arguments” when you haven’t tried coming back on a single point I’ve raised with you? I’d go with the “worse than the Nazis” line if I were you, it’s got more zing. Stupid and offensive for sure, but GREAT zing.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> For all you MS paint fans, this is the next one going into Lambeth:
> 
> View attachment 230811



I have to say this one is really quite controversial and divisive. I used to live within this area, and would have been furious that I had been deemed to live in "Tulse Hill". I'd be down at the town hall demanding a retraction.


----------



## Aristocrat (Sep 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> There is currently sooo little traffic in London at the moment! The west end is dead due to the virus! What exactly will they be measuring? There is no way it will be anything like precious levels! Seriously is that going to be passed off as evidence af traffic evaporation? They are also measuring the traffic on RailtonL Rd now, just like Waltham Forest you know the data where they say “Oh, look!traffic down by 80%, just coz we cut off roads in nearly all directions!” I mean why bother with that one it’s just embarrassing!



Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.


----------



## Aristocrat (Sep 18, 2020)

Rushy said:


> By whom? I can believe it was too expensive in the past but I don't imagine that the main tech is all that different from what is now being used to monitor the gates (which three months on they still have not fitted in St Matthews Road). But I don't know.



I suspect any resistance from the council on the grounds of cost will not be because of the cost of tech, but because of the cost of staff time in handling endless requests for exemptions, resolving mistakes made by the tech, and general administration of the system. I doubt it's straightforward. Remember that it costs £60m a year to run the congestion charge. That's recoverable but only because the aim is to charge drivers that enter the CC zone. Lambeth is trying to stop cars going though filters so if the LTN works, it won't generate any revenue, but will still cost lots to administer.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.



I can see that all obstruction has now been removed from the path of emergency vehicles and everything's sorted.


----------



## co-op (Sep 18, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.




Perfect example of the nonsense. Roads at capacity are always subject to random jams like this. And roads always tend to revert to capacity. So the choice is not “flowing roads vs jammed roads” it’s “cars vs flowing roads” . You can have one or the other in cities, even American cities with 8, 10 lane roads, same thing happens.

But BICYCLES!


----------



## co-op (Sep 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I can see that all obstruction has now been removed from the path of emergency vehicles and everything's sorted.


Yeah funny how suddenly no one
gives a shit about ambulances when it’s cars blocking the road.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2020)

Maybe the suspension of the Wandsworth schemes is a blessing in disguise as it will form a useful demonstration that the LTNs weren't in fact causing most of the traffic jams.


----------



## editor (Sep 18, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.


Look at the size of that fucking ridiculous Land Rover tank.


----------



## co-op (Sep 18, 2020)

editor said:


> Look at the size of that fucking ridiculous Land Rover tank.



One of the great under-rated capacity reductions of the last 25 years is the huge increase in the size of cars. It’s partly why so many 4 lane roads in Lambeth are now 2 lane - Wandsworth Rd Camberwell Rd etc - you literally can’t fit two Chelsea tractors side by side on them. Drivers did that to themselves.

But LTNs!


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 18, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Here are some of those 'low traffic levels' in an area that just had the LTN taken out.




yep! That’s shit! I think cars have to be priced off the road.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> yep! That’s shit! I think cars have to be priced off the road.


So how is this going to help the shops whose business you claim is being killed because they rely on people being able to drive to them?


----------



## Ol Nick (Sep 18, 2020)

I can't keep up with this thread but this is the best website I have found for quiet cycling routes: Journey Planner | Cycling UK


----------



## Brassed off (Sep 18, 2020)

co-op said:


> Why bother post up more “arguments” when you haven’t tried coming back on a single point I’ve raised with you? I’d go with the “worse than the Nazis” line if I were you, it’s got more zing. Stupid and offensive for sure, but GREAT zing.


I’m perfectly entitled to post, my point are as valid as yours. You don’t want to really talk about it just drive ppl away who disagree for fear they might just have a conversation with someone who is sitting on the fence. ‘Disapearing Traffic’ paper &councils own Waltham Forest report anyone who is unsure read ‘Little Ninja’ on Twitter if your still not convinced ask shop keeper on the roads that have been cut off how they are doing. The issues that are being raised in Ferndale, Railton, Eailing, Streatham, Crystal Palace ect and very soon Tulse Hill are pretty universal, right down to the % in trade businesses talk of loosing. Perhaps they are all lying. Or perhaps a more inclusive rethink to balance concerns of entire community is needed. Now you hurry up with your inevitable sarky repost! Everyone is waiting......


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 18, 2020)

I could sort of understand your argument about the loss of passing trade by areas becoming quieter if we all lived somewhere where there wasn’t another shop literally 5 minutes further away. In Railton and other local streets there are a number of local shops where trade is down since the scheme started but I’m assuming the demand is still there, i.e. everyone still shops they just go elsewhere or by a different means, home delivery for example. It may well be that one of the casualties of these schemes is the loss of these shops and councils might decide that this is or isn’t an acceptable cost but until they test them and all the other positives and negatives, what’s the alternative? Same old rat runs, selfish speeding drivers and pollution for everyone. It’s certainly a divisive measure but you could argue that about a number of issues in society at the moment


----------



## co-op (Sep 18, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> I’m perfectly entitled to post, my point are as valid as yours. You don’t want to really talk about it just drive ppl away who disagree for fear they might just have a conversation with someone who is sitting on the fence. ‘Disapearing Traffic’ paper &councils own Waltham Forest report anyone who is unsure read ‘Little Ninja’ on Twitter if your still not convinced ask shop keeper on the roads that have been cut off how they are doing. The issues that are being raised in Ferndale, Railton, Eailing, Streatham, Crystal Palace ect and very soon Tulse Hill are pretty universal, right down to the % in trade businesses talk of loosing. Perhaps they are all lying. Or perhaps a more inclusive rethink to balance concerns of entire community is needed. Now you hurry up with your inevitable sarky repost! Everyone is waiting......



Mate I posted up a whole report which goes right through all the issues to do with local businesses and cars, you haven't bothered read it - just the headlines would do, neither have you answered a single question about capacity and why - if as you say when capacity goes down we get jams, why is it then that when capacity goes up WE STILL GET JAMS? If reducing capacity = jams, then increasing it should get rid of them, right? But it doesn't. 

What does this tell us? 

I'll say it's because people drive to the level of hassle and inconvenience that they can tolerate; so the more capacity the higher the demand, therefore we end up where we started but just with shittier urban environments in multiple ways - pollution, CO2, noise, ugliness, and of course the exclusion of all other modes of transport in order to accommodate this failed system.

So I'll ask again; if you think increasing capacity is the way to go, what should we do? Get rid of bus lanes? Bring back the 4 lane urban motorways planned for CHL and South Lambeth Rd? Cut a new relief road across Brockwell Park? What's your plan? Have you got one? Are you just going to wiffle and leg it again?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If you are accusing me of misquoting Rees Mogg, here is the quote, in an answer to Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I keep saying I'm not implying the quotes are made up.

I keep saying Im not saying the BBC twitter was made up

So please dont say what you think Im saying when Ive told you several times Im not saying that,

I've made a reasonable request and you and you have refused to answer it.

Looked at the Hansard. I assume the Rees Mogg quote is somewhere in it.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

I was talking to someone who has shop on Coldharbour lane. Lives in South London.

Railton LTN has meant traffic has been displaced onto Coldharbour Lane. 

He can see a lot more traffic.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

If a shop in an LTN looks like closing down  due to loss of passing trade.

If the Council think this is ok when balanced against some kind of benchmark of positive outcomes then it should be upfront and say so.

It should present a report at end of the temporary period with the positives and negatives of each LTN.

It should show a methodology where these positives and negatives are presented and how they are balanced out.

If a Greater Good argument is used then it should be set out publicly and explained.

The Council for example could say X business in an LTN lost this amount of income. It is under threat of closure.. But this is balanced out by XYZ positives from the LTN. So its unfortunate that this persons business could fail/ is under stress.. But it was for the greater good.

They were unable to adapt to the new business environment.

Which is unfortunate but that is how society progresses.

How does that sound to the pro LTN supporters here?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I keep saying I'm not implying the quotes are made up.
> 
> I keep saying Im not saying the BBC twitter was made up
> 
> ...


I have, it was in my original post that he told parliament and I have just linked to the record, are you just being awkward now?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I have, it was in my original post that he told parliament and I have just linked to the record, are you just being awkward now?



You did not put link from Hansard to show that in your original post. Post 2289.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If a shop in an LTN looks like closing down  due to loss of passing trade.
> 
> If the Council think this is ok when balanced against some kind of benchmark of positive outcomes then it should be upfront and say so.
> 
> ...



This thread has already covered this before but how can you attribute it to the LTN? A local corner shop that did great at the height of lockdown because people were barely going further than 200m from their home is obviously going to take more in that period than when lockdown restrictions ease and people start going to shop at Sainsbury's or Tesco again.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

mbyrde12 said:


> This thread has already covered this before but how can you attribute it to the LTN? A local corner shop that did great at the height of lockdown because people were barely going further than 200m from their home is obviously going to take more in that period than when lockdown restrictions ease and people start going to shop at Sainsbury's or Tesco again.



Im not attributing anything. 

As the Council had brought in temporary LTNs under its pandemic powers its up to the Council to to produce the data so that locals can take a view on the LTNs.

Its got nothing to do with me


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> You did not put link from Hansard to show that in your original post. Post 2289.


It’s in my original post ffs. 


“We really need to discourage councils from their war against the motorist,” Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg *told* *parliament*, September 17.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It’s in my original post ffs.
> 
> 
> “We really need to discourage councils from their war against the motorist,” Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg *told* *parliament*, September 17.



thats not a link to the actual quote.

You only put Hansard link after a lot of asking.

You just saying told parliament means nothing in the original post.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If a shop in an LTN looks like closing down  due to loss of passing trade.



...then you have to try and make sure that this is the real reason, before d


Gramsci said:


> thats not a link to the actual quote.


The link is in sleaterkinney's post just up there^^ somewhere. This is getting a bit tedious.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> ...then you have to try and make sure that this is the real reason, before d
> 
> The link is in sleaterkinney's post just up there^^ somewhere. This is getting a bit tedious.



As you are so interested read all the posts.

Im not being tedious or difficult.

Take the issue up with sleaterkinney

I referenced the relevant posts. Which you refer to as "somewhere".


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> thats not a link to the actual quote.
> 
> You only put Hansard link after a lot of asking.
> 
> You just saying told parliament means nothing in the original post.


Fucking hell.

Where do you find out what happens in parliament. Ridiculous.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> ...then you have to try and make sure that this is the real reason, before d
> 
> The link is in sleaterkinney's post just up there^^ somewhere. This is getting a bit tedious.



If you read my post on effect of shops correctly I dont know why you are saying I have to try.

Im not putting in LTNs nor have I been asked about there implementation.

Im just a local person. Not a Cllr.

My post was putting a suggestion as to how the Council could evaluate effect on local business.

Seemed reasonable suggestion to me.

What about it do you have a problem?

Im just suggesting how this issue could be evaluated. 

Could be some local business adapt and prosper. 

I do think some proper analysis need to be done.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 18, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Fucking hell.
> 
> Where do you find out what happens in parliament. Ridiculous.



Nope. Parliament is a busy place. I havent time to search. You posted the quote. I asked for link to actual quote.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Nope. Parliament is a busy place. I havent time to search. You posted the quote. I asked for link to actual quote.


Well now you have it, we can all sleep well.


----------



## madolesance (Sep 19, 2020)

And here’s the next LTNs!


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If you read my post on effect of shops correctly I dont know why you are saying I have to try.
> 
> Im not putting in LTNs nor have I been asked about there implementation.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone here is saying that proper analysis shouldn't be done. But rather that with multiple factor's involved at present eg Covid, WFH, return to work, end of lockdown, introduction of LTNs, it's going to be pretty difficult to attribute fall/rise in business to any one thing. 
Chatting to my local shop owners they are both keen to see LTN introduced as it will mean more on foot/bike customers as the cars using the road as a rat run don't tend to stop to buy anything, and there's no parking either.


----------



## co-op (Sep 19, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying that proper analysis shouldn't be done. But rather that with multiple factor's involved at present eg Covid, WFH, return to work, end of lockdown, introduction of LTNs, it's going to be pretty difficult to attribute fall/rise in business to any one thing.
> Chatting to my local shop owners they are both keen to see LTN introduced as it will mean more on foot/bike customers as the cars using the road as a rat run don't tend to stop to buy anything, and there's no parking either.



Bang on. Small shop keepers don't benefit from being on rat runs, those drivers don't stop to buy stuff. The biggest driver of shopping sales is footfall, the number of people walking past. If LTNs do anything at all to that number, there's no reason to think that they will do anything except push the number of pedestrians up. I posted a report going into all of this upthread.

But it's really hard to say for sure what impacts shop keepers actually get and why - not least because it's very hard to get shopkeepers to actually open their books and show, for obvious reasons. The gobby guys who hate LTNs because they think their dicks will fall off if they can't go everywhere in a car, include a few who run shops. I'd take what they say with a pinch of salt. But given the huge number of other factors impacting on shops, the idea that LTNs is their biggest problem right now would need some pretty serious evidence, and it's not there.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2020)

That is not what some shopkeepers have been saying locally. They are not to be just dismissed as "gobby guys".


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I don't think anyone here is saying that proper analysis shouldn't be done. But rather that with multiple factor's involved at present eg Covid, WFH, return to work, end of lockdown, introduction of LTNs, it's going to be pretty difficult to attribute fall/rise in business to any one thing.
> Chatting to my local shop owners they are both keen to see LTN introduced as it will mean more on foot/bike customers as the cars using the road as a rat run don't tend to stop to buy anything, and there's no parking either.



Im not sure of that. Assumptions have been made about those who oppose LTNs here.  That there views should be dismissed on that basis.

Neither should one be categorises as against LTNs if one is critically supportive of them. That they are open to being amended

That is why I expect the Council to do proper analysis. The only way to stop the kind of argument I see here on both sides is to have proper analysis. Especially as the Council have taken decision to impose LTNs without the usual consultation. 

Im sure the views of shopkeepers - like all people are mixed- the shopkeeper/ local resident I talked to last night was against LTN.


----------



## co-op (Sep 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> They are not to be just dismissed as "gobby guys".





Which is exactly what I didn't do.

Coming from someone who's been so pernickety about demanding precision sources from another poster, this is a bullshitty interpretation of my post.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im not sure of that. Assumptions have been made about those who oppose LTNs here.  That there views should be dismissed on that basis.
> 
> Neither should one be categorises as against LTNs if one is critically supportive of them. That they are open to being amended
> 
> ...


Looks like we agree then! Yay!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2020)

co-op said:


> Which is exactly what I didn't do.
> 
> Coming from someone who's been so pernickety about demanding precision sources from another poster, this is a bullshitty interpretation of my post.





> The gobby guys who hate LTNs because they think their dicks will fall off if they can't go everywhere in a car, include a few who run shops



That's what you said.


----------



## co-op (Sep 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> That's what you said.



"include a few" not "dismissing [all]" - all the difference in the world, visible to anyone except (1) a troll, (2) an idiot or - I'll give you this much - (3) a careless flick-read. 

Lift your game or I'll assume you're one of the first two.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2020)

co-op said:


> "include a few" not "dismissing [all]" - all the difference in the world, visible to anyone except (1) a troll, (2) an idiot or - I'll give you this much - (3) a careless flick-read.
> 
> Lift your game or I'll assume you're one of the first two.



Thanks for that.

This isn't a "game" for me. I live here. Its affecting people I know.

I don't like people who are against LTNs being referred to as gobby.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 19, 2020)

madolesance said:


> And here’s the next LTNs!


I've seen this image floating round, but where is the official website for it?
UTH is a real rat run between Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill, so I'd be glad to see it split in two


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 19, 2020)

Petition against Lambeth LTNs:









						ePetition - Immediate Removal and Cessation of Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) Schemes | Lambeth Council
					






					moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk
				




. Its e petition on Lambeth website.

Anyone can start one. More info on  e petitions to Lambeth council:









						Petitions | Lambeth Council
					






					moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## co-op (Sep 20, 2020)

Crispy said:


> I've seen this image floating round, but where is the official website for it?
> UTH is a real rat run between Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill, so I'd be glad to see it split in two



You obviously hate local people.


----------



## co-op (Sep 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Petition against Lambeth LTNs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"oh actually I'm quite in favour of the LTNs, I'm just worried about that the council consultation is not adequate" - oh here, sign the petition against LTNs, I'll put up the link for you.

You're so full of shit.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 20, 2020)

Crispy said:


> I've seen this image floating round, but where is the official website for it?
> UTH is a real rat run between Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill, so I'd be glad to see it split in two


It's been tweeted by a Labour Councillor, so i presume it's official.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2020)

co-op said:


> "oh actually I'm quite in favour of the LTNs, I'm just worried about that the council consultation is not adequate" - oh here, sign the petition against LTNs, I'll put up the link for you.
> 
> You're so full of shit.



I haven't signed it.

I put it up for posters information.

Some posters here might want to sign it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 20, 2020)

.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2020)

FYI

There have been posts recently on this thread copied from Twitter etc with no referance that they are or the original version of the info.

*content-free posts are not permitted.* Posts containing nothing more than links to websites or video files are not permitted. Please explain the nature and relevance of the linked content as a courtesy to users.* Do not post up large amounts of cut and paste text. Make things easier for others by summarising the article and including a link to the unabridged version.*
Users who make a stream of posts with no meaningful content and/or continually post up off topic material in inappropriate threads/forums will be banned. Completely flippant and pointless polls will most likely be deleted.










						Terms and rules
					

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.




					www.urban75.net


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> FYI
> 
> There have been posts recently on this thread copied from Twitter etc with no referance that they are or the original version of the info.
> 
> ...


Policing again!

That faq is of no relevance.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 20, 2020)

If posters are going to cut and paste can they put in link to original please. As it says in the terms and rules.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If posters are going to cut and paste can they put in link to original please. As it says in the terms and rules.


It does not say that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 20, 2020)

This is getting really tiresome now.


----------



## co-op (Sep 20, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If posters are going to cut and paste can they put in link to original please. As it says in the terms and rules.



Seriously, take some time off, you getting weird.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2020)

I know this is a hugely divisive and contentious scheme, but I'd be really grateful if posters tried to be courteous to each other, or if that is not possible, try putting posters causing annoyance on ignore.


----------



## editor (Sep 20, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> View attachment 231071
> 
> Not as bad as a holocaust though.


Please add a source to posted content, Thanks.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 21, 2020)

editor said:


> I know this is a hugely divisive and contentious scheme, but I'd be really grateful if posters tried to be courteous to each other, or if that is not possible, try putting posters causing annoyance on ignore.


I'll be doing this.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 21, 2020)

editor said:


> Please add a source to posted content, Thanks.


I've taken it down, it was just a funny image ffs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It does not say that.


Make things easier for other posters by summarising the article and posting a link to the unabridged version

I'd hope you'd abide by the spirit of the faq if not the letter, else you're at risk of breaching the urban prime directive


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2020)

Choc-a-bloc outside my block on Coldharbour Lane again right now


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2020)

Snapshot from right now, Waze.

Brixton area



Tooting area



If only Brixton could be like Tooting with all the LTNs removed and no congestion.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2020)

And here we can take a look at the roads around the perimeter of the "Oval Triangle".


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2020)

And just in case anyone doesn't trust the accuracy of Google traffic, here's the all-polluting view right now. It's been like this for ages this afternoon.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 21, 2020)

Click your heels, cross your fingers and wish very hard.... they'll evaporate.


----------



## co-op (Sep 21, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> Click your heels, cross your fingers and wish very hard.... they'll evaporate.



Or maybe build a 6 lane motorway down CHL, then surely there'll never be any traffic jams ever again.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Snapshot from right now, Waze.
> 
> Brixton area
> View attachment 231230
> ...


I don't use Waze. Can you enlighten me as to what the symbols mean please?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2020)

editor said:


> And just in case anyone doesn't trust the accuracy of Google traffic, here's the all-polluting view right now. It's been like this for ages this afternoon.
> 
> View attachment 231234



I know a shopkeeper nearby on CHL. I asked him if he has noticed more traffic and he said yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 21, 2020)

editor said:


> And just in case anyone doesn't trust the accuracy of Google traffic, here's the all-polluting view right now. It's been like this for ages this afternoon.
> 
> View attachment 231234


Back in the day were there cars that weren't black, grey or white?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I don't use Waze. Can you enlighten me as to what the symbols mean please?


I don't either actually - I think you can ignore the little symbols if you're just interested in congestion, they are user reports. I've now worked out how to turn those layers off. Red= heavy congestion, orange medium congestion, etc.
Here's the same two areas just now:


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I don't use Waze. Can you enlighten me as to what the symbols mean please?



As Teuchter says the stronger the red the more traffic on that section of a red. It goes from light red to dark red.

The little round red symbol has cars on it to show heavy traffic. ie not an accident.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The little round red symbol has cars on it to show heavy traffic. ie not an accident.



I think it just shows that a user has reported heavy traffic (rather than the system working it out from travel data).


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2020)

5pm:




And right now: 



I'm all for reducing traffic on the roads - bring it on, I say! - but I can't help going a bit NIMBY when it means my street ends up being stuffed full of polluting cars for hours on end every day. I don't want to breathe in their shitty exhaust, _thanksverymuch. _


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think it just shows that a user has reported heavy traffic (rather than the system working it out from travel data).



Its why a lot of van drivers I know use it. Its constantly updated by drivers on the road. Its easy to update the system as a user of it on the road. 

If van drivers I know use it then its reliable. They would not use it otherwise.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2020)

The Waze data confirms that there is congestion on CHL.

The Waze data also confirms that there is lots of congestion in Tooting, along the roads where that congestion was being blamed on the LTNs. And yet the LTNs have been removed there.

The important question is whether the congestion on CHL results mainly from the LTNs, or mainly from other things.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2020)

As the Council has brought in Railton LTN its up to the Council to prove that the increased traffic on CHL is not due to the LTN.


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 21, 2020)

How much is likely to be due to the closure of the bottom of Atlantic Rd? If that is a factor it would be hard to disentangle the effect of that vs the LTN vs the overall COVID-related uptick in traffic across London  (certainly until either the Atlantic Rd building work or COVD ends...which could be a while)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 21, 2020)

Interesting graph on the rise in traffic on C roads in London, it’s almost doubled in the past 10 years, is that satnav?




*SOURCE: Road traffic statistics - London region*


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As the Council has brought in Railton LTN its up to the Council to prove that the increased traffic on CHL is not due to the LTN.


As the car drivers have driven onto coldharbour lane it's up to them to prove that the increased traffic isn't due to them driving onto coldharbour lane.


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Interesting graph on the rise in traffic on C roads in London, it’s almost doubled in the past 10 years, is that satnav?
> 
> View attachment 231270
> 
> ...


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 21, 2020)

2009 is roughly when smartphones became a thing so fits with the rise of cheaper navigational tech for everyone.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 21, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> 2009 is roughly when smartphones became a thing so fits with the rise of cheaper navigational tech for everyone.


I wonder whether the rise in private hire vehicles is part of the story too.


----------



## BusLanes (Sep 21, 2020)

More deliveries too surely - I try not to use delivery services but then being in Lockdown/Shielding sort of broke that


----------



## editor (Sep 21, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> How much is likely to be due to the closure of the bottom of Atlantic Rd? If that is a factor it would be hard to disentangle the effect of that vs the LTN vs the overall COVID-related uptick in traffic across London  (certainly until either the Atlantic Rd building work or COVD ends...which could be a while)


It's possible but it's clearly marked as closed on Google Maps...


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I know a shopkeeper nearby on CHL. I asked him if he has noticed more traffic and he said yes.


That's fantastic - do you want to call the council and tell them to stand down the monitoring team?


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 21, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As the Council has brought in Railton LTN its up to the Council to prove that the increased traffic on CHL is not due to the LTN.



Give it time, (bedding in takes a year or two or even three) look at the bigger picture and broader area (not just one road please). Look at the burden of proof questions (lets have a rational debate that accepts uncertainties). Frame this question in a different way maybe (don't be a reactionary, give an experiment a chance).


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> That's fantastic - do you want to call the council and tell them to stand down the monitoring team team?



As this is a local Brixton forum and I live in the area I talked to a local shopkeeper on CHL I know well and asked him what he thought. So have put it on this forum. 

That is one way to use this forum and imo its completely valid use of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> Give it time, (bedding in takes a year or two or even three) look at the bigger picture and broader area (not just one road please). Look at the burden of proof questions (lets have a rational debate that accepts uncertainties). Frame this question in a different way maybe (don't be a reactionary, give an experiment a chance).



But that is what has not happened. Council suspended the consultation and went ahead with this using emergency powers.

So it is quite reasonable to expect the Council to look into whether traffic is being displaced onto CHL.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 21, 2020)

teuchter said:


> As the car drivers have driven onto coldharbour lane it's up to them to prove that the increased traffic isn't due to them driving onto coldharbour lane.



No. The Council instigated the Railton LTN. 

If concerns by residents are raised about possible increase in traffic its the Council who should give an answer. Im saying this as non car owner who lives on the affected street.


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> But that is what has not happened. Council suspended the consultation and went ahead with this using emergency powers.
> 
> So it is quite reasonable to expect the Council to look into whether traffic is being displaced onto CHL.



This isn’t true and has been pointed out a number of times.


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 22, 2020)

The  One Lambeth group is turning a bit nasty with the usual tropes being rolled out.

Cyclists are ‘scum of the road’ who don’t pay road tax.

A local ltn campaigner has had her home address shared and she’s being fat shamed: ‘Should go to the gym more than being on a bike’ etc.

And as she’s not from the UK apparently has no right to be doing what she’s doing.

Any traffic (caused by accidents or roadworks) is the fault of ltns and Khan has ruined London


----------



## co-op (Sep 22, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> The  One Lambeth group is turning a bit nasty with the usual tropes being rolled out.
> 
> Cyclists are ‘scum of the road’ who don’t pay road tax.
> 
> ...



Yep, seeing this on local facebook pages too, somehow LTNs are anti-Brexit.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> This isn’t true and has been pointed out a number of times.



It is true as I was at meeting when the officer in charge of the proposed Liveable Neighbourhood Scheme attended local meeting in LJ.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 22, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> The  One Lambeth group is turning a bit nasty with the usual tropes being rolled out.
> 
> Cyclists are ‘scum of the road’ who don’t pay road tax.
> 
> ...



Are they a cross party group of genuinely concerned locals or a group of rightwing scumbags - I’m confused


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 22, 2020)

I don’t think they’re all that - just probably feeling a bit lost and hopeless which makes them easy prey for propaganda/populism.

But you’re right - they’re evidently not the group with the demographic and approach they state.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So it is quite reasonable to expect the Council to look into whether traffic is being displaced onto CHL.



I know someone who works for Lambeth Council.  I spoke to them and asked them what they thought. They said they didn't think the CHL traffic was down to the LTN.

[obviously I have not done this yet but I know a few people with council connections.  Nothing to do with transport monitoring but anecdote is fine isn't it?]


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

The traffic that used Shakespeare Road and Railton Road as an overflow to avoid Coldharbour Lane was on one hand horrendous enough to justify closing both roads, but on the other hand insignificant enough to not play any part in the current congestion when it's forced back onto Coldharbour?


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> The traffic that used Shakespeare Road and Railton Road as an overflow to avoid Coldharbour Lane was on one hand horrendous enough to justify closing both roads, but on the other hand insignificant enough to not play any part in the current congestion when it's forced back onto Coldharbour?



That's always the dilemma isn't it?  The same people objecting to the LTN and claiming the traffic levels on the streets that have been filtered was so low that there was no issue but is creating chaos everywhere else.  So in the end theres needs to be a decision about how we want our streets to be.  If we want large volumes of people to be able to drive from Clapham to Camberwell, lets start knocking down homes and building that motorway.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

As someone who's lived on Shakespeare Road for the last 15 years I might have a slightly clearer view of how bad the traffic was than most. But no one bothered to ask.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> As someone who's lived on Shakespeare Road for the last 15 years I might have a slightly clearer view of how bad the traffic was than most. But no one bothered to ask.


and what was your view?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

It was unremarkable, a relatively quiet side road on the doorstep of central London. There was some rush hour congestion when we first moved here but the council solved that by introducing staggered parking bays. Honestly I'd never thought of it as a problem or heard anyone else complain about it. 
I mostly get around on foot and really can't reconcile the reality I saw every day with the tales of woe I read about the traffic horror on Shakespeare, Railton and the rest of the new LTN. 
Maybe my expectations are just different.


----------



## co-op (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> But no one bothered to ask.



To be fair, including you.


----------



## editor (Sep 22, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> The  One Lambeth group is turning a bit nasty with the usual tropes being rolled out.
> 
> Cyclists are ‘scum of the road’ who don’t pay road tax.
> 
> ...


That's absolutely awful.


----------



## editor (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> It was unremarkable, a relatively quiet side road on the doorstep of central London. There was some rush hour congestion when we first moved here but the council solved that by introducing staggered parking bays. Honestly I'd never thought of it as a problem or heard anyone else complain about it.
> I mostly get around on foot and really can't reconcile the reality I saw every day with the tales of woe I read about the traffic horror on Shakespeare, Railton and the rest of the new LTN.
> Maybe my expectations are just different.


I have to say I regularly walked up Shakespeare Road before the LTN scheme and can't ever recall seeing much traffic at all. That said, maybe it was ultra-congested at other times when I wasn't walking through.


----------



## co-op (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> The traffic that used Shakespeare Road and Railton Road as an overflow to avoid Coldharbour Lane was on one hand horrendous enough to justify closing both roads, but on the other hand insignificant enough to not play any part in the current congestion when it's forced back onto Coldharbour?



I don't think anyone on here has argued that there's literally no connection between LTNs and higher congestion on alternative routes, what I've argued is that this always happens every time there's any capacity reduction and then the traffic settles down to a new normal which is broadly the same as the old normal. There have been multiple capacity reductions over recent decades;
width restrictions to stop lorries, e.g.
road closures, 
bus lanes, 
bicycle lanes, 
cars getting much larger leading to 4 lane roads being remarked as 2 lanes. 

Each led to greater congestion in the short term but in the end they got us to where we were before LTNs were introduced. Now it's LTNs in the firing line.

But if you think capacity reductions "cause" congestion, then you are kind of committed to the idea that capacity increases will do the reverse and make the traffic run smoothly. So where are the new roads going to go? Or how else are you going to find extra capacity?

And do you think that any changes you make one way or the other will be a permanent fix, or is it much more likely that when you increase capacity you increase demand and when you reduce capacity you reduce demand.


----------



## co-op (Sep 22, 2020)

editor said:


> I have to say I regularly walked up Shakespeare Road before the LTN scheme and can't ever recall seeing much traffic at all. That said, maybe it was ultra-congested at other times when I wasn't walking through.



Shakespeare Rd used to have a real problem with speeding rat runners in the 80s and 90s, I hardly ever use it now (partly as a result?) so I don't know what it's like now.


----------



## editor (Sep 22, 2020)

co-op said:


> Shakespeare Rd used to have a real problem with speeding rat runners in the 80s and 90s, I hardly ever use it now (partly as a result?) so I don't know what it's like now.


I can only comment from my own experiences, where I often walked up during the evening 'rush hour' and I'd describe the traffic as very light.


----------



## editor (Sep 22, 2020)

I hadn't noticed that the OneLambeth lot had managed to get a petition on Lambeth's site









						ePetition - Immediate Removal and Cessation of Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) Schemes | Lambeth Council
					






					moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

co-op said:


> To be fair, including you.


To be fair, how would I have known I had to?


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 22, 2020)

co-op said:


> Shakespeare Rd used to have a real problem with speeding rat runners in the 80s and 90s, I hardly ever use it now (partly as a result?) so I don't know what it's like now.


I think the traffic counts that are on the consultation site say it was over 3.5k vehicles each day which is definitely not quiet but part of the issue with rat runners is they also tend to drive aggressively so it definitely wasn't a pleasant place to cycle.  And of course before the "I ride it and I think its' fine" response comes back by definition you're not the target market - it's about enabling the majority who haven't cycled up to now because of fear of traffic. Anecdotally I'm seeing far more, and far more varied and 'non-cyclist' people on bikes around the Railton neighbourhood since the changes.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 22, 2020)

editor said:


> I can only comment from my own experiences, where I often walked up during the evening 'rush hour' and I'd describe the traffic as very light.


Again, it's not a main road so you'd hope not but what's comfortable for an adult is somewhat less for children who might now be able to walk to school unaccompanied with far fewer speeding drivers on Railton and Shakespeare than there were previously.


----------



## editor (Sep 22, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Again, it's not a main road so you'd hope not but what's comfortable for an adult is somewhat less for children who might now be able to walk to school unaccompanied with far fewer speeding drivers on Railton and Shakespeare than there were previously.


But not so good news if they live on Coldharbour Lane and have to breathe in shitloads more fumes and navigate congested traffic.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

editor said:


> But not so good news if they live on Coldharbour Lane and have to breathe in shitloads more fumes and navigate congested traffic.


And this is the main problem i have with the LTN (apart from simply not being asked). 
How is it fair and reasonable to move traffic and pollution from an area with already lower traffic and pollution into an area which is already heavily congested and polluted?


----------



## Aristocrat (Sep 22, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I know someone who works for Lambeth Council.  I spoke to them and asked them what they thought. They said they didn't think the CHL traffic was down to the LTN.
> 
> [obviously I have not done this yet but I know a few people with council connections.  Nothing to do with transport monitoring but anecdote is fine isn't it?]



Some more footage from Tooting, recently freed from the dreadful tyranny of LTNs.

 

And a slightly more elegaic take:


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> This isn’t true and has been pointed out a number of times.



As I said the Council started on consultation for Brixton Liveable neighbourhood. This stopped due to health crisis.

Council then used powers that is has during pandemic to introduce emergency alterations to roads 



> Any permanent changes to road layouts after this temporary emergency response are subject to statutory consultation with the local community.



From:









						Railton LTN
					

Read the latest project update on Railton Neighbourhood.




					rtstreets.commonplace.is
				




So the statutory consultation is going to be later. 

So the LTNs come under a range of emergency changes to roads. Which are temporary.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

If I was One Lambeth I'd be asking what the timeframe is for the statutory consultation.


----------



## co-op (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> To be fair, how would I have known I had to?




To be fair you posed the question.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> And this is the main problem i have with the LTN (apart from simply not being asked).
> How is it fair and reasonable to move traffic and pollution from an area with already lower traffic and pollution into an area which is already heavily congested and polluted?


You don't just simply "move" it.
Some of it will "move" in the short term yes.
The justification is that (a) in the medium-long term a significant portion of that which has been "moved" will disappear, because certain journeys no longer get made, and (b) that in the longer term, the LTNs are a necessary part of an overall strategy to reduce traffic and pollution everywhere.

Therefore, say 3 or 5 years from now, even those heavily trafficked roads will experience less pollution that they otherwise would have done. The alternative is to do nothing, and nothing can improve anywhere, including nothing improving on the main roads.


----------



## editor (Sep 22, 2020)




----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 22, 2020)

editor said:


> I hadn't noticed that the OneLambeth lot had managed to get a petition on Lambeth's site
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well unless it’s a different Brian Taylor, a person with the same name started a thread on Nextdoor about said survey but seems to be rather quiet on the subject on here. Apologies Brian Taylor, new member if it’s someone different. 
After that controversy about links earlier, hopefully this doesn’t fall foul of any t&cs


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

co-op said:


> To be fair you posed the question.


Think I might have got confused here. I originally meant that the council didn't bother to ask or inform any of us what it was planning or ask what we thought. Hence why i didn't see how i could have known to tell them.
Apologies for being unclear.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Well unless it’s a different Brian Taylor, a person with the same name started a thread on Nextdoor about said survey but seems to be rather quiet on the subject on here. Apologies Brian Taylor, new member if it’s someone different.
> After that controversy about links earlier, hopefully this doesn’t fall foul of any t&cs


Same name same person. Not quiet about it just assume as this is a rather less general forum that anyone who wanted to read it or sign would already have done so.


----------



## co-op (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> Think I might have got confused here. I originally meant that the council didn't bother to ask or inform any of us what it was planning or ask what we thought. Hence why i didn't see how i could have known to tell them.
> Apologies for being unclear.



No problem, I was starting to think one or both of us had picked up the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## co-op (Sep 22, 2020)

editor said:


>




If those figures about the numbers of women and people with cargo and/or children on bikes are good, then that's pretty good evidence that people who are normally intimidated off the roads by cars are now starting to cycle.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 22, 2020)

I've just had some info through the door from Lambeth Council regarding the new "Tulse Hill LTN." it's kind of Brixton Hill from Brixton Water Lane right up to the A205 South Circular. It's a big area with crucial no through points on Elm Park, Leander and Upper Tulse hill to name a few.

Looks great


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

co-op said:


> No problem, I was starting to think one or both of us had picked up the wrong end of the stick.


Probably me.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 22, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I've just some had info through the door from Lambeth Council regarding the new "Tulse Hill LTN." it's kind of Brixton Hill from Brixton Water Lane right up to the A205 South Circular. It's a big area with crucial no through points on Elm Park, Leander and Upper Tulse hill to name a few.
> 
> Looks great


Yep. Completely eliminates all rat runs. Can't wait (even if it will add 5m on to the drive out of town to visit my folks)

EDIT: It's a shame they haven't got rid of the TH gyratory yet.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I've just had some info through the door from Lambeth Council regarding the new "Tulse Hill LTN." it's kind of Brixton Hill from Brixton Water Lane right up to the A205 South Circular. It's a big area with crucial no through points on Elm Park, Leander and Upper Tulse hill to name a few.
> 
> Looks great


Looks a bit like the heel of a boot stamping down on an unsuspecting older person.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> As someone who's lived on Shakespeare Road for the last 15 years I might have a slightly clearer view of how bad the traffic was than most. But no one bothered to ask.


A question for you: are your concerns about the LTN primarily because you are worried about the traffic displaced to other roads, or is the fact that you can't now drive the entire length of Shakespeare Road part of the reason you are unhappy?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I know someone who works for Lambeth Council.  I spoke to them and asked them what they thought. They said they didn't think the CHL traffic was down to the LTN.
> 
> [obviously I have not done this yet but I know a few people with council connections.  Nothing to do with transport monitoring but anecdote is fine isn't it?]



That does not surprise me. In my experience of dealing with Council officers they would not want to say anything critical of Council policy that might get back to Cllrs. Understandable as the Council is the employer.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2020)

No one asked me about wearing a mask or the pubs shutting at 10 either.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> As someone who's lived on Shakespeare Road for the last 15 years I might have a slightly clearer view of how bad the traffic was than most. But no one bothered to ask.



Yes as someone who is critically supportive of LTN as idea I don't like the way they have been implemented. 

Councils across London are using pandemic to put in place LTNs. Knowing they can bypass consultation.

I know some in Lambeth who oppose LTNs hope they can put pressure on Lambeth to halt them like in Wandsworth. That is not going to happen in Lambeth.

I do think it might be idea to start questioning the Council when they are going to do the statutory consultation. Councils have obligation to consult people. 

Ideas for consultation/ Questions for the Council:

How long are the Council going to use the pandemic as excuse for implementing LTNs in Lambeth? They are supposed to be emergency alteration to roads responding to Covid not a permanent change to road use.

When is the statutory consultation going to start?

What form will it take?

Can LTNs be amended? ie allowing residents in a LTN to freely move using ANPR  or keeping some aspects of the LTNs and taking out unpopular ones ( Shakespeare road for example) A comprimise solution.

Im not at all happy at the way the Council have taken a crisis to push their long term plans. Never let a crisis go to waste is how they are using it. 

It could be in some neighbourhoods people want an LTN. That is fine, Im not opposed to them. I just think people should be asked. Their knowledge of local area should be asked about by Council.

After all this is supposed to be a Coop Council. Doing things with people not to them.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Sep 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> A question for you: are your concerns about the LTN primarily because you are worried about the traffic displaced to other roads, or is the fact that you can't now drive the entire length of Shakespeare Road part of the reason you are unhappy?


Not being able to easily access the rest of the road is a minor inconvenience at worst for us as we're both in good health and prefer to walk anyways. Certainly not something worth getting worked up over. 
The main concern is the impact on the area and people outside the LTN. 
I've been a Labour voter all my life (sometimes reluctantly) and how the party can just trample over it's own voters in the Coldharbour ward to try to snatch a few votes from the Greens in the Herne Hill ward appalls me.
Maybe that's just tinfoil hattery and it's just a lucky coincidence for them that the bulk of the LTN is in a Green/Labour marginal while the rest is solid Labour.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> I've been a Labour voter all my life (sometimes reluctantly) and how the party can just trample over it's own voters in the Coldharbour ward to try to snatch a few votes from the Greens in the Herne Hill ward appalls me.
> Maybe that's just tinfoil hattery and it's just a lucky coincidence for them that the bulk of the LTN is in a Green/Labour marginal while the rest is solid Labour.


They're not being picky about the areas. The LTNs are being rolled out borough-wide. I don't think it's a vote-winning exercise.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

Crispy said:


> They're not being picky about the areas. The LTNs are being rolled out borough-wide. I don't think it's a vote-winning exercise.



No sign of our Progress led Council Council trying to inflict a LTN on Loughborough Junction. Even they don't think doing that to the Loughborough Estate is great idea. Coldahrbour Ward is rock solid Labour area but they aren't pushing their luck this time.

Shows if residents kick up enough of a fuss the Council will leave you alone in the future. Campaigning can work.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No sign of our Progress led Council Council trying to inflict a LTN on Loughborough Junction. Even they don't think doing that to the Loughborough Estate is great idea. Coldahrbour Ward is rock solid Labour area but they areny pushing their luck this time.
> 
> Shows if residents kick up enough of a fuss the Council will leave you alone in the future. Campaigning can work.


A bit strange to be "critically supportive" of something you see as being "inflicted" on people.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> Not being able to easily access the rest of the road is a minor inconvenience at worst for us as we're both in good health and prefer to walk anyways. Certainly not something worth getting worked up over.
> The main concern is the impact on the area and people outside the LTN.
> I've been a Labour voter all my life (sometimes reluctantly) and how the party can just trample over it's own voters in the Coldharbour ward to try to snatch a few votes from the Greens in the Herne Hill ward appalls me.
> Maybe that's just tinfoil hattery and it's just a lucky coincidence for them that the bulk of the LTN is in a Green/Labour marginal while the rest is solid Labour.


Ok, so if it could be demonstrated that it didn't significantly increase pollution or congestion outside the zone, would you support it? Or just be neutral about it?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> A bit strange to be "critically supportive" of something you see as being "inflicted" on people.



No its not. 

If a local community consulted by the Council wants an LTN or road closures then that is fine.

It is not that "strange" position to have.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Yes as someone who is critically supportive of LTN as idea I don't like the way they have been implemented.
> 
> Councils across London are using pandemic to put in place LTNs. Knowing they can bypass consultation.
> 
> ...


Don’t often agree with you but I do think that talk of petitions, small demonstrations are not the way forward. If people have objections, they should be working towards having constructive ideas for the actual legal consultation. Shakespeare modal is a good example of where compromise could be found. I’ve been mulling over ideas such as making the gate/camera only active during peak times, allowing cars through but not skip lorries or other vehicles, a free pass for Shakespeare road residents etc. I mean it doesn’t address the fundamental position of cutting non-essential journeys but it might make for a less divided community


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Don’t often agree with you but I do think that talk of petitions, small demonstrations are not the way forward. If people have objections, they should be working towards having constructive ideas for the actual legal consultation. Shakespeare modal is a good example of where compromise could be found. I’ve been mulling over ideas such as making the gate/camera only active during peak times, allowing cars through but not skip lorries or other vehicles, a free pass for Shakespeare road residents etc. I mean it doesn’t address the fundamental position of cutting non-essential journeys but it might make for a less divided community



Well Im all for demos. 

But yes Im trying to argue that there is comprimise that can be made. Also (from my experience in LJ) that not all people who don't like LTNs are car nuts/ racist.

Giving people who live in Council designated LTN freedom of movement in and out would stop a lot of the opposition. 

After all the Council arguement is that the majority of through traffic in an LTN is not people who live or visit a neighbourhood. It is through traffic using an area to get to somewhere else. That is the argument for Railton LTN.


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> But that is what has not happened. Council suspended the consultation and went ahead with this using emergency powers.
> 
> So it is quite reasonable to expect the Council to look into whether traffic is being displaced onto CHL.



Its not been introduced under emergency powers as far as I'm aware. That is something different. Its been introduced under an Experimental Traffic Order which is effectively a live trial consultation.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 22, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> Its not been introduced under emergency powers as far as I'm aware. That is something different. Its been introduced under an Experimental Traffic Order which is effectively a live trial consultation.



From the Railton LTN commonplace:



> I am writing to provide an update on our plans to introduce an *emergency* low traffic neighbourhood in the Railton area.
> 
> In line with statutory guidance provided by national government, the council will be stopping through traffic from cutting through the neighbourhood by making *temporary* changes to the road layout.











						Railton LTN
					

Read the latest project update on Railton Neighbourhood.




					rtstreets.commonplace.is


----------



## toblerone3 (Sep 22, 2020)

I cant be sure but I think even though it described as an emergency low traffic neighbourhood legally it is being introduced under an *Experimental Traffic Order* which is part of a consultation process.  Most LTNs in London are being introduced in this way.

The text from the Hackney Commonplace is a bit clearer.









						London Fields Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

Give your views on our road closures/traffic filters in London Fields. The feedback period for this scheme closed on 1 August 2021.




					rebuildingagreenerhackney.commonplace.is
				




*Have your say*
The filters are being introduced using an experimental traffic order for a maximum period of 18 months, which means you can see how the filters work in practice before having your say.

The views of residents and businesses, including any suggested changes to how schemes operate, will be taken into account before any decision on whether or not to make the measures permanent. This process is in line with specific guidance from Transport for London, and the Department for Transport, whose guidance states that: 'authorities should monitor and evaluate any temporary measures they install, with a view to making them permanent, and embedding a long-term shift to active travel as we move from restart to recovery’.

The experimental traffic order will be advertised in the London Gazette and the Hackney Gazette on 27 August 2020.

You can have your say for up to six months after the measures have been implemented, until 21 March 2021. To have your say, please complete the survey below or email streetscene.consultations@hackney.gov.uk. You can also write to us by sending your comments to ‘Freepost Streetscene’.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 22, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No its not.
> 
> If a local community consulted by the Council wants an LTN or road closures then that is fine.
> 
> It is not that "strange" position to have.


Ok, but you seem to be making a starting presumption that an LTN will have a negative impact on the community that lives within it.

"Inflicted" is quite a strong word to choose.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Sep 23, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> No sign of our Progress led Council Council trying to inflict a LTN on Loughborough Junction.



The north end of loughborough road really needs help as its taking a lot of traffic between the brixton road and herne hill/denmark hill into a narrow sigle track between parked cars. 

unfortunately diverting these via the camberwell A roads would require lambeth/southwark cooperation, and as you say they're already burned once.  

angell town is basically an LTN already so its myatts south and loughborough that suffer.

Good luck getting an emergency vehicle through the car jam between the aptly named brixton jamm and fiveways on an given day. 

sigh.


----------



## newbie (Sep 23, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I've just had some info through the door from Lambeth Council regarding the new "Tulse Hill LTN." it's kind of Brixton Hill from Brixton Water Lane right up to the A205 South Circular. It's a big area with crucial no through points on Elm Park, Leander and Upper Tulse hill to name a few.
> 
> Looks great


Already quiet backstreets will become quieter. Already busy perimeter main roads will become busier.

We'll have to wait and see but I'm utterly unconvinced that's in the interests of anyone except property owners within the area.

(oh, and that map is so pathetic, yet Lambeth think it's acceptable as pretty much the sole public information about this scheme)


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Sep 23, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> The  One Lambeth group is turning a bit nasty with the usual tropes being rolled out.
> 
> Cyclists are ‘scum of the road’ who don’t pay road tax.
> 
> ...



can you share screen shots or links of this with us? I assume you mean the closed facebook group.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> can you share screen shots or links of this with us? I assume you mean the closed facebook group.


I'd like to see these too, if possible.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2020)

Buzz update Yet another petition calls for the end of Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes


----------



## Rushy (Sep 23, 2020)

I collared a driver about to piss on a drive in Herne Hill yesterday evening. He abandoned his car in the middle of the road and staggered obliviously past me sat on the drive in my van. When I remonstrated with him he blamed his behaviour squarely on the LTN, saying that he had been flumoxed by the gate and would not be trying to piss there if he could work out how to get out of it. Although I rather suspect that he may already have been out of it.


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 23, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> can you share screen shots or links of this with us? I assume you mean the closed facebook group.



Yes. Will do if my membership of that group still works after posting on here.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 23, 2020)

editor said:


> Buzz update Yet another petition calls for the end of Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes


"very biased reporting from this rag lately" (reply to your tweet from one of the anti-LTN accounts) 

not sure how you could have reported it any more neutrally


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> "very biased reporting from this rag lately" (reply to your tweet from one of the anti-LTN accounts)
> 
> not sure how you could have reported it any more neutrally


Indeed . I'm not sure why I bothered replying to such an idiot now!

I'm waiting on a piece by the Railton Road LTN supporters for tomorrow. I'm just so biased!


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Sep 23, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Yes. Will do if my membership of that group still works after posting on here.


thanks!!


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2020)

😂


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 23, 2020)

newbie said:


> Already quiet backstreets will become quieter. Already busy perimeter main roads will become busier.
> 
> We'll have to wait and see but I'm utterly unconvinced that's in the interests of anyone except property owners within the area.
> 
> (oh, and that map is so pathetic, yet Lambeth think it's acceptable as pretty much the sole public information about this scheme)


Lambeth is polluted and congested. What's you solution?

Do you agree we have to move from this?

It's been worked out in loads of other European cities, why not ours?


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2020)

I guess there's been no petitions, protests or comments on social media then, and this 2,400 post thread doesn't exist!


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Lambeth is polluted and congested. What's you solution?
> 
> Do you agree we have to move from this?
> 
> It's been worked out in loads of other European cities, why not ours?



newbie has posted alternative solutions in previous posts.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> I cant be sure but I think even though it described as an emergency low traffic neighbourhood legally it is being introduced under an *Experimental Traffic Order* which is part of a consultation process.  Most LTNs in London are being introduced in this way.
> 
> The text from the Hackney Commonplace is a bit clearer.
> 
> ...



It looks to me that Lambeth have made a Borough Wide Traffic order.




> 7. Legal considerations
> While it is considered that proposed interventions do not require additional legal provisions, it
> is recommended that a borough-wide traffic order is made in order to cover a range of
> interventions and remove the need to make traffic orders for each one. A similar order
> ...



The Council admits that the lack of usual consultation could led to challenge of the decision of rolling out LTNs.

So if I was One Lambeth Id be looking at the legal side of this.



> 8. Stakeholder engagement
> Bringing forward highway changes ahead of schedule will require a change to planned
> engagement approaches. The Council will continue to meet legal requirements relating to
> statutory consultation and will engage will key local stakeholders,* but it will be necessary to
> ...



Im still not clear what this borough wide order is. Is it an "experimental" order?

Looking up experimental orders and they are for specific schemes. This is sweeping order covering the whole borough.

(   Experimental )

Some of this could be on shaky ground. Using a borough wide order is the Council giving itself wide ranging powers to alter streets as it sees fit. They are going to have to be able to justify specific decisions if challenged. If someone/ group challenges Council on a specific LTN the Council are going to have to justify the decision making process, for a Borough Wide Traffic order as it relates to a specific LTN. Whether more engagement should have happened prior to putting in place an LTN.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2020)

editor said:


> I guess there's been no petitions, protests or comments on social media then, and this 2,400 post thread doesn't exist!


Turns out that 51% figure is NOT for individual Lambeth LTNs but a _general_ figure for London. It's clear that some LTNs have more local support than others and I think it's fair to say there's been a fair bit of controversy surrounding some of the ones in Lambeth.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2020)

Experimental
					

I covered the permanent traffic regulation order process  a couple of years back, but I always meant to return to talk a bit about the expe...




					therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com
				




Reading this on Experimental Traffic Orders. ETA are a legal way for Councils to get around consultation. Which can get bogged down with lengthy opposition.

Put scheme in place. Then ask for comments.

In reality once the scheme is in place that is half the battle already won by the Council imo.

I did hear something about this at a local meeting. But didnt reallly believe Councils could do this ( pre pandemic) as imo it goes against local democracy. I did think Councils were obliged to consult first then put schemes in place. That is how local democracy worked I thought.

Appears not the case.

Im still not sure if Lambeth Borough Wide traffic order is an ETO

To add the blog piece is even handed. Looks like Councils have had this ability for some time. But its only recently been used for traffic filtering /cycle paths schemes.


----------



## editor (Sep 23, 2020)

There really are some pompous pricks in the pro-LTN camp online (and yes, there's clearly some right twats in the anti-LTN camp too).


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 23, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> newbie has posted alternative solutions in previous posts.


Thanks Gramsci, i think the thread's just got too long......or it's becoming too threaded


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 23, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> I cant be sure but I think even though it described as an emergency low traffic neighbourhood legally it is being introduced under an *Experimental Traffic Order* which is part of a consultation process.  Most LTNs in London are being introduced in this way.
> 
> The text from the Hackney Commonplace is a bit clearer.
> 
> ...



The Hackney commonplace is a model of clarity compared to Lambeth effort.


----------



## madolesance (Sep 23, 2020)

editor said:


> There really are some pompous pricks in the pro-LTN camp online (and yes, there's clearly some right twats in the anti-LTN camp too).


It’s a shame it has come to this as the problems with ‘rat runners’ has come about cause the people who have created the problems live no where near these LTNs. They are just following orders from their satnavs/ Googlle maps and the like. And all the Uber vehicles who are also just being told where to go via a device.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2020)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Thanks Gramsci, i think the thread's just got too long......or it's becoming too threaded


I've not seen any convincing alternatives posted up by anyone. They are either impractical, or too feeble to have a meaningful impact. 

Some people seem to think an extended ULEZ will cure congestion, for example. 

I'll welcome an extension of the ULEZ because it might help a bit with air pollution. Better than nothing. Doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems though. And anyone concerned about displaced traffic ought also to worry what happens around the perimeter of the ULEZ. As an ULEZ is not a measure aimed at reducing overall traffic levels, the perimeter effects will be worse than those associated with LTNs and there is no intrinsic mechanism to see that perimeter traffic reduce in the longer term (as there is with consistent application of LTNs).


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 24, 2020)

Sorry can't keep up with the arguments on this tread and whether or not the scheme is a good idea or not, but just want to say  the change in the amount of traffic is really noticable now.  

I walk down Railton road regularly to brixton and HH.  The air does feel cleaner and its good to be able to walk in the road to allow other pedestrians space.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Sep 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I've not seen any convincing alternatives posted up by anyone. They are either impractical, or too feeble to have a meaningful impact.



Having listened to (argued with) many anti-LTN folks to try to understand the major strands of dissatisfaction (unscientific sampling I admit,) strikes me that exempting local residents from the PCNs would quiet a vast number of them. This could be easily done, with little additional investment, by the council simply using the registered keeper address (which they have statutory access to) to exempt anyone registered within several miles of the infraction. I could write the code for this myself in a morning. 

This would of course not address the issues of traffic displacement but (imo) those are vastly overstated.

There is, sadly, no way to calm the segment of the anti-ltn crowd that are there for the outrage and entitlement but I think thats a small minority.

I think this would result in real confusion until people figured it out, and there should be a way to know if you are 'local enough' but it could be treated like the average speed cameras: they are rarely on and sending out tickets, they are set at a level above what they claim to be set at, but the threat is there.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 24, 2020)

editor said:


> There really are some pompous pricks in the pro-LTN camp online (and yes, there's clearly some right twats in the anti-LTN camp too).


Imagine a vegan living in an LTN.


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The Hackney commonplace is a model of clarity compared to Lambeth effort.



I much prefer the clarity and legibility of the Hackney map vs the hand-drawn Lambeth ones


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Having listened to (argued with) many anti-LTN folks to try to understand the major strands of dissatisfaction (unscientific sampling I admit,) strikes me that exempting local residents from the PCNs would quiet a vast number of them. This could be easily done, with little additional investment, by the council simply using the registered keeper address (which they have statutory access to) to exempt anyone registered within several miles of the infraction. I could write the code for this myself in a morning.
> 
> This would of course not address the issues of traffic displacement but (imo) those are vastly overstated.
> 
> ...



If the technology is there, definitely do it for blue badge holders.

Do a "locals exempted" as a last resort perhaps, if it's that or nothing. You do however lose the aspect of the scheme that's supposed to be about discouraging unnecessary short journeys. How much traffic that would then add back onto Railton Rd etc I don't know. I'd be worried that it would create a situation where things are a bit better than before, but it hasn't really changed anything fundamental, people living inside the zone are better off because they get the quieter streets and no restrictions on their car use, and the benefits outside the zone would take the larger hit (because it loses some of its strength as a policy aimed at reducing the number of car journeys overall). And - the benefits for those inside the zone would be greater for car owners than they would be for non car owners.


----------



## Jesterburger (Sep 24, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Having listened to (argued with) many anti-LTN folks to try to understand the major strands of dissatisfaction (unscientific sampling I admit,) strikes me that exempting local residents from the PCNs would quiet a vast number of them. This could be easily done, with little additional investment, by the council simply using the registered keeper address (which they have statutory access to) to exempt anyone registered within several miles of the infraction. I could write the code for this myself in a morning.



I'm a supporter and have heard these arguments frequently in my area (Tulse Hill) - and I see why they are attractive, and could work.

The big unknown for me - is I don't know what proportion of the speeding and dangerous driving in my area is residents vs non-locals - if the residents going to fast is the issue then residents' exemptions wouldn't work. I have no idea how easy it would be to trial this.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> I'm a supporter and have heard these arguments frequently in my area (Tulse Hill) - and I see why they are attractive, and could work.
> 
> The big unknown for me - is I don't know what proportion of the speeding and dangerous driving in my area is residents vs non-locals - if the residents going to fast is the issue then residents' exemptions wouldn't work. I have no idea how easy it would be to trial this.


They are doing something like this in Fulham - it will be interesting to watch what the results are, although it'll be some time before that's at all clear.


----------



## BusLanes (Sep 24, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Having listened to (argued with) many anti-LTN folks to try to understand the major strands of dissatisfaction (unscientific sampling I admit,) strikes me that exempting local residents from the PCNs would quiet a vast number of them. This could be easily done, with little additional investment, by the council simply using the registered keeper address (which they have statutory access to) to exempt anyone registered within several miles of the infraction. I could write the code for this myself in a morning.
> 
> This would of course not address the issues of traffic displacement but (imo) those are vastly overstated.
> 
> ...



I agree a good proportion of the anti LTNs would be happy with either of those options. Another big local group would be happy if the Council actually did real consultation/makes this up to them by actively seeking engagement and then acting on the results. Get both those groups on side and most of the local opposition would go away (if my local LTN discussion groups are anything to go by).


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I've not seen any convincing alternatives posted up by anyone. They are either impractical, or too feeble to have a meaningful impact.


There is absolutely no reason why critics of central/local government imposed social engineering should be expected to come up with the alternative suggestions that have been demanded frequently throughout this thread, most recently by DJWrongspeed .

However I and others have put forward ideas.  When I did so, you said


teuchter said:


> Same as Winot, I'd happily sign up to pretty much all of this, as soon as it's on the table, which it's currently not, unlike the liveable neighbourhood schemes.
> 
> As you acknowledge, it would be a hard sell.



There are also other proposals.  I have issues with this one as I explained in a subsequent post, but let's not deny it's there or pretend that with political will much, much more far reaching policy could not have been integral to TfL/government policy.

Neither impractical nor feeble, just a hard sell, same as 20mph, CC, ULEZ, cycle lanes were hard sells, and so on. They had the advantage of being seen to target real problems and to have some element of fairness.

LTNs ought to be a much harder sell, because they aim at the wrong targets.  They concentrate pollution on the already most polluted roads, which just happen to be where those who have least economic choice live and work.  They increase the time, mileage and pollution for every one of the last mile Ubers or deliveries to the insiders who congratulate themselves on being car free.  They make life more difficult for those with mobility impairments. They cause congestion and frustration.  And they do so at a time when there is little commuting and when people are scared of public transport.  All pointlessly feeble and most unlikely to produce any meaningful outcome except more deaths from asthma for little girls who live 25m from main roads.

However the naked self interest of already wealthy insiders seems to have overcome that, and no-one else seems to matter.  So long as _our_ air is cleaner, _our_ children can frolick, _our _quality of life and well being improve it's all good.  And as a byproduct _we'll_ get the benefit of buying on a 'rat run' and selling on a Quiet Route.  Win win.  For _us_.  


ps thanks Gramsci


----------



## technical (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> There is absolutely no reason why critics of central/local government imposed social engineering should be expected to come up with the alternative suggestions that have been demanded frequently throughout this thread, most recently by DJWrongspeed .
> 
> However I and others have put forward ideas.  When I did so, you said
> 
> ...



Massive generalisation alert! I understand your issues with the LTNs and to a degree I accept that there will be displacement - but the highlighted statement is quite frankly wild exaggeration as far as my experience is concerned. My street is in the Tulse Hill LTN - the scheme has generated a lot of discussion on WhatsApp group in terms of for, against and don't know/unclear what the effects will be, but to suggest (without evidence as far as I can see) that people that support it do so for personal gain is completely inaccurate. I support it on a trial basis to see if it makes a difference to traffic, air quality and speeding on our streets. If the benefits don't stack up at the end of the trial period (essentially a long consultation phase as I see it) against any displacement/disbenefits elsewhere) then it shouldn't go forward.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> I'm a supporter and have heard these arguments frequently in my area (Tulse Hill) - and I see why they are attractive, and could work.
> 
> The big unknown for me - is I don't know what proportion of the speeding and dangerous driving in my area is residents vs non-locals - if the residents going to fast is the issue then residents' exemptions wouldn't work. I have no idea how easy it would be to trial this.


Somewhere upthread we discussed whether speeding and dangerous driving were less likely the closer people are to home.  Does one speed when in Wandsworth but not in Lambeth, when that side of Acre Lane but not this side, perhaps where you're not likely to be recognised?  Hard to tell, but in any event I'd argue that both speeding and dangerous driving are already illegal and that should be enforced wherever they occur. 

In what other areas of life would we accept restriction on lawful behaviour because some people behave illegally?


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

technical said:


> Massive generalisation alert! I understand your issues with the LTNs and to a degree I accept that there will be displacement - but the highlighted statement is quite frankly wild exaggeration as far as my experience is concerned. My street is in the Tulse Hill LTN - the scheme has generated a lot of discussion on WhatsApp group in terms of for, against and don't know/unclear what the effects will be, but to suggest (without evidence as far as I can see) that people that support it do so for personal gain is completely inaccurate. I support it on a trial basis to see if it makes a difference to traffic, air quality and speeding on our streets. If the benefits don't stack up at the end of the trial period (essentially a long consultation phase as I see it) against any displacement/disbenefits elsewhere) then it shouldn't go forward.


sure, generalisation, I'm writing posts on a discussion board not some academic paper.

But look at what you just said... "_*My* street is in the Tulse Hill LTN ....  I support it on a trial basis to see if it makes a difference to traffic, air quality and speeding on *our *streets._ "  That's exactly my point: benefit for you as an insider will swing the deal.  When the consultation takes place it will be insiders consulted, just as only insiders (and cycling campaigners?) have had any involvement in the run up to the newer LTNs.  

Yet that almost certainly means the outcome is a foregone conclusion, because the benefits accrue almost exclusively to insiders and all the problems will land in someone else's lungs.

And I'm sorry to be blunt, but I simply do not believe that insider homeowners have not done the calculation that says _I bought on a rat run because the equivalent places on quieter, more desirable streets were outside my budget, and when I sell I'll reap an additional capital gain because the street will be quieter_. Tenants, by contrast should reckon on their rents rising as streets become more desirable, because landlords will reap their ill gotten gains both ways.

BTW, they're not your streets, they're streets for Londoners, one of which you live in temporarily.  I know it's a figure of speech, but insider/outsider is central to this debate.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> LTNs ought to be a much harder sell, because they aim at the wrong targets.  They concentrate pollution on the already most polluted roads, which just happen to be where those who have least economic choice live and work.  They increase the time, mileage and pollution for every one of the last mile Ubers or deliveries to the insiders who congratulate themselves on being car free.  They make life more difficult for those with mobility impairments. They cause congestion and frustration.  And they do so at a time when there is little commuting and when people are scared of public transport.  All pointlessly feeble and most unlikely to produce any meaningful outcome except more deaths from asthma for little girls who live 25m from main roads.


As usual you state all this as if it's fact, whereas it's just opinion. Especially the bits about concentrating pollution, effects on those with mobility impairments, and increasing congestion. The available evidence on the pollution/congestion effects is patchy, and I wish it was more solid, but it doesn't support what you claim, especially when you look at things beyond the short-medium term.

So, yes, it's a hard sell if people believe unsubstantiated claims. As we are seeing.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> As usual you state all this as if it's fact, whereas it's just opinion. Especially the bits about concentrating pollution, effects on those with mobility impairments, and increasing congestion. The available evidence on the pollution/congestion effects is patchy, and I wish it was more solid, but it doesn't support what you claim, especially when you look at things beyond the short-medium term.
> 
> So, yes, it's a hard sell if people believe unsubstantiated claims. As we are seeing.


come off it.  We've had various people on this thread talking about the effect of them.  Insiders who say the air is cleaner, the cycling easier and so on counterbalanced by those with, or caring for those with, mobility needs complaining of extra journey time.  We've heard from those who live on main roads demonstrating increased congestion, from couriers and drivers, from pedestrians and cyclists. 

The_ available evidence_ all points in the same direction, benefit for some, problems for others.

As for concentrating pollution, are you seriously suggesting there's any doubt about where it is?



PM10  from  London Air Quality Network » Annual Pollution Maps

We all know which are the most polluted roads.  You're in favour of making them worse.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2020)

We know which are the most polluted roads, yes.

We don't know for sure how much extra traffic the LTNs put on those roads in the short term (it seems plausible there will be an increase in places)

We don't know for sure what effect that extra traffic has on air pollution - is it directly proportional (if I remember rightly the Ghent study found that it was not)

We don't know for sure how much extra traffic the individual LTNs put on those roads in the long term (it's quite plausible that the level of traffic ends up being similar or even lower, as it's limited by the capacity of the road and drivers' tolerance of congestion)

We don't know for sure how the overall level of traffic, and consequently the level on those roads, responds to a London-wide progressive implementation of LTN type schemes (but it's quite plausible that it will reduce it).

So, no, I'm not "in favour of making the most polluted roads worse".


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> people living inside the zone are better off because they get the quieter streets and no restrictions on their car use,



Well, with quieter roads you could argue that this is actually encouraging short trips by residents as you're making them quicker and easier than they were before without the through traffic within the LTN.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> In what other areas of life would we accept restriction on lawful behaviour because some people behave illegally?


Gun ownership comes to mind immediately.  We used to allow guns to be owned much more widely and used under licence but because some people behaved illegally there were much stricter restrictions placed on their ownership and use, even for those (like farmers for example) who may have had completely legitimate reasons to own weapons.  

Guns don't kill people rappers do,
From Bristol Zoo to B&Q,
I want to rap, I want to rhyme
Heard it in a song now I'm into gun crime,
Its a sign of the times like Prince changin his name,
Gotta have a shooter to be in the rap game,
Like Michael Ryan about to snap, 
Guns don't kill people its just rap!


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> I simply do not believe that insider homeowners have not done the calculation that says _I bought on a rat run because the equivalent places on quieter, more desirable streets were outside my budget, and when I sell I'll reap an additional capital gain because the street will be quieter_.



I do find this assumption that everyone just wants to sell up and leave really odd.  Are you personally just waiting to leave? Don't project your own thought process onto everyone else.  

Many of us have made our lives here - wanting it to be a better place to live (rather than the street we live on getting ever more rat running traffic enabled by Waze and google as it has over the last decade) isn't about an unrealisable theoretical financial gain at some point in the future, possibly for our heirs, it's about having a better environment to live in now.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> We know which are the most polluted roads, yes.
> 
> We don't know for sure how much extra traffic the LTNs put on those roads in the short term (it seems plausible there will be an increase in places)
> 
> ...


so, we know where the pollution (congestion, problems) concentrates but rather than tackle it you want to do something else, reduce traffic where the air (congestion, problems) is better,  despite not knowing _for sure_ what odds that will make?  

In the old-normal run of things there would have been extensive consultation and you'd have needed to actually clearly demonstrate the benefits.  Now it doesn't matter, do it anyway.  Then you'd have needed to persuade people out of their cars (which has been quite successful over the years).  Now, it can be imposed.  At a time when the main message is  'pull together to defeat the common threat' the schemes are reliant on overwhelming "drivers' tolerance of congestion", make them so frustrated they give up.  

Because you know best.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Gun ownership comes to mind immediately.  We used to allow guns to be owned much more widely and used under licence but because some people behaved illegally there were much stricter restrictions placed on their ownership and use, even for those (like farmers for example) who may have had completely legitimate reasons to own weapons.
> 
> Guns don't kill people rappers do,
> From Bristol Zoo to B&Q,
> ...


comparing personal mobility with weaponry?  give me strength.


----------



## Winot (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> comparing personal mobility with weaponry?  give me strength.



Guns are far safer than cars (in the UK).


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I do find this assumption that everyone just wants to sell up and leave really odd.  Are you personally just waiting to leave? Don't project your own thought process onto everyone else.
> 
> Many of us have made our lives here - wanting it to be a better place to live (rather than the street we live on getting ever more rat running traffic enabled by Waze and google as it has over the last decade) isn't about an unrealisable theoretical financial gain at some point in the future, possibly for our heirs, it's about having a better environment to live in now.


Whatever your personal circumstances, demographically that isn't the case.  The vast majority turn up in this area in their 20s and leave before their 50s, most likely before that, when their children approach secondary school.. 

Churn is a major feature of this area.  A quick look on Rightmove shows plenty of places on Railton (first example) that have sold 3 or more times in the last few years.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> comparing personal mobility with weaponry?  give me strength.


Very much the same sort of externalities.  Can be used safely with no impact on others, can easily kill either intentionally or through lack care and attention.

It was the most obvious example but I'm sure there are others.  Mostly we do it when something has the capability to be misused, cause injury or has other externatlies. 

Knives, glue/solvents, stuff that can be turned into explosives.  But smoking is in the same sort of category - it's legal but we now restrict where you can do it. We tax alcohol and control its sale for similar reasons.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> Churn is a major feature of this area.  A quick look on Rightmove shows plenty of places on Railton (first example) that have sold 3 or more times in the last few years.


Another massive generalisation and a bit of anecdata.  I'm guessing most of the people on this forum have been here a fair while.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> so, we know where the pollution (congestion, problems) concentrates but rather than tackle it you want to do something else, reduce traffic where the air (congestion, problems) is better,  despite not knowing _for sure_ what odds that will make?
> 
> In the old-normal run of things there would have been extensive consultation and you'd have needed to actually clearly demonstrate the benefits.  Now it doesn't matter, do it anyway.  Then you'd have needed to persuade people out of their cars (which has been quite successful over the years).  Now, it can be imposed.  At a time when the main message is  'pull together to defeat the common threat' the schemes are reliant on overwhelming "drivers' tolerance of congestion", make them so frustrated they give up.
> 
> Because you know best.


It’s a point I’ve made before, LTNs aren’t some new experiment, they exist in Brixton already, we know the benefits already.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Very much the same sort of externalities.  Can be used safely with no impact on others, can easily kill either intentionally or through lack care and attention.
> 
> It was the most obvious example but I'm sure there are others.  Mostly we do it when something has the capability to be misused, cause injury or has other externatlies.
> 
> Knives, glue/solvents, stuff that can be turned into explosives.  But smoking is in the same sort of category - it's legal but we now restrict where you can do it. We tax alcohol and control its sale for similar reasons.


erm, none of those examples are geographically ringfenced, legal in one street but not in another.

I wish I hadn't asked.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> erm, none of those examples are geographically ringfenced, legal in one street but not in another.
> I wish I hadn't asked.


Nor is driving within Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - anyone can still legally drive on any road, just some are now not through routes.  You seem very confused about this.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Another massive generalisation and a bit of anecdata.  I'm guessing most of the people on this forum have been here a fair while.


it's not anecdata, go and look at the last few census results.  I think I posted the main graph from 2011 earlier in the thread.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> it's not anecdata, go and look at the last few census results.  I think I posted the main graph from 2011 earlier in the thread.


Sorry - missed this. What's is the info to look for/what category?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Very much the same sort of externalities.  Can be used safely with no impact on others, can easily kill either intentionally or through lack care and attention.


Apart from pollution...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 24, 2020)

It would be nice if we had some reports or data showing that more roads actually reduced pollution?


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Sorry - missed this. What's is the info to look for/what category?


here you go


----------



## technical (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> sure, generalisation, I'm writing posts on a discussion board not some academic paper.
> 
> But look at what you just said... "_*My* street is in the Tulse Hill LTN ....  I support it on a trial basis to see if it makes a difference to traffic, air quality and speeding on *our *streets._ "  That's exactly my point: benefit for you as an insider will swing the deal.  When the consultation takes place it will be insiders consulted, just as only insiders (and cycling campaigners?) have had any involvement in the run up to the newer LTNs.
> 
> ...



Slightly patronising tone, but whatever. Sorry if I gave the impression that I think I own the streets - thank you for reminding me that I don't. 

My point was that you're making generalisations that have no basis in fact as far as I can see. 

I think I would benefit from this scheme personally yes - both in terms of the area being a nicer place to live and there being less domination by traffic, but so would everyone else that lives here as well - owners, renters, car owners and non-car owners alike. I accept your point that displacement may happen but think its worthwhile sticking with the trial period to be able to make decisions based on evidence rather than assertion. 

After the end of the trial period if it's demonstrated that quality of life (however defined) of people living on main roads has suffered as a result then it shouldn't be permanent. I'm not clear on what basis the final decision will be made, but if it simply about asking those inside then I'd agree that is too narrow a base to make a proper judgement. Although on the basis of the discussions with neighbours and residents on surrounding roads, I wouldn't say its a foregone conclusion that it would go ahead given the number of people who are fearful of the disruption this is likely to bring.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> so, we know where the pollution (congestion, problems) concentrates but rather than tackle it you want to do something else, reduce traffic where the air (congestion, problems) is better,  despite not knowing _for sure_ what odds that will make?
> 
> In the old-normal run of things there would have been extensive consultation and you'd have needed to actually clearly demonstrate the benefits.  Now it doesn't matter, do it anyway.  Then you'd have needed to persuade people out of their cars (which has been quite successful over the years).  Now, it can be imposed.  At a time when the main message is  'pull together to defeat the common threat' the schemes are reliant on overwhelming "drivers' tolerance of congestion", make them so frustrated they give up.
> 
> Because you know best.


Like I very clearly said in the post you are quoting, I do want to tackle pollution and congestion in the places where it concentrates. I believe that the longer term effect of progressively introducing LTN type schemes will be that traffic can be reduced everywhere including places that currently suffer the most. I've only said this about a thousand times already in this thread. For some reason, this part of the argument, the longer term and wider scale strategy never really seems to attract any engagement from the "concerned about displacement" people.

Presumably, it's not an argument that you think stacks up (despite many cities across the world having had success with this kind of strategy) because _you know best._

And how much consultation has there been with people on whether they are happy to just carry on as we are, and NOT attempt change of this kind? Is there a survey that says yes, 73% of Londoners would prefer just to do nothing until an unidentified alternative becomes politically and/or technically viable? Has anyone _clearly demonstrated the benefits_ of following what you say is best (do nothing, and say it's someone else's problem to think up an alternative)?


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2020)

This guy's great


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

technical said:


> Slightly patronising tone, but whatever. Sorry if I gave the impression that I think I own the streets - thank you for reminding me that I don't.
> 
> My point was that you're making generalisations that have no basis in fact as far as I can see.
> 
> ...


I'm not wanting to personalise, sorry if that's how it came across.

I don't really disagree with your post, we have a lot of common ground, but there are points I want to tease out.

 It seems pretty obvious that although you claim the benefits will go to "everyone else that lives here as well - owners, renters, car owners and non-car owners alike." that's not really the case.  Benefits are not alike,  even for insiders and there are few benefits for outsiders unless there really is some magical evaporation of traffic.  There are potential capital gains for homeowners and landlords, possible rent increases for private tenants, no financial change for social tenants.  Those who own and use cars presumably do so for reasons, and the LTN impact on them will be very different from that on those who don't.  That's despite everyone breathing the same air, hearing the same streetnoise, walking the same pavements.  

You're suggesting that the LTN shouldn't go ahead if "quality of life (however defined) of people living on main roads has suffered as a result ", but surely that's cart before horse.  Those people already have the greatest burden, it's them and their welfare that should be at the heart of proposals for change, especially during a pandemic where lung health is of great importance.  Rather than plan to increase main road traffic, and then wonder if there's any measurable effects, surely steps should be taken to reduce it?  To some extent that's happened naturally, morning and evening peaks are much reduced as people aren't commuting and the West End and City are pretty empty, but reservations about public transport have increased reliance on cars for local journeys.  One might have thought that targetted discussion and peer pressure, plus the government nudge unit and whatever else could have been given a chance to work towards a consensual new normal.  Instead of which we have quite intentional social division and rancour.  

BTW it's not just those living on, or very close to, the main roads, though they are likely to be the ones with the least economic choice.  Plenty of people work there, in shops and offices where their Covid safety includes keeping windows open.  We hear so much about children walking to school without mentioning how many schools are on main roads- the kids at Jubilee for instance will breath the displaced fumes. Professional drivers- delivery, cab, bus etc- will spend longer breathing pollution from stationary, idling vehicles, as will cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers.  Some of that may be measurable, but most of it not.  Some may eventually, years or decades down the line, show up in estimates for premature deaths caused by poor air quality.

I'm not sure what facts you're seeking.  The pollution map tells the real story, that the worst problems are on the main roads not the backstreets.  I'd like to quote the headline recommendations for a (pre-Covid) report if I may. What's actually happened is at odds with bullet point I've bolded, because it's redesigning the city to push all the pollution onto the most heavily used roads.


Air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to health in the UK, with between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year attributed to long-term exposure. There is strong evidence that air pollution causes the development of coronary heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease and lung cancer, and exacerbates asthma.

Professor Paul Cosford, Director of Health Protection and Medical Director at PHE, said:
Now is our opportunity to create a clean air generation of children, by implementing interventions in a coordinated way. By making new developments clean by design we can create a better environment for everyone, especially our children.

Key interventions local authorities can take include:

promoting a step change in the uptake of low emission vehicles - by setting more ambitious targets for electric car charging points, as well as encouraging low emission fuels and electric cars
boosting investment in clean public transport, as well as foot and cycle paths to improve health
*redesigning cities so people aren’t so close to highly polluting roads*
discouraging highly polluting vehicles from entering populated areas - for example, with low emission or clean air zones

This work could involve designing wider streets, or considering using hedges to screen against pollutants when planning new infrastructure.

Professor Cosford said:



> We recommend that at a local level, any new policy or programme of work which affects air pollution should aim to deliver an overall benefit to the public’s health.
> 
> So transport and urban planners will need to work together, with others involved in air pollution to ensure that new initiatives have a positive impact.
> 
> *Decision makers should carefully design policies, to make sure that the poorest in society are protected against the financial implications of new schemes.*



I've also bolded the last point, because again it's at odds with the LTNs.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Like I very clearly said in the post you are quoting, I do want to tackle pollution and congestion in the places where it concentrates. I believe that the longer term effect of progressively introducing LTN type schemes will be that traffic can be reduced everywhere including places that currently suffer the most. I've only said this about a thousand times already in this thread. For some reason, this part of the argument, the longer term and wider scale strategy never really seems to attract any engagement from the "concerned about displacement" people.
> 
> Presumably, it's not an argument that you think stacks up (despite many cities across the world having had success with this kind of strategy) because _you know best._
> 
> And how much consultation has there been with people on whether they are happy to just carry on as we are, and NOT attempt change of this kind? Is there a survey that says yes, 73% of Londoners would prefer just to do nothing until an unidentified alternative becomes politically and/or technically viable? Has anyone _clearly demonstrated the benefits_ of following what you say is best (do nothing, and say it's someone else's problem to think up an alternative)?


I've actually tried to address some of that in what I just wrote.  I certainly don't think I know best, but I can see glaring holes in the LTN ideology, so I'm trying to discuss them.  Frankly it's up to you and your side of the debate to answer any and all criticisms with something better than _'I believe..._ ' and, to paraphrase, _the only alternative is to do nothing or build more motorways_.  You, your side, is imposing it, it's up to you to justify it.  Not the other way round.

FWIW the report I just mentioned says (p184)

 
Make of that what you will.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> I've actually tried to address some of that in what I just wrote.  I certainly don't think I know best, but I can see glaring holes in the LTN ideology, so I'm trying to discuss them.  Frankly it's up to you and your side of the debate to answer any and all criticisms with something better than _'I believe..._ ' and, to paraphrase, _the only alternative is to do nothing or build more motorways_.  You, your side, is imposing it, it's up to you to justify it.  Not the other way round.


If you're saying things like modal shifts, traffic evaporation etc don't exist- why wouldn't you be asked to back that up?.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> You, your side, is imposing it, it's up to you to justify it.  Not the other way round.


Here's a street. It's communally owned space. What shall we do with it - shall we put a load of infrastructure on it (signage, markings, kerbs, traffic lights, licencing systems, parking systems & associated administrative backup to all of those things) to facilitate the use of private motor vehicles alongside pedestrians? Yes we shall. Everyone is basically agreed on that. Now the only question is the exact arrangement of that infrastructure, and the extent to which it prioritises pedestrians and other non-motorised road users. The proposal is, in the scheme of things, a very minor shift in the balance of priorities.

Either way, the street has a load of stuff "imposed" on it, a mixture of physical infrastructure and legal arrangements.

Why should one type of imposition require greater justification than the other? Why should one imposition be exempt from justification just because it's appeared gradually (and without any consultation)?

If you want to go all libertarian, then the street without impositions doesn't have any of this stuff on it, it's just a gap between some parcels of private property. I'm not actually suggesting you're part of this group but the funny thing about the portion of the motorist lobby which is obsessed with freedom and resisting authoritarian restrictions seems to forget that making it possible for people to drive motorised vehicles around on public streets involves an absolutely immense amount of imposed infrastructure and rules, the job of most of which is basically to prevent drivers doing whatever they want, not only to protect the more vulnerable road users but to avoid complete chaos.


----------



## nick (Sep 24, 2020)

editor said:


> This guy's great



Don't tell him Pike


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2020)

nick said:


> Don't tell him Pike


He's convinced that we're taking funding from Lambeth but refuses to click on a single link to check!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I did hear something about this at a local meeting. But didnt reallly believe Councils could do this ( pre pandemic) as imo it goes against local democracy. I did think Councils were obliged to consult first then put schemes in place. That is how local democracy worked I thought.



I think I may have been at the same meeting? Was it an online one in August?

A resident spoke about Natural Justice. At first I thought it was the same bull as those Soverign citizens (?) but then he said it was the main reasons why councils carry out consultation (fairness, proper procedure) and also the main reason why lambeth pushed these through under emergency powers. He said you're "shooting first and asking the questions later".


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here's a street. It's communally owned space. What shall we do with it - shall we put a load of infrastructure on it (signage, markings, kerbs, traffic lights, licencing systems, parking systems & associated administrative backup to all of those things) to facilitate the use of private motor vehicles alongside pedestrians? Yes we shall. Everyone is basically agreed on that. Now the only question is the exact arrangement of that infrastructure, and the extent to which it prioritises pedestrians and other non-motorised road users. The proposal is, in the scheme of things, a very minor shift in the balance of priorities.
> 
> Either way, the street has a load of stuff "imposed" on it, a mixture of physical infrastructure and legal arrangements.
> 
> Why should one type of imposition require greater justification than the other? Why should one imposition be exempt from justification just because it's appeared gradually (and without any consultation)?



Are you really contrasting the changes that have taken a century or so with what's been happening since sometime after this thread started?  I suppose in some rather abstract way you've got a point of sorts, but you're scratching vainly to find it or make it relevant.  




> If you want to go all libertarian, then the street without impositions doesn't have any of this stuff on it, it's just a gap between some parcels of private property. I'm not actually suggesting you're part of this group but the funny thing about the portion of the motorist lobby which is obsessed with freedom and resisting authoritarian restrictions seems to forget that making it possible for people to drive motorised vehicles around on public streets involves an absolutely immense amount of imposed infrastructure and rules, the job of most of which is basically to prevent drivers doing whatever they want, not only to protect the more vulnerable road users but to avoid complete chaos.


well yes but I don't.  None of that has anything to do with me or this discussion.


----------



## newbie (Sep 24, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If you're saying things like modal shifts, traffic evaporation etc don't exist- why wouldn't you be asked to back that up?.


I very much doubt you can show evidence of modal shift or traffic evaporation on any of the previous Brixton schemes you mentioned earlier, yet you have such faith you think it's up to me to prove it couldn't happen?   No, it's not.  It's up to those who are so keen on these flawed schemes to show that they will produce benefit to anyone other than a few obvious insiders.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> Are you really contrasting the changes that have taken a century or so with what's been happening since sometime after this thread started?  I suppose in some rather abstract way you've got a point of sorts, but you're scratching vainly to find it or make it relevant.


I am trying to make the point that implementing the LTNs is no more an 'imposition' than not implementing them. Either option involves imposition of rules and restrictions. Neither is retaining the status quo not changing anything - it's allowing a change to continue, a change that means increasing negative impacts for many people. Especially at this moment in time.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 24, 2020)

newbie said:


> I very much doubt you can show evidence of modal shift or traffic evaporation on any of the previous Brixton schemes you mentioned earlier, yet you have such faith you think it's up to me to prove it couldn't happen?   No, it's not.  It's up to those who are so keen on these flawed schemes to show that they will produce benefit to anyone other than a few obvious insiders.


But if you look at the way Blenheim estate was designed, or the modal filter that’s been on stratleven road as long as I can remember. Why are these things like that if it’s a bad idea?. What happened to the traffic?.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2020)

Still _exhaust fume city_ in my street


----------



## co-op (Sep 24, 2020)

Bus lanes

4 lanes reduced to 2 due to increasing car sizes

Road closures

Cycle lanes

all have been massively extended in the past 30 years, all "reduced capacity" for cars and yet at the end of all of them we were at the car-drivers paradise that was Lambeth before LTNs were introduced. Same thing will happen for LTNs. Same every time.


----------



## co-op (Sep 24, 2020)

Chuckling at the concern about air pollution from the car advocates on this thread, if that isn't a sign that this argument is about emotions not reason I don't know what is. If you care about air pollution, you get rid of cars first, simple as that.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 24, 2020)

editor said:


> Still _exhaust fume city_ in my street
> 
> View attachment 231662


You need an LTN which as you clearly work for Lambeth should be a breeze to get


----------



## organicpanda (Sep 24, 2020)

editor said:


> Still _exhaust fume city_ in my street
> 
> View attachment 231662


I've been watching this over the last few days, there is no morning rush hour traffic and then from about 10.30 it builds up to being like your photo till 7.00 and unusually the backup wasn't caused by cars/vans/lorries parked on double yellows, just seems to be too much traffic for the lights at Brixton Road


----------



## teuchter (Sep 24, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> I've been watching this over the last few days, there is no morning rush hour traffic and then from about 10.30 it builds up to being like your photo till 7.00 and unusually the backup wasn't caused by cars/vans/lorries parked on double yellows, just seems to be too much traffic for the lights at Brixton Road


I walked through around lunchtime today and there was no traffic backed up on that stretch at all.


----------



## happyshopper (Sep 24, 2020)

I often walk and drive down Coldharbour Lane and there’s no doubt there are times when the traffic is bad. What I don’t understand is why it should be assumed it’s anything to do with LTNs. What journeys are there that someone, because of a LTN, now diverts to CL.  There’s all sorts of other reasons why traffic is heavier.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 24, 2020)

Atlantic Road being closed, for starters.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2020)

This looks to me like the Borough Wide Traffic order that I posted about up thread.



> 3. The bans, one-way systems and suspensions would only apply at such times and to such extent as
> shall be indicated by the placing and covering of the appropriate traffic signs. They are necessary as
> a result of an increase in pedestrian and cyclist traffic and movement on the roads affected. This is as
> a result of the Council’s response to the Public Health restrictions on movement, exercise and social
> ...



If Im wrong can someone post up the correct info.

The Council paper I posted up ( post 2495) said that Borough wide transport order could be used to fastrack altering roads for social distancing etc without the usual consultation.

The Traffic order I have found by Lambeth specificially says any changes to roads are temporary. Justification being the pandemic.

Nothing in this order about LTNs. Though the provisions in the order would make it possible to introduce LTNs as the order allows road use alterations.

So if this is the right order then it is purely temporary and related to the pandemic. Its time limited.

I don't understand how this fits in with rolling out the LTNs across Lambeth.

From Council commonplace website they are proposed as moving to be permanent. But that is not what this Traffic Order is about.

Maybe Ive missed something but if this is the right Traffic Order its not enough to justify rolling out LTNs.

I do think Lambeth are using pandemic to roll out a project that they want without the usual consultation. If that is the case Im not happy.

Anyone who knows more about traffic orders? Is this the right one?

LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH
ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 - SECTION 14
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC AND PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR SAFE DISTANCING IN
CONNECTION WITH THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC RESTRICTIONS


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> I often walk and drive down Coldharbour Lane and there’s no doubt there are times when the traffic is bad. What I don’t understand is why it should be assumed it’s anything to do with LTNs. What journeys are there that someone, because of a LTN, now diverts to CL.  There’s all sorts of other reasons why traffic is heavier.



Shakespeare road is closed. 

The part of CHL that could be affect is from LJ to Brixton.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2020)

Same date as Borough wide traffic order one for the Oval Triangle. 

Again its temporary and justified by pandemic. 

At end of the report link to Oval LTN. 



> 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth, with the
> agreement of Transport for London, because of a likelihood of danger to the public have made an
> order





> 3. The above mentioned bans will only apply at such times or to such extent as shall be indicated by
> the placing of the appropriate traffic signs. They are necessary as a result of an increase in pedestrian
> and cyclist traffic and movement on the roads affected. This is as a result of the Public Health
> restrictions on movement, exercise and social distancing in connection to the Covid 19 pandemic. By
> So again the justification is



Also say more cycling and pedestrian movement but no links to data to prove that.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 24, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I think I may have been at the same meeting? Was it an online one in August?
> 
> A resident spoke about Natural Justice. At first I thought it was the same bull as those Soverign citizens (?) but then he said it was the main reasons why councils carry out consultation (fairness, proper procedure) and also the main reason why lambeth pushed these through under emergency powers. He said you're "shooting first and asking the questions later".



No it wasn't. It was at meeting some time ago. 

Supporter of one of the groups pushing for these LTNs etc said that Councils already had powers to introduce these alterations of roads. Without the usual consultation. As consultation held things up/ watered down schemes. So to avoid consultation Council should use its powers to as you put it shoot first and ask questions later.

It is clear to me that using these Emergency Traffic Orders is way to circumvent lengthy argumentative consultation. 

I think reason this was not done before is at least some sections of Council would have thought that this was politically unacceptable way to do things.

For those who are pro LTN lobbying Council to just get on with it and ride roughshod over residents was one way forward.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> You need an LTN which as you clearly work for Lambeth should be a breeze to get


Absolutely. We have a wonderful working relationship based on trust and money. I'll get the LTN sorted by the morning.

PS Please don't tell anyone they're paying us, especially that bloke on Twitter as I think he's on to us.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2020)

co-op said:


> Chuckling at the concern about air pollution from the car advocates on this thread, if that isn't a sign that this argument is about emotions not reason I don't know what is. If you care about air pollution, you get rid of cars first, simple as that.


Do you mean me? I'm not chuckling when I'm having to breathe in shitloads more exhaust fumes on my street. But I'm not a 'car advocate' either. Pretty much hate the things. Apart from Morris Travellers, obvs.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> I often walk and drive down Coldharbour Lane and there’s no doubt there are times when the traffic is bad. What I don’t understand is why it should be assumed it’s anything to do with LTNs. What journeys are there that someone, because of a LTN, now diverts to CL.  There’s all sorts of other reasons why traffic is heavier.


I think there's several things contributing to the increased traffic, and I wouldn't rule out the local LTNs as being contributory factors.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 24, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> This looks to me like the Borough Wide Traffic order that I posted about up thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Gramsci said:


> This looks to me like the Borough Wide Traffic order that I posted about up thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I read somewhere (one of the FB groups) that they had changed the language from temporary to experimental. 'Experimental Road Order' now and that the date was to start from.............late September?. SO the 18 month clock has not even started yet.


----------



## co-op (Sep 24, 2020)

editor said:


> Do you mean me? I'm not chuckling when I'm having to breathe in shitloads more exhaust fumes on my street. But I'm not a 'car advocate' either. Pretty much hate the things. Apart from Morris Travellers, obvs.



No I totally didn't mean you, I (think) I can see your position, ie getting the CHL pollution but also in favour of cycling, how is this going to work out long term. 

No, there are posters who are clearly very keen on stopping any pro-cycling, pro-pedestrian measures but who also want to claim some weird moral high ground of stopping any transport mode except cars on the basis of pollution, which is obviously absurd. 

No one who actually cares about pollution opposes LTNs, it's like the sudden concern about ambulances, it's just bogus.


----------



## co-op (Sep 24, 2020)

CHL has always jammed periodically by the way, always.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2020)

co-op said:


> No I totally didn't mean you, I (think) I can see your position, ie getting the CHL pollution but also in favour of cycling, how is this going to work out long term.
> 
> No, there are posters who are clearly very keen on stopping any pro-cycling, pro-pedestrian measures but who also want to claim some weird moral high ground of stopping any transport mode except cars on the basis of pollution, which is obviously absurd.
> 
> No one who actually cares about pollution opposes LTNs, it's like the sudden concern about ambulances, it's just bogus.


I'd like Land Rover mega-SUV owners to be taxed an extra £5,000.

Per wheel.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 24, 2020)

I haven't been following this thread closely, as I am only a resident facing exclusively onto Coldharbour Lane and unable to open the windows.
I'm wondering if this recent traffic choking on Coldharbour Lane is caused by traffic which formerly would have gone down Railton Road now doing a dog leg down Milkwood Road, then left into Coldharbour Lane? [coming from Herne Hill direction I mean]

Certainly if you stand on CHL opposite the Green Man Employment Exchange it is remarkable how the bulk of the traffic coming down Hinton Road does a sharp left rather than crossing the junction into Loughborough Road,


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Many of us have made our lives here - wanting it to be a better place to live (rather than the street we live on getting ever more rat running traffic enabled by Waze and google as it has over the last decade) isn't about an unrealisable theoretical financial gain at some point in the future, possibly for our heirs, it's about having a better environment to live in now.


Yes I've lived here for 22 years but loads of people have lived on my street much longer - 40+  years is not uncommon around here.  The high percentage of queer people in the area was the attraction for me, Lambeth has the highest number of older queers in the country.  Lots of Railton houses are Housing co-op flats (former Brixton Faerie squats) and there are plenty of housing association homes around here. Plenty of residents, have lived here since before the 81 uprising.



newbie said:


> Whatever your personal circumstances, demographically that isn't the case.  The vast majority turn up in this area in their 20s and leave before their 50s, most likely before that, when their children approach secondary school..
> 
> Churn is a major feature of this area.  A quick look on Rightmove shows plenty of places on Railton (first example) that have sold 3 or more times in the last few years.


If local estate agents are anything to go by, there are a large number of rental places in the area on short ASTs, which add to 'churn'.   Railton Rd has flooded twice in last 15 years leading to many basement flats been done up and resold.

I suppose you could be right about young couples moving on because of children - there are lots of small flats, badly converted in the 80s in Lambeth, too pokey for families - a flat up stairs has sold 4 times while we have been here - 3 times because of growing families  (once because of Brexit). Theres not enough schools I hear.

Does this area have a higher turnover than other London areas? - what has this got to do with clean air anyway?


----------



## blameless77 (Sep 25, 2020)

editor said:


> But you think it's OK for you to call people 'pieces of garbage' and 'twats'?


Clue: it’s really not.


----------



## blameless77 (Sep 25, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Since you asked... taxpayers all pay towards the cost of cycle lanes, including cyclist taxpayers, of which I'm one.
> 
> And we all pay towards the cost of roads, and the much more significant wear and tear created to roads by cars, even those of us including me which don't own a car.
> 
> ...


Nail meet head!
(edited to remove typo)


----------



## blameless77 (Sep 25, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> View attachment 228233
> 
> Bikes v cars v bus v pedestrians. This is why our city is dominated by the motor vehicle. Look at the cars when you're walking around and you'll see most of them have one occupant. Some of them will be driving down to the local shop.  Or the local Post Office. Change is long overdue.



no one has a right to drive


----------



## co-op (Sep 25, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> I suppose you could be right about young couples moving on because of children - there are lots of small flats, badly converted in the 80s in Lambeth, too pokey for families - a flat up stairs has sold 4 times while we have been here - 3 times because of growing families  (once because of Brexit). Theres not enough schools I hear.



I think primary schools was an issue for middle class parents in that poets corner area, Jubilee was seen as the estate school for the Tulse Hill estate and Jessop used to have quite a bad rep, I remember seeing "Jim Dickson" the Labour councillor for the area trying to talk Jessop up at some parents meeting back in 2010, although of course like a hypocritical wanker he had voted to close the old primary school and then moved out of the area to Rosendale ward to send his own kids there.

The middle class parents usually started pretending to be christians to get in at St Judes or moved out, not sure what they do now.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 25, 2020)

co-op said:


> I think primary schools was an issue for middle class parents in that poets corner area, Jubilee was seen as the estate school for the Tulse Hill estate and Jessop used to have quite a bad rep, I remember seeing "Jim Dickson" the Labour councillor for the area trying to talk Jessop up at some parents meeting back in 2010, although of course like a hypocritical wanker he had voted to close the old primary school and then moved out of the area to Rosendale ward to send his own kids there.
> 
> The middle class parents usually started pretending to be christians to get in at St Judes or moved out, not sure what they do now.


A friend of mine started dropping by for a cup of tea like clockwork every Sunday at about 11. After about a month I asked him why and he said that he'd started going to church for exactly that reason and dropping by on his way home. I think the churchgoer requirement was dropped about the time his child was accepted. I was told last week that St Judes has recently been under subscribed. I get the impression secondary school choice is more of a catalyst for moving than primary for parents.

I'd be interested to know how the LTN has affected St Judes. Road layout changes mean that when driving in the area I drive directly past the school gates when I rarely did before the LTN. They have recently made a planning application for an ivy screen for pollution protection but I think it is on the other side facing Park View.


----------



## newbie (Sep 25, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> Does this area have a higher turnover than other London areas? - what has this got to do with clean air anyway?


Did you look at the graph I was aksed for and linked, which clearly shows how few school age children, particularly teenagers, how many 20s/30s and how few over 50s there are in Lambeth relative to both Greater London and England?  Comparison with other London boroughs, and breaking down into smaller areas is for another thread, but yes, excess churn is probably the most dominant demographic feature of this area, and has been for decades.


----------



## technical (Sep 25, 2020)

newbie said:


> I'm not wanting to personalise, sorry if that's how it came across.
> 
> I don't really disagree with your post, we have a lot of common ground, but there are points I want to tease out.
> 
> ...



The benefits I am talking about (less traffic, better air quality, more equitable use of roads, safer streets through less speeding) will accrue to everyone although yes, particularly to those inside the LTNs. You're being slightly disingenuous in talking about indirect effects other than the primary objectives of the scheme. I think you may well be correct about these, but it's worth using these schemes to test everybody's theory. As for 'magical evaporation' of traffic - you know as well as I do that there is evidence that this does actually happen - yes, there is some disagreement as to accuracy and whether it would happen in other contexts but again this is a worthwhile opportunity to better understand if it works.

Main roads are main roads - in large cities such as London in the current political and economic climate it simply isn't practical to redesign the built environment to allow for greater separation of heavy traffic and residential areas. I'm not sure it would be at any time in fact, but right now not only would the cost be prohibitive, but you would have to completely rewrite the planning system to make it feasible. The problem of strategic road use and pollution can only be solved by eliminating the combustion engine, although the increased demand for electricity for electric vehicles will bring its own problems.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 25, 2020)

CH1 said:


> I haven't been following this thread closely, as I am only a resident facing exclusively onto Coldharbour Lane and unable to open the windows.
> I'm wondering if this recent traffic choking on Coldharbour Lane is caused by traffic which formerly would have gone down Railton Road now doing a dog leg down Milkwood Road, then left into Coldharbour Lane? [coming from Herne Hill direction I mean]
> 
> Certainly if you stand on CHL opposite the Green Man Employment Exchange it is remarkable how the bulk of the traffic coming down Hinton Road does a sharp left rather than crossing the junction into Loughborough Road,


Maybe they're avoiding herne hill because of the roadworks under the bridge, but dulwich road itself seems to be flowing freely.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 25, 2020)

newbie said:


> Did you look at the graph I was aksed for and linked, which clearly shows how few school age children, particularly teenagers, how many 20s/30s and how few over 50s there are in Lambeth relative to both Greater London and England?  Comparison with other London boroughs, and breaking down into smaller areas is for another thread, but yes, excess churn is probably the most dominant demographic feature of this area, and has been for decades.
> 
> View attachment 231701


Thanks for that - interesting.  So definitely has been a subset of transient population who are here for a (relatively) short time, from their mid 20's to their late 30's and then move on but. the rest of the age bands aren't _that_ different to Greater London as a whole, nor for children even to the UK as a whole.  Ie there are a lot of people in the area who make their lives, and bring up their families here in Lambeth and, I suspect, increasing numbers around Brixton. Is that a positive or negative gentrification effect? 

the notable thing about that graphic is that the big divergence from London and UK averages is over 55's.  Historically it looks like even many people who've brought up their families in the city retire away from it. Again, has always seemed crazy to me to relocate away from a place where shops and services are within easy walking distance once you get older.


----------



## blameless77 (Sep 25, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> I often walk and drive down Coldharbour Lane and there’s no doubt there are times when the traffic is bad. What I don’t understand is why it should be assumed it’s anything to do with LTNs. What journeys are there that someone, because of a LTN, now diverts to CL.  There’s all sorts of other reasons why traffic is heavier.



the giant laundry truck that parks outside the holiday inn certainly doesn’t help...


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 25, 2020)

Hackney councillor is now getting death threats for his pro LTN policies


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 25, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Hackney councillor is now getting death threats for his pro LTN policies



And someone round here is actually trying to excuse it? 


Unbelievable


----------



## editor (Sep 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> And someone round here is actually trying to excuse it?
> 
> 
> Unbelievable
> ...



Who is this charmer?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 25, 2020)

No excuses for that, disgusting


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I read somewhere (one of the FB groups) that they had changed the language from temporary to experimental. 'Experimental Road Order' now and that the date was to start from.............late September?. SO the 18 month clock has not even started yet.



Thanks for tip. Ive tried to look this up.

Found one for Oval Triangle. As you say its dated September.

Nothing on the Exparimental Traffic Order about the pandemic. Also as its an ETO the normal consultation does not apply. If one objects has to be writing six months from the start of ETO starting and in writing to a specific officer. The Council can make it permanent at end of time.

Looked up the Council Oval LTN commonplace and cant find this document.

The Oval commonplace had map one can comment on. But this is about how one see the the LTN working. Not about opposing it.

These legal documents and how one can officially object should be on the Lambeth Commonplace websites.

It should be explained to people how the decisions were made and on what grounds.

What I see is that the Council are fudging the issue. On one hand saying these are temporary measures done with out the normal consultation due to the pandemic. ( Borough Wide Traffic order Ive posted up about) .But in case of Oval LTN also having ETO. Which does not mention Covid. The Council are saying they were looking at LTN for Oval. This is fastracking it. The ETO leads to permanent scheme. The comments asked for on the Commoplace map are to tweak the LTN not oppose it.

This is poor communication from Lambeth.

I think the Commonplace websites are not giving people full information. The charitable view. The uncharitable view is that Lambeth are using pandemic to push through the scheme they want.

Here is what Lambeth say:



> In normal circumstances we would not have implemented a traffic scheme like this without engaging with the local community first. But these are extraordinary times and we have chosen to act quickly to implement a temporary scheme that is effective at stopping through traffic












						About Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

A space to learn about and feed into the Oval Low Traffic Neighbourhood.




					ovalltnproposals.commonplace.is
				




I object to this way of doing things. I should not be hunting around on the web for this info. What I don't know is if the Council are doing this for each LTN.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 25, 2020)

From this fair article on opposition across London to the imposition of LTNs on communities.

Ealing, Islington and Lambeth are mentioned.

Common complaint is lack of consultation. Also are Cllrs listening.

Cllr Dickson of Lambeth reckons they are:



> But Lambeth Council cabinet member Jim Dickson tweeted confidently that, “Given the scale and rapid roll-out, a small Brixton gathering on a sunny Saturday to say no to #LTNs tells me that opponents are currently a minority. #LTNs are a necessary change & cllrs continue to listen to all!”



This is the Cllr who who almost lost his seat due to not listening. The Carnegie library issue. Cllr Dickson is long time New Labour Cllr. Always put the supporting the leadership of the One party state of Lambeth first.









						From Ealing to Lambeth, protests continue against London Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - OnLondon
					

A large demo in suburban Ealing was among the eye-catching sights of Saturday’s co-ordinated protests against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) in several boroughs. Campaigners are frustrated at the lack of consultation before the start of trials and say the changes are causing more congestion...




					www.onlondon.co.uk


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 25, 2020)

newbie said:


> Did you look at the graph I was aksed for and linked, which clearly shows how few school age children, particularly teenagers, how many 20s/30s and how few over 50s there are in Lambeth relative to both Greater London and England?  Comparison with other London boroughs, and breaking down into smaller areas is for another thread, but yes, excess churn is probably the most dominant demographic feature of this area, and has been for decades.
> 
> View attachment 231701


I wasn't expecting that, I wonder if the streets near me are just unrepresentative?


----------



## paolo (Sep 26, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> I wasn't expecting that, I wonder if the streets near me are just unrepresentative?



Possibly confirmation bias. You’ll remember the people you identify with more than those you don’t. (I don’t mean that rudely - it’s something everyone has, part of being human.)


----------



## co-op (Sep 26, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> This is the Cllr who who almost lost his seat due to not listening. The Carnegie library issue. Cllr Dickson is long time New Labour Cllr. Always put the supporting the leadership of the One party state of Lambeth first.



Worth pointing out that the reason "Jim Dickson" almost lost his seat in 2018 was because of a big surge to the Green Party and that'll be one reason (probably the main reason) why he will be parading his pro-cycling and generally green credentials. He's obviously just looking out for himself, that's all he's ever done, but a surging Green Party vote is evidence that many local people are in favour of LTN style future.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 26, 2020)

I think the Green Party surge was down to Stalag Brockwell more than anything else.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 26, 2020)

co-op said:


> Worth pointing out that the reason "Jim Dickson" almost lost his seat in 2018 was because of a big surge to the Green Party and that'll be one reason (probably the main reason) why he will be parading his pro-cycling and generally green credentials. He's obviously just looking out for himself, that's all he's ever done, but a surging Green Party vote is evidence that many local people are in favour of LTN style future.



During the LJ road closures the Green Party was silent when the Labour party got a lot of stick from locals. Greens let Labour suffer the consequencs of its failed lTN style project in Loughborough Junction. So don't think Greens have a particularly principled take on LTNs.

At local elections in Coldharbour Ward the line from the Green party is we are better than Labour on local issues. Green issues took a back seat in Coldharbour.

The sole Green Cllr at time of the Carnegie library issue in Herne Hill waa a vocal supporter of the Lmbeth Library campaign. So that gained Green party votes. They were party to support library campaign.

In Lambeth the support for Greens is them positioning themselves as the left as against a Council run by the right of the Labour party. The Lambeth Labour party has been run by the Progress right of the party for years so no chance for anyone getting to be a Labour Cllr if you are soft left /  Corbyn supporter type.

Cllr Rachel was chucked out for signs of independence from the ruling Progress clique.

I don't think in Lambeth voting green shows support for or against LTNs.

At time of Owen leadership bid Cllr Hopkins/ Cllr Claire Hollnad wrote letter to constituents urging people to join Labour to get rid of Corbyn and his "friends".









						Lambeth Labour Cllr’s come out in support of Owen Smith in party leadership contest
					

Fourteen Lambeth Labour Cllr’s have defied the party leadership by coming out to publicly support Owen Smith.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




They are that right wing.

To quote from the letter

" We also feel that should Jeremy and his friends remain in charge that rule changes could jeopardise who your local Cllrs could be in the future"

Make no mistake theses people hated all that Corbyn stood for. They were scared that big surge in membership from left leaning people could lead to them being not reselected for their seats in future. For them getting rid of Corbyn means keeping Lambeth a Progress One party state.

The Greens in Lambeth were the alternative Labour party for those who could not stomach Lambeth Labour policies of libraries , estate regeneration etc. Main reason I vote for them locally and Labour party nationally.


----------



## co-op (Sep 26, 2020)

Seriously I know that Lambeth Labour Party are about as right wing and unprincipled as they come. Hence the readiness to act Green if they think there are some quick and easy votes in it.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 26, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think the Green Party surge was down to Stalag Brockwell more than anything else.



I don't know what that is but I love the term!.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 26, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think the Green Party surge was down to Stalag Brockwell more than anything else.


do explain more


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Sep 27, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> do explain more











						Mighty Hoopla, Cross The Tracks, Wide Awake & Field Day festivals,  Brockwell Park  -  discussion
					

Line-ups been announced. Might come out of retirement for this one.  Line-up | Field Day Festival | Weekend of Saturday 2nd June 2018  Badu!  UPDATE: Skip to this post for news of the 2019 festival




					www.urban75.net


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 27, 2020)

friendofdorothy said:


> do explain more


----------



## CH1 (Sep 27, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> During the LJ road closures the Green Party was silent when the Labour party got a lot of stick from locals. Greens let Labour suffer the consequencs of its failed lTN style project in Loughborough Junction. So don't think Greens have a particularly principled take on LTNs.
> 
> At local elections in Coldharbour Ward the line from the Green party is we are better than Labour on local issues. Green issues took a back seat in Coldharbour.
> 
> ...


I was fascinated to hear the other side of Andrew Carnegie's philanthropy on Radio Three last Thursday night. This in view of this commentary by Gramsci on local Green party activities I've been a member of the Green party for several years and whereas their policies seems a bit pick and mix as Gramsci says they definitely strongly opposed the council's plans for Cressingham Gardens and Central Hill Estate.

They also clearly opposed the council's plans for the Carnegie Library. Though one wonders what the back story is to Nick Edwards splitting off from the Greens, standing as an independent and possibly saving Jim Dickson's bacon.

But what I referred to above is this Radio Three late night programme BBC Radio 3 - Free Thinking, Conservatism, Philanthropy, Liberal and socialist futures
In it Grace Blakely put the boot into Carnegie good and proper - Basingstoke Bolshevist that she is.
Apparently he built so many libraries, from the fruits of his exploitation of labour, because he considered you needed a well educated society to enable people to do more business. This Guardian article deploys the same sort of arguments The trouble with philanthropy is that money can't buy equality

So what is the true ethical position on Carnegie libraries - or is Grace Blakely behaving like an Anti-Vaxxer pouring bile on Bill Gates??
I'm beginning to wonder amid all this Alex Jones/Dominic Cummings fake news and manipulation - would I have had a guilty conscience voting to save the Carnegie? Would I have been helping a capitalist monster achieve his ends from beyond the grave?

PS Studio 73 in Brixton Village had a Dominic Cummings T-shirt in the window the other day. Be quick - they are closing down shortly.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 27, 2020)

CH1 said:


> I was fascinated to hear the other side of Andrew Carnegie's philanthropy on Radio Three last Thursday night. This in view of this commentary by Gramsci on local Green party activities I've been a member of the Green party for several years and whereas their policies seems a bit pick and mix as Gramsci says they definitely strongly opposed the council's plans for Cressingham Gardens and Central Hill Estate.
> 
> They also clearly opposed the council's plans for the Carnegie Library. Though one wonders what the back story is to Nick Edwards splitting off from the Greens, standing as an independent and possibly saving Jim Dickson's bacon.
> 
> ...



In Scotland we say his problem was not realising that people couldn't eat books.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2020)

If one is going to object to Carnegie on the basis that he said a well educated society is good for business... Better start campaigning for all libraries to be shut down, and then move on to schools and universities. That'll show big business.


----------



## wurlycurly (Sep 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If one is going to object to Carnegie on the basis that he said a well educated society is good for business... Better start campaigning for all libraries to be shut down, and then move on to schools and universities. That'll show big business.



He was progressive. I think he'd have supported LTNs (back on topic!).


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 27, 2020)

CH1 said:


> I was fascinated to hear the other side of Andrew Carnegie's philanthropy on Radio Three last Thursday night. This in view of this commentary by Gramsci on local Green party activities I've been a member of the Green party for several years and whereas their policies seems a bit pick and mix as Gramsci says they definitely strongly opposed the council's plans for Cressingham Gardens and Central Hill Estate.
> 
> They also clearly opposed the council's plans for the Carnegie Library. Though one wonders what the back story is to Nick Edwards splitting off from the Greens, standing as an independent and possibly saving Jim Dickson's bacon.
> 
> ...


Ive been reading Grace Blakely in Tribune. She is very good writer on economics from a left position.

Well of course Carnegie got rich on basis of exploitation.

The comparison to the present is the Evening Standard. Owned by a Russian Oligarch and run by Tory types. Regular stuff in ES about supporting the homeless or the deprived. It does not cross the minds of these people that they are part of the problem. Or it does and they think running these ES campaigns will avert attention away from their wealth, power and privilege. So "philanthropy" is a defence mechanism.

As an example. One of the reasons the Victorians started off the cult of Colston was that the working class in Victorian Bristol were getting to be a problem. So ( leaving aside slavery) idea was to present the middlle classes in Bristol as well meaning caring people. Paternalistic. Philanthropic towards the less well off. So trying to get the poor not to support something as radical as socialism. It was creation of idea of well meaniiing paternalism and the lower orders knowing there place.

Perhaps the ordinary worker resents paternalism.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> If one is going to object to Carnegie on the basis that he said a well educated society is good for business... Better start campaigning for all libraries to be shut down, and then move on to schools and universities. That'll show big business.


Didn't Pol Pot do this - and Mao?
There was an interesting American book of the week on Radio Four two weeks back about the suppression of Tibetan culture in the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
These people always go for the libraries. As did ISIS in Timbuktu.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2020)

One of the pair of planter gates on St Matthews Road has been removed - so no longer a "pedestrian" area between gates in front of St Matthews Tenants Hall. I suspect that they did this to increase parking for Lambeth Town Hall car free development, as it occupied the space of 10-12 parking spaces. Lambeth Car Free town hall currently issues special permits to 200 vehicles to be parked in streets around the town hall. The council has formal guidelines to discourage abuse of the permits but invariably wardens advise that they are instructed by Lambeth not to take action against badly parked Lambeth town hall vehicles in the vicinity of the Town Hall. Lambeth council denies this.

Still no camera enforcement on the remaining gate. Someone seems to drive through pretty much every time I pass.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2020)

Are the permits for Lambeth-owned vehicles, or are they for private vehicles owned by employees?


----------



## Ol Nick (Sep 28, 2020)

I would like to say that one of the new pleasures of living in Brixton is taking a spin on the bike down Railton Road to get down to Crystal Palace. Who have though it?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Are the permits for Lambeth-owned vehicles, or are they for private vehicles owned by employees?


Both.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Both.


Is the car free bit in the planning permission conditions for the new town hall? Can you start a request for enforcement, if it's a breach?


----------



## Rushy (Sep 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Is the car free bit in the planning permission conditions for the new town hall? Can you start a request for enforcement, if it's a breach?



The pre application-gumph  made a fuss about being car-free. http://yournewtownhall.org/


> The scheme will be ‘car-free’ – parking permits will not be allowed, except for basement parking for wheelchair residents within the Olive Morris House development.



This was echoed in the application's D&AS

6.3 Parking provision *The development will be predominantly car-free. This is due to its town centre location, excellent access to public transport (PTAL of 6) and the commitment to improve the public realm and achieve high levels of sustainability.* New residential dwellings within the development will not be assigned car parking and residents will not be eligible for parking permits in the local CPZs. The provision of car parking on the site will be reduced. The open land to the rear of the Town Hall Parade and Hambrook House, currently used for off- street car parking, will be absorbed by new development. On-street car parking will be reduced on Porden and Buckner Roads through the implementation of public realm improvements and traffic amendments. Provision has been made for a limited number of on-street spaces, assigned as follows: Porden Road • 9 parking spaces within a CPZ for existing residents of Porden Road • 2 parking spaces for car club vehicles • 1 disabled blue-badge parking for general use Buckner Road • 6 disabled blue-badge parking for Lambeth staff and visitors Total 18 parking spaces A full Transport Assessment has been submitted separately and gives further background and justification for the proposed parking provisions.

However ...
I can't find the transport assessment. And I recall finding something somewhere about a parking survey carried out as far south as Dumbarton Road saying there was capacity for Lambeth Town Hall vehicles to be absorbed in local streets. Although this would have been in line with existing parking restrictions. Of course, no one wants to park as far south as Dumbarton when working at the town hall. So they fill yellow lines close to the town hall and are not enforced against.

So "car free" appears to only mean building on car parks and parking all displaced vehicles on the road off site.

ETA. Of course, I wrote to Lambeth planning enforcement but never received a reply.


----------



## Ryan2468 (Sep 28, 2020)

Ol Nick said:


> I would like to say that one of the new pleasures of living in Brixton is taking a spin on the bike down Railton Road to get down to Crystal Palace. Who have though it?



It's on my commute route - I used to dread going down there as you'd face head on speeding traffic very frequently. Some of the speeding down there was crazy. I thought before the LTNs came in there was a bit of an argument to make it one way for vehicles given how narrow it is for modern cars.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 28, 2020)

Rushy said:


> The pre application-gumph  made a fuss about being car-free. http://yournewtownhall.org/
> 
> 
> This was echoed in the application's D&AS
> ...



Thanks for this info. So Lambeth Council leads the way in telling people to get on bikes and walk. 

In its own backyard it gives its staff permits to park in local streets. 

The wonderful new Town Hall development  according to the Council , has bike parking facilities. 


*



			A new cycle hub
		
Click to expand...

*


> with changing/shower facilities and a café, now completed.



So why isn't the Council telling its workers to cycle or walk to work?

Or is that only for joe public in LTNs? The "Culture war" our New Labour Deputy leader Claire Holland was going on about in Starmer supporting Guardian. 









						The new road rage: bitter rows break out over UK’s low-traffic neighbourhoods
					

As barriers and signs go up to stop rat runs and promote cycling and walking, communities are deeply divided over the benefits




					www.theguardian.com
				




Looks to me that the Council has created its own LTN around the Town Hall with get out clause that it as the ruliing power can invent a permit system to dump the problem on nearby streets. 

These New Labour Cllrs really wind me up.

Been looking at Cllr Claire Hollnad twitter and she is full of herself fighting the "progrressive" corner against those nasty anti LTN people.


----------



## friendofdorothy (Sep 28, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Mighty Hoopla, Cross The Tracks, Wide Awake & Field Day festivals,  Brockwell Park  -  discussion
> 
> 
> Line-ups been announced. Might come out of retirement for this one.  Line-up | Field Day Festival | Weekend of Saturday 2nd June 2018  Badu!  UPDATE: Skip to this post for news of the 2019 festival
> ...





sleaterkinney said:


>


I'd nearly forgotten, it's all seems such a long time ago now. I'd almost forgotten how much Lambeth liked to pimp out our park.  Thank you for the reminder.

It's been thoughly reclaimed by community it this year though.


----------



## madolesance (Sep 28, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for this info. So Lambeth Council leads the way in telling people to get on bikes and walk.
> 
> In its own backyard it gives its staff permits to park in local streets.
> 
> ...






> A new cycle hub
> with changing/shower facilities, now completed.



Completed 18 months ago and well used by council staff. Also loads of share bicycles available for council staff plus about 12 bromptons for staff to borrow. Not perfect, but definitely trying to encourage the cycling option.


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 29, 2020)

madolesance said:


> Completed 18 months ago and well used by council staff. Also loads of share bicycles available for council staff plus about 12 bromptons for staff to borrow. Not perfect, but definitely trying to encourage the cycling option.


Was going to say the same thing - the times I’ve been into the bike / shower area there it’s big and almost always full of bikes that had been ridden that day.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2020)

Watching comments in various places, quite a common objection raised involves someone saying they need their car to do supermarket shopping.

It's then suggested that online ordering & deliveries are now quite widespread.

The answer to this, is that they shop at Lidl or Aldi, and they don't do deliveries, and the supermarkets that do, are too expensive.

My reaction to this is that owning a car seems a heavy-handed approach to making food shopping a bit cheaper, but I decided to try and see what the numbers are.

The average supermarket spend, per week per household, seems to be about £40 to £60 in the UK depending on who you ask. Let's say £50. It's claimed that Aldi/Lidl is 10-20% cheaper than the "big 4" supermarkets. Let's be generous and say 20%. That means that by shopping at Aldi/Lidl, you might save £10 a week.

The cost of owning a car, per year, excluding fuel also varies depending who you ask. Anything from £2000 to much more than that. Let's take £2000. That's about £40 per week, before you pay for your petrol.

So the car costs you £40 per week and saves you £10 per week on your supermarket bill.

Of course, people will say the car is useful for other things and saves them money there too. But they still have £30+ to account for. And also this is one of the problems of ownership, because once you've bought the car, you've put all that money down and then want to see a return on it, which is one of the reasons why it then ends up getting used for journeys where it's not really necessary.

In any case, the LTNs don't stop anyone driving to Aldi - they just make it take a bit longer. Those car users who object to their time being wasted in this way - if they got shot of the car and started getting deliveries, not only would they make a cash saving but they could reclaim the time, probably a couple of hours at least, that it takes them to drive to the supermarket, do the shopping and come back again. If their time is valuable, surely it makes more sense, even if LTNs aren't even in the picture.

Another option is to split the shopping - heavy non perishable stuff from the supermarket, delivered, but less frequently than weekly. Then ad hoc trips on foot to the local shop, for other stuff. Supporting those local businesses that there's concern about.


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2020)

More on that survey Brixton’s low traffic neighbourhood drives big rise in cycling – survey


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 29, 2020)

Despite the rain this morning, Railton Road was still busy with cyclists and walkers (adults and children), so some habits are becoming more permanent.

There was a traffic jam of cyclists getting across Vauxhall bridge.


----------



## Aristocrat (Sep 29, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Watching comments in various places, quite a common objection raised involves someone saying they need their car to do supermarket shopping.
> 
> It's then suggested that online ordering & deliveries are now quite widespread.
> 
> ...



^^ This. heavy investment in car ads dupes people who don't need them into thinking they need them. Once they've sunk all that investment, and pay their annual insurance bill, the marginal cost of each trip is really low compared to public transport, so they think the whole cost is lower and take the car. I know, because I used to own a car.


----------



## Aristocrat (Sep 29, 2020)

editor said:


> Who is this charmer?



Another charmer from our 'hood and regular unconstructive troll on Twitter and other social media platforms is busy deploying amateur graphology skills to suggest that Burke faked his own death threat letter.


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2020)

Aristocrat said:


> Another charmer from our 'hood and regular unconstructive troll on Twitter and other social media platforms is busy deploying amateur graphology skills to suggest that Burke faked his own death threat letter.



" Joined September 2020"

Nuff said...


----------



## Ol Nick (Sep 29, 2020)

teuchter said:


> So the car costs you £40 per week and saves you £10 per week on your supermarket bill.


The fundamental economic problem with cars is that the fixed costs are high and the variable costs relatively lower so once you do own a car it becomes economically sensible to use it. Road pricing rather than fixed taxes would help but you still have insurance, MoT, repairs and purchase which are fixed costs. Fix that and you fix cars.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2020)

Ol Nick said:


> The fundamental economic problem with cars is that the fixed costs are high and the variable costs relatively lower so once you do own a car it becomes economically sensible to use it. Road pricing rather than fixed taxes would help but you still have insurance, MoT, repairs and purchase which are fixed costs. Fix that and you fix cars.


Yes, there is a thread on here where I suggest getting rid of private car ownership altogether and making them all car shares, to deal with this. Not a popular idea, as you might expect.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2020)

madolesance said:


> Completed 18 months ago and well used by council staff. Also loads of share bicycles available for council staff plus about 12 bromptons for staff to borrow. Not perfect, but definitely trying to encourage the cycling option.



So why is the Council car free Town Hall development needing to use neighbouring streets as unoffiicial car park?

This really wrankles. 

If Council is going to set an example as its now rolling out LTNs on Joe public then this need to stop don't you think?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Watching comments in various places, quite a common objection raised involves someone saying they need their car to do supermarket shopping.
> 
> It's then suggested that online ordering & deliveries are now quite widespread.
> 
> ...



I work with a couple of ex market traders.

Supermarkets destroyed local shops and markets.

Take our newly "Green" New Labour Council which took away the Brixton Market car park to placate Tescos Streatham ice rink deal. I didn't see Lambeth Council insisting the development there was car free.

I don't get all your argument.

Some people I know use Uber to get large shopping from supermarket. Or use the delivery service. So that is going to increase traffic. Whether one owns a car or not.

If the idea is to reduce traffic something needs to be done about providing affordable local food/ shopping for people.

So called local Tescos are expensive compared to the big ones. LJ Tescos I only use if desparate.

So perhaps some nationalisation of food distribution is required. To get it to local areas at affordable price.

Im all for some joined up thinking on reducing traffic. So as well as nationalising transport getting rid of the strangle hold that the big supermarkets have can go on the list.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2020)

Im all for a FAIR transition to a Green economy.


----------



## madolesance (Sep 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So why is the Council car free Town Hall development needing to use neighbouring streets as unoffiicial car park?
> 
> This really wrankles.
> 
> If Council is going to set an example as its now rolling out LTNs on Joe public then this need to stop don't you think?


But are Lambeth using local neighbourhood streets for parking? Most of them already look like they are full of residence's vehicles. Can we have more facts rather than curtain twitching hearsay please.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2020)

madolesance said:


> But are Lambeth using local neighbourhood streets for parking? Most of them already look like they are full of residence's vehicles. Can we have more facts rather than curtain twitching hearsay please.



have you been reading past few pages of this thread?

I don't think so.

BTW I posted a lot of facts about the traffic orders that Lambeth has been using. The fact that it has not clearly stated to residents how to object and the actual process its been using. What is your view you on that as you are keen on  "facts" now and not "curtain twitching"?

The logic of your argument is that Im "curtain twitching" using "hearsay" but Im supposed to take your comment on the Council encouraging cycle use at face value. So that is not "curtain twitching". Give me a break please.


----------



## madolesance (Sep 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> have you been reading past few pages of this thread?
> 
> I don't think so.
> 
> BTW I posted a lot of facts about the traffic orders that Lambeth has been using. The fact that it has not clearly stated to residents how to object and the actual process its been using. What is your view you on that as you are keen on  "facts" now and not "curtain twitching"?


Been reading and trying keep up with this long and occasionally tiresome thread. Got a letter from Lambeth clearly out lining their plans for my local area regarding LTNs. All very clear about their intentions and clear information regarding any objections and how to present them. Whats not to like? Shall we work to increase motor vehicles because they are necessary or aim to reduce them?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 29, 2020)

madolesance said:


> Been reading and trying keep up with this long and occasionally tiresome thread. Got a letter from Lambeth clearly out lining their plans for my local area regarding LTNs. All very clear about their intentions and clear information regarding any objections and how to present them. Whats not to like? Shall we work to increase motor vehicles because they are necessary or aim to reduce them?



So whatever Lambeth say you take at face value. 

You really have not been reading this thread. Ive shown that Lambeth have not given clear information on how they are doing this. It took me time searching for info. That is a fact not me being a "curtain twitcher"


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2020)

madolesance said:


> Been reading and trying keep up with this long and occasionally tiresome thread. Got a letter from Lambeth clearly out lining their plans for my local area regarding LTNs. All very clear about their intentions and clear information regarding any objections and how to present them. Whats not to like? Shall we work to increase motor vehicles because they are necessary or aim to reduce them?


Just to balance out the debate: I'm in Coldharbour Lane which is now suffering a big increase in traffic/pollution and it seems pretty clear that this is - at least partly - brought on by the LTNs. I've had no consultation, no letters, nothing and I'm getting really fucked off with the growing traffic numbers.


----------



## madolesance (Sep 29, 2020)

editor said:


> Just to balance out the debate: I'm in Coldharbour Lane which is now suffering a big increase in traffic/pollution and it seems pretty clear that this is - at least partly - brought on by the LTNs. I've had no consultation, no letters, nothing and I'm getting really fucked off with the growing traffic numbers.


Car Free Day?
When some one drives down Coldharbour Lane do they ask your permission to be there or do they just expect it a privilege that no one should object to? That's your neighbourhood! Step back and think about who should be using it.


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2020)

madolesance said:


> Car Free Day?
> When some one drives down Coldharbour Lane do they ask your permission to be there or do they just expect it a privilege that no one should object to? That's your neighbourhood! Step back and think about who should be using it.


I've really no idea what you're on about, sorry, but as a resident I think I'm entitled to have a moan when the traffic and the pollution suddenly increases outside my home.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2020)

I passed through Tooting at the weekend, removing the LTNs there seems to have sorted everything out.


----------



## editor (Sep 29, 2020)

They should make it a law that when some twat in a monster SUV has blocked the pavement with his oversized slab of metal, you are entitled to walk directly over it, or draw pretty pictures in the paintwork with your key.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 30, 2020)

editor said:


> Just to balance out the debate: I'm in Coldharbour Lane which is now suffering a big increase in traffic/pollution and it seems pretty clear that this is - at least partly - brought on by the LTNs. I've had no consultation, no letters, nothing and I'm getting really fucked off with the growing traffic numbers.


I'm also on Coldharbour Lane. I've recently received a leaflet through my letter box inviting me to do a survey on an app or the internet.
I haven't got round to it yet - so can't tell you what they ask about.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 30, 2020)

madolesance said:


> But are Lambeth using local neighbourhood streets for parking? Most of them already look like they are full of residence's vehicles. Can we have more facts rather than curtain twitching hearsay please.


How can you tell they are mostly full of resident's vehicles? What do you think a Lambeth council vehicle looks like? Until recently you could tell them by looking at the permits. Now they are moving to virtual permits - no paper disc. You can't tell the difference apart from a handful of their branded vehicles.

Here's a single yellow line at midday on a Wednesday. The Town Hall is 50-100yds around the corner. Every single one of those cars on the near side (yellow line) is a Lambeth permitted vehicle.



And again, a Friday at 1.30pm. Yep - that graffitied van too. It did not move from its spot on the yellow line for almost three months. Not a single parking ticket.



I have counted 18 Lambeth permits parked just at the north end of the road at once. That's pretty much every parking bay and yellow line fully occupied and 10% of the council's 189 permits.

Staff have been formally banned by Lambeth from parking Lambeth vehicles on Porden, Buckner and Acre Lane  (although they still appear to from what I have seen on Acre Lane).  St Matthews is the next closest road. Not that their permits actually entitle them to park there anyway - I had to do an FOI to find out what their actual permit usage guidelines are because they were being so vague. It seems that you can't get a straight answer about much without an FOI these days.

Lambeth insists that the street is thoroughly enforced but another FOI shows that this does not seem to apply to Lambeth vehicles - of over 500 tickets on the street in three years, less than 1% went to vehicles identifiable as Lambeth staff vehicles for parking in a restricted street during controlled hours. Wardens repeatedly confirm that they are told to ignore illegally parked Lambeth staff vehicles.

Lambeth's response for at least two years has been that they are having a review of their staff parking and transport policy. They are unable to say when the review is expected to conclude.

So they have closed St Matthews Road to through traffic to make it safer for cyclists - but the main source of vehicles during normal times remains Lambeth Town Hall cars and vans and trucks coming and going all day looking for somewhere to park. They also narrow the roads during peak hours by parking on all available controlled yellow lines. All because they built over their car parks and did not have a plan of where to put the vehicles - other than in the street. That is Lambeth's car free town hall development.

You can't blame staff for wanting to park as close as they are allowed to the building. It is the council's bending of rules for their staff that is the issue.

Thankfully it is much quieter at the moment as the town hall is not busy.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I work with a couple of ex market traders.
> 
> Supermarkets destroyed local shops and markets.
> 
> ...



Seriously if people for whom raw "affordability" is your concern then you are not talking about car drivers - poor people don't own cars. Sure there will be some on the margins - ie car owners who can only just afford their car and for whom the difference in price between shopping local and hitting a big discounter is the financial justification for owning a car, but surely you can see this is a really small group? 

And getting food delivered is far more road efficient than having people each drive and do their own shopping, surely you can see that? 1 delivery van journey can replace 20 or more car journeys easily. We should be pushing supermarkets to use electrified cycle last mile logistics of this sort Our Bikes | Zedify so that they can move through the LTNs - this is a far more practical and implementable idea than your demands that we nationalise food selling and transport before we do anything about the car problem.

It feels like you are clutching at straws to find reasons to oppose any scheme that reduces car use.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2020)

co-op said:


> It feels like you are clutching at straws to find reasons to oppose any scheme that reduces car use.



I have repeatedly said on this thread Im critically supportive of the LTNs. So please stop saying this. Thankyou.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I have repeatedly said on this thread Im critically supportive of the LTNs. So please stop saying this. Thankyou.



I know you have said this, but the point I'm making is that you keep saying that you're "critically supportive" but the reality is what you post seems like you are clutching at straws to find criticisms - I was pointing out that some of your "reasons" for being critical in your last post just don't stand up for a minute. 

You haven't gone full LTN crazy (I think claiming that LTNs are bad for cyclists safety might take the prize on this thread so far) but you have consistently argued that LTNs are a problem for multiple reasons and it starts to look to me like you aren't "critically supportive", just critical.


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2020)

co-op said:


> I know you have said this, but the point I'm making is that you keep saying that you're "critically supportive" but the reality is what you post seems like you are clutching at straws to find criticisms - I was pointing out that some of your "reasons" for being critical in your last post just don't stand up for a minute.
> 
> You haven't gone full LTN crazy (I think claiming that LTNs are bad for cyclists safety might take the prize on this thread so far) but you have consistently argued that LTNs are a problem for multiple reasons and it starts to look to me like you aren't "critically supportive", just critical.



My main problem has been how they have been implemented.

The Council have decided to go ahead without the usual ( and previously promised) consultation.

Its not scheme I have any particular investment in as the Council didnt ask me about it.

The idea that im just critical is the what Cllrs/ officers have used against me over the years. They just aren't keen on people who ask questions.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> My main problem has been how they have been implemented.
> 
> The Council have decided to go ahead without the usual ( and previously promised) consultation.
> 
> ...



I would never try and defend Lambeths consultation processes, they're obviously crap and always have been as far as I can remember. 

But I guess it's possible to support LTNs and also believe this? If so why go on about poor people not being able to drive to the shops etc? That's nothing to do with the consultation, that's just straight up anti-LTN propaganda (it's also wrong because poor people never drove anyway).


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2020)

co-op said:


> I would never try and defend Lambeths consultation processes, they're obviously crap and always have been as far as I can remember.
> 
> But I guess it's possible to support LTNs and also believe this? If so why go on about poor people not being able to drive to the shops etc? That's nothing to do with the consultation, that's just straight up anti-LTN propaganda (it's also wrong because poor people never drove anyway).



Just stop misinterpreting my posts on this thread as anti TN propaganda. I've done nothing of the sort on this thread.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Just stop misinterpreting my posts on this thread as anti TN propaganda. I've done nothing of the sort on this thread.


I don't think you're posting anti-LTN propaganda. But in response to the points about who actually needs to drive to the supermarket, and alternatives and so on, you bring up a load of stuff about nationalising food distribution, and the problem being the big supermarkets. I don't disagree that giving planning permission to big supermarkets with car parks causes a problem. But whereas an LTN can be implemented relatively easily and rapidly, the same is not true of fundamentally re-organising food distribution systems, or un-building large supermarkets.

The problem is that this is typical of arguments against LTNs and other, feasibly implementable measures, which are often made in bad faith. People will argue that instead of doing the LTN, some other thing should be done instead, which they know is never going to happen, or is not going to happen any time soon. I don't think you are making these arguments in bad faith, and you are not necessarily saying that the LTNs should not  happen, but that's how it can come across.

You say you want a FAIR transition to green economy. So do I and most people commenting on this thread. The immediate opportunity is to take a step towards a "greener economy" which will be an imperfect one, and not as fair as would be the case in an ideal world, but still better than not changing anything.

As for altering the fundamental way food is distributed - if you can find ways to discourage people from doing supermarket shopping by car, then things will change - supermarkets will have more people wanting deliveries (maybe one day Aldi and Lidl will realise they should consider offering this) and local shops ought to do better. I know you won't like that approach in principle because it's one that depends on the market responding to consumer demand, but there's just exactly zero chance in the current climate that the government is going nationalise supermarkets. That's just not something that's going to happen in the timescale that we need to do something about pollution and congestion. So for the purposes of this discussion, it's pretty much a waste of time considering it.


----------



## nick (Sep 30, 2020)

Rushy said:


> And again, a Friday at 1.30pm. Yep - that graffitied van too. It did not move from its spot on the yellow line for almost three months. Not a single parking ticket.
> 
> View attachment 232345


It my be of interest to you that the white van (LY53 FLR)  cant be found on the DVLA "is this car taxed?" website). Perhaps it's not a real plate?.
If it is still there then report it on the lambeth web site as abandoned / untaxed


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 30, 2020)

Reporting an abandoned vehicle
					

Report an abandoned vehicle  Report an abandoned vehicle on an estate  We need to know:   	the vehicle's colour, make and model 	the vehicle's registration 	the exact location of the vehicle




					www.lambeth.gov.uk
				



it's quite hard to find the form on the lambeth website, but I did one recently so saved the page


----------



## nick (Sep 30, 2020)

This one feeds you through to a shop a neighbour scheme from DFT. For untaxed








						Check vehicle tax and report an untaxed vehicle
					

Lambeth council will not remove a vehicle if it is untaxed, unless it is a public health and safety hazard. Untaxed vehicles are the responsibility of the DVLA.  Check if a vehicle is taxed  Report an untaxed vehicle




					www.lambeth.gov.uk
				




This one seems to "keep it in the family" as it is Lambeth itself, for abandoned vehicles. I've used this one before and they respond  (Unroadworthy cars are often dumped on our road)








						Reporting an abandoned vehicle
					

Report an abandoned vehicle  Report an abandoned vehicle on an estate  We need to know:   	the vehicle's colour, make and model 	the vehicle's registration 	the exact location of the vehicle




					www.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Just stop misinterpreting my posts on this thread as anti TN propaganda. I've done nothing of the sort on this thread.



LOL, I have repeatedly said I know you say that you're not anti-LTN but *it's what it looks like*, and making facile demands like this one ^^ just makes me think I've probably read your posts right.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You say you want a FAIR transition to green economy. So do I and most people commenting on this thread. The immediate opportunity is to take a step towards a "greener economy" which will be an imperfect one, and not as fair as would be the case in an ideal world, but still better than not changing anything.



The thing is this "fair vs green" argument is nonsense in this case. In some cases it's true - case in point, funding solar panels (which are green) but which give a dividend to private solar panel owners which is paid for by a levy on everyone's electricity bill (which takes from the poor to give to those wealthy enough to spend a few thousand pounds of installing solar).

But when it's cars vs active travel (walking, cycling, public transport) then it's not "fair vs green", it's "fair and green vs unfair and ungreen". This idea that LTNs are somehow bad for the poor and good for the rich is just bullshit. Rich people drive cars and they drive more miles. Poor people don't even get access to them. In between there's every other point on the spectrum and anti-bicycle activists like Gramsci will always come up with some example of a squeezed group but it's like tories crying over little old ladies on low incomes paying rates on a great big house and using that tiny group to justify slapping a flat tax like the council tax on us which shifts the tax burden from the rich onto the poor. It's right wing crap.


----------



## Rushy (Sep 30, 2020)

nick said:


> It my be of interest to you that the white van (LY53 FLR)  cant be found on the DVLA "is this car taxed?" website). Perhaps it's not a real plate?.
> If it is still there then report it on the lambeth web site as abandoned / untaxed



After trying to get that van removed I submitted an FOI. Lambeth confirmed it belonged to them. They agreed that it was parked in contravention of the current Staff Guidance for Essential Vehicles in that, whilst these are allowed to park on yellow lines and in resident's bays in the course of attending emergencies, they had to observe the same restrictions as everyone else at all other times. It had been used for fly tipping surveillance for a while (not at that location) so that may explain why it did not come up in searches? Or because they decommissioned the van - it was falling apart.

This has been going on for years now - soon after the town hall opened and all departments were moved here from all over the borough. I only use the van as an extreme example because it is such a conspicuous vehicle and was permanently parked on a controlled yellow line. One of the excuses Lambeth uses for a lack of enforcement is that maybe wardens have trouble identifying vehicles in contravention. It stood out like a sore thumb yet still avoided any enforcement for months. Vehicles are typically in good condition and are there for part or a whole day. Sometimes a handful of days. Some are clearly fleet (e.g. noise control's Skodas) - others not. Visitors with permits from neighbouring councils also seem to park there at times - also without enforcement. As I said, individual wardens repeatedly insist they have been told by Lambeth not to ticket Lambeth vehicles.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 30, 2020)

Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 30, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.


No schemes that do not presume an outcome - so only schemes where they don't know what's going to happen?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2020)

co-op said:


> anti-bicycle activists like Gramsci



This made me laugh. Out in the rain now on my bike.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> This made me laugh. Out in the rain now on my bike.View attachment 232404



It was a wind up so I'm glad it made you laugh.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

Rushy said:


> After trying to get that van removed I submitted an FOI. Lambeth confirmed it belonged to them. They agreed that it was parked in contravention of the current Staff Guidance for Essential Vehicles in that, whilst these are allowed to park on yellow lines and in resident's bays in the course of attending emergencies, they had to observe the same restrictions as everyone else at all other times. It had been used for fly tipping surveillance for a while (not at that location) so that may explain why it did not come up in searches? Or because they decommissioned the van - it was falling apart.
> 
> This has been going on for years now - soon after the town hall opened and all departments were moved here from all over the borough. I only use the van as an extreme example because it is such a conspicuous vehicle and was permanently parked on a controlled yellow line. One of the excuses Lambeth uses for a lack of enforcement is that maybe wardens have trouble identifying vehicles in contravention. It stood out like a sore thumb yet still avoided any enforcement for months. Vehicles are typically in good condition and are there for part or a whole day. Sometimes a handful of days. Some are clearly fleet (e.g. noise control's Skodas) - others not. Visitors with permits from neighbouring councils also seem to park there at times - also without enforcement. As I said, individual wardens repeatedly insist they have been told by Lambeth not to ticket Lambeth vehicles.



I'd be seriously tempted to get hold of my own Denver boots and slap them on a few of these cars/vans, the fact that wardens are literally being told to lay off Lambeth cars is totally out of order.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2020)

co-op said:


> In between there's every other point on the spectrum and anti-bicycle activists like Gramsci ...


Mate - he cycles for a living!  He doesn't own a car. I can guarantee he cycles more than you every week, so to call him an "anti-bicycle activist" really is spectacularly daft.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

editor said:


> Mate - he cycles for a living!  He doesn't own a car. I can guarantee he cycles more than you every week, so to call him an "anti-bicycle activist" really is spectacularly daft.



It was a wind up! I know he's a cyclist.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

editor said:


> I can guarantee he cycles more than you every week,



Btw you might be wrong about this bit, I've done some miles in the last year.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2020)

co-op said:


> Btw you might be wrong about this bit, I've done some miles in the last year.


I doubt it. He works as a courier so he's covering a lot of distance every single working day.  How many days a week do you cycle?


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2020)

editor said:


> I doubt it. He works as a courier so he's covering a lot of distance every single working day.  How many days a week do you cycle?



Most - normally every.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.


Tory councillor from Clapham to the rescue.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Sep 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Tory councillor from Clapham to the rescue.



Can't wait to see this. Is he going to be ranting about champagne socialist cyclists again?


----------



## Gramsci (Sep 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't think you're posting anti-LTN propaganda. But in response to the points about who actually needs to drive to the supermarket, and alternatives and so on, you bring up a load of stuff about nationalising food distribution, and the problem being the big supermarkets. I don't disagree that giving planning permission to big supermarkets with car parks causes a problem. But whereas an LTN can be implemented relatively easily and rapidly, the same is not true of fundamentally re-organising food distribution systems, or un-building large supermarkets.
> 
> The problem is that this is typical of arguments against LTNs and other, feasibly implementable measures, which are often made in bad faith. People will argue that instead of doing the LTN, some other thing should be done instead, which they know is never going to happen, or is not going to happen any time soon. I don't think you are making these arguments in bad faith, and you are not necessarily saying that the LTNs should not  happen, but that's how it can come across.
> 
> ...




I really object to the idea that my views can come across as helping the hardline anti LTN side. Thats not my problem.

Previous posts on this thread have drawn parrallels with Brexit supporters and being anti LTN. Reminds me I was in same situation over Brexit. I only just supported Remain as I was not happy about the anti immigration ending free movement side of it. But apart from that I would have supported leaving.

I could see the argument on both sides. I dont like the way anti LTN people are talked about on this thread. Same as way a lot of Remainers saw Brexit voters.

Same with the LTNs. I object to sections of both sides of the argument.

On food. That came up as you mentioned nationalising cars.

In lockdown I was volunteering at the Brixton Emergency Food. A lot of food parcels were going out. Showed to me that food is a big issue. A crisis comes along and a lot of people ( working) suddenly find they can't feed themselves. Food supply is a relevant issue for a lot of people. Its not lefty pie in the sky dreaming stuff. Lot of people in Brixton only just get by. 

More immediately relevant ,as lockdown showed,, than road closures.

Realistic measures mean cheap measures. Not surprising the road alterations are being funded by this government.

If ordinary people are going to be persuaded that big changes to economy and society due to climate change and saving the planet then it has to be directly relevant to every day needs. My experience in lockdown is that food supply is a big issue.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 30, 2020)

wurlycurly said:


> A loose version of lacrosse was played in 1100AD. It's one of the toughest, most violent, games in the world. Hardly gentrification.



Played it at school. Makes hockey look like knitting.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 30, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.


He is Abbeyville Road area, no? Not even an LTN area, although there are streets in his ward which have been blocked off to prevent rat running...like Crescent lane for example.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If a shop in an LTN looks like closing down  due to loss of passing trade.
> 
> If the Council think this is ok when balanced against some kind of benchmark of positive outcomes then it should be upfront and say so.
> 
> ...



Lambeth Council (& most other local authorities, seemingly - didn't even bother to do basic traffic flow surveys before putting LTNs in place, so expecting them to do a per business cost/benefit analysis, would be expecting rather a lot, especially given a lack of competence (in Lambeth at least) in making basic business forecasts that bear a degree of closeness to reality.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> He is Abbeyville Road area, no? Not even an LTN area, although there are streets in his ward which have been blocked off to prevent rat running...like Crescent lane for example.



No, I think he's Clapham Common - the ward that ends at Cedar's Rd.


----------



## madolesance (Oct 1, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lambeth Council (& most other local authorities, seemingly - didn't even bother to do basic traffic flow surveys before putting LTNs in place, so expecting them to do a per business cost/benefit analysis, would be expecting rather a lot, especially given a lack of competence (in Lambeth at least) in making basic business forecasts that bear a degree of closeness to reality.


So are you suggesting that most Uber drivers/ motorist would make a point of stopping and supporting local businesses? Or just continue through the streets their satnavs have suggested they use? Is that fair for people who live in these areas to be subjected to constant traffic? It not fair for where ever you live! Motor traffic needs to be reduced everywhere. It’s no longer acceptable.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 1, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I think he's Clapham Common - the ward that ends at Cedar's Rd.


Thanks, you are right, although it's the ward that contains Abbeyville Road, is not an LTN and does benefit from the Cresent lane road closure to prevent vehicles doing a shortcut from kings avenue


----------



## nick (Oct 1, 2020)

Traffic calming / blocking has been going on for years without this level of debate -  it is just the fact that so much is being done so quickly across London that makes this higher profile.
Many of the previous measures have been, I think due to resident pressure - happy to be corrected
Without looking anything up I can think of the following during the following 20/30 odd years 

Holmewood gardens homezone
West end of Palace road blocked
Hillside road to Hitherfield blocked off
Leigham Vale to Kingsmead road blocked off
New Park Road / Morrish road calming
Brixton Hill / Acre lane cut through prevention & 1 way system (Sudbourne /Lambert / Branksome)
Branksome to Lyham road cut through blocked off
Bottom of Lyham Road / Kings Avenue 1 way blockage
Various traffic changes round St Matthews (Tfl, not council)
Herne Hill / Dulwich Road by the park restyling
Josephine Ave / Brix Hill block
Did Stockwell Avenue used to be 2 way?
Wasn't the triangle around the academy once differently laid out? (TFL again)
And of course congestion charging and now LEZ

 Question - when you look at all the above changes, and no doubt many others, has life been made permanently worse for the people that live in the area and the environs or better? Or has it just incrementally reduced the temptation to make short car journeys (it used to be feasible, time wise, to drive from Brix Hill to Tesco Acre Lane ).
Rat runs have become more apparent and busier as the rise of the sat nav means that they are now accessible to all cars and not just those with local knowledge, so they need to be counter-measured (IMHO)

Yes - With such schemes, whether desired or not, it seems logical that pollution (air and congestion) on side roads reduces to the detriment of designated through roads (Acre lane / A205, other A roads) which is bad for the people living on them. This is not good for the people on the main roads, but those roads are more likely designed for the traffic, with crossing points, cameras, traffic lights etc etc: There is less likely to be a 4 year old running into those roads. 

If the LTN /calming is done right then I believe that slowly the definition of necessary journey will shift and alternative modes will become relatively more attractive. As discretionary journeys reduce, then there will be more space for necessary car journeys, which surely is the intention ?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2020)

nick said:


> Traffic calming / blocking has been going on for years without this level of debate -  it is just the fact that so much is being done so quickly across London that makes this higher profile.
> Many of the previous measures have been, I think due to resident pressure - happy to be corrected
> Without looking anything up I can think of the following during the following 20/30 odd years
> 
> ...


Not one of the commenters on this thread who object to the LTNs on the basis of displaced traffic/pollution is willing to state that all already implemented measures (ie. your list plus others) should be removed. By their logic, air pollution and congestion on main roads would be improved if these long-implemented measures were removed. 

So why do they consistently dodge this question? One reason might be that it feels "intuitive" that closing off roads must cause a significant worsening on others - and yet deliberately moving traffic from main roads to residential ones doesn't intuitively feel right either. And they are not willing to question the logic that leads to this conflict. I would argue they are engaging in some form of "omission bias", where they are unwilling to commit to a positive action in either direction. They want to stick with a status quo where harm is done by omitting to do anything.

Another reason might be that they aren't really worried about the displaced pollution and congestion. Their concerns are actually more to do with self interest, but they are hiding behind what they can present as a concern for others' wellbeing.


----------



## nick (Oct 1, 2020)

We're probably all guilty of self interest. Even if sometimes that extends to what is perceived as a greater good (ie reducing traffic elsewhere makes London a better place and therefore makes my life more pleasant.)

Of course it could be that the implementation of LTNs is a one way street (puntastic). ie putting them in could make other traffic worse, but then removing them doesn't revert things to the halcyon position of yesterday  (cf Freakanomics on financial disincentives: removing a fine didn't revert to the original state. here's the paper ). I don't see that though

I am sure the whole spectrum of reasons will be evident in various objectors. Similar for approvers
Without any evidence to back it up - I can't really imagine anyone consciously approving because of the impact on their property value. Most of the objectors in my street seem to be concerned about the impact on the school run or how to drive to Streatham, since I know that those particular people do not have disabilities - then fuck em (and me because it will be harder to drive to Kennedys for supper).

It strikes me that turning one of the relatively wide pavements on the south circular (west of Tulse Hill) into a cycle path (shared with peds or not) would help encourage cycling east <-> west for the nervous. And planting some more trees to suck up the fumes


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2020)

There's enough road space for segregated bikes lanes on the S.Circular from Clapham to Lordship Lane but there's zero political will (or much money) for that sort of thing. All cycle routes so far have been dedicated to commuters.


----------



## nick (Oct 1, 2020)

Though not all commuters go to the city (message to the man). I used to cycle along Sth circular when I worked in Kensington.

Guess it is also a tfl v council thing?


----------



## nick (Oct 1, 2020)

Separately, until the cameras are in place I don't think the success or otherwise of the LTNs can be assessed.
I have been followed through the planters (normally by Priuses) at Palace Road and both ends of Railton in the last 2 days


----------



## Crispy (Oct 1, 2020)

nick said:


> Though not all commuters go to the city (message to the man). I used to cycle along Sth circular when I worked in Kensington.
> 
> Guess it is also a tfl v council thing?


Should be a TFL thing as the Circulars are red routes under their control.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2020)

nick said:


> Of course it could be that the implementation of LTNs is a one way street (puntastic). ie putting them in could make other traffic worse, but then removing them doesn't revert things to the halcyon position of yesterday  (cf Freakanomics on financial disincentives: removing a fine didn't revert to the original state. here's the paper ). I don't see that though



It's fairly well known and evidenced that if you provide extra capacity for traffic, it'll fill up with new traffic. That seems (for some reason) to be less controversial than the idea that if you reduce capacity, then some of the traffic disappears.


----------



## nick (Oct 1, 2020)

Although the one does not strictly imply the other - it seems a fairly fucking obvious medium / long term result to me


----------



## Winot (Oct 1, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's fairly well known and evidenced that if you provide extra capacity for traffic, it'll fill up with new traffic. That seems (for some reason) to be less controversial than the idea that if you reduce capacity, then some of the traffic disappears.



I guess that the important point is to prove that the traffic that fills the new road is the result of new journeys rather than being decanted from another road. Otherwise you could posit that there was a fixed volume of traffic and that new roads spread it evenly (the entropy model). That would be consistent with the anti-LTN argument that restricting access to one road resulted in increase on another (and no evaporation).

(I am pretty sure that there is evidence for new journey creation)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 1, 2020)

Winot said:


> I guess that the important point is to prove that the traffic that fills the new road is the result of new journeys rather than being decanted from another road. Otherwise you could posit that there was a fixed volume of traffic and that new roads spread it evenly (the entropy model). That would be consistent with the anti-LTN argument that restricting access to one road resulted in increase on another (and no evaporation).
> 
> (I am pretty sure that there is evidence for new journey creation)



Say you have road A, and alternative routes B C and D. And let's say that ignoring congestion, road A is the fastest, either because of directness or road design. Then if traffic spreads evenly, it'll tend to fill up road A until the level congestion means it's no faster than B C or D (because if it gets slower than those other routes, why would people continue to prefer it).

Then you double the capacity of road A, and you observe that the extra capacity fills up, until things are moving at about the same speed as before.

And you say, there you are, the extra capacity has filled up and we just have twice as many people using the road but moving at the same rate. 

If someone's then going to argue, well, that's true but these aren't new journeys - they are displaced from alternative routes B C and D - then that assumes that B C and D are now emptier than before. But we know that A has filled up, until the point that it's barely any faster than the others. And we know that it's about the same speed as it was before. So therefore surely B, C and D must be much the same as before. In other words they can't emptied of traffic, because if they had, then drivers would be taking advantage of that and _not_ filling up road A to the point where things are no faster than before.

So to me it doesn't make sense, if you observe that the level of congestion on the main road stays fairly constant regardless if whether you increase or decrease its capacity, to believe that traffic is a fixed quantity and is simply being spread evenly around the system. And that seems to be pretty much what is observed in any urban area - like London - where the roads are basically at capacity, indicating that there must be latent demand for more.

If you're somewhere rural, say, with largely empty roads which aren't anywhere near their full capacity, then obviously the same doesn't apply. Doubling the width of that road probably won't induce extra journeys because there's no congestion that currently suppresses latent demand.


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2020)

Winot said:


> I guess that the important point is to prove that the traffic that fills the new road is the result of new journeys rather than being decanted from another road. Otherwise you could posit that there was a fixed volume of traffic and that new roads spread it evenly (the entropy model). That would be consistent with the anti-LTN argument that restricting access to one road resulted in increase on another (and no evaporation).
> 
> (I am pretty sure that there is evidence for new journey creation)


I know nothing of theories but I do know that vast extra volumes of fumes are being decanted into Coldharbour Lane every day.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2020)

nick said:


> Traffic calming / blocking has been going on for years without this level of debate -  it is just the fact that so much is being done so quickly across London that makes this higher profile.
> Many of the previous measures have been, I think due to resident pressure - happy to be corrected
> Without looking anything up I can think of the following during the following 20/30 odd years
> 
> ...



Nothing wrong with incremental changes due to resident pressure.

Take Loughborough Junction the Council decided to impose road closures on LJ without getting local support beforehand.

( btw the officer in charge of the BLN idea stated that the Council had learnt from the LJ failure. That this time they would consult and get people onside before implementing a scheme. This was pre pandemic)

I know that some residents wanted traffic calming measures but not closure of Loughborough road. This could have been done and then built on. Instead Council tried to impose an unwanted scheme on the local residents.

Interestingly enough when the Brixton Liveable Neighbouurhood was first put forward by the Council I know one residents group in LJ who were keen to be involved. They wanted traffic calming. They had opposed the Council trying to impose the previous scheme. The idea that this is clearcut your either a petrol head or for it is something Ive been objecting to here.

It is possible to talk to communites and find out what they want. Rather than tell them what is good for them.

The argument that has been put here by the pro 100% LTN advocates is that anything less than a "proper" LTN is backsliding.

My experience of the failed LJ road closures is that its wrong to divide people between good green people and petrol heads.

In LJ it would have been possible to start to bring in traffic calming/ ending rat runs. But that is not what the advocates of full on LTNs want here on this thread.

Been stated here early on this thread that the Council should just get on with it and impose LTNs. That incremental changes arent good enough. Consultation just holds things up.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Nothing wrong with incremental changes due to resident pressure.
> 
> Take Loughborough Junction the Council decided to impose road closures on LJ without getting local support beforehand.
> 
> ...


Just going back to your contemporaneous comments about the Loughbrough Road scheme

“How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me.“
“For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?"
“What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist. There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.”
“Walthamstow "mini Holland”. Waltham Forest Council pushed it through despite opposition. This article suggests its becoming a success. Lambeth have effectively ditched there manifesto committment to making Lambeth a cycle and pedestrian friendly borough. I have seen the Walthamstow Mini Holland as a friend of mine lives in it. It basically stops rat runs. “

Now a few years later the "improvements" suggested by the steering group that were "caving in completely to the motorist" were right all along and the LTNs you were lauding as the answer to stopping rat runs (based on your experience of Waltham Forest) are a mistake.  Waltham Forest pushed it through despite opposition and Lambeth should have done it back then but now they  ARE doing that that's wrong too. A few speed humps and everything would have been fine - everyone would have been happily and traffic would have magically reduced despite speed humps never having been effective anywhere in the past. 

bish bosh, up the workers!


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Just going back to your contemporaneous comments about the Loughbrough Road scheme at the time:
> 
> “How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me.“
> “For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?"
> ...



I must say you disgust me as a poster on this thread.

You are a nasty piece of work,


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Just going back to your contemporaneous comments about the Loughbrough Road scheme
> 
> “How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me.“
> “For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?"
> ...



Just a big joke for you. I live here and am involved in the local community.

You don't have a clue.

Ive spent years being involved in community.

Its all so simple for you. Actually talking to people and dealing with them and it is not so clear cut.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I must say you disgust me as a poster on this thread.
> You are a nasty piece of work,
> Just a big joke for you. I live here and am involved in the local community.



As soon as anyone challenges you on the logic of your own arguments you attack them personally. Get a grip.  All I've done is quote your own posts back at you - how is that nasty? By implication you're suggesting I'm not involved in the community and I don't live here. That's pretty insulting.

However, I do find your instinctive opposition to ANYTHING pretty funny. Are you _for_ anything?  Do you have a set of values you can evaluate something against as I can't work it out. Sorry, it's some notion of "the workers:" or "the working class" - what does that even mean?  I once saw a definition that decided US workers into those who showered before they went to work and those who showered when they got home. Is  this decided on income - I know plumbers who earned way more than I ever did when I did a corporate office job - or some other criteria.

You repeatedly claim that you're "open minded" about the current council schemes and just object to the method of consultation but then post nothing but negative comments about them.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Just going back to your contemporaneous comments about the Loughbrough Road scheme
> bish bosh, up the workers!



something that sticks in my mind from that era was the stated aim of  ‘improving the retail offer’ and the accompanying graphic of a boutique craft ale bistro plonked in a row of shops, it was plain the project was a double edged sword with the application of a closure at the railway bridge to repel the oi polloi and gentrification a go go on the coldharbour lane junction a big part of it.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> As soon as anyone challenges you on the logic of your own arguments you attack them personally. Get a grip.  All I've done is quote your own posts back at you - how is that nasty? By implication you're suggesting I'm not involved in the community and I don't live here. That's pretty insulting.
> 
> However, I do find your instinctive opposition to ANYTHING pretty funny. Are you _for_ anything?  Sorry, it's some notion of "the workers:" or "the working class" - what does that even mean?  I once saw a definition that decided US workers into those who showered before they went to work and those who showered when they got home. Is  this decided on income - I know plumbers who earned way more than I ever did when I did a corporate office job - or some other criteria.



Your posts are a deliberate provocation. And no I dont like you as a poster.

Your post shows you have not a clue about class.

I know you think I have instinctive opposition. All this means is that I don't fall in line with what you think.

Reminds me of how some Cllrs and Council officers think.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You repeatedly claim that you're "open minded" about the current council schemes and just object to the method of consultation but then post nothing but negative comments about them.



That is rubbish.

Ive posted previously about the Railton LTN that it looks like reducing traffic on Railton road has support for example in the local area. 

Its you that has a closed mind

Your the polar opposite to the "petrol heads" and imo no better than them.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 1, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Your posts are a deliberate provocation. And no I dont like you as a poster.
> Your post shows you have not a clue about class.


Every one of your own posts is provocative.  I'm calling out what either looks like massive hypocrisy and instinctive opposition to anything that the council do or a major change in your thinking.  Perhaps you  could address and explain that rather than just attacking me?

To me your view of class seems stuck in the 1970s, or maybe even the 1870s.  It doesn't reflect the working world I've seen around me as an adult. 



Gramsci said:


> I know you think I have instinctive opposition. All this means is that I don't fall in line with what you think.
> Reminds me of how some Cllrs and Council officers think.



That doesn't make sense - I disagree with many decisions and policies of the council. Your consistent position is that they're wrong - whether it was LJ in 2015, LTNs now, bollards outside the Ritzy. Your instictive position seems to be to oppose anything done by Lambeth Council.. Sorry Nu Labour co-operative council. Maybe I've missed something - link me to some posts where you've agreed with council policies and prove me wrong?



Gramsci said:


> Ive posted previously about the Railton LTN that it looks like reducing traffic on Railton road has support for example.


Is this the same high quality data we got when you asked your mate in a shop on Coldharbour Lane whether traffic had increased?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 1, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Every one of your own posts is provocative.  I'm calling out what either looks like massive hypocrisy and instinctive opposition to anything that the council do or a major change in your thinking.  Perhaps you  could address and explain that rather than just attacking me?
> 
> To me your view of class seems stuck in the 1970s, or maybe even the 1870s.  It doesn't reflect the working world I've seen around me as an adult.
> 
> ...



You have been attacking me personally for ages. Accusing me of hyprocrisy.

So now Its onto what I say on other threads.

BTW my view of class is based on what I see around me plus my reading. Its not stuck as you argue in the past. Its very much part of the present.


----------



## co-op (Oct 2, 2020)

nick said:


> Most of the objectors in my street seem to be concerned about the impact on the school run



Right here is a perfect example of daft car use, in a half sensible world no children should be being driven to school. There are a hundred ways we don’t live in that world - New Labours stupid “choice agenda” meant that children end up going to school miles from where they live etc - but children who want to be able to walk or cycle to their local school should always be given priority over rat runners. I can’t see any argument for cars that justifies taking that away.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 2, 2020)

I've got to say: compared to the 'discussion' on Nextdoor this thread is a model of politeness and decorum.

Why do all debates about automobiles descend into rancour?  Is it the cars doing it? I think cars must drive people nuts.



Gramsci said:


> The argument that has been put here by the pro 100% LTN advocates is that anything less than a "proper" LTN is backsliding.



The 'one' astroturf groups are all taking the public position that the LTNs must be removed, as opposed to tweaked. Thats a reactionary position that needs resisting. Dont even get me started on what we have seen and heard reported about the right wing bile they engage in on their private assbook chats. Proud boys stuff.

FWIW I think Gramsci you've been clear and balanced on what your position is. There are clearly improvements needed and holding the council to account in actually making them would seem a good use of energy.


----------



## nick (Oct 2, 2020)

Why does  pro and anti LTN have to be divided upon class &  left / right wing lines?

ETA that's not aimed at anyone in particular


----------



## Winot (Oct 2, 2020)

nick said:


> Why does  pro and anti LTN have to be divided upon class &  left / right wing lines?
> 
> ETA that's not aimed at anyone in particular



Are you new to Urban


----------



## nick (Oct 2, 2020)

Nah - been registered for nearly 20 years. 
Just wishing that not everything had to be lumped into left / right wing polar buckets.   (except in the Tech forum where the equivalent is Apple v Chrome/android)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2020)

co-op said:


> Right here is a perfect example of daft car use, in a half sensible world no children should be being driven to school. There are a hundred ways we don’t live in that world - New Labours stupid “choice agenda” meant that children end up going to school miles from where they live etc - but children who want to be able to walk or cycle to their local school should always be given priority over rat runners. I can’t see any argument for cars that justifies taking that away.


There's no way that things that work in Japan could simply be assumed to work here - but a couple of years ago I spent a bit of time in Tokyo and it was very interesting to see how transport stuff is done there.
Outside of the centre, the residential areas consist almost entirely of quite small streets. Cars aren't banned from these, but there is a very small amount of traffic on them, and there's certainly no speeding. In many cases there's no distinction between pavement and street. There's no on-street parking (if you have a car you have to somehow fit it onto the already small plot that your house is on). There are a lot of people walking and cycling and these streets are a wonder of calm with absolutely no feeling of stress from motor vehicles. There are enormous bike parking places at many metro stations (and often supermarkets). There _are_ busy main roads that carry a fair bit of traffic but they are quite clearly defined, and often quite segregated by being on raised expressways and so on.
Anyway, what made me think of this is that as far as I can see virtually no-one drives their kids to school. As anyone who's been to Tokyo will know, it's not unusual to see primary school age kids travelling to school by themselves on the metro at rush hour. Or walking by themselves along the streets. The other thing that was notable was that if you go past a nursery at child collecting time there's no logjam of cars - there's pretty much no cars at all, just a crowd of parents waiting either on foot or with bicycles with child seats.
We could have a long discussion about why they manage all this in Tokyo, and there are obviously lots of cultural reasons and other stuff (which is why other European cities are more useful models for what might be possible in the UK), but it struck me that the way things are done there is to some extent generated by the acute lack of space - there simply isn't enough room for people to pick up kids from nursery by car. There's a capacity restriction forced on the system just by the fact that the streets are very small, and they've developed ways of dealing with this, and the result is a way of living in dense urban areas where motor vehicles don't dominate at all, and it's a million times better than the mess we have here, where we give over far too much space to motor vehicles and have to live with the constant traffic all the time.


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 2, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I've got to say: compared to the 'discussion' on Nextdoor this thread is a model of politeness and decorum.


Nextdoor are taking it all to a new level. What was previously the domain of missing cats and an extended neighbourhood watch is now personal abuse including death threats and has stoked up the nutters who believe anything they read and take direct action


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Nextdoor are taking it all to a new level. What was previously the domain of missing cats and an extended neighbourhood watch is now personal abuse including death threats and has stoked up the nutters who believe anything they read and take direct action


It is an issue that has really turned people against each other. I'm still chuckling at that idiot on Twitter who was convinced that Brixton Buzz was in the employ of Lambeth Council


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 2, 2020)

_*post edited, my bad....misread the post I was replying to._


----------



## Winot (Oct 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There's no way that things that work in Japan could simply be assumed to work here - but a couple of years ago I spent a bit of time in Tokyo and it was very interesting to see how transport stuff is done there.
> Outside of the centre, the residential areas consist almost entirely of quite small streets. Cars aren't banned from these, but there is a very small amount of traffic on them, and there's certainly no speeding. In many cases there's no distinction between pavement and street. There's no on-street parking (if you have a car you have to somehow fit it onto the already small plot that your house is on). There are a lot of people walking and cycling and these streets are a wonder of calm with absolutely no feeling of stress from motor vehicles. There are enormous bike parking places at many metro stations (and often supermarkets). There _are_ busy main roads that carry a fair bit of traffic but they are quite clearly defined, and often quite segregated by being on raised expressways and so on.
> Anyway, what made me think of this is that as far as I can see virtually no-one drives their kids to school. As anyone who's been to Tokyo will know, it's not unusual to see primary school age kids travelling to school by themselves on the metro at rush hour. Or walking by themselves along the streets. The other thing that was notable was that if you go past a nursery at child collecting time there's no logjam of cars - there's pretty much no cars at all, just a crowd of parents waiting either on foot or with bicycles with child seats.
> We could have a long discussion about why they manage all this in Tokyo, and there are obviously lots of cultural reasons and other stuff (which is why other European cities are more useful models for what might be possible in the UK), but it struck me that the way things are done there is to some extent generated by the acute lack of space - there simply isn't enough room for people to pick up kids from nursery by car. There's a capacity restriction forced on the system just by the fact that the streets are very small, and they've developed ways of dealing with this, and the result is a way of living in dense urban areas where motor vehicles don't dominate at all, and it's a million times better than the mess we have here, where we give over far too much space to motor vehicles and have to live with the constant traffic all the time.



The Tokyo model is great. Was really surprised the first time I went at the number of salarymen sedately cycling shopper bikes around the centre.

Central Amsterdam (eg around Jordaan) has a similar streets model. As you say, perhaps due to lack of space.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 2, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> thats just complete bollocks and part of the reason these debates become toxic.



Don't take my word for it, please. Here are some examples. Its not the people arguing for clean air and quiet streets that are making the debate toxic. Hard to get more recent examples since their boards are closed and they've been booting nonbelievers out.





snowy_again said:


> The  One Lambeth group is turning a bit nasty with the usual tropes being rolled out.
> 
> Cyclists are ‘scum of the road’ who don’t pay road tax.
> 
> ...





A few selected from Nextdoor:


----------



## editor (Oct 2, 2020)

Someone has invited me to join OneLambeth. This is what you're asked before you can join:


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 2, 2020)

editor said:


> Someone has invited me to join OneLambeth. This is what you're asked before you can join:
> 
> View attachment 232659


It almost feels like on question 2, there should only be one option as it’s such a leading question


----------



## co-op (Oct 2, 2020)

editor said:


> Someone has invited me to join OneLambeth. This is what you're asked before you can join:
> 
> View attachment 232659



So the obvious answer is "Yes" they are wrong (not extensive enough) and Far too much consultation.

And you're in.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 2, 2020)

Apparently parents of kids at Holy Trinity in Tulse Hill spent an hour today asking drivers not to drive through the new ‘no cars’ barrier. 

According to One Lambeth posters for doing this they’re a ‘bunch of cunts’ and they should be run over.


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Apparently parents of kids at Holy Trinity in Tulse Hill spent an hour today asking drivers not to drive through the new ‘no cars’ barrier.
> 
> According to One Lambeth posters for doing this they’re a ‘bunch of cunts’ and they should be run over.


Well, they sound delightful and not unreasonable at all.


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There's no way that things that work in Japan could simply be assumed to work here - but a couple of years ago I spent a bit of time in Tokyo and it was very interesting to see how transport stuff is done there.
> Outside of the centre, the residential areas consist almost entirely of quite small streets. Cars aren't banned from these, but there is a very small amount of traffic on them, and there's certainly no speeding. In many cases there's no distinction between pavement and street. There's no on-street parking (if you have a car you have to somehow fit it onto the already small plot that your house is on). There are a lot of people walking and cycling and these streets are a wonder of calm with absolutely no feeling of stress from motor vehicles. There are enormous bike parking places at many metro stations (and often supermarkets). There _are_ busy main roads that carry a fair bit of traffic but they are quite clearly defined, and often quite segregated by being on raised expressways and so on.
> Anyway, what made me think of this is that as far as I can see virtually no-one drives their kids to school. As anyone who's been to Tokyo will know, it's not unusual to see primary school age kids travelling to school by themselves on the metro at rush hour. Or walking by themselves along the streets. The other thing that was notable was that if you go past a nursery at child collecting time there's no logjam of cars - there's pretty much no cars at all, just a crowd of parents waiting either on foot or with bicycles with child seats.
> We could have a long discussion about why they manage all this in Tokyo, and there are obviously lots of cultural reasons and other stuff (which is why other European cities are more useful models for what might be possible in the UK), but it struck me that the way things are done there is to some extent generated by the acute lack of space - there simply isn't enough room for people to pick up kids from nursery by car. There's a capacity restriction forced on the system just by the fact that the streets are very small, and they've developed ways of dealing with this, and the result is a way of living in dense urban areas where motor vehicles don't dominate at all, and it's a million times better than the mess we have here, where we give over far too much space to motor vehicles and have to live with the constant traffic all the time.


What you describe is exactly what I’m seeing in Copenhagen. The streets with no separation between usage are particularly interesting (they do tend to have underground parking garages in contrast to Japan)- the assumption is that all traffic will respect other traffic, cars use those streets mostly to get away to an a road, and school runs, food shops etc etc are all done by bike. And it seems to work. Streets are for people to move around on, not for cars with grudging strips of pavement round the edges.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 2, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Apparently parents of kids at Holy Trinity in Tulse Hill spent an hour today asking drivers not to drive through the new ‘no cars’ barrier.
> 
> According to One Lambeth posters for doing this they’re a ‘bunch of cunts’ and they should be run over.


Nearly came to blows today, according to local whatsapp


----------



## nick (Oct 2, 2020)

So anyone know when, or indeed, if the cameras will be installed? (I'm not aware of cameras at any of the barriers yet)
A few fines would focus the mind and the "bunch of cunts" wouldn't need to open themselves up for abuse


----------



## technical (Oct 2, 2020)

There’s no point without the cameras - everyone just sails through as far as I can see


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 2, 2020)

A couple of weeks I think for the cameras


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2020)

nick said:


> So anyone know when, or indeed, if the cameras will be installed? (I'm not aware of cameras at any of the barriers yet)
> A few fines would focus the mind and the "bunch of cunts" wouldn't need to open themselves up for abuse


Someone from the Sustainable Growth and Opportunities Directorate told me this week that it will be "very soon" but that we will get a letter and advance notice. We got a letter and advance notice in June saying it would be fully enforced with APNR cameras issuing warnings from July 11 and fines from July 25. One of my councilors told me that there were issues getting cameras - that was two months ago.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2020)

technical said:


> There’s no point without the cameras - everyone just sails through as far as I can see


The gates are pointless without APNR. In fact I find them quite dangerous because people expect cars to stop and then they fly through. It's not like they don't have experience with this. They had no access signs at the end of Lambert Road for years but no one (other than goodie goodie suckers like me) paid them any attention so they eventually physically closed the route to all traffic.

Imagine how much engagement they could have carried out in that three months (and counting).


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> The gates are pointless without APNR. In fact I find them quite dangerous because people expect cars to stop and then they fly through. It's not like they don't have experience with this. They had no access signs at the end of Lambert Road for years but no one (other than goodie goodie suckers like me) paid them any attention so they eventually physically closed the route to all traffic.
> 
> Imagine how much engagement they could have carried out in that three months (and counting).


You know what it will be. Use the legislation to make the changes and then someone will have pointed out that the cameras all have a lead time so they’ve gone ahead but are now playing catch up. I think some drivers will get a shock when it’s all up and running


----------



## co-op (Oct 2, 2020)

Manter said:


> Well, they sound delightful and not unreasonable at all.



There's a certain percentage of people who just go completely mental at anything to do with regulations to do with cars. I used to work with a guy who was completely fucking enraged by speed bumps (they were new at the time, this was the 1980s) and who decided that he'd "punish" the residents - who he had decided were the guilty party for this outrage against his rights - by blasting his horn every time he went over one, for the whole period of the time he was driving over it. He did this every single time. For years. God knows what was happening to his blood pressure.

Cars are bad for you basically.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> You know what it will be. Use the legislation to make the changes and then someone will have pointed out that the cameras all have a lead time so they’ve gone ahead but are now playing catch up. I think some drivers will get a shock when it’s all up and running


Probably. They are frantically scribbling ideas on the back of a fag packet. That's why engagement would have been a good idea, even if having road controls at the end were a forgone conclusion. As their introduction to cooperative council says :  _Citizens are valuable sources of insight and expertise, and are often best placed to identify solutions to meet the needs of their local area. _


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2020)

co-op said:


> There's a certain percentage of people who just go completely mental at anything to do with regulations to do with cars. I used to work with a guy who was completely fucking enraged by speed bumps (they were new at the time, this was the 1980s) and who decided that he'd "punish" the residents - who he had decided were the guilty party for this outrage against his rights - by blasting his horn every time he went over one, for the whole period of the time he was driving over it. He did this every single time. For years. God knows what was happening to his blood pressure.
> 
> Cars are bad for you basically.


Our local WhatsApp reckons speed bumps are the solution- to pretty much any question as far as I can tell. Interestingly the CPZ caused enormous vitriol, and now just seems to be accepted.
But yeah. Cars: make people crazy.


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Probably. They are frantically scribbling ideas on the back of a fag packet. That's why engagement would have been a good idea, even if having road controls at the end were a forgone conclusion. As their introduction to cooperative council says :  _Citizens are valuable sources of insight and expertise, and are often best placed to identify solutions to meet the needs of their local area. _


We tried that down this end and it hasn’t made much difference honestly


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2020)

Manter said:


> We tried that down this end and it hasn’t made much difference honestly


I'm sorry you failed. The council should learn from its mistakes and do it better. If public engagement is too hard for them they should be clear about it and state that they no longer aspire to being cooperative.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I'm sorry you failed. The council should learn from its mistakes and do it better. If public engagement is too hard for them they should be clear about it and state that they no longer aspire to being cooperative.


Manter Did you see that the outcome of the latest Event Strategy review which says that residents will only be consulted if felt appropriate.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 2, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Don't take my word for it, please. Here are some examples. Its not the people arguing for clean air and quiet streets that are making the debate toxic. Hard to get more recent examples since their boards are closed and they've been booting nonbelievers out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




oK, I am gonna eat my words here cos from recent posts it looks there is an element within the ranks of  LTN sceptics who are very dodgy indeed......don’t think they are representative of the anti LTN sentiment as a whole tho’ !


----------



## teuchter (Oct 2, 2020)

co-op said:


> There's a certain percentage of people who just go completely mental at anything to do with regulations to do with cars. I used to work with a guy who was completely fucking enraged by speed bumps (they were new at the time, this was the 1980s) and who decided that he'd "punish" the residents - who he had decided were the guilty party for this outrage against his rights - by blasting his horn every time he went over one, for the whole period of the time he was driving over it. He did this every single time. For years. God knows what was happening to his blood pressure.
> 
> Cars are bad for you basically.



Maybe he wasn't really angry about the speed bumps. Maybe he was genuinely concerned about the problems associated with speeding. I think he just wasn't happy about the lack of consultation. That was probably the real problem.


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I'm sorry you failed. The council should learn from its mistakes and do it better. If public engagement is too hard for them they should be clear about it and state that they no longer aspire to being cooperative.


 I think we did quite well in many ways but people who hate the idea of any restrictions on their cars are intransigent. And some quite.... scary. What we did as a group of residents was _Largely_ rejected because we weren't the council. 


Rushy said:


> Manter Did you see that the outcome of the latest Event Strategy review which says that residents will only be consulted if felt appropriate.


 Jesus   That’s terribly messaging 😂😂


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> oK, I am gonna eat my words here cos from recent posts it looks there is an element within the ranks of  LTN sceptics who are very dodgy indeed.



Pretty sure they exist on both sides.

That letter is obviously entirely unacceptable but using it to define opposition to LTNs is just smearing. I've received similar (repeated letters and threats in relation to a car damaged wall which some loon mistakenly believed was mine and demanded it be repaired before I killed everyone in the community) and the council were remarkably relaxed about it. "I wouldn't worry about it too much, there's always some disenfranchised weirdo lashing out, etc..." And I kind of agreed. They certainly didn't tweet it and wring their hands about the horror. 

I was shocked to see long term formal consultees of the LTNs defending their own use of Nazi themed memes about objectors back in the summer. I find that far more worrying because these people are partners with the council. They are actually people with influence displaying astonishing lack of judgement and respect. It's hardly surprising the whole thing is so toxic.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 2, 2020)

Manter said:


> I think we did quite well in many ways but people who hate the idea of any restrictions on their cars are intransigent. And some quite.... scary. What we did as a group of residents was _Largely_ rejected because we weren't the council.


Good on you for trying. But you were only having to do so because the council was not doing so. If cooperative council is at the heart of who they are they need to take the community as they find them. And develop expertise in how to deal with that. Not hide behind some silly pin chart.


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2020)

nm


----------



## Manter (Oct 2, 2020)

TB clear, I use a car when I need to: I’m not anti car per se. I’m anti excessive and inappropriate use of car that has totally taken over our cities


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 2, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Just read on Nextdoor that Lambeth Councillor Tim Briggs is bringing a motion to the next council meeting for all road blockages to be removed, to consult, and to come up with schemes that do not presume an outcome.



I was off work today so looked at One Lambeth FB.

Looks like the more sensible people in One Lambeth are trying to use the local democratic channels.

Briggs as the sole opposition Tory Cllr is doing his job helping residents put their point of view to Council meeting. If it was not for him it would not happen.  One Lambeth were asking for people to front up a deputation of residents for the meeting to speak at it. As that is the residents right to do so.

Also on the One Lambeth FB it was asked that people sign the Lambeth Council official petition.









						ePetition - Immediate Removal and Cessation of Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) Schemes | Lambeth Council
					






					moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk
				




Lots of people have signed the various Change.org petitions but the Labour group on Council can ignore them.

The petition on the Council website needs ( according to FB posts) three thousand people to trigger full Council meeting on the LTNs. Its up to 2700 now.

So looks to me that the oppostion is not all right wing bigots trolling the internet. But people who want a say in the democratic process. Which is right. I dont agree with using pandemic as excuse to roll out schemes with no democratic oversight.

IMO there should be full debate at Council meeting with public allowed to put their case. With questioning of the Council. That is how local democracy should work.

There was also talk of standing anti LTN candidates at next local election. I think the Labour group reckon that is far away and by then the fuss would have died down.

It has worked before - Oxford street pedestrianisation was halted due to anti candidates winning local election seats. Put the shits up the ruling Cllrs. So scheme was scrapped. Well that is how local democracy works.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 2, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Pretty sure they exist on both sides.
> 
> That letter is obviously entirely unacceptable but using it to define opposition to LTNs is just smearing. I've received similar (repeated letters and threats in relation to a car damaged wall which some loon mistakenly believed was mine and demanded it be repaired before I killed everyone in the community) and the council were remarkably relaxed about it. "I wouldn't worry about it too much, there's always some disenfranchised weirdo lashing out, etc..." And I kind of agreed. They certainly didn't tweet it and wring their hands about the horror.
> 
> I was shocked to see long term formal consultees of the LTNs defending their own use of Nazi themed memes about objectors back in the summer. I find that far more worrying because these people are partners with the council. They are actually people with influence displaying astonishing lack of judgement and respect. It's hardly surprising the whole thing is so toxic.



yeah I agree this is the case, so I have edited my post to clarify


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 3, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So looks to me that the oppostion is not all right wing bigots trolling the internet. But people who want a say in the democratic process. Which is right. I dont agree with using pandemic as excuse to roll out schemes with no democratic oversight.



....and many, many local businesses. Someone said on FB that Pimlico Plumbers, who are based in Lambeth, have been blogging about it. I don't know how many they employ but I can imagine they send a long time on the roads given the equipment they need with them.









						London's Leading Service & Maintenance Company | 24/7/365
					

Pimlico. Emergency Plumbers London. 24 Hours a Day, 7 Days a Week, 365 Days a Year. Plumbers, Heating Engineers, Electricians, Roofers, Carpenters, and Builders all over London.




					www.pimlicoplumbers.com


----------



## Winot (Oct 3, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> ....and many, many local businesses. Someone said on FB that Pimlico Plumbers, who are based in Lambeth, have been blogging about it. I don't know how many they employ but I can imagine they send a long time on the roads given the equipment they need with them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From that article criticising Sadiq Khan: “It’s time he woke up, listened to the problems of real working people and stopped leading us a merry dance.”

Pretty rich for Pimlico Plumbers to claim to be the champion of “real working people”. This was the company that tried to avoid paying its workers holiday and sick pay by claiming they were self-employed when they weren’t. The case went to the Supreme Court and they lost:









						Plumber wins workers' rights battle against Pimlico Plumbers
					

The Supreme Court ruling has significant implications for the rights of so called gig economy workers.



					www.bbc.com
				




So when you say “I don't know how many they employ” you are more on point than you realise.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 3, 2020)

Interesting article about opportunities for businesses in relation to reduced car use....








						Peak Car And The Hyper-Local Retail Opportunity
					

Across the UK, city streets are quietly undergoing radical transformation. Temporary cycle lanes have popped up, footways widened to enable social distancing and, perhaps most drastically, residential roads are being blocked to through traffic.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## alex_ (Oct 3, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Interesting article about opportunities for businesses in relation to reduced car use....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



many less people commuting into the city and more working from home means more people spend money locally and spend more of their time locally.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 3, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> There was also talk of standing anti LTN candidates at next local election. I think the Labour group reckon that is far away and by then the fuss would have died down.
> 
> It has worked before - Oxford street pedestrianisation was halted due to anti candidates winning local election seats. Put the shits up the ruling Cllrs. So scheme was scrapped. Well that is how local democracy works.



The Anti-pedestrianisationisation group candidates came behind the Tories and Labour in every ward they stood. The Tories lost 3 seats to Labour - and one of the those was in the West End., The candidate there did oppose the pedestrianisation plans but also fought more broadly against the gentrification of soho.
In Waltham Forest the Labour vote went up after installing LTNs.

I'd have thought the Antis would have better luck trying to persuade local councillors rather than jumping in bed with the Tories.


----------



## ash (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Someone has invited me to join OneLambeth. This is what you're asked before you can join:
> 
> View attachment 232659


And they complain about LTN groups banning people who are anti LTN


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2020)

ash said:


> And they complain about LTN groups banning people who are anti LTN


I'm not a member of any pro-LTN groups but I'm surprised by the toxicity of the OneLambeth FB group.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 3, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Pretty sure they exist on both sides.





Jesterburger said:


> The Anti-pedestrianisationisation group candidates came behind the Tories and Labour in every ward they stood. ...
> In Waltham Forest the Labour vote went up after installing LTNs.






			
				Donald Trump in 2017 said:
			
		

> You also had some very fine people on both sides.



just sayin’. Though I do agree that the _vast_ majority of anti-ltn campaigners are just worried local folk, there is basically nil occurrence of threats, gaslighting, and bigotry in the pro-ltn side and quite a lot on the anti- side.  Its bad for the soul to make common cause with these cunts. Please prove me wrong.


----------



## ash (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> I'm not a member of any pro-LTN groups but I'm surprised by the toxicity of the OneLambeth FB group.


I’m the same as you I joined one Lambeth (not a member of anywhere else) to see what was being said and it’s awful ☹️ So much hate 
They were complaining of being banned from the Tulse Hill LTN WhatsApp group.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> I'd have thought the Antis would have better luck trying to persuade local councillors rather than jumping in bed with the Tories.



After what happened to Rachel Heywood in Loughborough Junction I don't think any Labour Cllr is going to take up issues of LTNs on behalf of anti residents.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> I'm not a member of any pro-LTN groups but I'm surprised by the toxicity of the OneLambeth FB group.


They wont let me in because ive been loudly ‘critically supportive’ of LTNs under my real name.  Very democratic and communitarian indeed.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> The Anti-pedestrianisationisation group candidates came behind the Tories and Labour in every ward they stood. The Tories lost 3 seats to Labour - and one of the those was in the West End., The candidate there did oppose the pedestrianisation plans but also fought more broadly against the gentrification of soho.
> In Waltham Forest the Labour vote went up after installing LTNs.
> 
> I'd have thought the Antis would have better luck trying to persuade local councillors rather than jumping in bed with the Tories.



My mistake but the campaign against pedestrianisation was successful. Both Labour and Tory candidates locally ended up opposing the scheme at election time. 

http://westendextra.com/article/lab...diq-khan-over-oxford-street-pedestrianisation




> LABOUR candidates contesting the key West End marginal ward have defied London Mayor Sadiq Khan by opposing his plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street.
> 
> Pancho Lewis, Patrick Lilley and Caroline Saville said be they “could not support these proposals” until a long list of residents’ concerns are resolved. They were responding to a list of questions from the Soho Society ahead of the organisation’s hustings last night



It needs to be remembered that Councils are getting money from this Tory government to bring in these alterations to roads. 

Its not simple issue of who which side is getting in bed with.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2020)

I can see why some people are getting really pissed off with this experiment. I'm all for reducing traffic and reducing car use, but this is how my road looks like every fucking evening. Who wants to cycle amongst all that pollution or walk past this?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2020)

.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> After what happened to Rachel Heywood in Loughborough Junction I don't think any Labour Cllr is going to take up issues of LTNs on behalf of anti residents.


I know she got kicked out of the Labour Party - however, she then stood as an independent. But not many people voted for her.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> After what happened to Rachel Heywood in Loughborough Junction I don't think any Labour Cllr is going to take up issues of LTNs on behalf of anti residents.


What happened to Rachel was terrible. Lambeth acted disgracefully when she was doing exactly what a councillor should do. 

As I recall, she was so fearful that the party would do a hatchet job on her when she declared herself as an independent candidate, she held back announcing her decision until it was pretty much too late to make an impact in the election. 

I've no idea who my current councillor is. Never seen or heard from them.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 3, 2020)

ash said:


> And they complain about LTN groups banning people who are anti LTN



They being residents who try to join community Whatsapp groups where they are told it's for 'open minded chat pro or negative' but then get booted out if they offer any criticism.

The Facebook group is very open in that its for those against the LTNs only.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> What happened to Rachel was terrible. Lambeth acted disgracefully when she was doing exactly what a councillor should do.
> 
> As I recall, she was so fearful that the party would do a hatchet job on her when she declared herself as an independent candidate, she held back announcing her decision until it was pretty much too late to make an impact in the election.
> 
> I've no idea who my current councillor is. Never seen or heard from them.



I remember her. It wasn't just the LTNs but a number of other things she went against party on because it just wasn't right. As someone said she was really doing her job as people wanted.


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 3, 2020)

I don’t know who wrote that motion but clearly someone very angry not just about LTNs but Labour in general. When your audience is 67 Labour, 3 greens (who you also have a pop at) and 1 Tory, I’m not sure that’s a winning strategy. Just out of interest are all the labour councillors more moderate or do some support momentum?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 3, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> I don’t know who wrote that motion but clearly someone very angry not just about LTNs but Labour in general. When your audience is 67 Labour, 3 greens (who you also have a pop at) and 1 Tory, I’m not sure that’s a winning strategy. Just out of interest are all the labour councillors more moderate or do some support momentum?



Still its one person who can force the other councillors to listen to people who have been impacted.....and can keep doing it. People don't really care that he is a conservative, he's picked a battle no one else would so....whats there to lose on his side and the people against these things?

Not all Labour councillors are for it. They are not going against it...but they are definately worried. One came by the protest I was at - the second one I think? - and gave some good advice to those protesting about moving forwards


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> I don’t know who wrote that motion but clearly someone very angry not just about LTNs but Labour in general. When your audience is 67 Labour, 3 greens (who you also have a pop at) and 1 Tory, I’m not sure that’s a winning strategy. Just out of interest are all the labour councillors more moderate or do some support momentum?


It's written by the tory Councillor mentioned earlier, I assume.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> I'm not a member of any pro-LTN groups but I'm surprised by the toxicity of the OneLambeth FB group.



I was invited in by a work colleague and i've never seen her so angry as when they shes posting on there. I can tell when she has been on there because she is so tense from looking at all the pictures and making ocmments.

I limit myself to a bit of browsing in the evening when my daughter has gone to bed!


----------



## Winot (Oct 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 232812
> View attachment 232813
> View attachment 232814
> 
> ...



Seems pretty moderate.


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's written by the tory Councillor mentioned earlier, I assume.


Schoolboy error by me!


----------



## Rushy (Oct 3, 2020)

Winot said:


> Seems pretty moderate.


Careful now. Slippery slope. Before you know it you'll be declared a tory loving LTN hating Nazi slave trade sympathiser.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> I don’t know who wrote that motion but clearly someone very angry not just about LTNs but Labour in general. When your audience is 67 Labour, 3 greens (who you also have a pop at) and 1 Tory, I’m not sure that’s a winning strategy. Just out of interest are all the labour councillors more moderate or do some support momentum?



Lambeth Council is run by the Progress wing of the party. They have tight control over who gets to be a Cllr.

A few Cllrs may be more moderate but they are not going to go against the ruling clique of right wing Progress supporters.

No one professing support for Momentum has any chance of becoming a Cllr.

Last left Cllr Kingsley was levered out some time ago.

Progress get nasty with people who don't support them . They destroyed Rachel.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> What happened to Rachel was terrible. Lambeth acted disgracefully when she was doing exactly what a councillor should do.
> 
> As I recall, she was so fearful that the party would do a hatchet job on her when she declared herself as an independent candidate, she held back announcing her decision until it was pretty much too late to make an impact in the election.
> 
> I've no idea who my current councillor is. Never seen or heard from them.



I and a group of locals went canvassing for her when she stood as independent. Against the Labour party machine. They went into overdrive to make sure she would not be elected.

Standing as Independent is difficult as on ballot paper you can only say Independent. Not Labour. Even though Lambeth Labour Cllrs don't stand for actual Labour in a real sense.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 3, 2020)

Winot said:


> Seems pretty moderate.


Just wants to do some fine tuning to the War On Cars.


----------



## happyshopper (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> I can see why some people are getting really pissed off with this experiment. I'm all for reducing traffic and reducing car use, but this is how my road looks like every fucking evening. Who wants to cycle amongst all that pollution or walk past this?
> 
> View attachment 232804


Yes, Coldharbour Lane is badly congested. But what evidence is there that this is the result of the LTNs? Please give examples of what point to point routes that previously used a road now closed by a LTN that have now diverted to Coldharbour Lane. I just can't think of any, apart from the trivial example of someone wanting to drive from one end of Shakespeare Road to the other end. I occasionally used Shakespeare Road and/or  Railton Roads as a cut through but now I would divert to Milkwood Road, if heading towards Walworth or Camberwell, or Effra Road if heading to Brixton/Oval/Vauxhall. Why would I divert to the Brixton end of Coldharbour Lane?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 3, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> Yes, Coldharbour Lane is badly congested. But what evidence is there that this is the result of the LTNs? Please give examples of what point to point routes that previously used a road now closed by a LTN that have now diverted to Coldharbour Lane. I just can't think of any, apart from the trivial example of someone wanting to drive from one end of Shakespeare Road to the other end. I occasionally used Shakespeare Road and/or  Railton Roads as a cut through but now I would divert to Milkwood Road, if heading towards Walworth or Camberwell, or Effra Road if heading to Brixton/Oval/Vauxhall. Why would I divert to the Brixton end of Coldharbour Lane?



Why would point to point examples matter? If other roads are choc sat nav will send ppl down other, indirect routes, like Coldharbour.........until Coldharbour becomes choc....and so the pattern repeats itself and spreads.

I think he/she said they live on Coldharbour, so that's a good personal yasdstick for knowing when traffic is bad. Same with my road - I can tell when its bad because it was never full of cars but now it is, almost the whole way at almost any time of the day.. What's the only change? The LTNs!

17 years living and working in the middle of Brixton and i've never seen anything like this traffic.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 3, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Why would point to point examples matter? If other roads are choc sat nav will send ppl down other, indirect routes, like Coldharbour.........until Coldharbour becomes choc....and so the pattern repeats itself and spreads.
> 
> I think he/she said they live on Coldharbour, so that's a good personal yasdstick for knowing when traffic is bad. Same with my road - I can tell when its bad because it was never full of cars but now it is, almost the whole way at almost any time of the day.. What's the only change? The LTNs!
> 
> 17 years living and working in the middle of Brixton and i've never seen anything like this traffic.


Effra Road northbound has also been really bad at times lately. Possibly related in part to Railton LTN?  I don't think it is a result of the St Matthews Rd closure (runs parallel to Effra) in particular because there was never a huge volume of rat running there (and of those that used to rat run, a good proportion still seem to  ). I don't drive through the new gates but instead have sat in Effra Road for up to 20 minutes for the stretch from Sainsburys to the north end of Effra Road. Basically, instead of an uninterrupted 40s run down my own street past the front of our homes, I can spend 10-20 mins chugging away on the opposite side of the same homes. That was of course until I realised I could skip Effra Road and go home a much longer but quicker route using a network of residential roads between Effra and Railton. Instead of just driving the length of the road I live on. That said, Saltoun Road seemed pretty busy today so maybe that won't last for long.

Previously if I was approaching from Herne Hill direction, I would drive Dulwich Road and Brixton Water Lane. Since they closed St Matthews Road, I take any road through Poets corner onto Railton Road and then take any combination of roads to come out at St Matthews Church. It's not going to change the frequency of my driving as I'm already infrequent and only drive when it's necessary - e.g. moving big or heavy stuff, or buying a pint of milk obviously. But there are others on my road who need to drive daily for work and are doing similar things. Sitting in traffic queues on the one side of our homes instead of sailing past them on the other. Or rat running through several narrow residential streets instead of their their own.

I'd love to hear from someone who has been dissuaded from driving by the gates around our way. I'm not against well designed traffic controls but, just for starters, feel pretty confident that these gates would work more efficiently with limited exemptions for local residents who have no option but to use those roads to get home. I'd actually gladly have a 10mph HomeZone outside my house. That would actually improve my local environment and quality of life far more than the fiddly bollocks we have been delivered.

And of course - ban all Car Free Town Hall vehicles from parking in the street.


----------



## co-op (Oct 3, 2020)

Winot said:


> Pretty rich for Pimlico Plumbers to claim to be the champion of “real working people”. This was the company that tried to avoid paying its workers holiday and sick pay by claiming they were self-employed when they weren’t. The case went to the Supreme Court and they lost:



LOL I have nearly started a thread a couple of times on here but too bloody lazy, it would have been "what's your shittest pimlico plumbers experience?" - seriously these guys are some of the blaggiest. overcharging wankers IN THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD! I'd forgotten about them recently but my sister recently rang them to get something done for my (very elderly, obviously vulnerable) Dad and jesus they have over-charged - £970 for a boiler service? That took 2 hours? (allegedly). Fucking piss takers. This was a £200 job at most, and just to put salt into the wound, the fucking boilers broken down in the last week, just 3 weeks later.

Honestly, never, ever ring Pimlico Plumbers for anything ever. They are arseholes on a stick. 

If they are against it, I'm for it, don't really care what it is.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> I'm not a member of any pro-LTN groups but I'm surprised by the toxicity of the OneLambeth FB group.



actually surprised ?

😬


----------



## alex_ (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> I can see why some people are getting really pissed off with this experiment. I'm all for reducing traffic and reducing car use, but this is how my road looks like every fucking evening. Who wants to cycle amongst all that pollution or walk past this?
> 
> View attachment 232804



There isn’t any evidence this is caused by the ltn though is there ?


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2020)

alex_ said:


> There isn’t any evidence this is caused by the ltn though is there ?


You think closing Shakespeare Road has absolutely zero impact?


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2020)

happyshopper said:


> Yes, Coldharbour Lane is badly congested. But what evidence is there that this is the result of the LTNs? Please give examples of what point to point routes that previously used a road now closed by a LTN that have now diverted to Coldharbour Lane. I just can't think of any, apart from the trivial example of someone wanting to drive from one end of Shakespeare Road to the other end.


 If Shakespeare Road was such a trivial route why is it now a LTN?


----------



## alex_ (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> You think closing Shakespeare Road has absolutely zero impact?



you seem to be parroting the catch phrases of onemarketingcompany


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 3, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> They being residents who try to join community Whatsapp groups where they are told it's for 'open minded chat pro or negative' but then get booted out if they offer any criticism.



I'm in that WhatsApp group, and the three people removed were not engaging in constructive conversation and were being actively insulting to other members. They were warned, carried on, and then were removed.

That group has many fully anti or sceptical members and we continue to chat about the issues, it gets fraught at times but we mostly mange to calm it down amongst ourselves. We certainly don't agree on many things but we do have constructive conversations about what some tweaks might look like. 

Emotions run high but being an optimist I (& others) have tried to help keep the group somewhere where we can all chat and hear each others opinions without calling each other names. Call me naive but just breaking into two sides doesn't help get to a final outcome that the majority can be happy with.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2020)

alex_ said:


> you seem to be parroting the catch phrases of oneblah.


Don't patronise me or try to me associate me with them, thank you. Why won't you just answer my question?
I've already stated that I believe that the LTNs are contributing to the congestion, but are clearly not solely responsible. But whatever is causing it it's pissing me off and I'd like it to stop, thanks.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Don't patronise me or try to me associate me with them, thank you. Why won't you ask my question?
> I've already stated that I believe that the LTNs are contributing to the congestion, but are clearly not solely responsible. But whatever is causing it it's pissing me off and I'd like it to stop, thanks.



Looking at Waze (possibly too obsessively) the last few days since the Tulse Hill LTN went live and it does look like Coldharbour lane is constantly one of the most jammed roads in Brixton, more continuously even than Brixton Hill. I can imagine that must be deeply unpleasant. Atlantic Road closing must be a contributor as well as the LTNs - which to me suggests Brixton BID's desire to close it permanently may be a non-starter


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 3, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> ....and many, many local businesses. Someone said on FB that Pimlico Plumbers, who are based in Lambeth, have been blogging about it. I don't know how many they employ but I can imagine they send a long time on the roads given the equipment they need with them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The owner is typical self made wealthy businessman who like to think they know what the "real" world is like,

I heard him on radio a while back really angry as one his "self employed" plumbers had taken him to tribunal over the so called self employment he had them on and won. Why should hard pressed businessmen give sick pay to those who work for them? He thinks he pays his plumbers well so what is the problem?  Ive worked for people like this. They think they are givng you a great deal and resent any moaning about it. Inference is they have worked hard and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and you haven't. ( he has "pulled himself up" as he does come from poor background. But I have an issue with so called "meritocracy") So stop whining. Thatcherist mentality.

He did, however, oppose Brexit. So the idea put on this thread that supporting Brexit = opposing LTNs is not the case.

Plenty of otherwise right wing people opposed Brexit. Being a Remainer is not a badge of being progressive.

He was giving funds to Tories switched to  LDs over the Brexit issue.

I do know van drivers who are finding the increasing number of LTNs becoming a headache. Increasing journey times. So apart from all his other views he could be right and his plumbers are finding it more difficult to get around.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 3, 2020)

Regarding Pimlico Plumbers I was taken aback the other night to see Charlie Mullins taking in hand a somewhat camp young guy as a lodger - in the Channel 4 show Lodgers for Codgers.
I don't normally watch programmes like that -  and I venture to suggest that all participants are portrayed as being not the full shilling. Nevertheless Charlie announced his TV appearance on his website.
Channel 4's Lodgers for Codgers: I absolutely loved doing the Charlie and Che Show | Pimlico Plumbers 

Actually Charlie Mullins is in the same vein as Michael O'Leary (RyanAir), Mike Ashley (Sports Direct) or even beardy Richard Branson. Unfortunately this is what we have to offer the world - and this is what we will get now Brexit is accomplished.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 4, 2020)

Pimlico bloke had to edit a blog when he called cyclists ‘fascists’ called for them to be taxed to use the roads etc.

He's blogged his anti Khan / anti TFL, anti cyclists views before and is a regular on Nick Ferrari radio shows and talk radio - a little England Tory.









						Multi-Millionaire London Plumber Says Cycleways And ‘Cycle Fascists’ Making Van Journeys Longer
					

London plumbing boss Charlie Mullins has taken to Twitter and his company blog to attack cyclists.




					www.forbes.com
				




Also regularly drives like an idiot up Croxted Road


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2020)

How does Charlie Mullins opposition to Brexit / funding LDs fit with being a litle England Tory?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> How does Charlie Mullins opposition to Brexit / funding LDs fit with being a litle England Tory?


That is because - like Tim Martin of Wetherspoons - he wanted little England with free movement of labour.


----------



## co-op (Oct 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So the idea put on this thread that supporting Brexit = opposing LTNs is not the case.



No one's argued that there's some kind of literal ideological correlaton between brexiteering and opposition to LTNs (least of all me, I voted out and I support LTNs). It's just there is a fairly typical Mr Angry type who is in love with his car and who also voted out, I have literally seen people on facebook (MOBS page) who have made brexit and fighting against LTNs part of the same struggle.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2020)

Back toi Railton LTN - anybody know why Somerleyton Passage has been opened up to motorbikes, when formerly it was pedestrian only for maybe thirty years?
I will post a couple of photos to illustrate later.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2020)

co-op said:


> No one's argued that there's some kind of literal ideological correlaton between brexiteering and opposition to LTNs (least of all me, I voted out and I support LTNs). It's just there is a fairly typical Mr Angry type who is in love with his car and who also voted out, I have literally seen people on facebook (MOBS page) who have made brexit and fighting against LTNs part of the same struggle.



The argument that supporting Brexit and opposing LTNs go together has been regularly posted up on this thread.

The head of Pimlico plumbers has been called a "little England Tory" here even though he was against Brexit.

I also look at FB page of One Lambeth and I have also attended one of their demos. I didn't see a lot of racist/ Brexit types at the demo. Nor were any of the speeches at the demo mentioning Brexit. I see a lot of angry car drivers on the One Lambeth FB posting up videos of how they can't drive around. They are angry that does not make them Brexit voters.


----------



## Winot (Oct 4, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Back toi Railton LTN - anybody know why Somerleyton Passage has been opened up to motorbikes, when formerly it was pedestrian only for maybe thirty years?
> I will post a couple of photos to illustrate later.



It’s been opened up to bicycles. If motorbikes can get through then that is a by-product.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2020)

CH1 said:


> That is because - like Tim Martin of Wetherspoons - he wanted little England with free movement of labour.



Tim Martin was Brexit supporter. Owner of Pimlico plumbers opposed Brexit.

What Im objecting to on this thread is reducing the pro and snti LTN to a binary "culture war" between the forces of light ( Remainers/  pro LTN/ pro immigration/ tolerant) who oppose the forces of darkness ( Brexit supporters/ racists/ little Englanders/ anti LTN) Im talking about Lambeth in this case.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 4, 2020)

Is the gate on Railton Road south of the junction with Kellett Road one way? There did not appear to be any signs stopping traffic heading from Herne Hill direction.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 4, 2020)

Why is everyone so desperate to tie this firmly into political affiliations? It's complicated enough already. And the he said she said gossip focusing on random individuals is playground stuff.

Really interesting little podcast here called The Fragility of Choice which looks at an attempt at research into how we make choices.








						The Big Idea - The fragility of choice - BBC Sounds
					

Where do our opinions come from and how easy is it for people to change them?




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2020)

Winot said:


> It’s been opened up to bicycles. If motorbikes can get through then that is a by-product.


So you were involved in that decision to spend public money fixing that which was not broken?
(and create a hazard to pedestrians at the same time)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

madolesance said:


> So are you suggesting that most Uber drivers/ motorist would make a point of stopping and supporting local businesses? Or just continue through the streets their satnavs have suggested they use? Is that fair for people who live in these areas to be subjected to constant traffic? It not fair for where ever you live! Motor traffic needs to be reduced everywhere. It’s no longer acceptable.



I'm saying that Lambeth could have done this so much better by planning out where to roll it out progressively, so as to not displace traffic in great frigging bunches. As it is, because most of the LTNs have been rolled out over a couple of months, we're seeing chaos on main roads. I agree with teuchter that the flow will ebb gradually, but proper traffic surveying could have achieved this without displacing rat-running onto other side roads, & ramming up the main roads so thoroughly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

nick said:


> Separately, until the cameras are in place I don't think the success or otherwise of the LTNs can be assessed.
> I have been followed through the planters (normally by Priuses) at Palace Road and both ends of Railton in the last 2 days



I was sitting outside a cafe on Streatham High Rd on Thursday, enjoying a very nice Americano, watching cars pass. My "back of a shopping list" 5 minute survey of cars heading toward Streatham Hill, showed 1 in 7 cars to be Priuses. They're breeding!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

Crispy said:


> Should be a TFL thing as the Circulars are red routes under their control.



I yearn for the days of the GLC sometimes.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Tim Martin was Brexit supporter. Owner of Pimlico plumbers opposed Brexit.
> 
> What Im objecting to on this thread is reducing the pro and snti LTN to a binary "culture war" between the forces of light ( Remainers/  pro LTN/ pro immigration/ tolerant) who oppose the forces of darkness ( Brexit supporters/ racists/ little Englanders/ anti LTN) Im talking about Lambeth in this case.


I don't think the Brexit stuff is really relevant and I agree it's unhelpful to bring that up.

However, the tendency for tories to be anti LTN does fit with the tory ideology of individualist freedom, in my opinion. It's not irrelevant to the discussion.

It's not a coincidence that the tory borough of Wandsworth cancelled their schemes, that Lambeth's sole tory councillor is opposing the Lambeth LTNs, and that tory-supporting, boris-backing Pimlico Plumbers man is opposing the LTNs.

I don't think this means that being opposed to the LTNs makes you a tory. I recognise that there are reasons people might be against them, that don't stem from an individualist ideology.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Someone from the Sustainable Growth and Opportunities Directorate told me this week that it will be "very soon" but that we will get a letter and advance notice. We got a letter and advance notice in June saying it would be fully enforced with APNR cameras issuing warnings from July 11 and fines from July 25. One of my councilors told me that there were issues getting cameras - that was two months ago.



Apparently - according to a cllr - the "issues" boil down to hundreds of LAs ordering dozens of cameras each, at the same time. Manufacturers & installers are snowed under.


----------



## Winot (Oct 4, 2020)

CH1 said:


> So you were involved in that decision to spend public money fixing that which was not broken?



No.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 4, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> Apparently - according to a cllr - the "issues" boil down to hundreds of LAs ordering dozens of cameras each, at the same time. Manufacturers & installers are snowed under.


Understandable. But hardly unpredictable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 232812
> View attachment 232813
> View attachment 232814
> 
> ...



Much as I hate to admit it, Briggs makes some good points. Proper consultation, followed by progressive roll-out, would have been more efficient.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

editor said:


> What happened to Rachel was terrible. Lambeth acted disgracefully when she was doing exactly what a councillor should do.
> 
> As I recall, she was so fearful that the party would do a hatchet job on her when she declared herself as an independent candidate, she held back announcing her decision until it was pretty much too late to make an impact in the election.
> 
> I've no idea who my current councillor is. Never seen or heard from them.



One of your ward cllrs is the toxic individual who said, back before the 2014 local elections, that Coldharbour had "too many damned council tenants". This was said in the context of it meaning he had to do lots of ward surgery work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> I don’t know who wrote that motion but clearly someone very angry not just about LTNs but Labour in general. When your audience is 67 Labour, 3 greens (who you also have a pop at) and 1 Tory, I’m not sure that’s a winning strategy. Just out of interest are all the labour councillors more moderate or do some support momentum?



57 Labour, 5 Greens, 1 Tory. 63 cllrs in total.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The argument that supporting Brexit and opposing LTNs go together has been regularly posted up on this thread.
> 
> The head of Pimlico plumbers has been called a "little England Tory" here even though he was against Brexit.
> 
> I also look at FB page of One Lambeth and I have also attended one of their demos. I didn't see a lot of racist/ Brexit types at the demo. Nor were any of the speeches at the demo mentioning Brexit. I see a lot of angry car drivers on the One Lambeth FB posting up videos of how they can't drive around. They are angry that does not make them Brexit voters.



TBF, Mullins was/is against Brexit, because it cuts off a crucial source of exploitable labour for him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Understandable. But hardly unpredictable.



Agreed. Apparently Covid has put a crimp in the shipping of parts from points east, too.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The argument that supporting Brexit and opposing LTNs go together has been regularly posted up on this thread.
> 
> The head of Pimlico plumbers has been called a "little England Tory" here even though he was against Brexit.
> 
> I also look at FB page of One Lambeth and I have also attended one of their demos. I didn't see a lot of racist/ Brexit types at the demo. Nor were any of the speeches at the demo mentioning Brexit. I see a lot of angry car drivers on the One Lambeth FB posting up videos of how they can't drive around. They are angry that does not make them Brexit voters.



Apart from the ex UKIP bloke and now ‘heritage party’ member being the key speaker at the Hackney and Lambeth demos, you’re right, nothing at all.


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 4, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> 57 Labour, 5 Greens, 1 Tory. 63 cllrs in total.


My bad, not checking properly


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 4, 2020)

CH1 said:


> So you were involved in that decision to spend public money fixing that which was not broken?
> (and create a hazard to pedestrians at the same time)
> View attachment 232926
> View attachment 232925


The original isn’t Equalities Act compliant. Wheels for Wellbeing were involved in campaigning to replace that style of barrier. the ones fitted were (I think) an experiment to be tweaked.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> Much as I hate to admit it, Briggs makes some good points. Proper consultation, followed by progressive roll-out, would have been more efficient.


That was what (in theory) was happening before Covid struck.
Then the emergency legislation from his own party (rightly, I think) allowed councils to accelerate things. 
If things had carried on as before, I think we'd still have traffic clogged roads right now, but none of the benefits that the LTNs can bring for those who want to get about on foot/bike.
What he's seen is an opportunity to kill off the LTNs by blaming them for traffic chaos that is partly, or possibly mainly, caused by other things.
From what he's written you can see his wider agenda.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> The original isn’t Equalities Act compliant. Wheels for Wellbeing were involved in campaigning to replace that style of barrier. the ones fitted were (I think) an experiment to be tweaked.


I'm sure if Wheels for Wellbeing say they're no good they would get put on the list for planters, like everywhere else.
I bet if you asked local residents though many would be bemused like I am.

What you had at Somerlyton Passage (as you can see in my first picture) were widely spaced barriers that you could actually have cycled through - at 2 mph, or of course dismounted. Now we have two planters which don't block any two wheel vehicle/device. The planters seem to be instaled by an outsourcing firm, who will in due course no doubt put in plants on the Somerleyton Road side to match the Mayall Road side (unless they have dropped Somerleyton off their list for gardening).

I appreciate moaning about change is very boring - but some people on here might remember Brixton Challenge and their planter craze on Brixton Road - in the mid 1990s. Looked wonderful until there was no proper cleaning/gardening buget and the planters became rubbish tips for drinks cans, sandwich packs etc. - and had to be done away with.

I would like to know who the contractor is who is installing and servicing these planters. Who let the contract? And did they have any interests to declare? And who will pay for long term maintenance?


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 4, 2020)

CH1 said:


> I'm sure if Wheels for Wellbeing say they're no good they would get put on the list for planters, like everywhere else.
> I bet if you asked local residents though many would be bemused like I am.
> 
> What you had at Somerlyton Passage (as you can see in my first picture) were widely spaced barriers that you could actually have cycled through - at 2 mph, or of course dismounted. Now we have two planters which don't block any two wheel vehicle/device. The planters seem to be instaled by an outsourcing firm, who will in due course no doubt put in plants on the Somerleyton Road side to match the Mayall Road side (unless they have dropped Somerleyton off their list for gardening).
> ...


They don’t allow people not riding standard cycles through.

Planters made by Father Nature believes in access to nature for all   a small local social enterprise


----------



## teuchter (Oct 4, 2020)

Have to say I agree about freestanding planters - they never get maintained in the long term, and if they are made of timber they inevitably disintegrate and collapse.

They're fine as a solution for temporary/experimental barriers though.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 4, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> They don’t allow people not riding standard cycles through.
> 
> Planters made by Father Nature believes in access to nature for all   a small local social enterprise


I'll pass that information on to my friend in Holmewood Gardens - who thinks his planter in the middle of Cotherstone Road is wonderful. By the look of their website they might be able to do wonders with his back garden too!


----------



## editor (Oct 4, 2020)

On a kind of related note:


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 4, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That was what (in theory) was happening before Covid struck.
> Then the emergency legislation from his own party (rightly, I think) allowed councils to accelerate things.
> If things had carried on as before, I think we'd still have traffic clogged roads right now, but none of the benefits that the LTNs can bring for those who want to get about on foot/bike.
> What he's seen is an opportunity to kill off the LTNs by blaming them for traffic chaos that is partly, or possibly mainly, caused by other things.
> From what he's written you can see his wider agenda.



To be fair, his ward has more than its fair share of rammed main roads, and rat runs, so I think some of it is fear of displacement causing more problems in the short term.

The emergency legislation did lead to an unseemly rush by local authorities to develop (if that word can be used) projects that would secure funding, seemingly without much more planning going into it, than (by Lambeth, at least) "what can we do to meet our Climate Emergency carbon neutrality obligations? Ooh, I know...".


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Apart from the ex UKIP bloke and now ‘heritage party’ member being the key speaker at the Hackney and Lambeth demos, you’re right, nothing at all.



Well I missed that. I heard a local shopkeeper and a person who works for he NHS. When I arrived at demo high percentage were Black people.

Its a right wing Tory government who have put the money forward for these schemes. As you have pointed out previously lot of the encouragement and funding for altering roads in favour pedestrianss and cyclists during pandemic is courtesy of this government.

That is the government that has Priti Patel in it who is going to "reform" what happens to ayslum seekers.

Trying to pin opposition to LTNs to the right does not make senses to me when it is a hard right Brexit supporting administration under Boris who are funding this.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 4, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't think the Brexit stuff is really relevant and I agree it's unhelpful to bring that up.
> 
> However, the tendency for tories to be anti LTN does fit with the tory ideology of individualist freedom, in my opinion. It's not irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
> ...



Id agree with the individualist freedom.

The sole Tory Cllrs motion to Full Council you posted up previously is littered with stuff about the "war on cars". Typical individualist Tory stuff. More annoying is way Cllr Briggs attempts to blame all woes of London on Labour Councils. That Lambeth is misusing the money from Government for this. They aren't. Shapps made it quite clear to Councils to get on with this quickly.

Cllr Briggs is from what Ive seen a grass roots Tory. Bit of a Thatcherite.

He reallly ought to question why Boris government went down this path. What guidance they gave to Councils on how to use the money and how they are administrating the hand out of grants to Council. Rather than knee jerk bash a Labour Council. Its his party in power who started the ball running on these schemes. If he does not like it then he should hold his government to account.

He does say Shapps has written to Lambeth Council but I cant find letter online.

Found the motion on Crystal Palace news.

Blocked-off roads Lambeth: Council motion calls for end of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods trial immediately, with all road blockages removed – and for the “council to go back to the drawing board and consult residents in an unbiased way that does not presume an outcome.”

CPN says next Full Council is 14th October. That should be fun to watch

Im still glad someone has managed to get this all brought up at Full Council. Im wondering what the Greens will say.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 4, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Priti Patel in it who is going to "reform" what happens to ayslum seekers....it is a hard right Brexit supporting administration under Boris who are funding this.



.....they’re gonna find it a lot easier to push stuff thru while everyone is arguing over planters.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 4, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Is the gate on Railton Road south of the junction with Kellett Road one way? There did not appear to be any signs stopping traffic heading from Herne Hill direction.



Yep. Seems so. Was it always that way?


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 5, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Well I missed that. I heard a local shopkeeper and a person who works for he NHS. When I arrived at demo high percentage were Black people.
> 
> Its a right wing Tory government who have put the money forward for these schemes. As you have pointed out previously lot of the encouragement and funding for altering roads in favour pedestrianss and cyclists during pandemic is courtesy of this government.
> 
> ...



And of course you know hat tackling car traffic (via LTNs) is in both the Labour and Conservative party manifestos; a little bit more aggressively in the Labour one but the Tory one is still quite developed and based on cross party working. 

Tory one obviously includes lots of new road building. Greens full on LTN implementation.

Lib Dems (if we remember them) is a bit more dramatic. UKIP was all ‘war on motorists’


----------



## Ryan2468 (Oct 5, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Yep. Seems so. Was it always that way?



When it was first put in, I don't think so. But it's definitely the case now.


----------



## Ms T (Oct 5, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Yep. Seems so. Was it always that way?



Apparently the local shops lobbied for it to be one way.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> And of course you know hat tackling car traffic (via LTNs) is in both the Labour and Conservative party manifestos; a little bit more aggressively in the Labour one but the Tory one is still quite developed and based on cross party working.
> 
> Tory one obviously includes lots of new road building. Greens full on LTN implementation.
> 
> Lib Dems (if we remember them) is a bit more dramatic. UKIP was all ‘war on motorists’


No I didnt know that. 

Nor does it seem that Cllr Briggs knows its in Tory manifesto. Given his motion to Full Council is all about the Labour party in Londons war on the motorist someone in Tory HQ ought to have a word with him about this cross party working and the manifesto. As its passed Cllr Tim Briggs by.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> Much as I hate to admit it, Briggs makes some good points. Proper consultation, followed by progressive roll-out, would have been more efficient.



I agree he did make some good points. I wiahed he had not used it to take a potshot at Labour Councils.

Another question he could have asked is to question how they are doing this.

As I dug up previously not all these schemes are actually about the pandemic.

Oval LTN is being done with an Experimental Traffic Order. Which does not mention the pandemic. Its about circumventing consultation prior to implementation. Its also about a permanent scheme not a temporary one for duration of the pandemic.

I think there is a argument that the Council is not just bringing in pavement widening etc for more social distancing its using pandemic to fastrack its pet projects.

I wish Cllr Briggs motion had focussed on what actually this Labour Council is up to. And making them clearly answer in Full Council meeting.

There are plenty of questions to ask about the implementation of LTNs in way that this Council has done.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> One of your ward cllrs is the toxic individual who said, back before the 2014 local elections, that Coldharbour had "too many damned council tenants". This was said in the context of it meaning he had to do lots of ward surgery work.



His latest one is to accuse people who take time to be involved in community that they arent "representative". This always happens when people ask questions/ criticise any action by the Council or its officers.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2020)

CH1 said:


> So you were involved in that decision to spend public money fixing that which was not broken?
> (and create a hazard to pedestrians at the same time)
> View attachment 232926
> View attachment 232925



I thought the idea of the metal fence was to stop mopeds. Also to stop cyclists hammering it down the passage when pedestrians are using it.

I use it. As cyclist I didnt find the fencing a problem. 

Way it is now is not necessarily safer for pedestrians.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2020)

Live congestion map just now on Waze

Wandsworth (roughly the left hand side of this map) has abandoned its LTNs.

Lambeth (roughly the right hand side) hasn't.

Just posting this for the benefit of those who believe the main cause of congestion at the moment is the LTNs.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As I dug up previously not all these schemes are actually about the pandemic.
> 
> Oval LTN is being done with an Experimental Traffic Order. Which does not mention the pandemic. Its about circumventing consultation prior to implementation. Its also about a permanent scheme not a temporary one for duration of the pandemic.
> 
> I think there is a argument that the Council is not just bringing in pavement widening etc for more social distancing its using pandemic to fastrack its pet projects.



Is Oval exceptional in that?


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 6, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> They don’t allow people not riding standard cycles through.
> 
> 
> CH1 said:
> ...


So the old barriers didn't enable anyone on an adapted cycle through - so excluded disabled people cycling, didn't allow cargo bikes, or bike trailers,  bikes with panniers or bakfiets boxbike type things that can carry children.  Anything that will allow all of those types of cycle through will also enable motorcyclists.   So do we exclude all the legal use because of a small amount of illegal use?  Correspondingly should we ban all motor traffic in Lambeth because some people break the speed limit or park on the pavement?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> So the old barriers didn't enable anyone on an adapted cycle through - so excluded disabled people cycling, didn't allow cargo bikes, or bike trailers,  bikes with panniers or bakfiets boxbike type things that can carry children.  Anything that will allow all of those types of cycle through will also enable motorcyclists.   So do we exclude all the legal use because of a small amount of illegal use?  Correspondingly should we ban all motor traffic in Lambeth because some people break the speed limit or park on the pavement?


Not quite sure what you are getting at there.
The old barriers had been there for about 30 years, and now you are positioning for a fight about the rights of people with child carrying panniers? Were there any petitions from Morlands Estate residents about this?
BTW how can motorcycle or scooter use of Somerleyton Passage be illegal? Is there a by-law?
I understand cycling on the pavement is illegal - but I can't remember ANY case of enforcement of this by-law ever publicised in Brixton in the last 41 years.
There have been press warnings for pedestrians to be careful during mobile phone snatching crazes though. Just as you had to wear a condom when having sex - you had to beware of pavement cyclists when on your mobile phone.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 6, 2020)

CH1 said:


> The old barriers had been there for about 30 years, and now you are positioning for a fight about the rights of people with child carrying panniers? Were there any petitions from Morlands Estate residents about this?
> BTW how can motorcycle or scooter use of Somerleyton Passage be illegal? Is there a by-law?


 It's a useful route for people cycling but the old barriers excluded many from doing so. I've heard it raised as something that should have been done at numerous Brixton town Centre, Someleyton Road and cycling meetings/consultations over the years

Riding a motor vehicle on the pavement is clearly both illegal and dangerous.  Somerleyton passage is clearly not a road but a pavement. 

Riding a cycle on the pavement is generally prohibited, except in the very many areas where pavement has been designated as 'shared use' and cycles are officially allowed. 
Even if its' not officially shared use, the danger from people cycling to pedestrians is of a different order to that from motor vehicles so it's correctly not a Police priority and in fact the long standing Government guidance to Police is that they should not enforce unless its' being done irresponsibly (and that people can legitimately cycle on the pavement if they feel unsafe on the road)


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2020)

This 'road rage' incident apparently has something to so with the Ferndale LTN


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 6, 2020)

editor said:


> This 'road rage' incident apparently has something to so with the Ferndale LTN




There was two-way traffic on that section of Ferndale Road before the LTN.  I've seen lots of road rage incidents on narrow residential streets in Lambeth before the recently implemented LTNs.  

The common factor seems to be too much traffic on residential streets  and violent individuals behind the wheel of a car.

Also,  too much parking - one answer might be to remove some parking spaces and create regular passing places. the other obvious one would be to stop Ferndale Road being used as a rat run.  The other LTNs haven't left a rat run through the middle of them so don't understand why this one has as it's obviously going to be an issue.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> people can legitimately cycle on the pavement if they feel unsafe on the road


Where I live (on Coldharbour Lane) it's sometimes safer for pedestrians to walk in the road!


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 6, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Where I live (on Coldharbour Lane) it's sometimes safer for pedestrians to walk in the road!


I've lived on Coldharbour Lane and its shit for walking and cycling but I think you're rather exaggerating.   

Lots could be done to improve the worst section from the railway to Gresham Road though.  WTF is with all those bollards that take about a third of the pavement for a start? (probably put there because drivers used to park or drive over it).  Remove all the parking (and actually enforce it) - there are regularly cars parked opposite Somerleyton Road that snarl up the junction and mean buses can't make the turn in or out.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 6, 2020)

Just a concerned group of local residents paying for advertising...  #astroturf


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> There was two-way traffic on that section of Ferndale Road before the LTN.  I've seen lots of road rage incidents on narrow residential streets in Lambeth before the recently implemented LTNs.
> 
> The common factor seems to be too much traffic on residential streets  and violent individuals behind the wheel of a car.
> 
> Also,  too much parking - one answer might be to remove some parking spaces and create regular passing places. the other obvious one would be to stop Ferndale Road being used as a rat run.  The other LTNs haven't left a rat run through the middle of them so don't understand why this one has as it's obviously going to be an issue.



Agreed - I've seen several of that type of incident (although normally they resolve a bit quicker) on Leander Road over the years - the result of narrow roads with parking on both sides, two way traffic, people driving too fast, and Ferndale is similar.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 6, 2020)

editor said:


> This 'road rage' incident apparently has something to so with the Ferndale LTN



Holy Crap! I didn't watch it all, stopped when the UberEats delivery driver who looked like he was trying to calm things down got punched and kicked to the ground. Why are people so angry? And why didn't one the two vans 'give way' whole thing could have been over and done with in seconds- honestly it's like watching a pissing contest sometimes...


----------



## editor (Oct 6, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Holy Crap! I didn't watch it all, stopped when the UberEats delivery driver who looked like he was trying to calm things down got punched and kicked to the ground. Why are people so angry? And why didn't one the two vans 'give way' whole thing could have been over and done with in seconds- honestly it's like watching a pissing contest sometimes...


Twats in cars/vans, innit.


----------



## technical (Oct 6, 2020)

I've seen that kind of thing several times on our street - drivers seem to think its a sign of weakness to give way/pull over, so it descends into bravado and shouting obscenities at each other. They just come across as idiots


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2020)

Happens all the time at a junction near me. There are deliveries to an industrial unit, sometimes involves quite large lorries reversing into or out of the access road. This process sometimes means that cars on the main road have to stop and wait. The chaps from the factory have to go out on the main road to guide the lorry drivers in and out, and they often get shouted and sworn at by car drivers who appear to have zero patience, beeping their horns or trying to drive aggressively around the obstruction, sometimes onto the pavements. I feel sorry for the guys who are just trying to do their job, especially when all the impatience leads to some kind of logjam that then means the lorry can't move at all, and everyone gets even more angry and aggressive.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 6, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Just a concerned group of local residents paying for advertising...  #astroturf
> 
> View attachment 233160



How much does this cost to do?.


----------



## organicpanda (Oct 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I've lived on Coldharbour Lane and its shit for walking and cycling but I think you're rather exaggerating.
> 
> Lots could be done to improve the worst section from the railway to Gresham Road though.  WTF is with all those bollards that take about a third of the pavement for a start? (probably put there because drivers used to park or drive over it).  Remove all the parking (and actually enforce it) - there are regularly cars parked opposite Somerleyton Road that snarl up the junction and mean buses can't make the turn in or out.


the bollards were put outside my place on Coldharbour due to the fact that drivers can't drive at 20 mph and keep their cars on the road, would be nice to think that you could walk on the pavement without the risk of 2 tonnes of metal (or however much they weigh) mowing you down


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Is Oval exceptional in that?



I don't know. I have looked a little but cannot find anything so far.

I would like to know if that is the case for each LTN.

It does not help that the literature / commonplace info the Council puts out does not tell the public about this.

In case of an Emergency Traffic Order there is specific way to object. So imo anti LTN comments on the Commonplace maps won't count for much.

I also would like to know why Council is using them at all. They already have a pandemic related Traffic Order for the Borough to bring in alterations to roads on temporary basis.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> the bollards were put outside my place on Coldharbour due to the fact that drivers can't drive at 20 mph and keep their cars on the road, would be nice to think that you could walk on the pavement without the risk of 2 tonnes of metal (or however much they weigh) mowing you down



I also live near the speeding patch of CHL. One thing that could be done is put speed cameras on that section. They do work.

Cars/ motorbikes often floor it on my bit of CHL. Overtaking other cars who are going 20mph.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Is Oval exceptional in that?



Ive just emailed the email address for LTN queries to ask about Traffic orders. Ive attached the ones I have found. ( Three in total)

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I see for Oval LTN a ETO Experimental Traffic Order is being used.

Can you please tell me if ETO are being used for each new LTN in Lambeth?

I would also like to know why an ETO is being used.

The other two Traffic orders I have found. One for Oval and one for the whole borough are related to the pandemic. Which is fair enough. They are time limited.

An ETO for Oval does not mention the pandemic.

Can you explain to me what is going on? And why is Lambeth using ETO for Oval LTN. This is unrelated to the pandemic and would lead to permanent LTN.



Will see what reply I get.


----------



## organicpanda (Oct 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I also live near the speeding patch of CHL. One thing that could be done is put speed cameras on that section. They do work.
> 
> Cars/ motorbikes often floor it on my bit of CHL. Overtaking other cars who are going 20mph.


I've seen cars overtaking other cars that were doing 40+ cameras would certainly have an effect but when our wall was hit the police council and TFL each bounced it away from themselves, all saying something must be done but no money


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 6, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> I've seen cars overtaking other cars that were doing 40+ cameras would certainly have an effect but when our wall was hit the police council and TFL each bounced it away from themselves, all saying something must be done but no money



I think the Council should get its priorities right and sort out this as part of Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I've lived on Coldharbour Lane and its shit for walking and cycling but I think you're rather exaggerating.
> 
> Lots could be done to improve the worst section from the railway to Gresham Road though.  WTF is with all those bollards that take about a third of the pavement for a start? (probably put there because drivers used to park or drive over it).  Remove all the parking (and actually enforce it) - there are regularly cars parked opposite Somerleyton Road that snarl up the junction and mean buses can't make the turn in or out.


I think you will find the bollards were put there by the soon-to-be abolished GLC.
They thought they were being helpful, whilst using up their remaining funds.


----------



## paolo (Oct 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I think the Council should get its priorities right and sort out this as part of Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood.



At the same time then, get cameras on some modal filters. The Lyham road one can be dicey as a cyclist. Couple of timeS I’ve had drivers do a quick ‘think’, then floor it directly through the no entry signs, at me on my bike, figuring I‘d scramble for the kerb. Full daylight, and my front light is always on. Some days, waking past, I’ve seen a number of cars in a row do this. One sent several cyclists scattering.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2020)

I also would like more speed cameras, and 20mph limits to be properly enforced.

But not before we've done consultation with everyone, right? Because it's clear from driver behaviour that a lot of local residents don't believe 20mph limits are necessary or useful. They are more of a vague suggestion. Think of the time it would add on to many essential journeys. It's just another arm of the war on the motorist and a restriction on people's freedom.

And during the consultation all the usual groups could come up with reasons why 20mph zones, and/or speed cameras are overkill, and a sneaky way for Big Brother to keep an eye on us, and by the way the only reason they go up is to make the council money. And then 2 or 3 years down the line we can make a political decision based on a non-scientific assessment of how much support there is. Maybe some kind of watered-down version, like 20mph limits mixed in with higher limits too.

I notice on many of the anti LTN groups there's a lot of people saying "but all we really need is 20mph limits and speed bumps". But it's not that long ago I was arguing with folk on here about whether or not a London-wide 20mph limit should happen. We went through all the stuff about how it just causes more pollution. Or that it's too difficult for people to keep to, because of something to do with gears. Etc etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 7, 2020)

I was not arguing with 20mph limits. Nor have I been arguing against traffic calming measures. 

So hope no implication is being made Im being hypocritical

As section of road between LJ and Brixton has clear speeding with accidents then it shows their is a specific problem that needs sorting out. 

This apparently wont happen as funds are lacking according to what has been posted here. I would have thought proven issue like this should be a priority.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2020)

But if we enforce speed limits on that stretch of road won't it displace speeding drivers to other roads? And shouldn't there be a consultation first?


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2020)

LTN update No new money for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in the borough – but Lambeth is still keen for Brixton Hill scheme


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 7, 2020)

editor said:


> LTN update No new money for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in the borough – but Lambeth is still keen for Brixton Hill scheme






> “The popularity of our emergency Low Traffic Neighbourhood programme has led to us being inundated with requests from different parts of the borough for their neighbourhoods to be added.


 I thought there was widespread opposition?


----------



## editor (Oct 7, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I thought there was widespread opposition?


It's a Lambeth press release and thus not necessarily factual.


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 7, 2020)

editor said:


> LTN update No new money for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in the borough – but Lambeth is still keen for Brixton Hill scheme


There was one comment on your story and it talked about seeking compensation from Lambeth which is interesting as it was the same thing that was mentioned in the latest spats on Nextdoor. So I was wondering whether (it’s probably discussed on that closed Facebook group) there’s a change in tactics underway. We can’t change the political decision as we haven’t got the numbers so we will sue for compensation instead, sort of class action USA style. I have no proof for any of this just the use of that word


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 7, 2020)

Is that the usual ‘who pays for the roads’ confusion some drivers have?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 7, 2020)

I've seen quite a few 'give us our roads back' comments on the anti group. 

Which as it happens, is kind of what those of us largely in favour of LTNs are saying too.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> There was one comment on your story and it talked about seeking compensation from Lambeth which is interesting as it was the same thing that was mentioned in the latest spats on Nextdoor. So I was wondering whether (it’s probably discussed on that closed Facebook group) there’s a change in tactics underway. We can’t change the political decision as we haven’t got the numbers so we will sue for compensation instead, sort of class action USA style. I have no proof for any of this just the use of that word



from facebook


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> from facebook
> View attachment 233425


How nice, rich people with cars want to stop everyone breathing and cycling.


----------



## Southlondon (Oct 8, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> How nice, rich people with cars want to stop everyone breathing and cycling.


Not everyone with a car is rich. The rich are more likely to be working from home in the leafy suburbs or travelling on rail which is now a preserve of the better off


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> travelling on rail which is now a preserve of the better off


Very definitely not what I have observed in London in the past few weeks.
Yes, not everyone with a car is rich, and yes the rich are more likely to be working from home in the leafy suburbs. But the rich in the leafy suburbs are not going to be getting on the train right now if they can drive instead. On the train are mainly people without that option.


----------



## Ol Nick (Oct 8, 2020)

The plethora of delivery firms is clearly part of the problem. Instead I propose a system where all non-local deliveries are made to a local "office", and from there local delivery people can complete the delivery mostly on foot or on bike.

I even have a name for this radical system: "The Republican Mail"


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

Here's councillor Timothy Briggs collecting his anecdata:


----------



## Rushy (Oct 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Very definitely not what I have observed in London in the past few weeks.
> 
> Yes, not everyone with a car is rich, and yes the rich are more likely to be working from home in the leafy suburbs. But the rich in the leafy suburbs are not going to be getting on the train right now if they can drive instead. On the train are mainly people without that option.


Can you clarify how you have _very definitely_ observed whatever it is that you have observed (or not observed)?

I know plenty of reasonably wealthy types who are travelling to work at least a couple of days a week by train. Mostly more senior folk. I cannot think of a single one commuting by car in London (although I see a handful parking for the Town Hall). I know one who uses a motorbike - but always has. I don't consider my observation to be anything more than a tiny snapshot - certainly not enough to come to any definite picture. But enough to question the basis of your confident conclusion that "the rich" won't be getting on a train if they can drive instead. That seems to be at odds with my own admittedly limited personal observations.

The parts of my own work which have me driving are certainly not the higher value / higher grossing parts. Mostly just lugging heavy or bulky stuff about.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

My observations are based on various journeys on the overground, thameslink and southeast trains, some intersecting with rush hour, some at weekends, some within south London and some going out towards Kent.

What I've observed is that these trains are not the "preserve of the better off". Yup, that relies on me making some judgements based on things like what people are wearing, but I'm fairly confident they are not the "preserve of the better off".

I didn't say that there are no wealthy people commuting by train into central London. But is the car feasible for that? Not really. For the work-from-home wealthy, who own cars, in the leafy suburbs, I don't think they are doing things like going to the shops by train. I don't see much evidence of this on trains. I do see loads of streets clogged up with shiny Range Rovers, however, and that seems to be more true the further out you go.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here's councillor Timothy Briggs collecting his anecdata:
> 
> View attachment 233455


teuchter do you know which FB that was posted in?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> teuchter do you know which FB that was posted in?


It's in the One Lambeth one.


----------



## Southlondon (Oct 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Very definitely not what I have observed in London in the past few weeks.
> Yes, not everyone with a car is rich, and yes the rich are more likely to be working from home in the leafy suburbs. But the rich in the leafy suburbs are not going to be getting on the train right now if they can drive instead. On the train are mainly people without that option.


And people who can’t afford the cost of train travel will drive if they can. It works out lots cheaper to drive if you live way out. Those traffic jams along the A2 every morning are not cars with rich people.  People drive because public transport in this country is expensive, unreliable and uncomfortable. It’s not a viable option for lots of working class people who are being forced further and further away from London because of exorbitant housing costs. Have a look at season ticket costs they’re exorbitant. Other EU countries spend far more subsidising their railways than we do.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> And people who can’t afford the cost of train travel will drive if they can. It works out lots cheaper to drive if you live way out. Those traffic jams along the A2 every morning are not cars with rich people.  People drive because public transport in this country is expensive, unreliable and uncomfortable. It’s not a viable option for lots of working class people who are being forced further and further away from London because of exorbitant housing costs. Have a look at season ticket costs they’re exorbitant. Other EU countries spend far more subsidising their railways than we do.


What are we talking about now - people living within the LTNs, who are saying they "want their roads back" - which is what this exchange started with? 
The cost of an annual Z1-4 travelcard is not more than the minimum cost of owning a car (even before you start paying the marginal costs per journey).

If we are talking about people living further out, in Kent and so on, that's a bit of a different discussion. Are you talking about people living in, say Dartford?

The reasons public transport is not subsidised as much in this country as others, is tied up with the fact that we have built a car-dependent population. London however is something as an exception to this. London is fairly much the only place in the UK where you can live without a car, and not really be disadvantaged. The LTNs are part of a wider picture about making sure that stays the case, and reducing disadvantage further. If you want public transport to be supported and funded properly, you need an electorate who uses it. This is what exists in London but not really elsewhere.

And by the way this is what makes all the comments on the anti-LTN groups saying "if you don't like cars move out of London" so stupid.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 8, 2020)

I wasnt saying that only the rich drive. Of course thats nonsense. I was saying that rich drivers are who is retaining solicitors to try for a judicial review.

100% we should as a nation move to subsidise transport more. Its absurd how much a commuter ticket costs in London. Making ticket payers bear the cost of the system, as opposed to the companies that benefit from the labour of the commuters, and doing it in a deceitful way to make it look like its TFLs fault is typical of the current government and their ideological predecessors.

Fewer cars. More and cheaper public transport. Quieter and Safer roads. Simple technical solutions to give those with a legitimate need to drive that right. thats the way forward.

The ANTI groups have no way forward, and from what I have read on this very thread seem to spend their time saying unkind things about children on closed facebook groups that have tory councillors on them.

Shame.


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's in the One Lambeth one.


Wow, did you get past the border guards or is there a mole?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Wow, did you get past the border guards or is there a mole?


I think they are well aware that they are being watched - there are instructions to keep things civil and I think they remove some posts that aren't good for their PR. Probably the border guards only boot you out if you start arguing pro the LTNs.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 8, 2020)

Southlondon said:


> Not everyone with a car is rich. The rich are more likely to be working from home in the leafy suburbs or travelling on rail which is now a preserve of the better off


Funnily enough I went by train from Denmark Hill to Nunhead Thursday last week at 6 pm. I was amazed how packed the train was.
Plenty of poor through to lower middle class people about at that time on the train.


----------



## co-op (Oct 8, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> There was one comment on your story and it talked about seeking compensation from Lambeth which is interesting as it was the same thing that was mentioned in the latest spats on Nextdoor. So I was wondering whether (it’s probably discussed on that closed Facebook group) there’s a change in tactics underway.



There's a chance that they'd get somewhere with a Judicial Review on the implementation since JRs are basically about whether public bodies have followed correct procedure and it looks like the LTNs have been fairly rushed into place, it depends whether the council have actually ticked the boxes on what emergency powers they were given.

But if they are asking for "compensation" that's just car driver tinfoil-hattery they ain't going to get any. I remember a bunch of dickhead car drivers getting together a group about 15 years ago to try and sue councils for introducing speed bumps on the basis that if they were put in place in 30mph streets, they would take away your "right" to drive at 30mph. Even a couple of seconds of thought should have made it obvious this was an idiotic no-win case but they got up money to get a QCs opinion, there's really not much limit to the idiocy of the hardcore car mentalists. I hope they lost a shedload of money on it and I have enough faith in the British legal system to trust that a good QC would make sure they did.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 8, 2020)

Ol Nick said:


> The plethora of delivery firms is clearly part of the problem. Instead I propose a system where all non-local deliveries are made to a local "office", and from there local delivery people can complete the delivery mostly on foot or on bike.
> 
> I even have a name for this radical system: "The Republican Mail"



Which completely goes against the whole point in it.

If I have to go to a local pick up center to get something I may as well just go out and buy it. What am I going to do with a chest of draws? Carry it home?

That would drive people back to their cars


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Which completely goes against the whole point in it.
> 
> If I have to go to a local pick up center to get something I may as well just go out and buy it. What am I going to do with a chest of draws? Carry it home?
> 
> That would drive people back to their cars


The proposal is it all goes to the local office, and then it's delivered, by delivery people, from there on foot or bike where possible. Larger things you could do by van, but not everything would have to be by van. And maybe that stuff could be consolidated into one full van per day rather than several part-empty ones.

Personally I'm not sure that delivery vans are a big enough part of the problem to worry about so much. If I look at a typical traffic jam, most of it is not delivery vans.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Which completely goes against the whole point in it.
> 
> If I have to go to a local pick up center to get something I may as well just go out and buy it. What am I going to do with a chest of draws? Carry it home?
> 
> That would drive people back to their cars


I read it as small deliveries, like from Amazon etc. There are already places where you can collect your deliveries (like local shops or those yellow amazon lock boxes) and it makes much more sense for delivery drivers to drop a whole load of stuff here in their vans and then individuals walk to collect their orders - could be combined with walk to/from work, school or other shopping. This takes the delivery vehicles off the smaller streets and creates less stress for their drivers as they don't have to negotiate the new LTN's. I personally would welcome a massive expansion of this scheme.
For big items like a chest of drawers, then yes they would still come by delivery truck. Even though I have a car I doubt I'd use it to collect an item like this - especially as most likely it will be coming from some warehouse miles away and not a local furniture shop.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 8, 2020)

These people are delivery people. A few months ago we were calling them heros for their work during the COVID. Not just posties but anyone bringing you items.

So the whole thing about avoiding unnecessary journeys is to force people to go out when out infection rates are higher than ever? That's not a delivery service that is a distribution service - that's a lot of jobs lost because a lot of stuff would go to the post office...which is already at breaking point (again). Took me 4 days to get a next-day item a week ago.

Add to that the fact you would have tens of thousand of people out there, queuing to get items at a time when our COVID numbers are up. If I had to collect something i'd just go and buy it in the shops.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 8, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I read it as small deliveries, like from Amazon etc. There are already places where you can collect your deliveries (like local shops or those yellow amazon lock boxes) and it makes much more sense for delivery drivers to drop a whole load of stuff here in their vans and then individuals walk to collect their orders - could be combined with walk to/from work, school or other shopping. This takes the delivery vehicles off the smaller streets and creates less stress for their drivers as they don't have to negotiate the new LTN's. I personally would welcome a massive expansion of this scheme.
> For big items like a chest of drawers, then yes they would still come by delivery truck. Even though I have a car I doubt I'd use it to collect an item like this - especially as most likely it will be coming from some warehouse miles away and not a local furniture shop.


The availability of these services seems to have decreased during COVID. I used to always arrange for items to be sent somewhere nearby, like Hamiltons, Argos or Halfords, as it meant not having to wait in. And Doddle before it closed down. It's rarely an option anymore.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 8, 2020)

Rushy said:


> The availability of these services seems to have decreased during COVID. I used to always arrange for items to be sent somewhere nearby, like Hamiltons, Argos or Halfords, as it meant not having to wait in. And Doddle before it closed down. It's rarely an option anymore.



I never had one thing unavailable or late during COVID and i'm a shopaholic!

If anything these delivery services ramped us massively. The supermarkets, hermes, amazon, DPD, etc

The only thing I hadisue with was Royal mail, something (even guaranteed) took many days.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I never had one thing unavailable and i'm a shopaholic!
> 
> If anything these delivery services ramped us massively. The supermarkets, hermes, amazon, DPD, etc
> 
> The only thing I hadisue with was Royal mail, something (even guaranteed) took many days.


I think you misunderstood my post. I'm referring to having deliveries dropped to a local hub for collection. I used to do this all the time because it meant not having to be home.
I agree deliveries to home are working fine. Well, some are better than others. Hermes is crap. DPD is great. My Royal Mail delivery chap always stops for a moan about the LTNs!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 8, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I think you misunderstood my post. I'm referring to having deliveries dropped to a local hub for collection. I used to do this all the time because it meant not having to be home.
> I agree deliveries to home are working fine. Well, some are better than others. Hermes is crap. DPD is great. My Royal Mail delivery chap always stops for a moan about the LTNs!



I was referring to your comment that the availability of these schemes decreased. The only services that had trouble initially was the supermarkets.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I was referring to your comment that the availability of these schemes decreased. The only services that had trouble initially was the supermarkets.


Interesting. That's not been my experience. DPDs redirect option never seems to be available any more, for instance. I wasn't even aware that supermarkets acted as collection hubs, other than Sainsburys for Argos. Are we definitely talking about the same thing? Where do you get things dropped to?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 8, 2020)

teuchter said:


> from facebook
> View attachment 233425


Lambeth were cutting back services before the pandemic because of cuts and here these selfish f**ks are engaging them in a costly legal action because they can't drive down a road or spend 10 extra minutes in traffic.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> These people are delivery people. A few months ago we were calling them heros for their work during the COVID. Not just posties but anyone bringing you items.
> 
> So the whole thing about avoiding unnecessary journeys is to force people to go out when out infection rates are higher than ever? That's not a delivery service that is a distribution service - that's a lot of jobs lost because a lot of stuff would go to the post office...which is already at breaking point (again). Took me 4 days to get a next-day item a week ago.
> 
> Add to that the fact you would have tens of thousand of people out there, queuing to get items at a time when our COVID numbers are up. If I had to collect something i'd just go and buy it in the shops.



In my book they are still heros.

And as far as I am aware its still possible to get stuff delivered to your door if you are concerned about picking up from a shop or secure box. How much difference is there between collecting an item from a shop or going into a shop to buy it??
One day, this Covid lark will be over, but people will still be buying things on the internet for home delivery. I was just suggesting an alternative to door to door delivery, which might be better for traffic, delivery drivers and for me - I have to get up off my lazy arse and walk to the shop/box to pick it up.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 8, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> And as far as I am aware its still possible to get stuff delivered to your door if you are concerned about picking up from a shop or secure box. How much difference is there between collecting an item from a shop or going into a shop to buy it??
> One day, this Covid lark will be over, but people will still be buying things on the internet for home delivery. I was just suggesting an alternative to door to door delivery, which might be better for traffic, delivery drivers and for me - I have to get up off my lazy arse and walk to the shop/box to pick it up.



Yes but the whole idea of getting something to a distribution center or pick up point defeats the purpose of delivery no?

Imagine all those parcels....suddenly needing people to go out and get them, in a huge queue.

i don't see the logic behind this the whole Amazon / door delivery service has done wonders for congestion. Probably removing far more cars than any other single service out there.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Lambeth were cutting back services before the pandemic because of cuts and here these selfish f**ks are engaging them in a costly legal action because they can't drive down a road or spend 10 extra minutes in traffic.


It would be interesting to know what councillor Tim Briggs has to say about the use of Lambeth's resources for this. Presumably even if their case is rubbish, at a certain point Lambeth would have to divert staff time to dealing with it.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes but the whole idea of getting something to a distribution center or pick up point defeats the purpose of delivery no?
> 
> Imagine all those parcels....suddenly needing people to go out and get them, in a huge queue.
> 
> i don't see the logic behind this the whole Amazon / door delivery service has done wonders for congestion. Probably removing far more cars than any other single service out there.



I've seen it said that the biggest cause of congestion in London is because of the huge extra numbers of both Ubers and of online delivery vans

Delivery vans and apps like Uber 'fuel rise in pollution in London' so I'm not sure online shopping is helping either traffic or our town centres

I think the point of central distrubution centres is to allow the 'last mile delivery' i.e. from big van to people's houses, can be more efficiently done by smaller electric vans, by electric cargo bikes and so on: Parcel groups seek to deliver greener ‘last mile’ processes

Waltham Forest council have started to trial efforts in this area and it would be great to see Lambeth follow suit at some point:




__





						ZED – Zero Emission Deliveries  |  Enjoy Waltham Forest
					






					enjoywalthamforest.co.uk


----------



## Southlondon (Oct 8, 2020)

CH1 said:


> Funnily enough I went by train from Denmark Hill to Nunhead Thursday last week at 6 pm. I was amazed how packed the train was.
> Plenty of poor through to lower middle class people about at that time on the train.


Of course public transports a viable Means of transport for somewhere further out in the commuter belt like Medway. £6k for a season ticket. And who would travel in a packed train or tube if they had the option of driving a car during covid? But Until our public transport system is up to the mark many people who are forced economically to live further and further from their work will choose to own and drive cars. I haven’t yet met many people who have to  drive  through London during peak times who say it’s an enjoyable experience, they do it for a variety of reasons, but because they can’t see a more convenient or affordable alternative


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes but the whole idea of getting something to a distribution center or pick up point defeats the purpose of delivery no?
> 
> Imagine all those parcels....suddenly needing people to go out and get them, in a huge queue.
> 
> i don't see the logic behind this the whole Amazon / door delivery service has done wonders for congestion. Probably removing far more cars than any other single service out there.



As I see it, the parcel IS delivered, but by choice the last 1/2 mile is on foot (my own!). More places for collection would spring up to meet demand and people would be collecting at all different times of day/evening to spread the load. Small shops are keen on this service as people who collect a delivery from them will often make a purchase as well - so potentially good for local shops.

In London I don't think the delivery vans have removed many cars - most people would have gone on foot/bus/tube to purchase what they now buy online.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 8, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> I've seen it said that the biggest cause of congestion in London is because of the huge extra numbers of both Ubers and of online delivery vans
> 
> Delivery vans and apps like Uber 'fuel rise in pollution in London' so I'm not sure online shopping is helping either traffic or our town centres
> 
> ...



I've seen it said that the biggest prcentage rise in vehicles IS ubers/delivery vans. But they formed a tiny portion of the overall stats so of course the there is going to be a big apparentl rise when a tiny percentage of vehicles increases in numbers

At the end of the day these vehicles help people get rid of their cars. Only need to go from A to B every do often? Uber. Want to buy something? Get it delivered.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 8, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> As I see it, the parcel IS delivered, but by choice the last 1/2 mile is on foot (my own!). More places for collection would spring up to meet demand and people would be collecting at all different times of day/evening to spread the load. Small shops are keen on this service as people who collect a delivery from them will often make a purchase as well - so potentially good for local shops.
> 
> In London I don't think the delivery vans have removed many cars - most people would have gone on foot/bus/tube to purchase what they now buy online.



Sounds like a an inane solution to a problem that doesnt exist

These services have increased my car use by far.


----------



## Ol Nick (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Sounds like a an inane solution to a problem that doesnt exist
> 
> These services have increased my car use by far.



You need Republican Mail


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 8, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Sounds like a an inane solution to a problem that doesnt exist
> 
> These services have increased my car use by far.


Sorry I don't understand. 
Are you saying that delivery services have increased your car use? If so, how?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Lambeth were cutting back services before the pandemic because of cuts and here these selfish f**ks are engaging them in a costly legal action because they can't drive down a road or spend 10 extra minutes in traffic.



In a democracy that is their right. 

This sounds like the mirror image of tories complaining about campaigning members of the legal profession holding the government to account over issues like immigration cases/ human rights. 

We live in a democracy where the right of ordinary citizens to hold the State /local state to account should be defended. Even if its an issue one does not agree with.

The argument that its selfish should not come into it.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2020)

Blocked-off roads: Lambeth council should debate Low Traffic Neighbourhoods as emergency motion at next meeting – “The chaos and damage being caused across the borough is profound and unsustainable” says councillor thecked-off-roads-lambeth-council-should-debate-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-as-emergency-motion-at-next-meeting-the-chaos-and-damage-being-caused-across-the-borough-is-profound-and-unsustainable/

This article includes email sent fby the sole Tory Clrr Briggs to Chief Executive requesting that residents be given oppurtunity to put their case to Full Council for debate in this publlic meeting.

Which is fair enough imo.

This I agree with :



> Where these changes are wanted, or required to solve a particular problem, they should be allowed, but only as part of a proper consultation. The consultation process is itself under scrutiny after the skewed consultations on demolishing people’s homes and the Loughborough Junction fiasco. We must draw a line in the sand and start to do better.



Unfortunately later he goes off on one.

Accusing this Labour run Council of:


> Our borough has been deliberately divided by Labour councillors supporting political extremists and factions for too long


.

This is nonsense. LTNs are being implemented in Lambeth by the right of the Labour party. I dont know what factions he is referring to.

But as he is the only Cllr in the One party state of Lambeth that is giving some residents a voice agree with some of what he is saying.

I also think its right it should be fully debated at Full Council meetings.

In his email he also goes on about not returning to "Year Zero" - a world without cars, that Labour and Green party supporters are patrolling the streets to support the LTNs. So this is comparing Lambeth with Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.

The slippery slope of extremism.

This is bollox. Lambeth Ruling group are middle class Guardian readers and nice middle of the ground supporters of Starmer. Common occupation of Labour Cllrs is working in some nice cuddly charity or working in PR. These people are wet liberals at best not Khmer Rouge. At worst they have little difference to centre ground Tories.

I do agree that the Labour group has divided the borough unnecessarily.. But that is because they are politcal incompetents.

They have latched onto LTNs to make out they are radical. Which they arent.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 9, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Sorry I don't understand.
> Are you saying that delivery services have increased your car use? If so, how?



Sorry, decreased.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 9, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> I've seen it said that the biggest cause of congestion in London is because of the huge extra numbers of both Ubers and of online delivery vans
> 
> Delivery vans and apps like Uber 'fuel rise in pollution in London' so I'm not sure online shopping is helping either traffic or our town centres
> 
> ...



An interesting article from The Guardian earlier this year How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever
The title is self explanatory, may be food for thought for the "Traffic Evaporation" theorists.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 9, 2020)

That article - and the one posted on the last page - are both quite specifically about central London (essentially the congestion charge area). The problems that exist there are not the same as in primarily residential areas, which is mainly where the LTNs are being introduced.

As I understand it, Uber and delivery vans are a major problem in central London, but I'm not sure to what extent this applies in Z2 and 3 - I think it might be a bit of a red herring. As the article says, there are now very few private cars in central London. If you look at the mix of traffic somewhere like Brixton, there's a much higher proportion of private cars (as far as I can see). I'd like to understand this a bit better though.


----------



## Winot (Oct 9, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> An interesting article from The Guardian earlier this year How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever
> The title is self explanatory, may be food for thought for the "Traffic Evaporation" theorists.



It’s a good article, but as teuchter says it’s about central London. It’ll be interesting to see  the effect of COVID on Ubers and deliveries now that huge numbers of people are WFH.

Incidentally it’s madness imo that responsibility for transport is split between 32 boroughs and TfL. Give it all to TfL I say.


----------



## technical (Oct 9, 2020)

Winot said:


> It’s a good article, but as teuchter says it’s about central London. It’ll be interesting to see  the effect of COVID on Ubers and deliveries now that huge numbers of people are WFH.
> 
> Incidentally it’s madness imo that responsibility for transport is split between 32 boroughs and TfL. Give it all to TfL I say.



couldnt agree more with your suggestion re TfL - but the idea of this govt handing over more responsibility to Sadiq seems unlikely to say the least


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> That article - and the one posted on the last page - are both quite specifically about central London (essentially the congestion charge area). The problems that exist there are not the same as in primarily residential areas, which is mainly where the LTNs are being introduced.
> 
> As I understand it, Uber and delivery vans are a major problem in central London, but I'm not sure to what extent this applies in Z2 and 3 - I think it might be a bit of a red herring. As the article says, there are now very few private cars in central London. If you look at the mix of traffic somewhere like Brixton, there's a much higher proportion of private cars (as far as I can see). I'd like to understand this a bit better though.



I know this is selective quoting, but 

_Across Greater London – where roughly one in two people own or use a car – private car trips make up only 37% of journeys, compared with 50% in 2003, according to Christina Calderato, the head of transport strategy and planning at Transport for London. “The key context is that the population is growing. London has grown by almost a million people in the past 10 years. All those people, even if they’re not travelling by car, still have to have their homes serviced – and receive deliveries.”

The fastest multiplying element of traffic everywhere is the light commercial vehicle – better known as the delivery van. Van journeys have shot up by 25% in the past decade in Britain, as online shopping has fuelled what Travers ( Prof Tony Travers, the director of LSE London  )calls “the wild west of deliveries”_

The main focus of the article is Central London, but the overall trends extend way beyond there. The studies being referred to in support of "evaporation" mainly quote data from 20+ years ago, long before the reduction in private car usage or the ubiquity of Sat Navs or the growth in home deliveries.
The composition of traffic is an important factor, persuading or forcing someone to think twice about jumping in a car to nip up to the CO-OP for a carton of milk is a lot easier than persuading a delivery van off the road. 

Anyways, as i said before, food for thought.


----------



## Winot (Oct 9, 2020)

technical said:


> couldnt agree more with your suggestion re TfL - but the idea of this govt handing over more responsibility to Sadiq seems unlikely to say the least



Oh absolutely - they are doing their best to mount a central government takeover - and they hate Sadiq.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 9, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> The studies being referred to in support of "evaporation" *mainly quote data from 20+ years ago*, long before the reduction in private car usage or the ubiquity of Sat Navs or the growth in home deliveries.



This is what everyone anti-LTN seems to like to say. But there are much more recent examples.

Hammersmith Bridge from 2019:  Changes in traffic flow | Hammersmith Bridge closure 2019-20

There's the Walthamstow example, where the anti-LTN people keep quoting a figure of only 1% drop in car use, but that figure relates to journeys undertaken by residents, not car journeys observed through the area, which did reduce overall.

There's the Ghent example which I've linked to repeatedly in this thread. 


Before getting into discussing the plausibility that delivery vans might be immune to the evaporation effect, let's get rid the idea that there are no decent examples of the evaporation effect being observed within the last 20 years.

Then we need to know what proportion of the traffic in residential areas (not central London) is made up of delivery vans. If it's a large proportion, then the question of whether they might be immune to the effect is worth looking at.

If in fact they are not a large proportion, then perhaps it's not.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There's the Walthamstow example, where the anti-LTN people keep quoting a figure of only 1% drop in car use, but that figure relates to journeys undertaken by residents, not car journeys observed through the area, which did reduce overall.



I'd say this is another good bit of evidence that allowing local residents through gates in their immediate areas would be much more effective and efficient. 

I questioned earlier whether LTNs were any more than a tolerable nuisance to the majority of journeys beginning and ending in the LTNs themselves (journeys by residents). The 1% reduction figure from Walthamstow seems to suggest that this is true - LTNs do not dissuade any more than a tiny minority of drivers who start or end their journey at their home within the LTN. But the number of journeys does not reflect the length and complexity of the remaining 99% of journeys. I gave an example of a the end of a common journey of mine which had changed from 40s on my home road past the front door of my home to 10 minutes (and as much as 20 minutes) immediately past the back door. An option to avoid this congestion is to rat run through other open residential streets within a neighbouring LTN. This is more or less unavoidable for any vehicle journey beginning or ending in my part of the LTN. 

Happy to be proven wrong but I don't believe any LTNs can have actually shortened any journey starting or ending locally. So these more complex journeys are not balanced out. After allowing for the 1% reduction in the number of resident journeys (as we are told we can expect from the Walthamstow experiment) , every single one of the remaining 99% of local resident journeys are either the same or longer. Possibly much longer. And most likely in someone else's street. (3 x longer through 4 neigbouring residential streets, as well as main roads, in the example above).


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 9, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Sorry, decreased.


Ah, thanks, understand now!
I reckon in my case (in London only), home deliveries have not impacted on how much I use my car.
Previously if I was going to by a book/frying pan/new coat etc I would have walked, or got the bus or tube to a shop to buy it. The only area where I might have driven before and now don't would be to do a big supermarket shop - maybe 3 times a year.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 9, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is what everyone anti-LTN seems to like to say. But there are much more recent examples.
> 
> Hammersmith Bridge from 2019:  Changes in traffic flow | Hammersmith Bridge closure 2019-20
> 
> ...



Perhaps the reason so many point out that the data is 20+ years old is that those studies are the ones that people keep offering as examples, and it is.

I agree that it's unfair to compare Central London with Brixton, that's why I selected a quote referring to the whole of Greater London. It's equally wrong to compare Brixton with Walthamstow or Ghent, a leafy suburb of NE London and a charming small city in Belgian with lovely cobbled lanes and squares.
As for the Hammersmith Bridge closure, I don't really know what to make of that site you linked to. It be appears to the work of an enthusiastic amateur, maybe he is an expert and it is all accurate and properly analysed. 

Here's an excerpt from TFLs more recent document on the on-going efforts to repair said bridge


			http://content.tfl.gov.uk/hammersmith-bridge-faqs-april-2020.pdf
		

_Hammersmith Bridge – FAQs April 2020 

How many people currently use the bridge? 
A temporary pedestrian and cycle bridge is required to ensure access is maintained for the 16,000 people currently crossing the river on foot or by bike every day and would simplify and speed-up the repairs of the main bridge. Hammersmith Bridge is a strategically significant bridge that, before it was restricted to pedestrians and cyclists in April 2019, carried 22,000 vehicles a day and 24,000 bus passengers. Its closure to vehicles has caused significant congestion in the local area and on other Thames bridges, as well as disruption to those using public transport. It is essential it is brought back into full use as soon as possible. _

Anyways, I think we both agree that maybe Lambeth need to do some work getting updated data on the composition of the traffic clogging up Coldharbour Lane and what it's likely to be in the future.


----------



## co-op (Oct 9, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> I know this is selective quoting, but
> 
> _Across Greater London – where roughly one in two people own or use a car – private car trips make up only 37% of journeys, compared with 50% in 2003, according to Christina Calderato, the head of transport strategy and planning at Transport for London. “The key context is that the population is growing. London has grown by almost a million people in the past 10 years. All those people, even if they’re not travelling by car, still have to have their homes serviced – and receive deliveries.”
> 
> ...



I haven't read the report yet but in your quoted sections, it's just about the relative size of different user-groups and the fact that different user-groups have responded differently to congestion doesn't mean that the "evaporation" theory is wrong. It could easily be that part of the reason for the decline in private car use as a proportion of the whole is that it has been squeezed out by increasing commercial traffic - i.e. it has evaporated as a result of the increased congestion caused by everyone else. The fact that different groups have different degrees of tolerance for congestion is not surprising - people being paid to drive cannot "evaporate" and if they increase then others, who do have a choice, will evaporate instead.

It's analogous to the economists concept of elasticity of demand - for some people 10 extra minutes of frustration and delay will tip the scales against the car, for others it will need to be 30 minutes etc. I wonder if one of the reasons why LTNs are getting such a bizarre and furious over-reaction from the driver-brigade is because we are getting down to the real hardcore, the people for whom any journey is a car journey and who are psychologically or emotionally unable to consider alternatives without having some kind of personal crisis. 

I am sure that if you asked all those people who used to drive over Hammersmith Bridge whether they "needed" to do so the overwhelming majority would have said yes - yet here we are, the bridge is closed and whereas 25,000 people a day used to cross it, only 15,500 extra crossings are recorded on neighbouring bridges (going as far west as Kew and as far east as Battersea) - so 9,500 journeys turned out to be unnecessary if the alternative involved extra hassle and time. In the jargon, the 9.5k journeys were demand-elastic, the 15.5 were inelastic. That's about 40% of "necessary" journeys that actually were dependent on convenience.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 9, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> Perhaps the reason so many point out that the data is 20+ years old is that those studies are the ones that people keep offering as examples, and it is.
> 
> I agree that it's unfair to compare Central London with Brixton, that's why I selected a quote referring to the whole of Greater London. It's equally wrong to compare Brixton with Walthamstow or Ghent, a leafy suburb of NE London and a charming small city in Belgian with lovely cobbled lanes and squares.


How traffic behaves has not changed that much in 20 years, and the whole reason that report has a range of examples is so that you can see an overall trend. But if you disagree - post up the report that disproves it.

The thinking behind low traffic neighbourhoods is well established, we've had modal filters in Brixton for a long while.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 9, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I'd say this is another good bit of evidence that allowing local residents through gates in their immediate areas would be much more effective and efficient.
> 
> I questioned earlier whether LTNs were any more than a tolerable nuisance to the majority of journeys beginning and ending in the LTNs themselves (journeys by residents). The 1% reduction figure from Walthamstow seems to suggest that this is true - LTNs do not dissuade any more than a tiny minority of drivers who start or end their journey at their home within the LTN. But the number of journeys does not reflect the length and complexity of the remaining 99% of journeys. I gave an example of a the end of a common journey of mine which had changed from 40s on my home road past the front door of my home to 10 minutes (and as much as 20 minutes) immediately past the back door. An option to avoid this congestion is to rat run through other open residential streets within a neighbouring LTN. This is more or less unavoidable for any vehicle journey beginning or ending in my part of the LTN.
> 
> Happy to be proven wrong but I don't believe any LTNs can have actually shortened any journey starting or ending locally. So these more complex journeys are not balanced out. After allowing for the 1% reduction in the number of resident journeys (as we are told we can expect from the Walthamstow experiment) , every single one of the remaining 99% of local resident journeys are either the same or longer. Possibly much longer. And most likely in someone else's street. (3 x longer through 4 neigbouring residential streets, as well as main roads, in the example above).



I can't really disagree with the logic of that, in principle. Assuming the figures for Walthamstow are reliable. The figures for Walthamstow Forest suggest that it was successful in cutting the amount of traffic generally, and that some level of evaporation was seen, but it was not successful in reducing the amount of journeys residents made by car (although, I think it did increase the number of journeys they made by foot/bike?).

So I'd have to remain open minded about that aspect of the schemes.

I'd want to check out other examples though. I thought that in Ghent they had observed a modal shift amongst residents, but I can't find that bit of info.

In an ideal world I'd want to revisit the figures for Walthamstow 2 and 3 years after too, because some changes in behaviour might not show within only a year - but unfortunately they haven't done this. Something else to note about the Walthmstow figures: I've just checked, I don't think it's actually a measured "number of car journeys". It's based (as far as I can make out) on answers to a survey question, to people for whom the car is their main mode of transport, whether their "main mode of travel had changed". So, I'd say that there should be a bit of caution about what can be concluded from this, exactly.





The other thing you'd have to be careful about: assuming we take the it as fact that car usage by residents hasn't really changed - this is in the context of the scheme as it is. The residents would have seen certain journeys become a bit longer, but may also have seen reduced congestion on the streets they use within the zone (thanks to through-traffic having been reduced). And the net effect is that their car usage doesn't change that much.

But what if they are given the benefit of the reduced congestion on local streets, plus the freedom to get places by the shortest route? Isn't it plausible that you could then see a situation where instead of car use by residents remaining static, it would increase?


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 9, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> Perhaps the reason so many point out that the data is 20+ years old is that those studies are the ones that people keep offering as examples, and it is.


The nature of research is that once something is well proven no-one is going to fund further research to evidence the same thing.  Alternatively you could say that we have a good historic base of evidence to demonstrate traffic evaporation is a real phenomenon, and an even wider base to demonstrate that induced traffic is real. So where is the research to disprove that?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 9, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> An interesting article from The Guardian earlier this year How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever
> The title is self explanatory, may be food for thought for the "Traffic Evaporation" theorists.


In a way though, it’s part of the argument for LTNs, if London was congested before and now people are wary of public transport - they can’t just hop in a car, it will make the existing congestion even worse - so there have to be alternatives.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2020)

On my email to Council , using the email address for info on LTNs, Ive had no acknowledgement or reply. Normally with Council one gets automatic reply with how long it will take to answer.

This is not looking good. I will give it a few more days. Thought Id test to see if this ongoing consultation process actually works.

My email to the LTN Council email address.



> I see for Oval LTN a ETO Experimental Traffic Order is being used.
> 
> Can you please tell me if ETO are being used for each new LTN in Lambeth?
> 
> ...



I would like to be proved wrong next week.

To add I attached copies of the traffic orders Id found to the email. To show I knew what I was talking about.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 9, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> On my email to Council , using the email address for info on LTNs, Ive had no acknowledgement or reply. Normally with Council one gets automatic reply with how long it will take to answer.
> 
> This is not looking good. I will give it a few more days. Thought Id test to see if this ongoing consultation process actually works.
> My email to the LTN Council email address.
> ...



ETOs seem to be how these schemes are being implemented across the UK and is in the government statutory guidance below which might answer your confusion about the connection to the Covid crisis. 








						From Ealing to Lambeth, protests continue against London Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - OnLondon
					

A large demo in suburban Ealing was among the eye-catching sights of Saturday’s co-ordinated protests against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) in several boroughs. Campaigners are frustrated at the lack of consultation before the start of trials and say the changes are causing more congestion...




					www.google.co.uk
				




the statutory guidance instructed that “Authorities should monitor and evaluate any temporary measures they install, with a view to making them permanent, and embedding a long-term shift to active travel as we move from restart to recovery.”





__





						Traffic Management Act 2004: network management to support active travel
					






					www.gov.uk
				




Pretty sure you’ve been told this before in the long thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> ETOs seem to be how these schemes are being implemented across the UK and is in the government statutory guidance below which might answer your confusion about the connection to the Covid crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I sent an email to Council to find out if that is what they are doing here.

The Council should be putting this info on its websites.

ETO can be opposed but I cant find anywhere Ive looked where Lambeth have explained that to people.

So as you appear to know about this more than me can you post up links where I can find the ETOs for the other LTNs apart from Oval which I have found?

If this is Tory government policy how is that Cllr Briggs is objecting to what the Council is doing?

If this is "statutory" how is it Wandsworth Council decided to end the schemes?

Does this not suggest that Councils are not obliged to follow all that the government is saying on this issue?

That under local democracy they can decide how to implement schemes? Taking into account government advice and deciding what is best for their area. 

My point was that the Oval ETO does not mention the pandemic as reason to implement it. Unlike the other temporary orders I found.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 9, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I sent an email to Council to find out if that is what they are doing here.
> 
> The Council should be putting this info on its websites.
> 
> ...


Which bit of this page do you think is unclear?








						About Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

A space to learn about and feed into the Oval Low Traffic Neighbourhood.




					ovalltnproposals.commonplace.is
				



_Transport in a time of COVID

The on-going pandemic and the need to socially distance will mean reduced capacity on London's public transport network for some time to come. If car journeys greatly increase then our roads could grind to a halt. We need to keep roads free for truly essential journeys while also helping the majority of households in our borough, who don't have access to a car, safely make trips that they would previously have made by public transport.

The Government recognise that there is an urgent need to rapidly accommodate unprecedented demand for walking and cycling and have made £250 million available for swift, emergency interventions to make cycling and walking safer. The Mayor of London has produced a plan called Streetspace for London and is working with us and other boroughs, with a focus on three key areas:
_

_Quickly building a strategic cycling network, using temporary materials and including new routes, to help reduce crowding on the Tube and trains and on busy bus routes_
_Changing town centres so local journeys can be safely walked and cycled where possible, for example with wider pavements on high streets to give space for queues outside shops as people safely walk past while socially distancing_
_Reducing traffic on residential streets, creating low-traffic neighbourhoods right across London so more people can walk and cycle as part of their daily routine_
_Oval Triangle low traffic neighbourhood - temporary scheme

Part of Lambeth's response to the current pandemic will be to create a low traffic neighbourhood in the Oval Triangle area. This is a project that the council had been considering before the pandemic but we have had to adapt to the changing circumstances. The low traffic neighbourhood will now be delivered in two stages:
_

_Immediately creating a low traffic neighbourhood with a temporary scheme_
_Developing a permanent scheme, which will be informed by engaging with stakeholders and learning lessons from the temporary scheme_
_

_


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Which bit of this page do you think is unclear?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes Ive seen this.

The actual Traffic orders I havent found there.

When I found the Oval LTN ETO it had no mention of the pandemic as reason.

There are also separate traffic orders which are temporary for the pandemic.

So how is it Wandsworth have managed to scrap LTNs? I have not heard them getting stick from the government for this. Or am I wrong on that? They are still doing other measures but the LTNs they have scrapped.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 9, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Which bit of this page do you think is unclear?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As you appear more informed than I am on this can you direct me to links where I can find the  ETOs for the other LTNs in Lambeth? If that is how the Council are doing it for the other LTNs.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As you appear more informed than I am on this can you direct me to links where I can find the  ETOs for the other LTNs in Lambeth? If that is how the Council are doing it for the other LTNs.


No, you said you didn’t understand why ETOs were used so I googled and looked at the Govt guidance and posted it. You said Lambeth hadn’t explained why the schemes were going in or that they might become permanent so I looked at the site for oval and posted that.

traffic orders seem a pretty dry and legalistic thing that I’d guess most people would have trouble understanding. The Lambeth site for oval seems pretty clear however.

I’ve no idea where to find traffic orders but I’m not sure why they would mention covid or whether that’s in any way important when it’s quite clear from both the govt guidance and the Lambeth site why these schemes are being done.

For someone one who says they’re critically supportive this seems a lot of nit picking to try and find fault with stuff that’s in plain sight. I don’t see anything hidden here.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> No, you said you didn’t understand why ETOs were used so I googled and looked at the Govt guidance and posted it. You said Lambeth hadn’t explained why the schemes were going in or that they might become permanent so I looked at the site for oval and posted that.
> 
> traffic orders seem a pretty dry and legalistic thing that I’d guess most people would have trouble understanding. The Lambeth site for oval seems pretty clear however.
> 
> ...



Its not in plain sight. 

The ETO for Oval does not mention Covid. The other two orders that Lambeth are using do. 

I dont think its nitpicking to ask Lambeth about what traffic orders it is using. 

As Covid is reason Lambeth are giving for fastracking these schemes without the usual consultation I would have thought its relevant.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2020)

I'm no stranger to nitpicking but I don't really understand what it is you want, or why, Gramsci.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 10, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Yes Ive seen this.
> The actual Traffic orders I havent found there.
> When I found the Oval LTN ETO it had no mention of the pandemic as reason.
> There are also separate traffic orders which are temporary for the pandemic.



FFS - really none so blind as those that won't see.  You're probably going to accuse me of being a 'really nasty poster' again or something now.  

from the Oval website I posted above - 
"_This is a project that the council had been considering before the pandemic but we have had to adapt to the changing circumstances. The low traffic neighbourhood will now be delivered in two stages:_

_Immediately creating a low traffic neighbourhood with a temporary scheme_
_Developing a permanent scheme, which will be informed by engaging with stakeholders and learning lessons from the temporary scheme"_
and from the traffic order - (which I've now Googled) 
_The Orders are being (1) *introduced in accordance with the Council’s Transport Strategy Plan* and the *(2) Mayor of London’s Street Space Plan*, across the borough to create low traffic neighbourhoods so as to reduce road danger and encourage active travel. The Order is being introduced as an experiment in the first instance so the effect can be assessed before a decision is made about whether to continue the scheme permanently._

So: 
(1) matches to "it being_ a project that the council had been considering before the pandemic"_
(2) _Mayor of London’s Street Space Plan, is your link to Covid (from lambeth plan "Transport in a time of COVID.... The Mayor of London has produced a plan called Streetspace for London"_

You also asked about Wandsworth - well, in my opinion what has happened is that Wandsworth has now caved in completely to the motorist. My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So its now motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 10, 2020)

From the times:



3 minutes.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 10, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> From the times:
> 
> View attachment 233791
> 
> 3 minutes.



Perhaps they are going onwards? When I visit my mum I take her out places.

People need to look beyong minutes and distance and look at needs.


----------



## co-op (Oct 10, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> From the times:
> 
> View attachment 233791
> 
> 3 minutes.



Bingo. It's amazing what car heads can't see, we keep getting these contrived sob stories about "poor people" and people on main roads, the disabled, van drivers etc etc but when it comes to the actual people who are actually gunning for a JR on LTNs, it's someone who's upset because she can't make a 3-minute car trip. Just about the only answer to that is "good".


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> FFS - really none so blind as those that won't see.  You're probably going to accuse me of being a 'really nasty poster' again or something now.
> 
> from the Oval website I posted above -
> "_This is a project that the council had been considering before the pandemic but we have had to adapt to the changing circumstances. The low traffic neighbourhood will now be delivered in two stages:_
> ...



There is being blind.

There is also Council not informing residents fully of how it is going about this. 

There are various traffic orders. So not sure which one you are quoting. 

There is an ETO for Oval LTN on top of the other two.

The ETO does not mention the pandemic as reason to implement this scheme. 

If one reads it it is specific on how to object, who to and the time limits on objections. 

I cannot see any of this on the Council Oval website. So residents are not getting the full information they need to put in objections in the time limited period.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 10, 2020)

Residents in Ealing and Islington are starting process of asking for judicial review.






						Ealing's Local Web site
					

Online resource for Ealing, the site for property , restaurants , shops and information on the Ealing Community



					www.ealingtoday.co.uk
				












						New Islington cycleway faces threat of legal action
					

Solicitors are threatening Islington Council with court action over a new cycleway brought in as part of a package of traffic measures...




					www.islingtongazette.co.uk
				




Both say use of ETO is undemocratic.



> Erik said: “[ETROs] should only be used when the works are genuinely experimental and not just novel and certainly should not be used as a convenient mechanism to circumvent the normal consultation process.



Ealing:



> The application claims that Ealing Council has failed to meet its obligations under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 and its public sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.



As local government has decided to use pandemic to push through what it wants I think judicial review is understandable.

Whether this happens in Lambeth remains to be seen. Given way Lambeth has acted I think judicial review of its decision making process over the LTNs is legitimate.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2020)

The government guidelines specifically say councils can use experimental traffic orders to do the covid stuff. 






						[Withdrawn] Traffic regulation orders: guidance on the traffic orders procedure (Coronavirus)
					






					www.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2020)

Anyway - do these people launching JRs really care about consultation? I don't think so - they just want the schemes ended.

I've spent 2 or 3 weeks watching the One Lambeth facebook page now, and haven't seen any discussion at all, along the lines of how things could be adjusted, or how to do better consultation. None. It's all people who want the the LTNs just to go away.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 11, 2020)

f


Gramsci said:


> There are various traffic orders. So not sure which one you are quoting.


Obviously I’m quoting from the Eto because that’s the one you were saying didn’t make reference to COVId and I’ve explained how it does.

do you actually bother reading any of this stuff or do you just have an opinion about it?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 11, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> An interesting article from The Guardian earlier this year How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever
> The title is self explanatory, may be food for thought for the "Traffic Evaporation" theorists.


Its utter shite. The delivery van that came to me yesterday (saving me a trip to the shops) did 145 local stops. This one vehicle on the road saved countless car journeys. 
Uber only works because the cars and drivers are constantly busy in a way private owned cars never are.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> f
> 
> Obviously I’m quoting from the Eto because that’s the one you were saying didn’t make reference to COVId and I’ve explained how it does.
> 
> do you actually bother reading any of this stuff or do you just have an opinion about it?



I  put the ETO up on previous post and it does not mention Covid.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 11, 2020)

TopCat said:


> Its utter shite. The delivery van that came to me yesterday (saving me a trip to the shops) did 145 local stops. This one vehicle on the road saved countless car journeys.
> Uber only works because the cars and drivers are constantly busy in a way private owned cars never are.



plus cos it does high mileage it won’t be that old, so it will be euro6 and therefore less worse for particulates etc


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 11, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I  put the ETO up on previous post and it does not mention Covid.



By golly, I think you've got them here Gramsci.  Simply referring to the  _Mayor of London’s COVID Street Space Plan, _streetspace-for-london rather than putting COVID-19 in big flashing multicoloured text means the whole thing must be invalid.  As someone who's critically supportive you probably want to keep quiet about that as you wouldn't want to see something you support fail on a technicality would you?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> By golly, I think you've got them here Gramsci.  Simply referring to the  _Mayor of London’s COVID Street Space Plan, _streetspace-for-london rather than putting COVID-19 in big flashing multicoloured text means the whole thing must be invalid.  As someone who's critically supportive you probably want to keep quiet about that as you wouldn't want to see something you support fail on a technicality would you?



Can't see reference to Khans street space for London on the ETO for Oval Ive posted up.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 11, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> By golly, I think you've got them here Gramsci.  Simply referring to the  _Mayor of London’s COVID Street Space Plan, _streetspace-for-london rather than putting COVID-19 in big flashing multicoloured text means the whole thing must be invalid.  As someone who's critically supportive you probably want to keep quiet about that as you wouldn't want to see something you support fail on a technicality would you?



As you have brought up Khan's streetspace a few comments.

As we are going through a health emergency I support temporary measures that are implemented in proportionate way to help stop people getting ill.

From what Ive seen of the street space in central London it was initially done quickly with the best intentions but is now no longer needed.

The end of lockdown has not seen people going back to work in large numbers to the City or West End.

An initial surge of shoppers to West End has reduced to much less people in West End.

My Black Cab/ Van driver friends see streetspace as using Pandemic to push through what he wants without the usual consultation. Some of this is directly down to Khan and some to local inner London Councils.

Regent Street / Piccadilly , for example, are narrowed due to temporary pavement widening that is not needed.

As a cyclist Im finding it difficult to get around Regent street and Piccadilly due to this. For no reason that I can see. Same with Oxford Street.

Only place on Regent street pavement widening is needed is outside the Apple store. For whatever reason this is one shop that people flock to.

There is not the volume of people around West End now to justify sticking "temporary" barriers in the road.

Park Lane- I can use Hyde Park as a cyclist. No need for road narrowing on Park Lane to make a cycle lane. Most people still use Hyde Park.

Bishopgate I don't understand. City is empty of people yet pavements have been widened and through traffic stopped near Liverpool street station. Even though the amount of people using it has reduced dramatically.

Most large companies in City are keeping working from home. This may possibly be permanent change in some cases.

I could go on.

Don't think referring to Khan's streetspace is great argument.

The one place Ive seen it does work is pavement widening for bus stops on Brixton road.

My issue is what is temporary for Covid and what is doing this to put in place schemes that are permanent using Covid as excuse.Sidestepping full consultation.

Given that Khan and local Councils share control of roads the picture is somewhat confused over who is doing what.

Which does not help.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 11, 2020)

Lambeth traffic-management-orders


----------



## CH1 (Oct 11, 2020)

I expect someone posted this before. But it's worth repeating.
How a road safety scheme led my neighbours to mistake me for a Brexiter | Zoe Williams
No doubt if Zoe Williams was posting on here she would get the same sarky narky treatment.

Personally I'm wondering if the blocked off north-bound carriageway of Barrington Road junction with Coldharbour Lane is negligence by those installing fibre optic cable, now long gone. Or is it part of the plot to gas innocent Coldharbour Lane residents with vehicle particulates - preparatory to putting us down when we get Covid?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 12, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here's councillor Timothy Briggs collecting his anecdata:
> 
> View attachment 233455


It's now up on the Lambeth website, Motion 3: https://t.co/N2gS8ehREq?amp=1 (pdf)

I love point 2:


> For the Council to go back to the drawing board and consult residents in an unbiased way that does not presume an outcome, to see where low-traffic neighbourhoods or restrictions are actually wanted, or required to solve a problem (for example in the streets off Clapham Common Southside in Clapham Common ward SW4 to avoid cut-throughs to the South Circular Road: Lessar Avenue, Lynette Avenue, Cautley Avenue and others);


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2020)

The addition of wooden seating onto the Atlantic Road planters by the Dogstar seems to have tipped some people over the edge.


----------



## ash (Oct 12, 2020)

editor said:


> The addition of wooden seating onto the Atlantic Road planters by the Dogstar seems to have tipped some people over the edge.


it doesn't take much


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 12, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's now up on the Lambeth website, Motion 3: https://t.co/N2gS8ehREq?amp=1 (pdf)



Has he forgotten the terrible Tory / LibDem coalition running the council? It was only 14 years ago


----------



## editor (Oct 12, 2020)

Buzzed: Lambeth Tory councillor proposes motion to reverse the ‘failed Low Traffic Neighbourhoods scheme’


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 12, 2020)




----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 12, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> View attachment 234037


...plus as well as that red bit, much of the rest of his ward already benefits from the Crescent Lane & Park Hill filters that stops the area being used as a rat run between Clapham Common South Side & Kings Ave, and I don't hear him calling for that to be taken out


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I wasnt saying that only the rich drive. Of course thats nonsense. I was saying that rich drivers are who is retaining solicitors to try for a judicial review.
> 
> 100% we should as a nation move to subsidise transport more. Its absurd how much a commuter ticket costs in London. Making ticket payers bear the cost of the system, as opposed to the companies that benefit from the labour of the commuters, and doing it in a deceitful way to make it look like its TFLs fault is typical of the current government and their ideological predecessors.
> 
> ...



TBF, you don't need to be rich to take something to JR. I did so, even though I'm potless. If Legal Aid believe you have a case, you got funded.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 13, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> Has he forgotten the terrible Tory / LibDem coalition running the council? It was only 14 years ago
> 
> View attachment 234032



That IS 2 decades, so technically, he's right.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 14, 2020)

ViolentPanda said:


> TBF, you don't need to be rich to take something to JR. I did so, even though I'm potless. If Legal Aid believe you have a case, you got funded.


I understand that OneLambeth is being backed by crowd funding from small donations from individual members, not some shadowy cabal of rich people in the background.


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> I understand that OneLambeth is being backed by crowd funding from small donations from individual members, not some shadowy cabal of rich people in the background.


Is there any transparency regarding their funding?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 14, 2020)

editor said:


> Is there any transparency regarding their funding?


Only their words. I assume they're acting in good faith as i assume everyone here is acting in good faith. I have no reason to think otherwise.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 14, 2020)

There is a crowdfunder running that has received donations from 36 people, half of whom are anonymous. 

That doesn't mean they aren't also receiving support elsewhere - there are lots of rumours that they are receiving other support from certain companies, trade bodies or rich individuals but nothing that confirms it.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 14, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> There is a crowdfunder running that has received donations from 36 people, half of whom are anonymous.
> 
> That doesn't mean they aren't also receiving support elsewhere - there are lots of rumours that they are receiving other support from certain companies, trade bodies or rich individuals but nothing that confirms it.


And those rumours have been flying around for some time about the groups of individuals arguing against these schemes. 
I know one of the groups well, and they have had those rumours thrown at them. I don't know any of the other groups well enough to speak about, but as far as the group i know... the rumours are malicious and baseless, designed to smear people and damage any argument that they make. 
It's hardly an original tactic, but it does seem to work.


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> Only their words. I assume they're acting in good faith as i assume everyone here is acting in good faith. I have no reason to think otherwise.


Given the suspicions, you'd think it would be a trivial matter for them to provide information about their funding model.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 14, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> And those rumours have been flying around for some time about the groups of individuals arguing against these schemes.
> I know one of the groups well, and they have had those rumours thrown at them. I don't know any of the other groups well enough to speak about, but as far as the group i know... the rumours are malicious and baseless, designed to smear people and damage any argument that they make.
> It's hardly an original tactic, but it does seem to work.



I think there is suspicion as Canary Wharf group previously funded anti-cycle lane campaigns and the LTDA have previously contributed - both in reference to the Embankment one in particular, so you can see why people might think that.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2020)

Here's One Lambeth's crodfunding page









						OneLambeth
					

A resident-led campaign shining a light on 'low traffic neighbourhoods' (LTNs) in Lambeth.




					www.crowdfunder.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2020)

And here's what they are presenting as their "evidence" to Lambeth









						Blocked-off roads – The evidence from Lambeth residents and traders: Incidents involving baseball bats…police having to chase suspects on foot…firms facing closure threatening group action against council…increased cab fares…vigilantes threatening dr
					

More than eight pages of evidence from residents and businesses about the effects Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have had, and are having, on their lives is documented in a planned emergency motion whi…




					newsfromcrystalpalace.wordpress.com
				




One of the examples on there



> The son visiting his severely disabled mother in Camberwell: “It used to take me around five mins to get to her house and now it can take anywhere up to 45 mins.”



Looking at the detail of that - the journey is from somewhere off Effra Road to Flaxman road. Seems plausible that might be 5 mins in a car with no traffic. Right now, with congestion showing on Brixton Hill and CHL, google says 10 or 12 minutes (several route options) by car. They say they don't want to take the bus because they don't feel safe because of Covid. Understandable... but the same's true for anyone who doesn't have a car. Even if everyone did have a car, and there were no LTNs, it just wouldn't work for everyone to do that kind of journey by car. It's a 25 minute walk or 10 minute bike ride.

Is anyone going to sit down and look at all this evidence and check out each claim? Ideally they would of course, and there'd be some which are nonsense and some where there might be a fair point that perhaps could be addressed by adjustments to the scheme. I doubt that'll happen...it's propaganda wars in the end.


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

This is the attitude!



> stop using the bloody car I bought, paid for, insured, serviced, MOTd actually pay ROAD tax for... yes I will drive my car on the ROAD as I've paid for the privilege thanks.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> ... there might be a fair point that perhaps could be addressed by adjustments to the scheme. I doubt that'll happen...it's propaganda wars in the end.


This.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 14, 2020)

editor said:


> Given the suspicions, you'd think it would be a trivial matter for them to provide information about their funding model.


They have said that up till now they have funded it out of their own pockets and now are trying to raise funds through crowd funding. Sounds about right to me based on the sums involved in setting up a web site and printing a few flyers. I assume the Judicial Review is being funded by the crowd funding.


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> They have said that up till now they have funded it out of their own pockets and now are trying to raise funds through crowd funding. Sounds about right to me based on the sums involved in setting up a web site and printing a few flyers. I assume the Judicial Review is being funded by the crowd funding.


But what better way to silence their critics than by being transparent about their finances?


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 14, 2020)

They are also running Facebook advertising for OneLambeth but because it's not registered as a political or social cause there is no transparency around that either - how much they are paying, who are they targeting (even people outside the borough?)


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> They are also running Facebook advertising for OneLambeth but because it's not registered as a political or social cause there is no transparency around that either - how much they are paying, who are they targeting (even people outside the borough?)


Facebook advertising can be pretty pricey too.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2020)

Rushy said:


> This.


But the first bit of my paragraph too.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 14, 2020)

editor said:


> But what better way to silence their critics than by being transparent about their finances?


They probably assume they have been by what they've already said. If people don't want to believe it then they won't believe anything more they say anyways.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> But the first bit of my paragraph too.


I'm just agreeing with the part I quoted.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> And here's what they are presenting as their "evidence" to Lambeth
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know it's easy to mock some of this stuff but there is some really wonderful anecdote in there. When did KFC clones, hairdressers  and waxing salons depend on customers arriving by car and why? Surely their customer bases are hyper-local?
_the following businesses in the Ferndale ward are at danger of closing, partly or directly as a result of the LTN, ....Chicken World on Acre Lane, Love Hair Brixton, Naked Hare

If I want to do my bi-monthly family shop at Sainsbury’s in Vauxhall I now face an extra 20 min journey.
‘I have also seen my neighbour being chased by an angry driver who covered up his number plates after attempting to drive through the restrictions on Elm Park

On 8th October, as a result of the lack of cars and pedestrians, the daughter of one resident was walking home from Arodene Road into Helix Road, where she was approached aggressively and asked for her number, as there was no-one else on the streets. [_Arodene and Helix Roads haven't been closed yet as far as I can see]

This one sums it up really.
_ ‘… these streets were not intended as gardens or pleasure domes, and the age in which children played unsupervised in the street is long past;_


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> They probably assume they have been by what they've already said. If people don't want to believe it then they won't believe anything more they say anyways.


No, that doesn't make sense.  All they've got to do is say: "here's how we're funded." They don't have to list every name. Why are you against such transparency?


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 14, 2020)

Several of the comments refer to angry drivers behaving badly because of the LTNs.  That's not a reason to get rid of LTNs. It's a call for drivers to stop being dicks.

Other comments just aren't true _'Cars and vans are having a hard time turning around or reversing at Elm Park' - _any car approaching the Elm Park filter from the South can turn right onto Craignair Rd; from the North they can turn right or left onto Craster. No need to reverse or to turn round unless they've ignored road signs.

and don't get me started on the 'intimidating vigilante groups'


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

This will spice things up! As the debate over LTNs continue, one group of residents tellS Lambeth council: ‘Create lots more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods’


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 14, 2020)

The dates on that document are all off, they refer to incidents from September and before whereas the article claims they are all from the last week


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2020)

I'm not quite clear what this means procedurally but Lambeth seem to be rejecting the "emergency motion" this evening.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> And here's what they are presenting as their "evidence" to Lambeth
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of them are nonsense! Why do you need to rubbish them? The experiences have been verified with the councillor who has had names and numbers these residents are also speaking with their MP and ward councillors, locals who might travel by car to support members of the community have been forgotten in this debate, how they travel after long shifts at work or juggling child care and how they support small local businesses shopping in small local stores. We all know the consultation didn’t take place, it’s understood why, but these voices speaking out tonight are exactly who didn’t get to have their voice heard. Why is it so objectionable to locals who want to promote the scheme that these residents should spk? They can’t be there in person tonight because of Covid 19 but those galleries would have been full otherwise. The pro argument has Brixton Buzz on side, Herne Hill forum, Ms Berry who works for living Streets has secured really grt media PR she’s very good at it.
But locals like the man you quote haven’t had a chance. Let them spk! Let ppl be heard! Why is everyone a liar?


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> The pro argument has Brixton Buzz on side,


Eh? The site has covered both sides to the extent that both sides are pissed off with it.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 14, 2020)

editor said:


> No, that doesn't make sense.  All they've got to do is say: "here's how we're funded." They don't have to list every name. *Why are you against such transparency?*



This is just going round in circles and now it's getting personal. This is what their site says, if it's not enough then so be it.



			https://onelambeth.co.uk/donations
		


_"We're setting up this funding page to cover the essentials of running the OneLambeth campaign, and to allow us to reach even more people with our messages. *We are entirely volunteer-powered, and don't benefit from any financial support from external bodies*. Setting up a Crowdfunder page is the most direct way to raising the modest funds needed to facilitate our work. We've seen steep growth in interest in our campaign as awareness of LTNs has grown since their roll-out in May, and we need to consolidate this growth by bolstering our operations and infrastructure.

All donations will go directly to frontline costs of the campaign - printing and reprographics, project management, web hosting fees and licenses, design and brand, and communications costs. *Our campaign is entirely run by volunteers, none of whom receive compensation of any kind. To date, we have covered all core costs from our own pockets. But, as the campaign grows, we need to secure additional funding to make sure we can grow sustainably."*_


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> This is just going round in circles and now it's getting personal.


It's not getting personal at all. I just would have thought that if your opponents were unfairly accusing a campaign of being nefariously funded, then why not just make those finances transparent?

Your quotes above do nothing to address that issue.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> The experiences have been verified with the councillor


Has each and every claim of an emergency vehicle being stuck been verified with the emergency services themselves?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 14, 2020)

editor said:


> It's not getting personal at all. I just would have thought that if your opponents were unfairly accusing a campaign of being nefariously funded, then why not just make those finances transparent?
> 
> Your quotes above do nothing to address that issue.


You said  _All they've got to do is say: "here's how we're funded."_ . They have.
Not a lot else i can add to this really. Maybe they could crowd fund a full and detailed audit of a FB group, you could chip in if you like.

Anyways, we disagree.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 14, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> You said  _All they've got to do is say: "here's how we're funded."_ . They have.
> Not a lot else i can add to this really. Maybe they could crowd fund a full and detailed audit of a FB group, you could chip in if you like.
> 
> Anyways, we disagree.





teuchter said:


> Has each and every claim of an emergency vehicle being stuck been verified with the emergency services themselves?


Many of the claims have been backed up with footage of the events themselves and set directly to Ms Holland. Including police abandoning their car to run toward a suspected stabbing incident on foot! ( Ferndale last weekend) why don’t you FOI the rest as you are so determined to rubbish everything. Hurry up.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Many of the claims have been backed up with footage of the events themselves and set directly to Ms Holland. Including police abandoning their car to run toward a suspected stabbing incident on foot! ( Ferndale last weekend) why don’t you FOI the rest as you are so determined to rubbish everything. Hurry up.


Ok. So none of the claims about emergency vehicles being stuck due to LTNs have been verified with the emergency services themselves.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 14, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> None of them are nonsense! Why do you need to rubbish them?



Because some of them _are_ clearly nonsense and the most anyone can say accurately is that "person X has _CLAIMED_ that...."


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 14, 2020)

Personally I’m upset that chicken world might be forced to close. Where will I get fried chicken from now? Literally every other takeaway


----------



## CH1 (Oct 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I know it's easy to mock some of this stuff but there is some really wonderful anecdote in there. When did KFC clones, hairdressers  and waxing salons depend on customers arriving by car and why? Surely their customer bases are hyper-local?
> ........................................................
> 
> This one sums it up really.
> _ ‘… these streets were not intended as gardens or pleasure domes, and the age in which children played unsupervised in the street is long past;_


I have to admit that my heart sinks when I see your posts normally - but this one was a corker!
I loved the pleasure domes quote

Lest we forget

In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree:
Where Alph, the sacred river, ran
Through caverns measureless to man
    Down to a sunless sea.
So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round:
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.

But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover!
A savage place! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover!
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced:
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail:
And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.
Five miles meandering with a mazy motion
Through wood and dale the sacred river ran,
Then reached the caverns measureless to man,
And sank in tumult to a lifeless ocean:
And 'mid this tumult Kubla heard from far
Ancestral voices prophesying war!
    The shadow of the dome of pleasure
    Floated midway on the waves;
    Where was heard the mingled measure
    From the fountain and the caves.
It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice!

A damsel with a dulcimer
    In a vision once I saw:
    It was an Abyssinian maid,
    And on her dulcimer she played,
    Singing of Mount Abora.
    Could I revive within me
    Her symphony and song,
    To such a deep delight 'twould win me
That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome! those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.[4

Samuel Coleridge Taylor

What happened next is a matter of conjecture. Some say the opium Colderidge had imbibed for medicinal purposes ran out. Others that Wordsworth knocked on the door wanting to go for a walk amongst the daffoldills - and Coleridge lost it.  We may never know.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 14, 2020)

The motion lost 54 votes to 1.


----------



## Aristocrat (Oct 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> This one sums it up really.
> _ ‘… these streets were not intended as gardens or pleasure domes, and the age in which children played unsupervised in the street is long past;_



These two are best read together. Truly, all problems are the fault of the LTNs.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2020)

On funding. The implication is that ordinary people can't do this off their own bat that shadowy right wing groups must be putting money in.

Ordinary people can take Councils on. Chatting to a van driver I know yesterday re the new LTNs that are popping up across London.

Few years back he took on his local Council over a camera. Eventually won. No backing to do this He just felt he wanted to take on the Council over this.

Was a risk for him as he contested the fine.  He did his homework and won. Council had to pay back all the other people that it had fined. He made sure that was part of the judgement.

As he said to me most people would pay the fines and not argue. He felt he should stand up to the the Council. Take on the State.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'm not quite clear what this means procedurally but Lambeth seem to be rejecting the "emergency motion" this evening.
> 
> View attachment 234318



The Mayor is Cllr Phillip Normal. A Labour Cllr. Complete loyalist to Lambeth Labour leadership. 

His decision is predictable.


----------



## co-op (Oct 15, 2020)

CH1 said:


> What happened next is a matter of conjecture. Some say the opium Colderidge had imbibed for medicinal purposes ran out. Others that Wordsworth knocked on the door wanting to go for a walk amongst the daffoldills - and Coleridge lost it.  We may never know.



It was a person from Porlock wasn't it? They'd have been there earlier but the bloody council put in an LTN in Nether Stowey and traffic was a nightmare.


----------



## ash (Oct 15, 2020)

Someone in the ‘delightful’ ‘onelambeth’ FB group is asking if anyone knows where a councillor might be from because of their accent. What a lovely bunch they are


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2020)

ash said:


> Someone in the ‘delightful’ ‘onelambeth’ FB group is asking if anyone knows where a councillor might be from because of their accent. What a lovely bunch they are





> why doesn't she return to Sheffield?!
> Why have all these people left "cleaner air" to live in London if everything here is so unacceptable?!
> 
> 
> ...



"If you don't like the traffic move somewhere else" seems quite a common theme.

Yesterday someone was writing that if you want quiet green roads and a bus every minute then move to a country village.

I'm guessing they've never been to an actual country village, most of which have about one bus a day, no shops within walking distance, roads without any space for pedestrians and SUVs parked all over the pavements.


----------



## ash (Oct 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> "If you don't like the traffic move somewhere else" seems quite a common theme.
> 
> Yesterday someone was writing that if you want quiet green roads and a bus every minute then move to a country village.
> 
> I'm guessing they've never been to an actual country village, most of which have about one bus a day, no shops within walking distance, roads without any space for pedestrians and SUVs parked all over the pavements.


There is so much nastiness in these groups


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'm guessing they've never been to an actual country village, most of which have about one bus a day, no shops within walking distance, roads without any space for pedestrians and SUVs parked all over the pavements.


As I've said on here before - I grew up in a country village and those are exactly the reasons I moved to the city as soon as I could and have no desire to  return.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As he said to me most people would pay the fines and not argue. He felt he should stand up to the the Council. Take on the State.


Taking on "the man" one driving penalty charge notice disputed on a technicality at a time.

The revolution will not be held back by compliance with speed limits or parking restrictions!

Up the workers!


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 15, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> On funding. The implication is that ordinary people can't do this off their own bat that shadowy right wing groups must be putting money in.



It's an implication based on precedent









						Who's behind the bid to get London's flagship bike lane ripped up?
					

A new group supported by the Canary Wharf Group property company and lorry, coach and taxi drivers is attacking one of the city’s most popular routes




					www.theguardian.com
				











						Brexit, cycle lanes and Saudi Arabia: CTF's Facebook campaigns
					

Campaigns overseen by staff of Sir Lynton Crosby’s firm purported to be independent news sources




					www.theguardian.com
				











						Late judicial review launched into Embankment cycle superhighway
					

A legal challenge against the Embankment cycle superhighway has been launched - despite construction already being under way.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## co-op (Oct 15, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> It's an implication based on precedent
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This kind of adds up - if previous attempts to strangle safe cycleways in London have failed, at least partly, because the people doing them were trying to hide themselves to avoid bad PR 



> Canary Wharf opposed it then, too – but not, for a long time, in the open. They knew it was too popular. Instead they ferociously lobbied everyone they could think of, and hired PRs to try to kill it off behind the public’s backs. They failed, but now the “old men in limos,” as Chris Boardman called them, are back for another go.



Then the obvious next attempt will be via astroturfing - by which I don't mean that all members of OneLambeth and all the other identikit groups with their spiffy websites etc are fakes or frauds but that they are being stirred and channeled by the sort of people who tried to stop the Embankment cycleway (which is basically the first proper bit of strategic cycle infrastructure in the whole fecking city of London. In 2015 ffs)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> As I've said on here before - I grew up in a country village and those are exactly the reasons I moved to the city as soon as I could and have no desire to go return.


I too grew up in a rural area and one of the reasons I live in London is that it's pretty much the only place in the UK that I can really live a non car-dependent life. For me that's largely my choice...for others it's not.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 15, 2020)

> So yes today as the weather is ok I done the school run by bike . But coming back at times I was totally alone. Eerily alone . Even venerable. If anything was to happened to me who would help? The other thing . I noticed these signs telling cyclists to give way. But give way to who? The Highway Code May need to be rewritten.



Here's someone who claims to be worried about cyclists' safety on roads which are too quiet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here's someone who claims to be worried about cyclists' safety on roads which are too quiet.


They seem to be complaining about age


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 15, 2020)

I don't work in the field but how much does it cost to host a Web page, have a Facebook group, advertise on Facebook? 

It seems only now there is a drive for funding. There are many different groups all doing their own thing so what do you do? Ask random people for a list of what they spent??


----------



## editor (Oct 15, 2020)

ash said:


> Someone in the ‘delightful’ ‘onelambeth’ FB group is asking if anyone knows where a councillor might be from because of their accent. What a lovely bunch they are


It really is a fucking awful group. The consensus seems to be: "I own a car, therefore I can drive it whenever or wherever I want, I don't care about impacting negatively on other people's lives, and anyone who wavers even slightly from this opinion can expect to be shouted down, bullied and insulted."


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 15, 2020)

editor said:


> It really is a fucking awful group. The consensus seems to be: "I own a car, therefore I can drive it whenever or wherever I want, I don't care about impacting negatively on other people's lives, and anyone who wavers even slightly from this opinion can expect to be shouted down, bullied and insulted."



Its very much a group of angry people and this always bring strong emotions.  

I only have a quick look in the evenings but I wouldn't say the whole place is as you describe.


----------



## editor (Oct 15, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Its very much a group of angry people and this always bring strong emotions.
> 
> I only have a quick look in the evenings but I wouldn't say the whole place is as you describe.


I dared suggest that reducing car usage overall is a laudable aim and swiftly got called a mug and a prick, amongst other things.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 15, 2020)

editor said:


> I dared suggest that reducing car usage overall is a laudable aim and swiftly got called a mug and a prick, amongst other things.



It is a laudable aim. As is reducing pollution and other tihngs.

The LTNs are the boogeyman in there, it's not a place for a reasonable chat. few places are these days. This is why its all either one way or the other and no middle


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 15, 2020)

The article on buzz seems to have unleashed the anti’s if the comments are anything to go by. It’s amazing how many massive eco/pro green people, their words, also see no irony in complaining of delays driving to the petrol station. Quite a lot of recycled comments and I know it’s probably just me but the spelling of losing money as loosing money irritates.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> It's an implication based on precedent
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you saying the LTDA is a shadowy right wing group?

I know a few Cabbies. They dont come across as that to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> It's an implication based on precedent
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Implication is one thing.

A fact is that this hard right Brexit supporting government under Boris has kickstarted these schemes and funded them.

Ive had government guidance quoted at me in previous posts on implementing these schemes. This guidance has come from this hard right Brexit supporting anti immigrant government.

So I don't see this all as simple binary Left/ Right thing.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Taking on "the man" one driving penalty charge notice disputed on a technicality at a time.
> 
> The revolution will not be held back by compliance with speed limits or parking restrictions!
> 
> Up the workers!



Not long ago these workers were being praised for being Key Workers during the pandemic.

The guy I was talking to was delivering medical supplies in the lockdown.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Are you saying the LTDA is a shadowy right wing group?
> 
> I know a few Cabbies. They dont come across as that to me.



No just saying it's entirely plausible that it's more than just ordinary local people involved. And not all of the local campaigners are that ordinary - one of the speakers in their deputation last week has a senior role at a big bank.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Are you saying the LTDA is a shadowy right wing group?
> 
> I know a few Cabbies. They dont come across as that to me.


What's the LTDA's reason to be so against increased cycle infrastructure, and things like the LTNs? Is it because they are concerned about pollution on main roads, or access for disabled people, and other things that the residents' groups claim worry them?

Or is it about protecting their business? It may be quite legitimate for a trade association to act in their members' commercial interests - that's what they are there for, but if they get involved with what are supposed to be "concerned residents" groups, you then have campaigns that are being led by a mixture of motivations, some of which do not match what they present themselves as being led by.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 16, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> None of them are nonsense! Why do you need to rubbish them? The experiences have been verified with the councillor who has had names and numbers these residents are also speaking with their MP and ward councillors, locals who might travel by car to support members of the community have been forgotten in this debate, how they travel after long shifts at work or juggling child care and how they support small local businesses shopping in small local stores. We all know the consultation didn’t take place, it’s understood why, but these voices speaking out tonight are exactly who didn’t get to have their voice heard. Why is it so objectionable to locals who want to promote the scheme that these residents should spk? They can’t be there in person tonight because of Covid 19 but those galleries would have been full otherwise. The pro argument has Brixton Buzz on side, Herne Hill forum, Ms Berry who works for living Streets has secured really grt media PR she’s very good at it.
> But locals like the man you quote haven’t had a chance. Let them spk! Let ppl be heard! Why is everyone a liar?



There are so many factual inaccuracies in this that I don’t know where to start.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 16, 2020)

Just had a delivery of specialist bulky landscaping materials refused because the truck can no longer drive straight through and won't be able to turn safely, if at all. The only way out of the street is to back onto the main road which they will not do as it is around a corner onto a three lane red route. Alternative transport quotes - arranging for someone to collect in a large enough but small enough vehicle - add about £250 the cost of delivery from within the M25. Not to mention a lot of organising.

Lambeth put a letter out a couple of months ago which included a reference to people having expressed concern about large vehicles not being able to turn and rejected the concerns as unfounded.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 16, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Just had a delivery of specialist bulky landscaping materials refused because the truck can no longer drive straight through and won't be able to turn safely, if at all. The only way out of the street is to back onto the main road which they will not do as it is around a corner onto a three lane red route. Alternative transport quotes - arranging for someone to collect in a large enough but small enough vehicle - add about £250 the cost of delivery from within the M25. Not to mention a lot of organising.
> 
> Lambeth put a letter out a couple of months ago which included a reference to people having expressed concern about large vehicles not being able to turn and rejected the concerns as unfounded.



And any second someone will rush to tell you that you're "factually inaccurate" or that it's just an anecdote and should be ignored or insist on an affidavit to prove your not lying. Maybe you're secretly backed and funded by some shadowy right wing organisation?


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Not long ago these workers were being praised for being Key Workers during the pandemic.
> The guy I was talking to was delivering medical supplies in the lockdown.


Key worker or not, laws still apply.  Drive within the limit, park legally and safely.


----------



## ash (Oct 16, 2020)

Great bit of joined up thinking on onelambeth: 

‘I think all drivers should not buy petrol for 24 hours and  let the government see how much they loose in petrol tax’
😂😂


----------



## Manter (Oct 16, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> No just saying it's entirely plausible that it's more than just ordinary local people involved. And not all of the local campaigners are that ordinary - one of the speakers in their deputation last week has a senior role at a big bank.


He’s not very senior.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 16, 2020)

ash said:


> Great bit of joined up thinking on onelambeth:
> 
> ‘I think all drivers should not buy petrol for 24 hours and  let the government see how much they loose in petrol tax’
> 😂😂



suggest they stop buying petrol forever in order to stick it to the government.

the really hilarious thing about this is that they think shell pay hmrc daily.

Alex


----------



## co-op (Oct 16, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> And any second someone will rush to tell you that you're "factually inaccurate" or that it's just an anecdote and should be ignored or insist on an affidavit to prove your not lying. Maybe you're secretly backed and funded by some shadowy right wing organisation?



Don't start shit-stirring, people get very hot under the collar about cars but there are people debating this on here who have been members of this forum for many years and there's been very little accusations of this sort when it comes to actual posters reporting actual experiences, in fact I haven't seen any. When it comes to the OneGroup, yes there's plenty of evidence that this is classic astroturfing but no one's going to call Rushy a liar here. You're the one who's new here.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 16, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Just had a delivery of specialist bulky landscaping materials refused because the truck can no longer drive straight through and won't be able to turn safely, if at all. The only way out of the street is to back onto the main road which they will not do as it is around a corner onto a three lane red route. Alternative transport quotes - arranging for someone to collect in a large enough but small enough vehicle - add about £250 the cost of delivery from within the M25. Not to mention a lot of organising.
> 
> Lambeth put a letter out a couple of months ago which included a reference to people having expressed concern about large vehicles not being able to turn and rejected the concerns as unfounded.


How do the bin lorries turn? Or are they allowed through the gate?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 16, 2020)

co-op said:


> Don't start shit-stirring, people get very hot under the collar about cars but there are people debating this on here who have been members of this forum for many years and there's been very little accusations of this sort when it comes to actual posters reporting actual experiences, in fact I haven't seen any. When it comes to the OneGroup, yes there's plenty of evidence that this is classic astroturfing but no one's going to call Rushy a liar here. You're the one who's new here.



There are a lot of us newbies here who have only posted in this thread and only heard of the forum via the BB articles or other places.

Some of us do come in strong but eventually find the 'flow'.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Key worker or not, laws still apply.  Drive within the limit, park legally and safely.



What are you going on about?

This has nothing to do my with previous posts.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 16, 2020)

co-op said:


> Don't start shit-stirring, people get very hot under the collar about cars but there are people debating this on here who have been members of this forum for many years and there's been very little accusations of this sort when it comes to actual posters reporting actual experiences, in fact I haven't seen any. When it comes to the OneGroup, yes there's plenty of evidence that this is classic astroturfing but no one's going to call Rushy a liar here. You're the one who's new here.



You're right i am new around here. Apologies for any offence, heat of the moment post.


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> You're right i am new around here. Apologies for any offence, heat of the moment post.


I used to think this forum was pretty robust when it comes to differences of opinion, but it's like the Oxford Debating Society compared to OneLambeth.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 16, 2020)

editor said:


> I used to think this forum was pretty robust when it comes to differences of opinion, but it's like the Oxford Debating Society compared to OneLambeth.


I wish i could disagree with you on that. NextDoor is just as toxic.


----------



## co-op (Oct 16, 2020)

editor said:


> I used to think this forum was pretty robust when it comes to differences of opinion, but it's like the Oxford Debating Society compared to OneLambeth.



Urban can get pretty scratchy on some forums and I'm not going to claim I've always been innocent but I think on the local forums there's always the feeling you might actually run into each other one day and we're mostly on the same side of most lines so it'd be daft to make real enemies. I think Gramsci's a good 'un even though he's obviously wrong on LTNs


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 16, 2020)

editor said:


> I used to think this forum was pretty robust when it comes to differences of opinion, but it's like the Oxford Debating Society compared to OneLambeth.



They’ve had to ban a few posters and get much stricter on moderation following the fat shaming, doxxing and general threatening behaviour that some posters were making.


----------



## co-op (Oct 16, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> They’ve had to ban a few posters and get much stricter on moderation following the fat shaming, doxxing and general threatening behaviour that some posters were making.



Lol how did fat-shaming become part of this?


----------



## Rushy (Oct 16, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> And any second someone will rush to tell you that you're "factually inaccurate" or that it's just an anecdote and should be ignored or insist on an affidavit to prove your not lying. Maybe you're secretly backed and funded by some shadowy right wing organisation?



I was more expecting a helpful link to some funky panniers or even a bike trailer. Or a discussion about whether landscaping materials were really a priority in these COVID times. And then something about how surely all the inconvenience is worth it now that it's safe for my son to play in the street. Amongst the turning bin lorries.

(FWIW I didn't think your post was outrageously out of character for this forum. If that is you posting in the heat of the moment then you are far more controlled than most of us  ).


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> They’ve had to ban a few posters and get much stricter on moderation following the fat shaming, doxxing and general threatening behaviour that some posters were making.


I think the guy who called me a prick just for answering a question from someone else about my supposed 'qualifications' to discuss anything to do with Brixton is still there.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 16, 2020)

Slightly random but as there are lots of cycle nerd types on here ... what is the best forum for getting advice on E gravel and mountain bikes? (Positive advice, that is).


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 16, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I was more expecting a helpful link to some funky panniers or even a bike trailer. Or a discussion about whether landscaping materials were really a priority in these COVID times. And then something about how surely all the inconvenience is worth it now that it's safe for my son to play in the street. Amongst the turning bin lorries.
> 
> (FWIW I didn't think your post was outrageously out of character for this forum. If that is you posting in the heat of the moment then you are far more controlled than most of us  ).



Thanks. I do try to not just respond to posts without taking a breath and thinking, i didn't that time. 
People are getting even more pissed off at this end of Shakespeare Road. Someone emailed a councillor to ask when they were starting the 1st round of consultations promised after 6 months, not unreasonable to ask 4 months in. The reply was that they'd just been allowing us to get used to the barrier for the last 4 months or so and they'd start the 6 month clock in a few weeks time. So... May 2021 at least before they bother to ask us what we think, and they can stretch it out to May 2022 if they want. Just after the next round of council elections.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 16, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Slightly random but as there are lots of cycle nerd types on here ... what is the best forum for getting advice on E gravel and mountain bikes? (Positive advice, that is).


The cycle chat thread :









						The Cycling Chat Thread
					

Did you try emailing Philips and asking if they have any brackets for it? They don't make that light anymore but they still have a page with manuals and an email contact for asking questions. I personally would have started there.




					www.urban75.net


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What's the LTDA's reason to be so against increased cycle infrastructure, and things like the LTNs? Is it because they are concerned about pollution on main roads, or access for disabled people, and other things that the residents' groups claim worry them?
> 
> Or is it about protecting their business? It may be quite legitimate for a trade association to act in their members' commercial interests - that's what they are there for, but if they get involved with what are supposed to be "concerned residents" groups, you then have campaigns that are being led by a mixture of motivations, some of which do not match what they present themselves as being led by.



My query was about shadowy right wing supporting anti LTN groups.

Think its now agreed here that the Cabbies LTDA is not that.

From what Ive seen of Cabbies is they are upfront about opposing schemes. Seen them block roads in central London over these issues.

They don't organise in the background.

Campaigns can contain both commercial issues and resident lssues. Take the campaign to keep the car park for Brixton market. Residents groups ( including me) and local reps of market traders ( commercial interest) found common ground and worked together.

Realistically as we live in society were one sells one labour to live issues will often contain both commercial and non commercial interests. In case of Cabbies and small business these are often sole traders/ self employed so not big business.

Even with existing opposition to LTNs this is the case. Small business/ shopkeepers are also not happy with LTNs in some cases. So anti LTN never was purely about residents.

Another thing as LTNs are being rolled out across London I dont see why those who make living on the roads providing a service should not work with residents groups if residents want that..

Was helping a van driver yesterday. We got stuck on Brixton Hill in afternoon. It is now down to one lane as bus lane is now 24hours. Took ages to get through Brixton. This is down to Mayor and TFL. Chatting to the van driver and the new LTNs across central London plus 24 bus lanes means longer time for deliveries. Causing him, as I saw yesterday, a lot more stress.

We ended up being late for the next job.

As he said traffic is being funneled into main roads.

He is like Cabbies providing a service to people and trying to make a living. They aren't people who are to lazy to walk to shops. Who need LTNs to nudge them to walk or cycle.

I do think these people ( who are not big business but ordinary people just trying to get by providing a necessary service) should have a say in road use.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The cycle chat thread :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks. Have not found a whole lot in there about e gravel yet. But enjoyed this bit of wisdom from Badgers ...



Badgers said:


>


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 16, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Slightly random but as there are lots of cycle nerd types on here ... what is the best forum for getting advice on E gravel and mountain bikes? (Positive advice, that is).



Personally I would go and have a look at Bikes.They are big outlay of money to buy. So you really need to see them and try them imo.  Evans shops have range of electric bikes on show. Evans shops are variable some have knowledgeable staff some dont.

Decathlon ( surrey quays and Wandsworth) do the cheaper end of the range. Ive found staff at Decathlon helpful.

For Bike porn exotica Velorution in Great Portland street has range of electric bikes. Worth a look just to see the weird and wonderful collection they have.





__





						Urban Electric Bikes | Velorution
					

With an urban electric bike from Velorution, you'll be slicing through city streets, cutting your commuting time, saving the planet, and most of all you'll have a rollicking good time!




					velorution.com
				




Decent electric bikes are still pricey. I know someone who got one of Ebay. Worth a look. He is knowledgeable about E bikes and picked up a bargain.

Bikes are in short supply at moment so not easy to get a cheap deal.

On the other hand good E bikes Ive seen are as good as mopeds in London without the added cost running a moped.

Pure Electric have shop in Victoria  (
52 Grosvenor Gardens, Belgravia, London SW1W 0AU)
is also one Ive been standing outside going yes I want one.









						Buy e-scooters & e-bikes online at Pure Electric
					

Buy your electric scooter & electric bike from Pure Electric - specialists in electric micro-mobility. We have the best range and prices, all in stock in the UK with up to 2 year warranty, including next working day delivery.




					www.pureelectric.com


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 17, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> They’ve had to ban a few posters and get much stricter on moderation following the fat shaming, doxxing and general threatening behaviour that some posters were making.



They have always been pretty hardline unlike some other groups where anyhig goes. Still a lot of hate though. The running joke in our whatsapp group (which is toxic) is that after LTNs the admins of OneLambeth are the most hated things in the world because they wont let some people do and post whatever they want


----------



## organicpanda (Oct 17, 2020)

if TFL have to extend the congestion charge to Clapham and Catford these arguments will be irrelevant except to those who can afford the £15 per day








						Extend London congestion charge zone to Clapham and Catford, TfL told
					

Sadiq Khan says government’s proposals to plug capital’s Covid-ravaged finances are ‘not right’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 17, 2020)

organicpanda said:


> if TFL have to extend the congestion charge to Clapham and Catford these arguments will be irrelevant except to those who can afford the £15 per day
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If shapps and boris and cummings force this on us, itll be no more than a week before the racist hypocritical astroturf campaign to blame it all on khan and to promise a roll-back under a tory mayor begins. And yet instead of this on the front page, we get boris’ bit on the side and empty brexit posturing.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 17, 2020)

co-op said:


> Lol how did fat-shaming become part of this?


Let me guess.... taking pot shots at Sarah Berry.


----------



## Winot (Oct 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Thanks. Have not found a whole lot in there about e gravel yet. But enjoyed this bit of wisdom from Badgers ...



If you ask a question on there there are some knowledgeable types (particularly weepiper) who’ll be happy to help I’m sure.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2020)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> If shapps and boris and cummings force this on us, itll be no more than a week before the racist hypocritical astroturf campaign to blame it all on khan and to promise a roll-back under a tory mayor begins. And yet instead of this on the front page, we get boris’ bit on the side and empty brexit posturing.


They've started already on One Lambeth - blaming it on Khan. To be fair, there are also quite a few people pointing out that this is not a Khan proposal and comes from central government.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Let me guess.... taking pot shots at Sarah Berry.



One of the admins was saying something about a Sally Berry the other day?


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 17, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> Thanks. I do try to not just respond to posts without taking a breath and thinking, i didn't that time.
> People are getting even more pissed off at this end of Shakespeare Road. Someone emailed a councillor to ask when they were starting the 1st round of consultations promised after 6 months, not unreasonable to ask 4 months in. The reply was that they'd just been allowing us to get used to the barrier for the last 4 months or so and they'd start the 6 month clock in a few weeks time. So... May 2021 at least before they bother to ask us what we think, and they can stretch it out to May 2022 if they want. Just after the next round of council elections.



Doesn't seem unreasonable to start the consultation from the time the fines start being issued given Shakespeare Road residents have been putting up signs and telling people they can drive through up to now.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Doesn't seem unreasonable to start the consultation from the time the fines start being issued given Shakespeare Road residents have been putting up signs and telling people they can drive through up to now.


That's strange as i haven't seen any signs telling people that they can drive through. 
There were signs put up by somebody warning drivers that they'd get an immediate fine, but none that i know of advising anyone to just ignore them. 
People did and still do stop and ask what the situation is. Any time i was asked i advised them what the current situation was as advised by Lambeths leaflet.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 17, 2020)

On Khan.

Few weeks back when North London Council put planters around shepherdness walk someone spray painted on them Sack Khan. Going back that way next day someone else had spray painted over this Sack Boris.

So some people do understand where this is coming from. Ultimately the Tory hard right.


----------



## co-op (Oct 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> So some people do understand where this is coming from. Ultimately the Tory hard right.





The tory hard right, well-known bastion of cycle routes.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2020)

[slightly off topic]

On twitter and elsewhere it seems popular to post photos of the newly implemented 'emergency' cycle lane that runs between hyde park corner and marble arch. The photos are typically of loads of cars in a jam with a completely empty massive cycle lane.

These have actually almost made me think - maybe they overdid things a bit there. But yesterday I walked past it. The reality is that Park Lane is a massive highway, previously with 3 or 4 lanes in each direction available to motor traffic. And in fact what's been given over to the cycle way is one lane of those 6 to 8 lanes. The one that's been given over to cycles is for both directions. So, in each direction, cycles get a half-lane, while motor traffic gets between 2 and 4 lanes.

There weren't loads of cyclists using it yesterday - there were some but not loads. But the road wasn't actually all that busy either.
I wonder whether one reason it's not highly popular is that a middle portion of it gets diverted off the road altogether and onto part of the pavement. That section never appears in the angry twitter posts.


----------



## Winot (Oct 18, 2020)

I’ve cycled that a few times. There is a parallel cycle path through the park. However this is (a) shared use and therefore not ideal and (b) only usable when the park is open.

The pavement section is a pain but I’ve not noticed any animosity from pedestrians, or cyclists going too fast.

The north end of the Park Lane cycle route is a disaster - you are decanted onto a busy pedestrian crossing on a sharp bend with no space for pedestrians and cyclists to share. By contrast the park route links nicely with Stanhope Place which allows access to the roads north of the park via a dedicated cyclists crossing.


----------



## Winot (Oct 18, 2020)

New survey results inc. broad LTN support. Sample of 2000 respondents.









						Polling exclusive: Most Londoners blame Covid or government for TfL financial woes, back LTNs and are satisfied with Sadiq Khan - OnLondon
					

More than twice as many Londoners hold either Covid-19 or the government mostly to blame for Transport for London’s financial difficulties than either Sadiq Khan or Transport for London combined, according to new opinion poll findings provided exclusively to On London. Asked to select from the...




					www.onlondon.co.uk


----------



## Rushy (Oct 18, 2020)

Winot said:


> New survey results inc. broad LTN support. Sample of 2000 respondents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only skimmed this article. Interesting that when talking of suspending free travel for under 18s, the small "strongly opposed" figure was interpreted as meaning  "the issue is of particular concern to groups of Londoners that would feel its effects most strongly." No such sympathetic interpretation on the LTNs.

I would not know how to answer as I would not wish to be against traffic measures but would not wish to support the current chaotic implementation.

Only 29% believe that they have been effective in reducing overall traffic.

On Kahn, a friend of mine at TfL involved with the original LTN concept has worked directly with Livingstone, Boris and Kahn at City Hall. Said Boris and Livingstone were great to work under - didn't always agree with them but both were clear and decisive. Said Kahn is frustrating because he is indecisive and lacks leadership and direction. I don't really know enough about him to have formed any opinion but I am constantly surprised by his low profile.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 18, 2020)

co-op said:


> The tory hard right, well-known bastion of cycle routes.




Yes. Boris for example.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 18, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Doesn't seem unreasonable to start the consultation from the time the fines start being issued given Shakespeare Road residents have been putting up signs and telling people they can drive through up to now.


Fines have been issued since July. I am quite certain about this because a complete stranger approached me whilst I was having a coffee at that little vegan place on the corner of Dulwich Road and Brixton Water Lane and asked me to explain the reason for his fine (his English was not great) which was for passing through one of the Railton LTN modal gates. Quite random, I know. Lambeth wrote to me recently confirming that fines can be issued on all gates.

Nevertheless, most of the gates are yet to be monitored 24hrs. People drive through all of them regardless of whether residents occasionally place a contrarian sign on the Shakespeare gate (you seem to have a particular squabble going on with some people in the vicinity of that gate). Lambeth skipped the consultation phase which they had originally planned for before implementation because of The Emergency. But in their hurry their implementation was so half arsed that they are not even prepared for residents to formally comment on it. And there is still no date for when the half arsed-ness of the implementation will have been dealt with.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2020)

Winot said:


> I’ve cycled that a few times. There is a parallel cycle path through the park. However this is (a) shared use and therefore not ideal and (b) only usable when the park is open.


 And has frequent speed bumps - which is fair enough for a shared use route - but makes it unattractive to anyone who wants to use it for regular journeys.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 18, 2020)

Winot said:


> New survey results inc. broad LTN support. Sample of 2000 respondents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The onlondon article says this on LTNs:



> New LTNs were part of another condition of the government’s first TfL bailout, which said a minimum of £55 million should be spent on them and other Active Travel interventions.



Not sure how accurate this is.

Would explain the sudden appearance of bike lanes across central London even though numbers of people around City and West End has dropped. City is empty of traffic. Compared to pre pandemic.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2020)

This morning's wisdom on One Lambeth


> When the main roads are busier, they will start charging us for using the roads. You know, I kind of wish we could all just sell our cars. I use my car as my job, but I would love to see their little faces when no cars are sold, no car insurance, no servicing, no spare parts, and a 1.2 mile queue at the bus stop, everyone late, costing the economy billions. Maybe then they would realise that the car is a vital part of our lives and brings in billions every single year in revenue.


----------



## co-op (Oct 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> [slightly off topic]
> 
> On twitter and elsewhere it seems popular to post photos of the newly implemented 'emergency' cycle lane that runs between hyde park corner and marble arch. The photos are typically of loads of cars in a jam with a completely empty massive cycle lane.



This is obviously a descendant of the bus lane version which I remember well when these first started appearing. "I was sitting in a solid traffic jam for [blah blah] hours next to a bus lane which was _completely empty_!". To which of course the answer is 'that's right, that's what a functioning bus lane looks like' - somehow in the fevered carhead brain, a bus lane is only working if it's jammed nose-to-tail with non-moving buses, which seems a rather spectacular missing of the point of a bus lane, i.e. buses running smoothly and on time, but I still hear this line trotted out occasionally.

I get that bike lanes are a bit different, they are not time-tabled, nor as liable to jam up so they 'ought' to have cyclists in them, but half the point of bike lanes is to _allow_ people to cycle safely, not to force anyone to go cycling, it's literally about providing the option to people who want it.

Anyway, Park Lane from Marble Arch to HPC - that has always been one monster of a traffic jam anytime during the day, absolutely always and I must have first used it in the early 1980s. The idea that jams there are 'caused' by cycle lanes is absurd.


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2020)

OneLambeth update



> We have now appointed a Legal Team for advice on the legality of Lambeth LTNs and viability of pursuing Judicial Review or other Avenues for the whole of Lambeth against the council.
> 
> Please email us with:
> 
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2020)

This is quite interesting (maybe, to some people)



An attempt to log all the LTNs everywhere. Including "historic" ones that may have been in place for years/decades already.

Link


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 20, 2020)

Think the new ones are mapped here:



			https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1m__ZQHAQOWGRu7-IZDP-gbV8Mr6ZfMOj&ll=51.48976696101502%2C-0.08817950000000074&z=10


----------



## alex_ (Oct 21, 2020)

The proposed congestion charge changes make all of this ltn thing quite redundant dont they?

Alex


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2020)

alex_ said:


> The proposed congestion charge changes make all of this ltn thing quite redundant dont they?
> 
> Alex


Depends a bit on whether it would have an exemption or discount for those living within the zone. And it also depends whether it would significantly reduce traffic, or just mean that the traffic was made up of people who could afford the charge.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 21, 2020)

alex_ said:


> The proposed congestion charge changes make all of this ltn thing quite redundant dont they?



If they happen I think it complements the LTNs, as it further disincentivises driving and may help with main road congestion


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 21, 2020)

alex_ said:


> The proposed congestion charge changes make all of this ltn thing quite redundant dont they?
> Alex



not at all. the reason LTNs are necessary is because SatNavs shortcut traffic through minor roads even when the main roads are not busy.  I suspect it will distract all the pro-car lobby who'll have a bigger battle to fight than LTNs and it would likely negate the arguments about main road's 'not being able to cope'


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 21, 2020)

alex_ said:


> The proposed congestion charge changes make all of this ltn thing quite redundant dont they?
> 
> Alex


It's just so the tories can get at Sadiq Khan.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 21, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's just so the tories can get at Sadiq Khan.



yup proper trump politics


----------



## alex_ (Oct 21, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> not at all. the reason LTNs are necessary is because SatNavs shortcut traffic through minor roads even when the main roads are not busy.  I suspect it will distract all the pro-car lobby who'll have a bigger battle to fight than LTNs and it would likely negate the arguments about main road's 'not being able to cope'



It’ll move a lot of traffic out of the bits of Lambeth North of the south circular.

Alex


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2020)

Despite a loud opposing minority, low-traffic neighbourhoods are increasingly popular
					

YouGov poll found positive views on LTNs are three times higher than negative ones




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## BigTom (Oct 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is quite interesting (maybe, to some people)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Birmingham ones are not right.
I dunno why Kings Heath is split in 4 but these are now implemented or just waiting to have bollards put in on some of the blocks. The implentation date is not really correct, they put in the signs and planters a few weeks back but bollards didn't go in until last week so all the drivers were ignoring it.
Moseley ones are also in place.
Lozells is more than planned, it is definitely happening but I don't know when
Bournville and Castle Vale are both definitely happening but again I don't know when









						Have your say
					

As part of our Emergency Transport Plan to ensure a low carbon, clean air recovery from COVID-19, we are delivering a number of temporary measures to make walking and cycling easier and safer across Birmingham and to support social distancing.




					covidmeasuresbirmingham.commonplace.is
				



Is the consultation page in case anyone wants to look at this. Just noticed Kings Heath one has over 2,000 comments... I guess the others haven't been put in place yet.

I live in Kings Heath and facebook has been pretty much the same kind of conversations as you've been having in Brixton (based on my reading of this thread), except there's no "one lambeth" equivalent here (yet). We'll see what happens over the 6 month trial.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2020)

BigTom said:


> Birmingham ones are not right.
> I dunno why Kings Heath is split in 4 but these are now implemented or just waiting to have bollards put in on some of the blocks. The implentation date is not really correct, they put in the signs and planters a few weeks back but bollards didn't go in until last week so all the drivers were ignoring it.
> Moseley ones are also in place.
> Lozells is more than planned, it is definitely happening but I don't know when
> Bournville and Castle Vale are both definitely happening but again I don't know when



It's this chap who is compiling the spreadsheet I think - if you want to let him know.



			https://twitter.com/iambrianjones


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2020)

One Lambeth's fundraiser for legal action:









						OneLambeth
					

A resident-led campaign shining a light on 'low traffic neighbourhoods' (LTNs) in Lambeth.




					www.crowdfunder.co.uk
				




They've got about £1700 on there so far.

Message today:



> Thank you to everyone who has kindly donated today towards the legal costs, it is truly appreciated!
> 
> Legal costs of £5340 for 'advice from the solicitor and barrister' which is for the whole of Lambeth. This may be sufficient to pressure the council. If not we will need further funds to continue legal proceedings.
> 
> ...



That's accompanied by a direct paypal link. Not sure if they are saying they are £570 away from £5340?

Didn't someone say on here that a Judicial Review shouldn't cost anything - so are they attempting a different legal route?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> One Lambeth's fundraiser for legal action:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Saying a jr should not cost anything is very different from saying it does not cost anything


----------



## Rushy (Oct 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> One Lambeth's fundraiser for legal action:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The council will make it expensive by dragging its feet, not fully answering questions and refusing to engage meaningfully. It's pretty normal practice - but not what would be described as cooperative. Every letter sent can cost 1,000s. I have (very limited) experience of this from a JR in relation to park events. I don't know about legal aid - other than that we it was tricky to access. Whether you are on the side of the council in this particular matter or not, the obstacles to challenging decisions can be huge.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2020)

In the Guardian



> And amid the daily froth of sometimes entirely false stories about LTNs closing roads, or slowing emergency service response times, one thing is often forgotten: these schemes tend to be very popular.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Despite a loud opposing minority, low-traffic neighbourhoods are increasingly popular
					

YouGov poll found positive views on LTNs are three times higher than negative ones




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## BigTom (Oct 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's this chap who is compiling the spreadsheet I think - if you want to let him know.
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/iambrianjones



Cheers, I'm not on twitter but someone who is could send him a link to my post.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 22, 2020)

Removal of subsidised travel for under 18s also has far more supporters than opposers. Does that mean that, if a majority people are OK Jack, the needs and concerns of those negatively impacted by the policy should be ignored?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Removal of subsidised travel for under 18s also has far more supporters than opposers. Does that mean that, if a majority people are OK Jack, the needs and concerns of those negatively impacted by the policy should be ignored?


No, it doesn't. I await the next step of your argument.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 22, 2020)

editor said:


> In the Guardian
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apparently an article by someone who has had books published on how cycling will save the world? Pinch of salt me thinks.









						Bike Nation
					

A revolution on the roads is approaching. Is it time for drivers to Give Way? Guardian news correspondent, Peter Walker, takes us on a journey around the world, exploring the varying attitudes to cycling on our highways. Visit the shining examples of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where cycling...



					books.google.co.uk


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 22, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Think the new ones are mapped here:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1m__ZQHAQOWGRu7-IZDP-gbV8Mr6ZfMOj&ll=51.48976696101502%2C-0.08817950000000074&z=10



Wow, great map!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Apparently an article by someone who has had books published on how cycling will save the world? Pinch of salt me thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Those people at the Guardian sneakily trying to disguise this - by publishing it under the title of "bike blog".


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2020)

On One Lambeth they are concerned about the safety of the pillars separating off the bike lane.
Safety. They are concerned about safety. That's all.






> Have the lazy council & mayor not taken them down they are death traps for cyclists,pedestrians and scootey users


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 23, 2020)

teuchter said:


> On One Lambeth they are concerned about the safety of the pillars separating off the bike lane.
> Safety. They are concerned about safety. That's all.
> 
> View attachment 235452



The entire white section is hi viz.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 23, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Removal of subsidised travel for under 18s also has far more supporters than opposers. Does that mean that, if a majority people are OK Jack, the needs and concerns of those negatively impacted by the policy should be ignored?



charging kids to get to school - sounds like a great idea for social inclusion.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Oct 24, 2020)

What a surprise!









						Stop Khan's Traffic Chaos
					

Stop Khan's traffic chaos.




					action.shaunforlondon.uk


----------



## ash (Oct 24, 2020)

Lovely thoughts from one Lambeth about Clare Holland:


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2020)

The latest thing on there seems to be that they just don't believe it's true that the majority of households in Lambeth/LTN areas don't own a car. That the numbers are being fiddled.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The latest thing on there seems to be that they just don't believe it's true that the majority of households in Lambeth/LTN areas don't own a car. That the numbers are being fiddled.



I've had conversations with local antis trying to demonstrate that by example and they just refuse to even acknowledge - it 'feels wrong' to them.

On my street, one of the longest in the ward, most houses are divided into two or three flats, yet only have space for one car outside. Even if every space was full that would leave less than 50% of households with a car, and in fact they never all full anyway. 

But they use 'every space in my street has a car outside' to mean 'virtually every household has a car'


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2020)

And it doesn't even take into account that a household having access to a car doesn't translate to each person in that household having access to a car at any point in time.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The latest thing on there seems to be that they just don't believe it's true that the majority of households in Lambeth/LTN areas don't own a car. That the numbers are being fiddled.



despite street level population numbers broken down by age being available online









						Interesting Information for Ferndale Road, Lambeth, London, SW9 8BQ Postcode
					

View information about Ferndale Road, Lambeth, London, SW98BQ postcode, including population, age, housing, relationships, broadband, religion and employment




					www.streetcheck.co.uk
				




How many people do they think are involved in this conspiracy and how long do they think it’s been in preparation ?

Of course it would be completely outrageous to question their intelligence.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2020)

They seem to think the numbers won't be right because they are from nearly ten years ago.

As far as I'm aware, the trend has been for a decrease in car ownership. I guess we'll find out next year.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2020)

Anyway, 40% is a majority now.




			
				one lambeth member said:
			
		

> So 40% with cars is still the majority, coz 20% cyclists,20% public transport, 20% walkers, and don’t forget that even though 40% have a car the household members will have access to it


----------



## alex_ (Oct 25, 2020)

teuchter said:


> They seem to think the numbers won't be right because they are from nearly ten years ago.



When car ownership in nearly every inner London borough fell by more than 10%.

The number of cars registered in Lambeth appears to be about the same as 10 years ago



			https://airdrive-secure.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/london/dataset/licensed-vehicles-type-0/2020-09-18T08%3A59%3A51/vehicles-licensed-type-borough.xls?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJJDIMAIVZJDICKHA%2F20201025%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20201025T153813Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Signature=18b08a04fe170726fb3aeb2e15e3ef9387eea1a331b23d768f8dae9ce657bf57&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 25, 2020)

Also puzzled. If lots of people own cars we should let them be allowed to drive them unhindered whatever the impact?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2020)

Well this is why you can't win with the whole 'number of cars per household' fight and most people don't care.

If it's more than thought 'We need to force people out of the their cars that's too many!'

If it's less 'So few people have a car let's retake the roads'


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 25, 2020)

If the facts show that inner london car ownership has fallen then that is another argument that inner london LTNs are about stopping through traffic and local people who still own cars should be able to move freely using ANPR technology.

As has been said before this is likely to get rid of most opposition.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If the facts show that inner london car ownership has fallen then that is another argument that inner london LTNs are about stopping through traffic and local people who still own cars should be able to move freely using ANPR technology.
> 
> As has been said before this is likely to get rid of most opposition.



yeah the taxi drivers and tories will be totally in favour then


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 25, 2020)

alex_ said:


> yeah the taxi drivers and tories will be totally in favour then



I don't get what you mean.

The funding for LTNs comes from the Tories. Its Shapps and this Tory government that have started this.

Im sure Taxi drivers will not be keen.

But given what Ive seen from talking to locals affected and online lot of opposition would stop if this compromise was made.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Well this is why you can't win with the whole 'number of cars per household' fight and most people don't care.
> 
> If it's more than thought 'We need to force people out of the their cars that's too many!'
> 
> If it's less 'So few people have a car let's retake the roads'


That's because whether there are more, or fewer, cars per household than estimated, we still need to reduce the number on the roads. It's the number on the roads, causing congestion and pollution and taking away space from other users that matters. 

Also, the two statements you put in quotes above aren't incompatible with each other. The first is a necessary step in achieving the second.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If the facts show that inner london car ownership has fallen then that is another argument that inner london LTNs are about stopping through traffic and local people who still own cars should be able to move freely using ANPR technology.
> 
> As has been said before this is likely to get rid of most opposition.


Why does that change the fact that many of the trips that people who do still own cars are making have been shown to be short and possible to do by other means?

Your argument seems to be that we must not interfere with any of the current trips by local residents by car.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 25, 2020)

They want to be the majority because then it becomes anti-democratic if it’s a minority telling them what to do.


----------



## paolo (Oct 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> If the facts show that inner london car ownership has fallen then that is another argument that inner london LTNs are about stopping through traffic and local people who still own cars should be able to move freely using ANPR technology.
> 
> As has been said before this is likely to get rid of most opposition.



That does seem like a good compromise. It also means that there would be less reason implement internal (vehicle hostile) turn bans etc. That was a system that worked very well (and still does) to declog Soho, for example, but date from an age when ANPR didn’t exist.

I do believe in many of the bigger goals that teuchter and others are arguing for, but this compromise would be a move in the right direction at least.

Won’t be cheap though. Wonder what the cost of enclosing the Ferndale / Bedford / Acre Lane area would be. Capex and annual maintenance, vs penalty revenue?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 25, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Why does that change the fact that many of the trips that people who do still own cars are making have been shown to be short and possible to do by other means?
> 
> Your argument seems to be that we must not interfere with any of the current trips by local residents by car.




Railton Road LTN was sold by Council to residents. on fact that that most traffic was through traffic. By people who did not live in or need to visit the area. Same thing was said about Loughborough Junction road closures. 

I don't have a problem with local residents being able to freely move in and out of an LTN they live in.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 25, 2020)

Given that the government might try and force Khan/ TFL to extend the congestion zone inner London LTNs might become partially redundant.

Interesting thst Green party oppose it and argue for road pricing instead. Something I think newbie has talked about earlier in this thread.

The extension to congestion charge zone is about the Tories wanting to make Khan/TFL suffer post pandemic. Its about revenue collection. As government won't fully support TFL losses due to pandemic. Despite expecting them to run a service.









						Why the row over congestion charge expansion could tear London apart
					

No 10 and the mayor are at loggerheads over how to fill a hole in the capital’s transport budget. But is it a £2bn game of bluff?




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## alex_ (Oct 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Given that the government might try and force Khan/ TFL to extend the congestion zone inner London LTNs might become partially redundant.
> 
> Interesting thst Green party oppose it and argue for road pricing instead. Something I think newbie has talked about earlier in this thread.
> 
> ...



suspect the greens see it being done nationwide to support decarbonisation


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Interesting thst Green party oppose it and argue for road pricing instead. Something I think newbie has talked about earlier in this thread.



13 years ago...

The last attempt to introduce road pricing was not popular with the electorate, sadly. 

I wonder if anything's changed in that regard since.

The observation I make is that whatever is proposed, lots of people pop up claiming to be supportive of the wider aims in principle, but it's just that they aren't quite happy with how this measure works, and really shouldn't we be looking at this other thing instead. And then when that other thing is proposed, it's not quite right either.

This is why I support the LTNs despite their various imperfections and despite the fact that Lambeth are in charge of them and will inevitably mess lots of things up.

Let's see if road pricing can get to the point where LTNs have got to - an actual real opportunity to attempt to make them happen ... and quite possibly a majority of people actually in favour of them, or at least, not actively against them.


----------



## paolo (Oct 26, 2020)

The notioned C Zone extension is considerable. At a glance, by area, I'd make a guess at 50x the current zone. Overnight, drop of the hat. It doesn't smack of an integrated multi-mode transport policy, the likes of which the Netherlands has (yes that chestnut).

A 500 kilo sledgehammer related to fiscal policy, and little beyond that.

I do believe the future, in busy cities, is away from personal cars. Car clubs are all part of the mix. Making it nicer to cycle is part of the mix. Fixing the orbital public transport issue has to be part of that. Dropping a monster bomb on suburban car driving just doesn't seem to have any vision whatsoever.

(Full disclosure....as well as my lovely bicycle, I have a belching camper van that gets driven once a month at best. Totally comfortable with pay-per use on it's grotty emissions, extended LEZ, all good.)


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 26, 2020)

paolo said:


> The notioned C Zone extension is considerable. At a glance, by area, I'd make a guess at 50x the current zone. Overnight, drop of the hat. It doesn't smack of an integrated multi-mode transport policy, the likes of which the Netherlands has (yes that chestnut).
> 
> A 500 kilo sledgehammer related to fiscal policy, and little beyond that.



Which is why it looks like political posturing- given the infrastructure investment that would be required.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 26, 2020)

One Lambeth’s now posting Jeremy Clarkson videos!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Which is why it looks like political posturing- given the infrastructure investment that would be required.


I think the idea is that much of the infrastructure would already be there for the ULEZ extension.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 26, 2020)

Fuckin hell, in tooting they actually moved an accident victim off the road themselves so cars could pass!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2020)

Looks like they decided to put the victim on the bike lane rather than the pavement in any case. 

Wasn't that long ago i watched cars drive onto the pavement to get around an injured cyclist lying in the road.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2020)

OneLambeth are almost wetting themselves with joy because some cameras and signs have all been trashed.


----------



## paolo (Oct 26, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Fuckin hell, in tooting they actually moved an accident victim off the road themselves so cars could pass!




If you’re not trained, you can really do someone a lot of damage moving them, in that scenario.

(tip: also, if an accident victim is wearing a helmet, do NOT try to remove it, wait for a paramedic)


----------



## paolo (Oct 26, 2020)

editor said:


> OneLambeth are almost wetting themselves with joy because some cameras and signs have all been trashed.



does that cast doubt on cameras being a compromise that would be accepted?


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> This is why I support the LTNs despite their various imperfections and despite the fact that Lambeth are in charge of them and will inevitably mess lots of things up.



From my point of view Lambeth have already messed it up.

They could have said they are doing this as the government expects this of them. Incidently what a local Cllr said to me when I asked about LTNs. Cllr said Lambeth could not do the consultation that it would normally do as the Government (Tories) expected them to spend the money quickly. But they are not saying this publicly. Public presentation is what a great progressive Council they are putting LTNs in.

Lambeth is putting LTNs in at behest of this Tory Government. I dont feel its got anything to do with me. Im not in a LTN. As I live on what Lambeth classify as a main road I may or  may not be adversely affected. Also Loughborough Junction ( my patch) is being left well alone by our Labour Council LTN wise. Which just goes to show if community kick up enough of a fuss they will treat you differently.  Ive seen local Labour Cllrs actually are now talking to a LJ residents association about what they want road wise. Quite different tack in LJ compared to rest of borough. More softly softly approach.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2020)

paolo said:


> If you’re not trained, you can really do someone a lot of damage moving them, in that scenario.
> 
> (tip: also, if an accident victim is wearing a helmet, do NOT try to remove it, wait for a paramedic)


The weird thing is, on that twitter thread, the One Wandsworth account is trying to argue that

the person had to be moved out of the way to restore the traffic flow
moving an injured person is very dangerous (as you say)
therefore the road arrangement is dangerous

It's completely nuts. They are actually working on a premise that restoring the traffic flow is more important than potentially doing the accident victim serious harm. They seem fully aware of the harm that can be done.

Luckily there seem to be plenty of comments telling them they are idiots.


----------



## Jesterburger (Oct 27, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The weird thing is, on that twitter thread, the One Wandsworth account is trying to argue that
> 
> the person had to be moved out of the way to restore the traffic flow
> moving an injured person is very dangerous (as you say)
> ...



A position endorsed by Lambeth's own Conservative councillor (retweeting OneWandsworth and blaming the Mayor)


----------



## CH1 (Oct 27, 2020)

I'm posting this for info. Apparently the dear leader crashed into a cyclist whilst driving an SUV on Sunday. Can't elaborate as I've reached my limit of ONE Glasgow Herald article this year.
But it doesn't sound very Green - or safe.








						Keir Starmer questioned by police after crash with cyclist
					

Sir Keir Starmer has been questioned by police after a crash involving a cyclist.




					www.heraldscotland.com


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2020)

Yes, over on One Lambeth they are figuring out how to blame this on LTNs.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Yes, over on One Lambeth they are figuring out how to blame this on LTNs.


Well as a teuchter you can presumably fill me in (from the Glasgow Herald) as to what it's all about!


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 28, 2020)

One of the larger anti LTN petitions to the government to scrap all changes to roads (school streets, LTNs, and cycle lanes) has been rejected by the DFT.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> How do the bin lorries turn? Or are they allowed through the gate?


Bins allowed, GPS, district nurses, transport ambulance, blue badge not.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Doesn't seem unreasonable to start the consultation from the time the fines start being issued given Shakespeare Road residents have been putting up signs and telling people they can drive through up to now.


What signs? If we are not driving through why would we tell others? Some ppl do drive through you can’t always get to ppl in time to tell them not to. I’ve not seen any sign that tells ppl to do this. Can you show me what you are referring to plz. In a very divisive issues blatant untruths cause an awful lot of trouble & time wasting.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> One of the larger anti LTN petitions to the government to scrap all changes to roads (school streets, LTNs, and cycle lanes) has been rejected by the DFT.


Possibly due to its similarities to the other. Redundant.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

teuchter said:


> The latest thing on there seems to be that they just don't believe it's true that the majority of households in Lambeth/LTN areas don't own a car. That the numbers are being fiddled.


Everyone residential road in RailtonLTN is number to bumper to bumper cars. Brixton end too!Insude  LTN grids have high car ownership. You only need to look at them parked, admittedly they could be ‘overnight guests’ lots of them.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Everyone residential road in RailtonLTN is number to bumper to bumper cars. Brixton end too!Insude  LTN grids have high car ownership. You only need to look at them parked, admittedly they could be ‘overnight guests’ lots of them.


* Bumper to bumper obvs.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Everyone residential road in RailtonLTN is number to bumper to bumper cars. Brixton end too!Insude  LTN grids have high car ownership. You only need to look at them parked, admittedly they could be ‘overnight guests’ lots of them.


Yes, a whole swathe of public space that could be allocated to the benefit of a broader section of the community, is given over to a minority of car-owning residents.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Everyone residential road in RailtonLTN is number to bumper to bumper cars. Brixton end too!Insude  LTN grids have high car ownership. You only need to look at them parked, admittedly they could be ‘overnight guests’ lots of them.


of course, some of them could also be cars owned by people living on main roads that don't have on street parking directly.  Regardless, with many properties in Lambeth subdivided into (sometimes as many as 4) flats a car outside each building is not inconsistent with 40% household car ownership.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> of course, some of them could also be cars owned by people living on main roads that don't have on street parking directly.  Regardless, with many properties in Lambeth subdivided into (sometimes as many as 4) flats a car outside each building is not inconsistent with 40% household car ownership.


It’s unlikely. if they have residents permits they will have parking on their road and further inside the LTN. But the roads have always be Chicago with owner car storage.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Possibly due to its similarities to the other. Redundant.


That’s strange as the Association of British Drivers* were backing it.

*Climate change denialists that they are.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Everyone residential road in RailtonLTN is number to bumper to bumper cars. Brixton end too!Insude  LTN grids have high car ownership. You only need to look at them parked, admittedly they could be ‘overnight guests’ lots of them.


You mean the Poet’s Corner streets? The many houses divided into up to four flats, plus all the houses on Dulwich Road which are also flats?


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> of course, some of them could also be cars owned by people living on main roads that don't have on street parking directly.  Regardless, with many properties in Lambeth subdivided into (sometimes as many as 4) flats a car outside each building is not inconsistent with 40% household car ownership.


LTN are not places of low car ownership. The value of average properties within will also be an indicator of increased car ownership.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> You mean the Poet’s Corner streets? The many houses divided into up to four flats, plus all the houses on Dulwich Road which are also flats?


You think the houses on poets corner are divided into 4 flats a piece? They are not. But we could find out? Also which of those folks own cars?


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> That’s strange as the Association of British Drivers* were backing it.
> 
> *Climate change denialists that they are.


IDK one I believe all signatories have received a written response. Not sure about cancelled one.


----------



## Brassed off (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> It’s unlikely. if they have residents permits they will have parking on their road and further inside the LTN. But the roads have always be Chicago with owner car storage.


*Chocca


----------



## wurlycurly (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> *Chocca




*Chocka


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2020)

Let's see whether there are many flats in, say, this postcode:













						Interesting Information for Shakespeare Road, Lambeth, London, SE24 0LA Postcode
					

View information about Shakespeare Road, Lambeth, London, SE240LA postcode, including population, age, housing, relationships, broadband, religion and employment




					www.streetcheck.co.uk


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 28, 2020)

There's loads of parking space around the Railton rd ltn. Loads.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> LTN are not places of low car ownership. The value of average properties within will also be an indicator of increased car ownership.


Tell the LB of Hackney as they’ve got one of the biggest pan borough schemes on London.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> You think the houses on poets corner are divided into 4 flats a piece? They are not. But we could find out? Also which of those folks own cars?



I said some. I’ve lived in at least 4 flats in those streets and the ones towards Dalberg / Saltoun.

And the post above shows that almost 50% are flats.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 28, 2020)

Not sure who is arguing what but Shakespeare Road residents made up 18% of the 438 who replied to local Railton LTN questionnaire. So 79 people. 
Of those 65% owned (rather than access to) a car van or motorbike.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 28, 2020)

It's a really bizarre hill to die on this.  Car ownership in Lambeth _is_ low - around 40% borough wide, lower in the north, higher in the south but not by much.  Census is 2011 but there regular surveys from TfL since that show there has been no significant change in level of car ownership.  Pretty much all of Lambeth's streets of terraced housing have a high proportion converted into flats - enough that Lambeth has had policies trying to stop any more conversions happening once a threshold was reached to try to retain some diversity in the type of housing  - and have a mixed set of residents. (https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Housing_Residential_Conversions_Study_Final Report2.pdf see the map)

I don't even know what point is trying to be made?  The objective of the LTNs is to discourage driving short trips by car and to cut rat running to enable more walking and cycling.  If car ownership on one street is a bit higher than average for the borough or a bit lower so what? are you saying they have cars so they should be allowed to drive more? or that there should be extra road closures to make it more difficult for them to drive?

You can probably find a small group of houses on Shakespeare Road south if you draw a very specific boundary that are still all houses and all own big fuck off wankpanzers.  So? they can't drive through the filters - they can't drive the shortest way to Brixton or towards Loughborough Junction. 

I'm all for on street parking to be made more expensive but then you need to deal with off street parking as well (lots of that in the council properties on the north end of Shakespeare Road) so trying to reduce car _ownership_ through parking alone is difficult.  there are more bike hangers appearing which must be reducing the number of spaces (lets have more that) and maybe increase the costs (though Lambeth is already a lot higher than some boroughs and they're not allowed to run it for a profit Charging for parking – and for other services and set charges really high)

Really you want to discourage _use_. and making short trips by car a bit less convenient seems a good way of doing in that. Some sort of smart charging would be better but you still wouldn't want Railton Road to be a busy racetrack again if you're tying to get people to walk and cycle more.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 28, 2020)

Brassed off said:


> Possibly due to its similarities to the other. Redundant.


Most likely due to the reasons stated -= Petition: Remove guidance and funding for temporary traffic measures that cause congestion

_The Government is committed to delivering a step change in levels of active travel. We know the majority of people support giving more road space to cycling and walking in their local area.
Local authorities have a duty to manage their roads for the benefit of all traffic, including cyclists and pedestrians. The more people that cycle and walk, the more road space is freed up for those who really need to drive. Encouraging more cycling and walking is a key part of the Government’s efforts to reduce harmful emissions from transport, as well as to help make people healthier.
The Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) was announced on 9 May and included £225 million of funding for local authorities in England. The first tranche focused on temporary changes such as pop-up cycle lanes and widened pavements, to enable social distancing and encourage active travel while public transport capacity is constrained. 
Alongside the funding, the Government published additional Network Management Duty guidance. This clearly set out what the Government expects of local authorities in making changes to their road layouts to encourage cycling and walking to support a green recovery. Low-traffic neighbourhoods, school streets, and cycle facilities are some of the measures listed._


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 28, 2020)

I was helping a couple of my van driver mates today.

For them the suddent increase of LTNs across central London/ 24 hour red route buse lanes is causing them a lot of problems. Inreasing time to get to jobs and deliver. They are paid per job not per hour. They get paid for loading and unloading time but don't get paid extra if stuck in traffic.

That is how it works in delivery industry.

One yesterday was going on to me about how he blamed it on Khan.

I did try to explain to him this "revolution" in transport was coming from Shapps and this right wing Tory government. They hate the fact that people like him vote Labour and are using pandemic to give people like him a hard time. That in order to get government support for TFL this right wing Tory government was making inner London Labour Councils/ TFL/ Khan do this as part of the bailout for TFL.

This kind of bailout with conditios didn't apply for other business. At the behest of central government TFL continued to provide a service during lockdown. 

Its hard argument to make as this right wing government is using this to undermine a Labour run London.

It is working. LTNs etc are being blamed in London on Labour party. Which is what my van driver mates normally vote for.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2020)

Well - the question is, should the way that Amazon etc pay their drivers determine how we plan our cities, or should it be that we plan cities for the benefit of those who live in them, and have the delivery companies adapt their distribution and pay systems to suit?

I do get it that it must be difficult for those on the sharp end of things right now, working doing deliveries (although, I suspect that even without the LTNs we'd still be looking at congestion and delay at the moment). I don't have any great suggestions as to how to deal with the short-medium term problem of delivery drivers' pay not being adjusted in line with any change in the reality of delivery times. But in the longer term, if it's true that the various changes to the road system makes doing these delivery runs a lot slower, then the delivery companies _will_ adapt their systems. That might mean a price differential between "delivered to your door" and "delivered to local hub". For example.

Whether it's being introduced by Kahn or forced by central government only really matters if you don't agree in principle with the changes, doesn't it? If you are critically supportive of the schemes then I don't see why you need to get caught up in arguments about who is to "blame". Argue on the merits of the policies - if you actually believe in them.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2020)

From One Lambeth:



> Thank you again to everyone who has contributed to funds to pay for the legal advice which cost £5340 and continued to contribute to the current crowdfund which finishes running in a week or so.
> 
> We have received back the legal advice from our appointed legal team and essentially we have a strong case to challenge all the ETOs under as single court application. This has to be done by Statutory Review which is the normal procedure for challenging Traffic Orders. Unlike Judicial Review this is NOT amenable to Legal Aid so we need to continue to raise funds:
> 
> ...


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 29, 2020)

One moment home deliveries are the root of all evil, responsible for the growth in traffic, the next they're working class heroes who need their livlihoods protected. 

I fondly recall the fight against London sewers lest it put the gong farmers out of work.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I was helping a couple of my van driver mates today.
> 
> For them the suddent increase of LTNs across central London/ 24 hour red route buse lanes is causing them a lot of problems. Inreasing time to get to jobs and deliver. They are paid per job not per hour. They get paid for loading and unloading time but don't get paid extra if stuck in traffic.



It's the same for every plumber, electrician and any other profession that rely on getting to jobs. You thought it was bad getting one to come on time before - try now!!! If they come at all!!

I had a leaky radiator fixed - plumber had to push it back the next day as he just cant get to see the same number of people in a day. He said many are stopping their 'no job too small' attitude and focusing on bigger jobs only to stay alive (and he only came to see me as i've used him for 10+ years)


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 29, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Well - the question is, should the way that Amazon etc pay their drivers determine how we plan our cities, or should it be that we plan cities for the benefit of those who live in them, and have the delivery companies adapt their distribution and pay systems to suit?
> 
> I do get it that it must be difficult for those on the sharp end of things right now, working doing deliveries (although, I suspect that even without the LTNs we'd still be looking at congestion and delay at the moment). I don't have any great suggestions as to how to deal with the short-medium term problem of delivery drivers' pay not being adjusted in line with any change in the reality of delivery times. But in the longer term, if it's true that the various changes to the road system makes doing these delivery runs a lot slower, then the delivery companies _will_ adapt their systems. That might mean a price differential between "delivered to your door" and "delivered to local hub". For example.
> 
> Whether it's being introduced by Kahn or forced by central government only really matters if you don't agree in principle with the changes, doesn't it? If you are critically supportive of the schemes then I don't see why you need to get caught up in arguments about who is to "blame". Argue on the merits of the policies - if you actually believe in them.



The way delivery companies work means pay systems are bottom of list of their priorities.

They will adapt but it will not be in interest of the drivers. Who are expendable.

Given the way the LTNs have been suddenly brought in delivery companies and drivers have not had time to plan ahead and adjust.

For example some drivers I know had been able to plan ahead and replace their old vehicle for ULEZ compliant one. As timetable for this was brought in.

(Not all as its not cheap)

Drivers I now are struggling anyway without having this to deal with. This is sudden change and looks to me no one is interested in what they think. I thought they were "key workers". Perhaps not.

What I hadn't realised is that LTNs / changes to bus lane times etc have been brought in across whole sections of London. And not just central London.

My chat a few days ago was to point out the one to blame is Boris and the Tories not Khan.

From my chats looks like large vans ( Lutons and long wheel base transits) still have a place. Electric versions are coming in but are to expensive for the average van driver.

Small van drivers have uncertain future. Given what is happening in City some delivery companies are investing in electric cargo bikes. So small van drivers might be out of a job. So tough luck for them. Bonus for delivery companies is that they can pay cargo bike riders less.

That is the dog eat dog world of work.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 29, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> One moment home deliveries are the root of all evil, responsible for the growth in traffic, the next they're working class heroes who need their livlihoods protected.
> 
> I fondly recall the fight against London sewers lest it put the gong farmers out of work.



I thought they were Key Workers keeping the country going during these difficult times.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The way delivery companies work means pay systems are bottom of list of their priorities.
> 
> They will adapt but it will not be in interest of the drivers. Who are expendable.
> 
> ...



you can see little Amazon hubs appearing in industrial estates everywhere for bike riders to do pick ups


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 29, 2020)

alex_ said:


> you can see little Amazon hubs appearing in industrial estates everywhere for bike riders to do pick ups



Yes they are doing it in the City. Looks like they are using pandemic to test it out.  One load of workers are no longer needed to be replaced with different lot

I think Amazon are going to replace their transit drivers with these new massive electric cargo bikes.

Capitalism can be surprisingly adaptable. It does this with heavy dose of ruthlessness.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It's the same for every plumber, electrician and any other profession that rely on getting to jobs. You thought it was bad getting one to come on time before - try now!!! If they come at all!


I’ve had to wait three weeks to get my boiler serviced as they are so busy, cos it’s that time of year. I get a slot that’s a whole day long, what is this showing up on time thing, has a builder etc ever actually done that ever?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> That is the dog eat dog world of work.



Look at it the other way around: if the streets were suddenly made entirely clear of congestion, so that delivery drivers could make twice as many deliveries per day as before, would the companies continue to pay them twice as much as before? No, because after a while it would settle back to whatever the minimum is that they can get away with paying the drivers - and that will be based on time, not number of deliveries. So, the same will happen if it turns out to be a long term effect that delivery rounds take longer: the pay will settle to a new regime where it's a bit more per delivery, but a delivery driver will on average be able to earn the same sort of amount per day.

I do recognise, like I said above, that this will mean a period of re-adjustment that the drivers will be at the sharp end of.

The other effect might be a tendency to use fewer, slightly larger vehicles, and yes maybe even cargo bikes in some locations. You allude to both of those effects yourself. And that might mean there are slightly fewer delivery drivers employed overall. That's not good for delivery drivers - naturally - but in the long term its the better for the city, isn't it? Fewer motorised vehicles on the road.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 29, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Look at it the other way around: if the streets were suddenly made entirely clear of congestion, so that delivery drivers could make twice as many deliveries per day as before, would the companies continue to pay them twice as much as before? No, because after a while it would settle back to whatever the minimum is that they can get away with paying the drivers - and that will be based on time, not number of deliveries. So, the same will happen if it turns out to be a long term effect that delivery rounds take longer: the pay will settle to a new regime where it's a bit more per delivery, but a delivery driver will on average be able to earn the same sort of amount per day.
> 
> I do recognise, like I said above, that this will mean a period of re-adjustment that the drivers will be at the sharp end of.
> 
> The other effect might be a tendency to use fewer, slightly larger vehicles, and yes maybe even cargo bikes in some locations. You allude to both of those effects yourself. And that might mean there are slightly fewer delivery drivers employed overall. That's not good for delivery drivers - naturally - but in the long term its the better for the city, isn't it? Fewer motorised vehicles on the road.



Thing is Im posting up what I see happening now  On a personal level with people I know. And it does not look good.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Thing is Im posting up what I see happening now  On a personal level with people I know. And it does not look good.


Sure.

But I wonder how things would have looked right now, if none of these road changes had been made? Do you think they would be much better?

I don't think it's outlandish to suggest that the bit of extra capacity that would have been available would simply have been filled up and there would still be congestion. And no extra space for those who want to try and cycle and walk.

Is there any evidence of things improving significantly in Wandsworth since they abandoned all their LTNs?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Is there any evidence of things improving significantly in Wandsworth since they abandoned all their LTNs?



About a hundred videos of people showing before the LTN and after the LTN. Empty, free flowing roads with no congestion.

It's rich asking for evidence when none was collated before these things were put in


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 30, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> About a hundred videos of people showing before the LTN and after the LTN. Empty, free flowing roads with no congestion.
> 
> It's rich asking for evidence when none was collated before these things were put in


105 pages and that's the funniest thing anyones posted on this thread yet.....congratulations
Google Maps currently showing congestion on both the main roads and the roads within the LTNs they ripped out. Look at all those orange and red sections on minor roads that should not have any through traffic.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 30, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> 105 pages and that's the funniest thing anyones posted on this thread yet.....congratulations
> Google Maps currently showing congestion on both the main roads and the roads within the LTNs they ripped out. Look at all those orange and red sections on minor roads that should not have any through traffic.
> View attachment 236633



They still have restrictions with regards to the A24 which is exactly what you are highlighting.

Still 100x better than it was. point still stands though............how can you tell it's better or worse than before because they didn't measure, they just threw in?


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 30, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> They still have restrictions with regards to the A24 which is exactly what you are highlighting.
> Still 100x better than it was. point still stands though............how can you tell it's better or worse than before because they didn't measure, they just threw in?



Ok - so there are some banned turns and a cycleway that had parking in it off peak now has parking removed and wand protected cycle lane.  Banned turns should in many case improve traffic flow (as right turns across traffic create delays). Heres a typical section of the A24 through Tooting.  It was always a single lane in each direction which it still is now, except the blue paint now has some wands to keep drivers out of it.




The reports I've seen say that the main roads are just as congested as they were before and now the minor roads are full of traffic too (which they weren't during the few weeks of LTN).

now I know mine is just as anecdotal as yours but how are you evidencing your "100x better than it was", and how you know it wasn't measured - there will have been traffic counts for the major roads at the very least.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 30, 2020)

All evidence is going to be anecdotal without measurement and they requested traffic counts for this reason. Wandsworth had a handful relating to 20mph limits and a road closure relating to earlsfield. Thats it.

I head that way twice a week at most and the difference is night and day. The fact the OneWandsworth group is quieter and was/is filled with then&now shots showing better roads is evidence in itself vs a google map picture.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 30, 2020)

I just had a look at the One Wadsworth twitter and it still seems to be full of videos of traffic jams and allegedly stuck ambulances. But now it's the cycle lane wands that are causing it.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 30, 2020)

Not just allegedly - someone posted a vid from inside an ambulance trying to get down the A24. Cars have few places to move out of the way. Emergency crews are even sharing the misery online. Hopefully anonymously.


----------



## Gramsci (Oct 30, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Sure.
> 
> But I wonder how things would have looked right now, if none of these road changes had been made? Do you think they would be much better?
> 
> ...




As Im on the roads all day and know a lot of people who work on the roads providing a service for other people thought Id post what I have been hearing from the horses mouth so to speak,


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 30, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> As Im on the roads all day and know a lot of people who work on the roads providing a service for other people thought Id post what I have been hearing from the horses mouth so to speak,



Gramsci , you are probably showing too much empathy on this thread. I have seen posts here mostly by the backrow that are almost Victorian in their attitude to the grubby working classes, plumbers and ‘gong farmers for example which is one reason why I find myself here less and less.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2020)

One Lambeth now trying to raise at least £30,000 for legal action.

It looks like they have so far spent about £6500, with about £2000 crowdfunded and £4000 from "private donations".



> URGENT LAMBETH LEGAL ACTION FUNDRAISING
> 
> https://www.gofundme.com/f/OneLambeth
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> One Lambeth now trying to raise at least £30,000 for legal action.
> 
> It looks like they have so far spent about £6500, with about £2000 crowdfunded and £4000 from "private donations".


how do you differentiate between crowdfunding and private donations?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> how do you differentiate between crowdfunding and private donations?


You'd have to ask them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> You'd have to ask them.


What, they know how you differentiate between the two?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> What, they know how you differentiate between the two?


Are you pretending not to understand the function of scare quotes?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Are you pretending not to understand the function of scare quotes?


i am asking you what you consider the differences between the two to be. do you not understand simple questions?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i am asking you what you consider the differences between the two to be. do you not understand simple questions?


I think it's unclear, as both are imprecise definitions and indeed either one could potentially be considered a subset of the other.

In an attempt to prevent the discussion on this thread from being further disrupted by your enquiries, I will respond to further queries on the "thread for actual pedants".


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think it's unclear, as both are imprecise definitions and indeed either one could potentially be considered a subset of the other.
> 
> In an attempt to prevent the discussion on this thread from being further disrupted by your enquiries, I will respond to further queries on the "thread for actual pedants".


perhaps you need to pay better attention to what 1L are saying as they don't seem to differentiate between crowdfunding and private donations

they say their current crowdfund has raised around £2k. it's perfectly possible the private donations they mention are the private donations they have received through earlier crowdfunding. they seem to have used paypal in extremis but appear to prefer gofundme to pp.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 2, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you need to pay better attention to what 1L are saying as they don't seem to differentiate between crowdfunding and private donations
> 
> they say their current crowdfund has raised around £2k. it's perfectly possible the private donations they mention are the private donations they have received through earlier crowdfunding. they seem to have used paypal in extremis but appear to prefer gofundme to pp.


Many things are perfectly possible. If you seek clarification on their ambiguous wording you need to pester them rather than me.


----------



## Not a Vet (Nov 2, 2020)

teuchter said:


> One Lambeth now trying to raise at least £30,000 for legal action.
> 
> It looks like they have so far spent about £6500, with about £2000 crowdfunded and £4000 from "private donations".


£380 raised so far. We want to stop the LTNs, ok give us £30k, suddenly not so keen. Thirty grand could be used so much more effectively in the community rather than paying for expensive lawyers and costs if you lose


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 2, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> £380 raised so far. We want to stop the LTNs, ok give us £30k, suddenly not so keen. Thirty grand could be used so much more effectively in the community rather than paying for expensive lawyers and costs if you lose


You think it’s going on lawyers?. All that astroturfing doesn’t pay for itself...


----------



## alex_ (Nov 3, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> You think it’s going on lawyers?. All that astroturfing doesn’t pay for itself...



Efforts this organic and natural looking don’t come for free...


----------



## teuchter (Nov 3, 2020)

Have Your Say Transport for London
					

Stay informed by joining Have Your Say Transport for London



					consultations.tfl.gov.uk
				




This consultation is for TfL's "streetspace" schemes rather than the LTNs.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2020)

Councillor Tim Briggs again.









						Tim Briggs: The Left are using Low Traffic Neighbourhoods to bring local businesses to a halt | Conservative Home
					

In an open society, people and businesses have the freedom to move around; to take advantage of opportunity.




					www.conservativehome.com
				




Here's the best bit



> The knock-on effect of imposing more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods is circular, because people then want more Low Traffic Neighbourhoods to protect their own areas from increased traffic. Yet if a Council made every non-main road a Low Traffic Neighbourhood, food supplies in London would be disrupted, and law and order would quickly break down.



and also



> When Wandsworth cancels its LTNs, it allows people and capital to flow again. That enables wealth to carry on being created at the same rate, and for individuals and business to be connected as wealth creators, and as consumers of goods and services, at lower cost. Meanwhile Lambeth, with its gridlocked roads and struggling businesses, can only become poorer and more closed off for as long as badly-implemented LTNs are kept in place.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 5, 2020)

I was chatting to a Poet's corner couple the other day. Husband is a huge fan of the LTN as the street is quieter. He cycled before but finds it more pleasant now. Wife says she won't use Railton Road after dark anymore by foot or bike because it feels deserted and unsafe. She is using the car more for short trips after dark.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 5, 2020)

Strange as I find Railton Rd is now busier with pedestrians and cyclists than it was before - even after dark and doesn’t (for me) feel less safe.

The only current threat I see is One Lambeth fb posters I can recognise driving through the gates, and tail gating me when I’m cycling.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2020)

I only just discovered that you can plot air pollution records here:





__





						London Air Quality Network :: Welcome to the London Air Quality Network » Statistics Maps
					

London Air Quality Network :: the comprehensive source of information about air pollution in London




					www.londonair.org.uk
				




There's a lot of people claiming that the LTNs have increased congestion on main roads, and that this in turn has led to a surge in air pollution levels along those main roads.

My first response to that is that we don't know the contribution of LTNs to congestion. And I'm not sure if the increase in congestion is really as stark as is claimed (it might be - I don't know).

But, there is an air monitoring site on Brixton Road (I think this is the one that famously recorded the worst in London, or Europe, or something?) and there is one at Streatham Green. Both of them on main roads where there have been reports of increasing congestion. I graphed each of them from this time last year, up until now.

Here is Brixton Road:


And here is Streatham Green:



I should be a bit cautious interpreting them because I'm not an expert in this.

But the way it looks to me, they both record an improvement through lockdown, and then a gradual increase afterwards. In both cases, it appears to be a return to something similar to the levels we saw in November last year, pre Covid and pre LTNs. I don't see any evidence of things being worse. I don't see any out-of-the ordinary spikes.

In fact, I realise I need to do some reading on the connection between congestion and air pollution. If you read One Lambeth, etc, it seems to be taken for granted that traffic jams = more pollution. Is that true, especially now with start-stop engines? A traffic jam means a very low number of vehicles passing any location per hour. Is a constant stream of very slowly moving traffic worse than a constant stream of faster traffic? In either case the road is constantly occupied by vehicles creating emissions. The obvious improvement might be to reduce the amount of road that can be filled with those vehicles, might it not?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2020)

Here's a three-year period for comparison.

Interestingly these reveal a regular, big summer/winter difference. I think you can still see a quite strong "lockdown effect" in the Brixton Road one (top) but not so much in the Streatham Green one.

Brixton Road data unfortunately seems to have a gap in it.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 5, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Strange as I find Railton Rd is now busier with pedestrians and cyclists than it was before - even after dark and doesn’t (for me) feel less safe.
> 
> The only current threat I see is One Lambeth fb posters I can recognise driving through the gates, and tail gating me when I’m cycling.



Not sure it's what I'd call strange. I agreed with her that Railton feels deserted a lot of the time but agree with you that it does not make me feel unsafe. So there is another take!  

I have a friend who asks me to stand in the street and watch them walk/cycle at night past the building you live in, to make sure they reach the main road safely. I don't feel uncomfortable like that and I'm guessing you don't. But they do. Is that strange?

I didn't find cycling on Railton Road problematic  before the LTN (and even less so on St Matthews Road) - yet apparently most other people were put off riding bikes altogether by the murderous traffic. So many different perceptions! 



I do find the obsession of some with the One FB page is a little strange! But then I've not seen it myself so perhaps I should reserve judgment.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 5, 2020)

It's not really strange, it's quite common I think, a perception that on a road with no traffic on it you are more at risk of attack.

I don't think it's really something that's supported by any evidence, and also, I think you are actually more likely to be assaulted if you're a man. And pedestrians are at most risk of being hit by a car in the hours of darkness.

That doesn't really matter though; it's a perception and it affects people's behaviour and choices. How to deal with it is difficult.


----------



## Mld (Nov 6, 2020)

These LTNs have been a complete disaster. Poorly implemented.

The one on Railton Road, all that's seems to have done is just cause a backlog of traffic along Coldharbour Lane.

Regularly see people just going through the no entry anyway. Really, what's the point? Is there any evidence this will reduce pollution? All I've seen is frustration for people living in Brixton!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 7, 2020)

Atlantic road is closed for repairs to the railway viaduct. It's not part of any of the LTNs.


----------



## Mld (Nov 7, 2020)

Oops, meant Railton


----------



## nick (Nov 10, 2020)

repeated from Tulse Hill thread:
Lambeth comms arrive
Streatham Hill LTN will be enforced from *12 Nov* onwards - Toll for taking a shortcut will be £130 one way

6mth ETO with consultation period started 26 Oct. You can vent or applaud here: Streatham Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood


----------



## Rushy (Nov 10, 2020)

nick said:


> repeated from Tulse Hill thread:
> Lambeth comms arrive
> Streatham Hill LTN will be enforced from *12 Nov* onwards - Toll for taking a shortcut will be £130 one way
> 
> 6mth ETO with consultation period started 26 Oct. You can vent or applaud here: Streatham Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood


They said it would start June in St Matthew's Road and on Railton. Most gates still have no cameras so enforcement is sporadic at best. Consultation period still not started apparently. Or maybe it has now and will be usual Lambeth consultation which they notify people of the day after it ends. Who knows.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2020)

nick said:


> repeated from Tulse Hill thread:
> Lambeth comms arrive
> Streatham Hill LTN will be enforced from *12 Nov* onwards - Toll for taking a shortcut will be £130 one way
> 
> 6mth ETO with consultation period started 26 Oct. You can vent or applaud here: Streatham Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood


First few thoughts posted on One Lambeth:

_this is made to make money
--obviously. Nothing else.
--I've heard some boroughs have raked in nearly 400,000 in fines already. It's basically a quicker way than upping council tax. I'm hoping they get rid of it but I think they want to make money first before they do

Anything to make money.

It’s an absolute joke!!.. Helping me to walk and cycle?...NO!! Your trying to force us to do this..I don’t want to walk or cycle..I want to be able to drive my car after all that’s what I pay ROAD tax for isn’t it? I am sick to my back teeth of this s**t show!_


----------



## Not a Vet (Nov 10, 2020)

teuchter said:


> First few thoughts posted on One Lambeth:
> 
> _this is made to make money
> --obviously. Nothing else.
> ...


So fairly positive response


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> So fairly positive response


It seems like they just want the scheme to be totally scrapped altogether, but other than that particular detail, they are totally on board with the principles and fully behind the broader aims. If only their views had been taken on board at the planning stage, these things could have gone ahead without acrimony.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2020)

It's clear that Lambeth have been wasting taxpayers' money on the most expensive photoshop experts they could find.











						What is changing? Details of the temporay scheme
					

See an overview map of what is changing in the Streatham Hill Area.




					streathamhilllowtrafficneighbourhoodproposals.commonplace.is


----------



## Jesterburger (Nov 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> _Anything to make money._



If only there was some way of avoiding the fines


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 11, 2020)

Jesterburger said:


> If only there was some way of avoiding the fines


It does seem strange to me that many objections to the LTN's I read are about how they are just a money making exercise for Lambeth. Surely if you don't want Lambeth to take your money in a fine, then just comply with the new changes and don't drive through a no entry sign. Or alternatively, look at it as a good way for Lambeth to try and claw back some money during a financially difficult time.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 11, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> about how they are just a money making exercise



Same response comes for red light/bus lane/speeding cameras.  Amazing how many motorists admit to either being habitual lawbreakers or so inattentive they never see signs (or that despite supposedly being trained, skilled, licensed drivers that they don't know what a no-motor-vehicles sign means or are unable to control the speed of their vehicle).

The DVLA address for you to return your licence is on their website.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 11, 2020)

Meanwhile the Daily Mail and Daily Express report on a group of "Tory backbenchers" delivering a letter calling for the LTNs and other measures to be scrapped

(I'll link instead to a report here)

This is organised by Fair Fuel UK.

A look at their website tells you how much interest they have in reducing pollution and congestion or increasing road safety.

They don't want anything that tries to reduce traffic. Instead they seem to believe in some kind of magic potion that can be added to petrol and diesel to lower emissions and increase efficiency:






						Emissions-Solutions
					

We are a public affairs team with no shareholders to satisfy, just an award winning campaign representing the real concerns of hard working motorists, families, small businesses, commercial drivers and hauliers across the UK. Decades of fiscal exploitation by successive Governments with little...




					www.fairfueluk.com
				




(As far as I can make out this is basically complete nonsense - no such additives, with any evidence of efficacy, exist)


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 11, 2020)

Fair Fuel is a bloke from chiselhurst who likes driving his car. I think he got involved in the Loughborough anti group. 

It’s the same people as the association of British drivers -climate change denialisms and ‘war on motorists’ guff.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 11, 2020)

The tone of OneLambeth fb page


----------



## Jesterburger (Nov 11, 2020)

Thanks to Fair Fuel's successful lobbying to keep petrol duty down, petrol is cheaper now than it was in 2011, and cheaper in real terms than it was in 1983

Petrol Prices 

But still motorists moan about used as cash cows.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 11, 2020)

Three new LTNs proposed for Southwark with backing from Guys and St Thomas charity.






						3 New Low Traffic Neighbourhoods – Southwark Cyclists
					






					southwarkcyclists.org.uk


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2020)

The dark side of LTNs. Millionaire property developers wanting road closures to increase the desirability and profitability of their empires


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 12, 2020)

editor said:


> The dark side of LTNs. Millionaire property developers wanting road closures to increase the desirability and profitability of their empires



He'll be waiting a LONG time - Coldharbour is classified as an A road, so not likely to be part of an LTN. Sorry Jezzer!


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 12, 2020)

editor said:


> The dark side of LTNs. Millionaire property developers wanting road closures to increase the desirability and profitability of their empires




🤬 he’s got a image of rectory gardens as his profile cover  pic 🤬


----------



## teuchter (Nov 12, 2020)

Coldharbour Lane unlikely ever to be within an LTN - however, those of us who have faith in the longer term effects of a progressive, city-wide adoption of LTNs alongside a gradual re-allocation of space on London's "main" roads, would hope that we will in time reach a point where traffic levels on Coldharbour Lane become lower than they are today.

That's only if these policies aren't scuppered though. If the anti brigade get their way, then we can all look forward to traffic on Coldharbour Lane getting worse and worse.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 12, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> 🤬 he’s got a image of rectory gardens as his profile cover  pic 🤬


Whats the significance of Rectory Gardens?


----------



## cuppa tee (Nov 12, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Whats the significance of Rectory Gardens?



well there’s this.....


			Rectory Gardens | The Spectacle Blog
		

.....and then there’s this....


			Rectory Grove


----------



## editor (Nov 12, 2020)

cuppa tee said:


> well there’s this.....
> 
> 
> Rectory Gardens | The Spectacle Blog
> ...


Jerry Knight really is a vile cunt. Pure tory landlord capitalist, giving nothing back to the community. Thing is, he never even looks happy, despite the millions he wrenched out of expensive rents.



			Lexadon Acquires Rectory Grove and Rectory Gardens


----------



## RoyReed (Nov 12, 2020)

I don't live near this area, but I just received this in an email from Lambeth.



> Don't get fined for driving into or out of the Streatham Hill low traffic neighbourhood.
> 
> Since the LTN was introduced in August, we have been monitoring the road closures and listening to your feedback. At first, we did not issue fines to people who passed through the closures as we know that it takes everyone some time to get used to new road changes.
> Streatham LTN no motor sign
> ...



This is the attached map.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 13, 2020)

Local councils advised to push ahead with traffic reduction schemes
					

UK government says plans helping people to walk and cycle should not be derailed by minority of noisy dissidents




					www.theguardian.com
				




Second lot of funding from Gov to implement more LTNs. Calls for better consultation this time round. I really hope this is the start of something big and the next step is to address the areas in between.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2020)

They are going to go into meltdown over on One Lambeth when they see that.


----------



## Winot (Nov 13, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Local councils advised to push ahead with traffic reduction schemes
> 
> 
> UK government says plans helping people to walk and cycle should not be derailed by minority of noisy dissidents
> ...



Sensible stuff:


consult better but don’t just listen to loudest voices
let changes bed in for 6-12 months before reaching conclusions


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2020)

I remain surprised they are pushing ahead with this, because (although it's all in their manifesto) I'd have thought it's the sort of thing that really wouldn't be popular with conservative voters. At least at a local level with councils, the tory led Wandsworth have dumped their schemes and the lone tory Lambeth councillor is very vocal in his opposition.

But have they done their research and found that these things really are more popular than it might appear - even amongst conservative voters?


----------



## Rushy (Nov 13, 2020)

Winot said:


> Sensible stuff:
> 
> 
> consult better but don’t just listen to loudest voices
> let changes bed in for 6-12 months before reaching conclusions



Interesting that you think "prior consultation and proper engagement" required by Shapps is  sensible. Anyone who has suggested it on here has been treated quite obnoxiously and had their motives doubted. Gramsci 

Important that "not just listening to the loudest voices" is not confused with "not listening to the loudest voices". Some voices have had to be loud and without nuance because they are not given privileged, cosy, across-the-desk and pick-up-the-phone access to people running the schemes like small cyclist groups are. 

I am repeatedly disappointed by the behaviour of some of those given such privileged access. It is as ugly as the behaviour of the more extreme One posters gleefully and pathetically reposted on here. Hopefully the time for these divisive, angry individuals is up and they will go the way of Dominic Cummings.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 13, 2020)

I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.

I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.

There's quite clearly different views on what proper consultation and engagement should mean. My impression is that Gramsci for example would like some kind of system where you have a vote among local residents or similar and some neighbourhoods will vote to have an LTN and some won't. I don't agree with that - I believe more in what some people might call top-down policy making, because especially for something like transport in London, you need to have something that is coherent across the whole city. We have right now (which is perhaps a little unprecedented) the combination of a council, a mayor's office, and central government who have all been voted in on manifestos that explicitly include measures to deal with excessive road traffic and encourage changes in transport habits.

For me that's the starting point, and consultation should be about finding the most effective way to achieve these aims which makes the most of local knowledge, and does everything possible to mitigate against the inevitable negative effects that will be seen by some people - accepting that there will be some that can't be entirely avoided without completely negating the aims of the interventions. I don't think I'm the only one here who would broadly take that view of what consultation should be - and I haven't seen anyone trying to say that this is what Lambeth are succeeding in doing. So, I don't see the implied inconsistency in saying that better consultation is "sensible".

I think you're oversimplifying the argument to some kind of thing where some people think "consultation" is unecessary and pointless. No, the disagreement is more about what, exactly, "consultation" should be.

I joined the One Lambeth facebook group to see to what extent it was the case that they were being misrepresented - that in fact it was really just a group of people who want better consultation, greater input from local insight and so on. Well, it's not. I've been reading it for several weeks now - it's overwhelmingly a group of people who simply don't want the LTNs at all, and they don't want the TfL reallocation of road space, at all. There is zero discussion on there of any kind of halfway house or compromise, or modified version of the scheme. These groups are the "loud voices" who are presenting petitions and crowdfunding legal action.

Dismissing groups like One Lambeth doesn't mean dismissing any concerns and problems that people have with the impacts of LTNs or other schemes. Where are the voices of those who genuinely support the broad aims, but want to raise their concerns and make constructive suggestions about modifications to the changes that are being made to London's roads? I think they are being drowned out by the "loudest voices". I only really see them being expressed here, and I think that when they are expressed here they are engaged with for the most part entirely unobnoxiously.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.
> 
> I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.
> 
> ...



 Here is what Winot said in post 402 on consultation:



> Frankly I am tired of decades of mealy-mouthed inaction and consultations that slow down progress. Fuck it - a revolution is needed.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.
> 
> I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.
> 
> ...



Actually Im going with what the Council first said about the Liveable Neighbourhood. This is a thread about that subject.

Council at meeting I attended pre Covid said they would not go ahead with a Liveable Neighborhood without a lot of consultation and building up support.

Its not me that putting forward ideas. Im just reminding posters here what the Council were saying at the early stages of the Liveable Neighborhood.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.
> 
> I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.
> 
> ...



This central Government was voted in on election that was about Brexit. I don't think people voted Tory because they wanted LTNs. I didnt see it as issue at last election.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I really don't recall any instances on here where Winot has treated anyone suggesting prior consultation and proper engagement "obnoxiously". That seems unfair.
> 
> I would share the point of view that progress has been held back for many years by ineffectual "consultation" which results in design-by-committee interventions that are half-hearted and end up being virtually useless.
> 
> ...



You might believe in top down policy making. But this is supposed to be a Coop Council..


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 14, 2020)

Personally, I don't see how supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures)  is  supporting the working class. It's beyond me. 5 years ago in Loughborough Junction the council just caved in completely to the motorist. It was a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic  were ruled out of the discussion and the tiny changes ended up being motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.

A friend of mine lives in Walthamstow Mini Holland and basically stops rat runs.The council pushed it through despite opposition and it's been a big success. It's great to see that Lambeth are now delivering on their manifesto committment to making Lambeth a cycle and pedestrian friendly borough.

I'm with Gramsci on this basically.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2020)

Here's quite an interesting film from the 1970s when Amsterdam was going through a similar sort of conflict about transport priorities.



It may be a kind of propaganda film in the way it presents the story, but it's perhaps an illustration of the fact that change didn't come easy there either.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> 5 years ago in Loughborough Junction the council just caved in completely to the motorist. It was a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic  were ruled out of the discussion and the tiny changes ended up being motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.



Caved to the community, businesses, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency services and yes, motorists... but not just motorists. I am a resident, (rare) cyclist, motorist and many other boxes.

It sounded great and most were for it (well, those that heard about it). When it was implemented it was a nightmare and we turned up to the council meetings by the hundreds. I think the gent who led that campaign is now working with OneLambeth because hes been mentioned a few times. We can go around the houses all day for it needing time to bed in but it got worse, and worse and worse as the weeks went by.

They said they learned from it for these LTNs yet i'm seeing the same thing to a T.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 14, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Caved to the community, businesses, pedestrians, cyclists, emergency services and yes, motorists... but not just motorists. I am a resident, (rare) cyclist, motorist and many other boxes.
> 
> It sounded great and most were for it (well, those that heard about it). When it was implemented it was a nightmare and we turned up to the council meetings by the hundreds. I think the gent who led that campaign is now working with OneLambeth because hes been mentioned a few times. We can go around the houses all day for it needing time to bed in but it got worse, and worse and worse as the weeks went by.
> 
> They said they learned from it for these LTNs yet i'm seeing the same thing to a T.


Possibly what they learnt from LJ was not to cave in too early. I think they weren't braced for the level of vocal opposition. So far it appears they are holding their nerve and may be willing to give things enough time to settle before jumping to conclusions about long term effects. We'll see.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 14, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Possibly what they learnt from LJ was not to cave in too early. I think they weren't braced for the level of vocal opposition. So far it appears they are holding their nerve and may be willing to give things enough time to settle before jumping to conclusions about long term effects. We'll see.



I think you're right in that this is certainly something they have learned and also a point those in support of LTNs are very vocal about.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 15, 2020)

One of the lessons from LJ is thay if people kick up enough of a fuss then the Council will leave you alone.

Given that Lambeth is rolling out LTNs in large swathes of Lambeth its getting conspicious that LJ is being treated with kid gloves.

I sometimes feel Lambeth is like a bully. Will impose things on areas. If opposition goes quietly through all the correct channels your brushed aside. Or treated ( as one of my Cllrs does) as not "representative" of the local community.

If a local communiity vocally stands up to the playground bully it backs off.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 16, 2020)

A report saying that there's no evidence that the benefits of LTNs are gained disproportionately by the more wealthy









						Low-traffic schemes benefit everyone, not just better-off, finds study
					

Exclusive: authors find ‘no clear social equity problem related to low-traffic neighbourhoods’ after studying slew of projects sparked by Covid restrictions




					www.theguardian.com
				




(unfortunately the link to the report itself currently seems to be broken)


----------



## Rushy (Nov 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> A report saying that there's no evidence that the benefits of LTNs are gained disproportionately by the more wealthy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not a fan of every argument being reduced to poor vs wealthy. Hard to comment on the findings without a link. But I would have though that even if LTNs _overall _are found not to disproportionality benefit one group over another this will differ from one LTN to the next. Which again is why it is fine having top down approach but it needs to be accompanied by local level assessment and implementation - each application should be open to scrutiny (consultation) by the people affected by it.


----------



## blameless77 (Nov 16, 2020)

And this: 'I got it wrong. Since the changes it's become more vibrant': life in an LTN

So, even anti's are now starting to realise the positives (Railton specifically mentioned in this)


----------



## jimbarkanoodle (Nov 16, 2020)

There is one of these near me at the end of Concannon road. The signs have been ripped off the wooden flowerbeds and the wires powering the camera up the lampost cut.


----------



## editor (Nov 16, 2020)

Just putting this here 








						Mythbusters: eight common objections to LTNs – and why they are wrong
					

Low-traffic neighbourhoods have existed for decades but plans often spark fierce debate. We look at some of the biggest concerns




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## teuchter (Nov 16, 2020)

My observation is that the last several times (in the past 3 weeks or so) I have walked along Coldharbour Lane (LJ to Brixton stretch) I have not seen any significant backing up of traffic or anything very much different to "normal". This tends to be in the middle of the day rather than rush hour though.

Would it be fair to say that things there seem to be settling somewhat?


----------



## Winot (Nov 16, 2020)

teuchter said:


> My observation is that the last several times (in the past 3 weeks or so) I have walked along Coldharbour Lane (LJ to Brixton stretch) I have not seen any significant backing up of traffic or anything very much different to "normal". This tends to be in the middle of the day rather than rush hour though.
> 
> Would it be fair to say that things there seem to be settling somewhat?



Likewise, the congestion on Bedford Rd that followed the start of the Ferndale LTN has disappeared.


----------



## jimbarkanoodle (Nov 16, 2020)

Winot said:


> Likewise, the congestion on Bedford Rd that followed the start of the Ferndale LTN has disappeared.



Its still quite bad some evenings when im walking past.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 16, 2020)

jimbarkanoodle said:


> Its still quite bad some evenings when im walking past.


Needless to say, there have been long traffic queues on Bedford Road since long before the LTN went in.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 16, 2020)

blameless77 said:


> And this: 'I got it wrong. Since the changes it's become more vibrant': life in an LTN
> 
> So, even anti's are now starting to realise the positives (Railton specifically mentioned in this)



Yes its great stepforward. I can now get flowers deliverd to my door by a nice Lady on a cargo bike. Thanks to the LTN. Helpfully the Guardian gave a plug and photo for her business.



> Our customers are our top priority and we choose to work with only a few clients at one time to provide a truly personalised service



About

Guardian is a paper for the middle classes. That is the liberal middle class.


----------



## paolo (Nov 16, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> You might believe in top down policy making. But this is supposed to be a Coop Council..



Would you trust a local council, or a consultation, with policies such as seatbelts in cars, or smoking in enclosed public places? These are examples of policies that are not at all controversial now, but at the time were.

(FWIW I have very very little faith in Lambeth to implement _anything_ in a clearly defined and objective way. And at the same time I see the _idea_ of LTNs as being good, based on the studies I’ve seen. Both can be true, for me)


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 17, 2020)

editor said:


> Just putting this here
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not my words but copying from everyone's favourite place - Nextdoor about this article

" The article you link to is very poorly written and extremely unbalanced. I'm not going to fact check the whole article but quick responses numbering the so-called 'myths'  from 1 to 8: 

1. Virtually any road any _could_ be part of an LTN in principle so this argument is meaningless. It's clear that the recent LTNs have focused on through traffic in residential streets anyway. 
2. This point denies itself - roads are blocked, it's just that the author approves of some types of blocking and not others. 
3. The author actually agrees with this 'myth'! 
4. He acknowledges that some disabled people are disadvantaged, so no myth. 
5. So LTNs _have_ slowed down emergency services, and the congestion they cause has as well. Bit of an own goal here. 
6. Traffic evaporation has not been convincingly demonstrated (yet?) with respect to the current crop of new LTNs. Huge congestion has. And the additional rerouting, slower moving or stationary traffic and longer journey times has surely increased air pollution on the diverted-to roads. 
7. Tell that to the traders on Balham High Road. The studies referred to are often commissioned by municipal authorities to defend their pro-cycling plans so are not objective. 
8. Just a silly straw man, I won't bother with this (he argues against himself again anyway). Maybe 8 'myths' just sounded better than 7. "


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2020)

paolo said:


> Would you trust a local council, or a consultation, with policies such as seatbelts in cars, or smoking in enclosed public places? These are examples of policies that are not at all controversial now, but at the time were.
> 
> (FWIW I have very very little faith in Lambeth to implement _anything_ in a clearly defined and objective way. And at the same time I see the _idea_ of LTNs as being good, based on the studies I’ve seen. Both can be true, for me)




If you think that this should be imposed on communities without consultation - fine that is your opinion.

I would yet again point out tht pre covid the Council had started consultation on a Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood. This was halted due to pandemic.

Now the Council are using the pandemic to push these LTNs through.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 17, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Not my words but copying from everyone's favourite place - Nextdoor about this article
> 
> " The article you link to is very poorly written and extremely unbalanced. I'm not going to fact check the whole article but quick responses numbering the so-called 'myths'  from 1 to 8:
> 
> ...


Not one bit of evidence to support any of the claims they’ve made there.

they've basically just said “oh no it isn’t”


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2020)

There are some quite bizarre views out there. The notion of segregation has come up before but here someone is claiming that for some reason pedestrians are being stopped by the filters.


----------



## nick (Nov 17, 2020)

That is insane


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2020)

Traffic has been a bit quieter at times on Coldharbour Lane, but then we are living in another lockdown with loads of shops and businesses closed down so no doubt the traffic will rise accordingly when it's over.


----------



## Not a Vet (Nov 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> There are some quite bizarre views out there. The notion of segregation has come up before but here someone is claiming that for some reason pedestrians are being stopped by the filters.
> View attachment 239232


I think the only drunk is the poster. Not sure why in a lot of these styles of posts, they always mention that they are a cyclist but at the same time hating cycling or cyclists


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Not sure why in a lot of these styles of posts, they always mention that they are a cyclist but at the same time hating cycling or cyclists



"Some of my best friends are cyclists"


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Not a fan of every argument being reduced to poor vs wealthy. Hard to comment on the findings without a link.



The report is now available here for your deconstruction.

The equity/equality bit starts from around page 31.

Prior to that, there's quite a good overview of the background to LTNs. It doesn't really bring up anything new - although on p21-23 they discuss the displacement effects observed in Walthamstow and try and put them in the context of longer-term traffic level measures. Frustrating for me is that we don't seem to be able to see what has happened between 2016 and now.



Rushy said:


> But I would have though that even if LTNs _overall _are found not to disproportionality benefit one group over another this will differ from one LTN to the next. Which again is why it is fine having top down approach but it needs to be accompanied by local level assessment and implementation - each application should be open to scrutiny (consultation) by the people affected by it.



I don't disagree with this.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Not one bit of evidence to support any of the claims they’ve made there.
> 
> they've basically just said “oh no it isn’t”



Could post the exact same response you've written about the article.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 17, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Could post the exact same response you've written about the article.


Whatever. I'm pretty sure theres actually some evidence to support every one of the myths in the Guardian list within the 108 pages of this thread.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 17, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Whatever. I'm pretty sure theres actually some evidence to support every one of the myths in the Guardian list within the 108 pages of this thread.



and just as much coming out to dispel them. The reporter is really going at it, he must have a new book coming out.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2020)

I guess it can only get worse when the lockdown ends.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 17, 2020)

Like mine your road is doing its bit. This will be the new norm. How else will councillors get happy pictures of kids on bikes smiling.

Coldharbour also got hit with the LTN we had in LJ. Just one of those roads.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 17, 2020)

If you analyse the traffic levels on main roads in London adjacent to LTNs and compare it the levels of traffic seen on those same roads in 2019 (as I did last week) the rise in traffic on main roads adjacent to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods largely predates the introduction of LTNs and in many cases the traffic is still lower than the equivalent day in 2019.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 17, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> If you analyse the traffic levels on main roads in London adjacent to LTNs and compare it the levels of traffic seen on those same roads in 2019 (as I did last week) the rise in traffic on main roads adjacent to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods largely predates the introduction of LTNs and in many cases the traffic is still lower than the equivalent day in 2019.


That matches with what I could see when I looked at the air pollution records for Brixton Road and Streatham Green here


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 17, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> If you analyse the traffic levels on main roads in London adjacent to LTNs and compare it the levels of traffic seen on those same roads in 2019 (as I did last week) the rise in traffic on main roads adjacent to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods largely predates the introduction of LTNs and in many cases the traffic is still lower than the equivalent day in 2019.



Analyse how?


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 17, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Analyse how?



The daily flow of motor vehicle traffic on each road in 2020 compared to the same day in 2019 and plotted on the same graph. Smoothed out using a rolling 7 day average algorithm


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2020)

I thought with pandemic the jury is stilll out on effect on non LTN roads? 

As pandemic is an exceptional situation. Thus stats and comparing past years and now is not going to say much.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2020)

Given that LTNs are supposed to encourage people to get out of their cars and use public transport I would like to see an improvement in public transport alongside introducing LTNs across London. 

My partner has told me she is giving up on using Loughborough Junction railway station as the service is rubbish. Cancelled trains both to work and back meaning she is late for work and late getting home. This happens on regular basis. 

I do think if this Tory government in partnership with New Labour Council want to put LTNs across Lamebeth they should sort out public transport.

It not as if trains and underground are cheap to use.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I thought with pandemic the jury is stilll out on effect on non LTN roads?



I think that is wrong this is the pattern of traffic on the A12 in Hackney Wick (a point which is which nowhere near any LTN incidentally, so this is the background traffic in London I presume). This pattern of traffic is repeated time after time on nearly all roads I have looked at including those roads which are adjacent to LTNs


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 17, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> I think that is wrong this is the pattern of traffic on the A12 in Hackney Wick (a point which is which nowhere near any LTN incidentally, so this is the background traffic in London I presume). This pattern of traffic is repeated time after time on nearly all roads I have looked at including those roads which are adjacent to LTNs
> 
> View attachment 239319



These are averages? 

As the photos that editor puts up ( and Ive seen) are from early evening. CHL is gridlocked now in Brixton section in early evening. 

Im surprised the background traffic has gone back up. 

A lot of the van drivers I know are not back at work going in and out of central London.

I talked to UPS driver today. Central London is quiet. Its the outer residential area that are very busy. 

If London economy changes from being based around the City then traffic will alter. 

The City is ghost town.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> These are averages?
> 
> As the photos that editor puts up ( and Ive seen) are from early evening. CHL is gridlocked now in Brixton section in early evening.
> 
> ...



These are individual counts on individual roads at particular points on those road.  Its only averages in the sense that I have graphed 7 day rolling averages to smooth out the zig zaggy patterns.

The underlying data is a lot more spikey. Traffic on Fridays is 10-15% higher than on Mondays.  It is possible that peak hours have become busier in relation to the off peak. and than is causing congestion and queues, but I doubt that personally.  I have no doubt that the Pandemic is altering traffic patterns around the city I just think that there is very little evidence that it is due to LTNs.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 17, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> The daily flow of motor vehicle traffic on each road in 2020 compared to the same day in 2019 and plotted on the same graph. Smoothed out using a rolling 7 day average algorithm



Lambeth don't have this information.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 17, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Lambeth don't have this information.



Its TfL count data. There will certainly be TfL count data on a number of roads in Lambeth.


----------



## editor (Nov 17, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> The underlying data is a lot more spikey. Traffic on Fridays is 10-15% higher than on Mondays.  It is possible that peak hours have become busier in relation to the off peak. and than is causing congestion and queues, but I doubt that personally.  I have no doubt that the Pandemic is altering traffic patterns around the city I just think that there is very little evidence that it is due to LTNs.


I have no access to data as Lambeth don't supply any but anecdotally, there's been a shitload more traffic along Coldharbour Lane since they closed off two roads that connect to it. 

Road works certainly added to the jams, but my feeling is that closing off Shakespeare Road definitely contributed something to the mix.


----------



## Not a Vet (Nov 17, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Given that LTNs are supposed to encourage people to get out of their cars and use public transport I would like to see an improvement in public transport alongside introducing LTNs across London.
> 
> My partner has told me she is giving up on using Loughborough Junction railway station as the service is rubbish. Cancelled trains both to work and back meaning she is late for work and late getting home. This happens on regular basis.
> 
> ...


Pretty much all nationalised now but I wouldn’t hold your breath that things will improve. Passenger numbers have fallen off a cliff and if they don’t return, expect massive service cuts. I think crossrail might be in doubt now


----------



## alex_ (Nov 17, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Analyse how?



Possibly with data ?


----------



## alex_ (Nov 17, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Pretty much all nationalised now but I wouldn’t hold your breath that things will improve. Passenger numbers have fallen off a cliff and if they don’t return, expect massive service cuts. I think crossrail might be in doubt now



nearly all of the money is spent on cross rail, trains are running on the lines - it’s not in doubt


----------



## Aristocrat (Nov 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Councillor Tim Briggs again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good to see some proper economic theory on here at last


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 18, 2020)

toblerone3 said:


> Its TfL count data. There will certainly be TfL count data on a number of roads in Lambeth.



The same TFL who give PTAL ratings for areas that are used in planning applications?

In LJ local residents keep saying that from their personal experience the pressure on public transport is high and new large residential developments will make it worse.

Lambeth planning officers use PTAL to say its fine. Its always works in the officers favour. Not surprising. 

So their is a difference imo between number crunching/ stats from above and people on the ground experience and knowledge of local areas.

Officials like in Lambeth Council are always keen to dismiss local knowledge as partial and biased.

Unlike public bodies like TFL/ Councils - in theory.


----------



## Not a Vet (Nov 18, 2020)

alex_ said:


> nearly all of the money is spent on cross rail, trains are running on the lines - it’s not in doubt


Not in the central section which is delayed again, there’s a chance of mothballing


----------



## alex_ (Nov 18, 2020)

Not a Vet said:


> Not in the central section which is delayed again, there’s a chance of mothballing



The end to end signalling integration isn’t completed and scheduled trains aren’t running through - but it has been possible to run a train all the way though for more than 3 years Elizabeth line permanent track installation is complete

suspect with the way contracts will be structured - mothballing it won’t save much money

eg the trains are all being rented and suspect most are in store at full cost









						TfL agrees £1 billion sale and leaseback deal for Elizabeth Line trains
					

Seventy Class 345s sold to consortium as Transport for London raises funds to reinvest




					www.railmagazine.com
				




yes the above is mental for an org who in 2018 could probably borrow at better rates than most medium sized countries


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The same TFL who give PTAL ratings for areas that are used in planning applications?
> 
> In LJ local residents keep saying that from their personal experience the pressure on public transport is high and new large residential developments will make it worse.
> 
> ...


PTAL is a relatively objective measure, with known limitations, and I don't think it claims to capture overcrowding (I'd have to check that)

I'd agree that some of the new development in LJ has relied on questionable transport assessments. I wouldn't really blame that on "wrong" PTAL numbers though - it's more to do with the quality of the transport assessments (done by private consultants paid for by the developer) and Lambeth planning officers' failure to scrutinise them properly. Any kind of measures like PTAL rely on sensible interpretation.

So do traffic counts - but a traffic count is a traffic count - it's pretty simple; a number of vehicles that pass a certain point in a certain time. You can't really fiddle that - except perhaps by choosing the locations in a certain way.

Are you suggesting that TfL are deliberately choosing traffic count locations to tell the particular story they want, something like that?

The fact is: yes local knowledge is valuable but also there's no doubt that what people tell you is going to be biased. I'm a Loughbrough Junction resident and what I tell you about LJ's transport issues will be biased. I'll tend to focus on the issues that affect me and I'll selectively notice the things that support my version of what the affects of changes are. My account of what happened in LJ during the road closures - the level of congestion on CHL and so on - seems to be very different to the account you'll hear from those who were vociferously opposed to the changes.

I live on a road which might be suspected to carry traffic that's been diverted by the Railton LTN. I've read comments from people on the one lambeth group saying that they live on this same road and that the traffic has been terrible since the LTN. Me, I have not noticed any substantial difference. Who's right? The only way to tell would be a traffic count.

Traffic counts seem to me one of the most objective things you can look at. I wish that they were done in more locations and more consistently.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> PTAL is a relatively objective measure, with known limitations, and I don't think it claims to capture overcrowding (I'd have to check that)
> 
> I'd agree that some of the new development in LJ has relied on questionable transport assessments. I wouldn't really blame that on "wrong" PTAL numbers though - it's more to do with the quality of the transport assessments (done by private consultants paid for by the developer) and Lambeth planning officers' failure to scrutinise them properly. Any kind of measures like PTAL rely on sensible interpretation.
> 
> ...



Ive seen consistently planning officers use PTAL to dismiss residents concerns.

Yes I think officials will use locations to tell the particular story they want.

The Council officers are not the neutral professionals that one would expect them to be. With the training and resources to give unbiased advice and reports.

Most recently that has been seen with the Hondo planning application. Were these professionals abused their position to support the developer. Even though the application went against planning guidelines.

Ive also spent several years with these middle class professionals tell me that there was no demand for an adventure playground in LJ. That to quote one of these highly paid people I was not "sensible".  Turned out me Joe Bloggs was right and they the experts , who are paid to make right decisions based on the objective evidence were talking shit. Did anyone one of these highly paid people lose their job over that? No.

Even worse when they were consulting on the site and found that residents werent having it they altered the consultation results. Took months of argument to get the leader of Council to finally say in letter that results would be rectified. ie the officers altered the findings to suit what they wanted to do.

So  no I dont trust so called objective studies. I don't trust public officers involved in planning/ the public realm.

Does not mean I won't deal with them or try to behave in civil way. Its that I have realistic view of what they do.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Ive seen consistently planning officers use PTAL to dismiss residents concerns.
> 
> Yes I think officials will use locations to tell the particular story they want.
> 
> ...


Yes, you've said all this loads of times before.

I don't think you read what I wrote. I'm not trying to defend the way council officers use PTAL numbers or anything else. I'm saying that the PTAL numbers themselves are relatively objective (with known limitations), as are traffic counts. How people then use them is another matter.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 18, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Yes, you've said all this loads of times before.
> 
> I don't think you read what I wrote. I'm not trying to defend the way council officers use PTAL numbers or anything else. I'm saying that the PTAL numbers themselves are relatively objective (with known limitations), as are traffic counts. How people then use them is another matter.



I keep saying it as you keep saying there are these objective studies. 

Been loads of post with pushing this "objective" angle.

You do it. 

I have to repeat myself as the onging narrative on this thread is:

Anyone objecting to LTNs is a nutter who posts on Twitter or One Lambeth FB. So lots of re posts of FB and Twitter to make anyone oppossing LTNs look stupid. 

In opposition to that is the people who post up here all the graphs/ studies who are objective and rational to support LTNs


Im pointing out that not all these objective studies are that neutral. 

I also object to way that ordinary people views can be dismissed as biased. Whilst State Functionaries are considered neutral and objective. It is that there finding are used in wrong way.

The pubic civil service is not neutral. 

Ive pointed this out with recent issues in Brixton.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 18, 2020)

I certainly don't recall saying that state functionaries or the public civil service are "neutral". 

Nor that there is any such thing as a purely objective study.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 18, 2020)

a


teuchter said:


> I certainly don't recall saying that state functionaries or the public civil service are "neutral".
> 
> Nor that there is any such thing as a purely objective study.



Yes - they clearly aren’t they are executing Lambeth’s strategy which is develop, develop, develop.

or more cynically - encourage as much business rates as possible


----------



## teuchter (Nov 19, 2020)

Here's a Telegraph journalist having a rant against a giant strawman - that LTNs and other policies are supposed to convert everyone to cycling, or that there's a claim that "a silent majority are desperate to take up cycling".



> It makes no sense. How could a majority of people possibly agree with one of the most insane transport policies of the past 50 years (and that is saying something)? In an article justifying the Government’s so-called low traffic neighbourhood programme, the Transport Secretary Grant Shapps last week suggested that there is “a silent majority” desperate to take up cycling if only someone would spend hundreds of millions of pounds carving up the roads to make it easier to do so.
> This is the language of the fanatic. Motorists aren’t free actors making an active choice to drive, they are just potential “converts” to the great cycling religion. Evidence that people have priorities other than building cycle lanes or turning streets into no through roads or any of the other green innovations that have been foisted on places with little consideration as to whether they are appropriate is curiously glossed over.











						I am a motorist, not a potential convert to the great cycling religion
					

It makes no sense.




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2020)

A piece about those on-trend street planters 








						The rise – and perhaps inevitable fall – of wooden street planters around Brixton
					

Right now, street planters are the go-to urban accessory, with Lambeth spending big and erecting wooden structures all around the borough as part of their controversial Low Traffic Neighbourhood sc…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 19, 2020)

editor said:


> A piece about those on-trend street planters
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understood that the current planters used to create the LTN's are temporary (and all Lambeth could afford with the funds given by TfL) but that if the LTN's are adopted after the trial period, then they will be replaced with something (what, I have no clue) more substantial. MInd you if Lambeth or TfL have any money left in a years time, I'll be amazed!


----------



## teuchter (Nov 19, 2020)

> *IMPORTANT*
> 
> Dear OneLambeth,
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 19, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> I understood that the current planters used to create the LTN's are temporary (and all Lambeth could afford with the funds given by TfL) but that if the LTN's are adopted after the trial period, then they will be replaced with something (what, I have no clue) more substantial. MInd you if Lambeth or TfL have any money left in a years time, I'll be amazed!



I saw on FB that Croydon has already started to replace the wooden things with concrete...even though they are still in the trial period.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I saw on FB that Croydon has already started to replace the wooden things with concrete...even though they are still in the trial period.



probably because dickheads are smashing them up


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 19, 2020)

alex_ said:


> probably because dickheads are smashing them up



Nice chunk of change for a council to spend amending a trial when it declared it was bankrupt recently tho


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Nice chunk of change for a council to spend amending a trial when it declared it was bankrupt recently tho


The money is coming from central government.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> The money is coming from central government.



Still, does not give people much confidence when permament things are put in before the consultation has finished (begun?!), let alone the trial


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Still, does not give people much confidence when permament things are put in before the consultation has finished (begun?!), let alone the trial


Are the concrete bollards not moveable?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 19, 2020)

Nope


----------



## editor (Nov 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Nope


That does rather have an air of permanence about it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Still, does not give people much confidence when permament things are put in before the consultation has finished (begun?!), let alone the trial


Well, I guess that the more that people smash stuff up, the more public money you have to spend putting in things that people can'y physically move. Because you can't have a trial of something that keeps not being there.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Well, I guess that the more that people smash stuff up, the more public money you have to spend putting in things that people can'y physically move. Because you can't have a trial of something that keeps not being there.



I've yet to see any smashed. Seen many toppled over - often put back upright by those both for and against the LTNs or just the council. There are so many ways to make them so they cant be toppled. Concrete boxes? Bollards?


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 20, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Nope


Hi Jeanette. Are those the Croydon planters you referred to earlier?


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 20, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I've yet to see any smashed. Seen many toppled over - often put back upright by those both for and against the LTNs or just the council.



Someone has helpfully compiled a list of them:


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 20, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Hi Jeanette. Are those the Croydon planters you referred to earlier?



Yes, as I have been lead to believe


----------



## Rushy (Nov 20, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Hi Jeanette. Are those the Croydon planters you referred to earlier?


The photo is South Norwood.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 21, 2020)

Rushy said:


> The photo is South Norwood.


I think it is Croydon council though.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 21, 2020)

More vandalism..


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 23, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I've yet to see any smashed. Seen many toppled over - often put back upright by those both for and against the LTNs or just the council. There are so many ways to make them so they cant be toppled. Concrete boxes? Bollards?




Here you go Jeanette.  I'm not sure what difference you perceive between tipped over, pushed out of the way, and smashed up but they've all happened.

An odd approach from those opposed to both complain about the cost and then vandalise the schemes causing them to become much more expensive.

Signs and cameras vandalised in Streatham and repeatedly in Railton and currently a load currently missing in Ferndale.  It's criminal damage of public property - disappointing if they dont' get the Police involved and stamp it out.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 23, 2020)

Hackney are saying that initial monitoring does not show that LTNs have increased traffic on main roads.









						LTNs have not caused a rise in nearby main road traffic, early analysis shows
					

The introduction of low traffic neighbourhoods in Hackney has not caused a rise in traffic levels at nearby monitoring sites on five main A-and-B roads, early analysis of Transport for London (TfL) traffic data shows. The analysis uses data from five TfL traffic count monitoring sites in the...




					news.hackney.gov.uk
				




It seems that their efforts to do the monitoring are also being hampered by attempts to sabotage the monitoring devices.


----------



## editor (Nov 23, 2020)

I got sent this today:



Road use drops 30% since start of lockdown

Car use is around 30% lower on weekdays during lockdown 2.0, according to new data released by the Department for Transport.

Weekend road use is also down sharply, a 40% drop since the tighter restrictions came into effect. 

By contrast, average car use plummeted 65% during the first lockdown, while April’s Easter weekend registered the lowest level of non-weekday car traffic, coming in at 75% lower than usual. 

Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) traffic is the only vehicle group running above its pre-pandemic level since the 1stSeptember – showing a continuous flow of vital supplies.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 23, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It seems that their efforts to do the monitoring are also being hampered by attempts to sabotage the monitoring devices.



this is super odd, you’d have thought that they’d welcome data showing that traffic levels are up.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 23, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> An odd approach from those opposed to both complain about the cost and then vandalise the schemes causing them to become much more expensive.




Just to clarify, are you privy to evidence that the individuals responsible for smashing these up are the same individuals who have argued against LTNs on the basis of cost? Or  are you treating any and all critics as one amorphous super being?


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 23, 2020)

alex_ said:


> this is super odd, you’d have thought that they’d welcome data showing that traffic levels are up.


Maybe they are hedging their bets, incase the data doesn't support their assertions that traffic levels are up... very clever....


----------



## alex_ (Nov 23, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Maybe they are hedging their bets, incase the data doesn't support their assertions that traffic levels are up... very clever....



but they are so sure of themselves


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 24, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Just to clarify, are you privy to evidence that the individuals responsible for smashing these up are the same individuals who have argued against LTNs on the basis of cost? Or  are you treating any and all critics as one amorphous super being?


The joyless berk who has been vandalising the Railton planters and scrawling over the signs in marker pen has now written £3000 on them (which I think is what the Telegraph were outraged that they cost to be built/installed/planted and maintained).  That seems to indicate an overlap.


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> The joyless berk who has been vandalising the Railton planters and scrawling over the signs in marker pen has now written £3000 on them (which I think is what the Telegraph were outraged that they cost to be built/installed/planted and maintained).  That seems to indicate an overlap.




Here's how a sing  looked yesterday


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 24, 2020)

More visible on this one but you can see it on the one editor has posted too.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2020)

Apparently it's not actually anti-LTN people doing the vandalism - the real reason is:




			
				one lambeth comment said:
			
		

> It’s a plan from the council or some group, destroy or vandalise the signs. It gives them the opportunity to put more permanent barriers up, with the intention to never remove, see my post from last night


----------



## nick (Nov 24, 2020)

I heard they are also spreading covid over the planters to infect dissenters.
And each camera also has a 5 G station in it


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 24, 2020)

They're actually so Sadiq Khan can scan the microchips in the vaccines.


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2020)

The planking on Atlantic Road is already falling apart


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 25, 2020)

I don't have a problem with people putting graffiti on signs, Its non violent direct action.

Whether I agree with the comments is another matter. 

But morally Im ok with it as long as it is not racist or sexist.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 26, 2020)

Today some groups representing black cab drivers are at the High Court where they've managed to get a judicial review of the "streetspace" schemes in central London (and in general?). These are separate from LTNs; they are the schemes introduced by TfL to provide extra pedestrian/cycle space. Particularly in contention seems to be an area around Bishopsgate where there are bus gates that exclude taxis along with other vehicles.

Their argument seems to be along the lines that it's a reasonable expectation that taxis have access to the same places that buses do.

I guess it will be interesting to see what the judge decides. Not sure how relevant the outcome of this will be to the various LTN judicial reviews that are coming up.


----------



## Winot (Nov 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Today some groups representing black cab drivers are at the High Court where they've managed to get a judicial review of the "streetspace" schemes in central London (and in general?). These are separate from LTNs; they are the schemes introduced by TfL to provide extra pedestrian/cycle space. Particularly in contention seems to be an area around Bishopsgate where there are bus gates that exclude taxis along with other vehicles.
> 
> Their argument seems to be along the lines that it's a reasonable expectation that taxis have access to the same places that buses do.
> 
> I guess it will be interesting to see what the judge decides. Not sure how relevant the outcome of this will be to the various LTN judicial reviews that are coming up.



Judicial review looks at the way in which a public body has reached a decision rather than the rights and wrongs of the scheme. The best the cabbies can hope for is a conclusion that the implementation was flawed (eg it needs more consultation).


----------



## co-op (Nov 26, 2020)

Winot said:


> Judicial review looks at the way in which a public body has reached a decision rather than the rights and wrongs of the scheme. The best the cabbies can hope for is a conclusion that the implementation was flawed (eg it needs more consultation).



Yes if you are trying to affect an actual decision outcome JRs are a waste of time imo; even if you win the JR it just gets sent back to the decision-making body who re-run the decision as a tick box exercise and hey presto! they get to do what they originally decided. It's much like the whole concept of top-down "consultation", it's pretty much always bogus.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 26, 2020)

co-op said:


> Yes if you are trying to affect an actual decision outcome JRs are a waste of time imo; even if you win the JR it just gets sent back to the decision-making body who re-run the decision as a tick box exercise and hey presto! they get to do what they originally decided. It's much like the whole concept of top-down "consultation", it's pretty much always bogus.


Quite. It does not look at the quality of the decision. Only whether the right steps were followed. It can be useful if approval is required from another body, for instance, and that was not sought.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 26, 2020)

On the one lambeth group they are saying that if they "win" the JR on Lambeth's LTNs, then this puts a stop to Lambeth implementing any more. Is that right? But only until Lambeth show they have changed their decision making process, or something?


----------



## Winot (Nov 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> On the one lambeth group they are saying that if they "win" the JR on Lambeth's LTNs, then this puts a stop to Lambeth implementing any more. Is that right? But only until Lambeth show they have changed their decision making process, or something?



They are talking bollocks I think.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 26, 2020)

teuchter said:


> On the one lambeth group they are saying that if they "win" the JR on Lambeth's LTNs, then this puts a stop to Lambeth implementing any more. Is that right? But only until Lambeth show they have changed their decision making process, or something?


It depends what they are saying was wrong with the decision making process and whether carrying out the correct procedures will be fatal to the original outcome. So, if the part of the process that was missed was consultation, then Lambeth will do a fudge consultation and come up with the same scheme. But if the part of the process that was missed was something like getting sign off from taxi drivers, for instance, then it might be fatal.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 26, 2020)

I get the impression they are going in on some kind of equalities basis. Disadvantage to people with protected characteristics, didn't do an impact assessment etc. 

They've managed to raise going on for £10k just by telling people that some lawyers have assured them that they've got a good case, anyway.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 26, 2020)

Il not really sure they know what they want other than unhindered car driving. 

They were saying yesterday that adults shouldn’t be allowed to ride with children (in child seats) and that children shouldn’t be allowed to ride on the road that they (as drivers) paid for.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 26, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Il not really sure they know what they want other than unhindered car driving.
> 
> They were saying yesterday that adults shouldn’t be allowed to ride with children (in child seats) and that children shouldn’t be allowed to ride on the road that they (as drivers) paid for.


There seem to be quite a few people who are "not just motorists but cyclists too" who also "would never ride a bike in London because it's so dangerous".


----------



## teuchter (Nov 26, 2020)

Returning to earlier discussions about whether residents should be exempt from the LTN restrictions via ANPR cameras, here is what Lambeth are currently saying, apparently.

To some extent it matches my views.




> Dear xxxxx,
> 
> Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to this petition.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Nov 26, 2020)

Many residents were hoping for some kind of exemption or compromise


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2020)

Cllr Claire Holland email reply has all the hallmarks of the arrogant way the New Labour One party State is run in Lambeth.

Continue with your feedback which we will ignore if we dont agree with it.

Sounds all to familiar to me.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2020)

> We have been collecting feedback on how the emergency LTNs have been working as well as objective data on traffic flows to provide us with a good body of evidence to see what improvements are necessary. As soon as we have analysed the data and feedback we will ensure that this is shared with residents.



So what Cllr Holland is saying is that the Council will be using data it has decided is objective.

Way I read this is that residents comments on the Commonplace websites are a waste of time as Council will ignore them.

I have little faith in Council being objective.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 26, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Many residents were hoping for some kind of exemption or compromise



I would have hoped that the Council would have entertained this option as up for discussion as part of the ongoing consultation whilst these emergency LTNs were in place. 

To just dismiss this compromise out of hand so early on imo show bad faith from the Council on consultation.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 26, 2020)

It's a good point about creating private roads, whereas now everyone has the same access.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Nov 27, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I would have hoped that the Council would have entertained this option



Agree; Im disappointed they are not looking at that and it needs opposing. ”it would create a private road” is not compatible with “no roads have been made inacessible” and as you say, many are looking for that compromise, and it puts local people first.

That said...oneLambeth is a hate group.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2020)

Whatever one thinks of One Lambeth or LTNs a Cllr should not be dismissing a suggestion made by more than one resident.

The Council said it had to put in these measures without the usual pre consultation because of the pandemic.

Therefore it should be looking at all suggestions and comments made first.

And before rejecting suggestions putting forward how it is going to consult residents and listen to their concerns.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2020)

BTW the main argument for Railton LTN was to stop through traffic by people who did not live or visit the area. It ws traffic that was going through Railton area that was to be stopped.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Nov 27, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> BTW the main argument for Railton LTN was to stop through traffic by people who did not live or visit the area. It ws traffic that was going through Railton area that was to be stopped.


From the letters I got it didn't specify, it simply stated 'through traffic'. I took that to mean stopping residents of the area driving from one end and out the other side too.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 27, 2020)

Look at the first post on this thread, which includes a quote that outlines the aims. Stopping through traffic from outside the area was never the only, or even main, aim.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 27, 2020)

One issue I can see with ANPR for local residents is that non exempt drivers would see a vehicle going through the barriers and just follow it - and then get a fine. Drivers can be like lemmings in that respect - witness the videos posted before of the convoy of cars driving on the pavement to get round an LTN barrier.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 27, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> One issue I can see with ANPR for local residents is that non exempt drivers would see a vehicle going through the barriers and just follow it - and then get a fine. Drivers can be like lemmings in that respect - witness the videos posted before of the convoy of cars driving on the pavement to get round an LTN barrier.


I agree with that and mentioned it somewhere back in the thread. But I don't think it is insurmountable.


----------



## Rushy (Nov 27, 2020)

mbyrde12 said:


> From the letters I got it didn't specify, it simply stated 'through traffic'. I took that to mean stopping residents of the area driving from one end and out the other side too.


I've always taken through traffic is generally taken to mean journeys not starting or ending in the area but passing though. I.e. not local residents.

Meriam Webster. 
*: *traffic initiated at and destined for points outside a local zone

Oxford Dictionary
Road traffic which passes through a particular town or area rather than stopping there.

So not residents starting and ending their journey there. Hope that clarifies.


----------



## Gramsci (Nov 27, 2020)

mbyrde12 said:


> From the letters I got it didn't specify, it simply stated 'through traffic'. I took that to mean stopping residents of the area driving from one end and out the other side too.




Here is what the Council said on the commonplace website on June 11th




> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am writing to provide an update on our plans to introduce an emergency low traffic neighbourhood in the Railton area.
> 
> In line with statutory guidance provided by national government, the council *will be stopping through traffic from cutting through the neighbourhood* by making temporary changes to the road layout. Work will begin this weekend.











						Railton LTN
					

Read the latest project update on Railton Neighbourhood.




					rtstreets.commonplace.is
				




Rushy given the definition of through traffic in previous post.

Im taking sentence from the beginning of the Lambeth Council post of June 11th. So I read it as the Railton LTN was about stopping through traffic.

Cutting through reads to me as not about residents in the area of Railton LTN but those going through it.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2020)

Here is a report trying to look at whether LTNs impact emergency vehicle response times.

*



			Abstract
		
Click to expand...

*


> There is sometimes concern that low traffic neighbourhoods slow emergency vehicles. We test this using London Fire Brigade data (2012-2020) in Waltham Forest, where from 2015 low traffic neighbourhoods have been implemented. We find no evidence that response times were affected inside low traffic neighbourhoods, and some evidence that they improved on boundary roads. However, while the proportion of delays was unchanged, the reasons given for delays initially showed some shift from ‘no specific delay cause identified’ to ‘traffic calming measures’. Our findings indicate that low traffic neighbourhoods do not adversely affect emergency response times, although while LTNs are novel this perception may exist among some crews.







__





						The Impact of Introducing a Low Traffic Neighbourhood on Fire Service Emergency Response Times, in Waltham Forest, London
					

Downloadable! There is sometimes concern that low traffic neighbourhoods slow emergency vehicles. We test this using London Fire Brigade data (2012-2020) in Waltham Forest, where from 2015 low traffic neighbourhoods have been implemented. We find no evidence that response times were affected...




					ideas.repec.org
				




They've only looked at the Waltham Forest one.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2020)

One Lambeth have been purging their facebook group of the unfaithful I think - I seem to have been booted out now.


----------



## ash (Dec 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> One Lambeth have been purging their facebook group of the unfaithful I think - I seem to have been booted out now.


Did you say naughty things


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> They've only looked at the Waltham Forest one.


No change in the Islington one:


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Here is a report trying to look at whether LTNs impact emergency vehicle response times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


London Ambulance Service just said the same thing to the London Assembly:


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2020)

ash said:


> Did you say naughty things


Not saying naughty things required one of the greatest efforts of self restraint exercised within my life so far.


----------



## ash (Dec 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Not saying naughty things required one of the greatest efforts of self restraint exercised within my life so far.


Me too  - but I haven't been kicked off yet.  Did you see the posts about the fake onelambeth twitter account   : )


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2020)

ash said:


> Me too  - but I haven't been kicked off yet.  Did you see the posts about the fake onelambeth twitter account   : )


I think I saw reference to that on twitter.

Have they said anything more about the progress of their Judicial Review?


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 3, 2020)

Not really.

Did you see the Islington ant group raised £600 in donations which was then taken by a group admin and he used it to support his Pro Brexit political career...


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 3, 2020)

Today’s highlight- Norway is flat.


----------



## ash (Dec 3, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Today’s highlight- Norway is flat.


 ... and  no one has been out on a bike today (presumable making reference to the rain !!!


----------



## ash (Dec 3, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I think I saw reference to that on twitter.
> 
> Have they said anything more about the progress of their Judicial Review?


 They are still begging for money - only 198 of 1974 members have donated so far - presumably the other 1776 are silent pro LTN observers as well !!


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Today’s highlight- Norway is flat.


Is that the same person who said it's easy to do bike lanes in the Netherlands because hardly anyone lives there?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2020)

These may be of interest




> In May 2020, the DfT announced a £225m Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) for councils in England to encourage healthier and safer travel habits, allow for physical distancing, and prevent congestion on our roads. Funding was also made available by the Scottish and Welsh Governments to local authorities to encourage walking and cycling. Many projects delivered with the £42m first tranche of EATF generated local controversy and public backlash. The DfT acknowledged that some schemes were ‘nowhere near good enough’. A tight timetable for spending the ?42m, which gave little opportunity for consultation. In November 2020, the DfT announced the release of the second phase of this funding, £175m ‘for high-quality cycling?and?walking infrastructure across England’ to make local journeys safer for?everyone. The DfT added: • surveys reveal that nearly eight out of ten people support measures to reduce road traffic in their neighbourhood, and two thirds of people support reallocating road space for walking and cycling • the funding is allocated alongside strict plans set out by the Transport Secretary to ensure councils consult local communities Since the funding was announced, several studies last week have set out out the urgent case for why we need more active travel measures, and this webinar will explore the issues and addresses some of the criticisms made: • concerns about congestion • effects on businesses and residents • the consultation process and public support • evidence and case studies from across the country





			https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/9035027205700159504
		




> In July 2020's Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking, the DfT stressed that it 'will set much higher standards'. It said: 'Inadequate cycling infrastructure discourages cycling and wastes public money. Much cycling infrastructure in this country is inadequate. We have published new cycling design guidance which sets out the much higher standards we will now require if schemes are to receive funding. We do not seek perfection – but we do demand adequacy.' In November 2020, £175 million was announced for active travel schemes, following £42 million released in May, as research shows 8 out of 10 people support measures to reduce road traffic, and two-thirds support reallocating road space for active travel. However, this second tranche of Active Travel Funds comes with a renewed emphasis on high-quality schemes, rather than schemes delivered at pace. This webinar will explore how recent guidance is supporting Local Authorities to: • meet with recently set standards and guidance, such as the national cycle infrastructure design guidance (LTN 1/20) • deliver real benefit in both location and design of schemes • deliver schemes that support active modes yet do not have major detrimental impacts on other modes • deliver schemes that are in step with the needs of their local communities





			https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/7957413451591098895


----------



## Briz345 (Dec 4, 2020)

Why are a small minority getting so mad at these LTNs? I live in Lambeth and there has been a huge reduction in traffic using the road as a rat run. This has improved the quality of life for all residents in the area. 

It seems that anyone that is getting but blasted about these changes are the ones that are using residential streets as rat runs. Just use the main arteries.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 4, 2020)

Briz345 said:


> Why are a small minority getting so mad at these LTNs?
> I live in Lambeth and there has been a huge reduction in traffic using the road as a rat run. This has improved the quality of life for all residents in the area.
> 
> It seems that anyone that is getting but blasted about these changes are the ones that are using residential streets as rat runs. Just use the main arteries.



I think you will find that there are a wide range of criticisms from the most extreme freedom of choice argument down to hyper local design and implementation issues.  Although this thread is on a hyper local Brixton area board and has a hyper local title, most of the pro LTN cheerleading is on broad macro arguments whilst most of the criticism is around road by road, gate-by-gate hyper local design and implementation, and consultation.  One group is accused of not seeing the bigger picture and the other of dictating from comfy home office workstations with their fingers in their ears. The two arguments do not really mesh very well. Now this thread has degenerated into a gossip column highlighting some not very bright posts on a tedious Facebook page.

There are of course extreme polar views. Lycra clad mamils are as capable of being hate fueled and blinkered as their motorist counterparts. Luckily these are both small but loud minorities. In between, critics and supporters are both generally more pragmatic and opinions more nuanced. But there is not much space on the internet for those comparatively boring views.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 4, 2020)

Rushy said:


> most of the criticism is around road by road, gate-by-gate hyper local design and implementation, and consultation.



What is it that convinces you that most of the criticism is generated by this stuff, rather than a more fundamental disagreement about the need and benefits of a re-allocation of road space and transport priorities?


----------



## Rushy (Dec 4, 2020)

teuchter said:


> What is it that convinces you that most of the criticism is generated by *this stuff.*


Your choice of words sums your position very succinctly.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 4, 2020)

The legal case has been filed last night, according to local whatsapp


----------



## teuchter (Dec 4, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Your choice of words sums your position very succinctly.


What about the answer to my question, rather than your suppositions about my position?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 4, 2020)

Crispy said:


> The legal case has been filed last night, according to local whatsapp



with the email signed off
"Peace Love Democracy"

ÝÙĶ! Get a Bléêdin Lifę Dearié.
(He was great - can someone invite him back?)


----------



## Briz345 (Dec 4, 2020)

LTNs are great and they should stay.


----------



## Briz345 (Dec 4, 2020)

It's actually quite disappointing that people are going around vandalising the temporary wooden blocks. This is taxpayers money people are wasting.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 4, 2020)

Briz345 said:


> It's actually quite disappointing that people are going around vandalising the temporary wooden blocks. This is taxpayers money people are wasting.


I suspect that most people whether they agree with, dislike or are ambivalent toward LTNs probably agree with you. Given that it happened in Loughborough Junction I guess it should not have come as a surprise. Maybe if the council had taken more time to plan it and placed cameras in in the right places, positioned out of reach, this would not have happened. Or the people who caused the damage would at least have been identifiable. 

I may be wrong but I don't think it has been an ongoing issue on Railton Road or St Matthews Road. I cycle past them several times a day and they all seem intact.


----------



## Briz345 (Dec 4, 2020)

Rushy said:


> I suspect that most people whether they agree with, dislike or are ambivalent toward LTNs probably agree with you. Given that it happened in Loughborough Junction I guess it should not have come as a surprise. Maybe if the council had taken more time to plan it and placed cameras in in the right places, positioned out of reach, this would not have happened. Or the people who caused the damage would at least have been identifiable.
> 
> I may be wrong but I don't think it has been an ongoing issue on Railton Road or St Matthews Road. I cycle past them several times a day and they all seem intact.



Unfortunately in Ferndale, whilst the boxes are still there, someone has ripped off all signs around the LTN. Even gone to the effort of ripping the signs off all the side roads leading to ours.


----------



## editor (Dec 4, 2020)

I appear to have been kicked out of OneLambeth's shitty FB group too. Petty, controlling wankers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 4, 2020)

They have the money now. A pointless court case and fuck off with the rest.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 4, 2020)

Briz345 said:


> Unfortunately in Ferndale, whilst the boxes are still there, someone has ripped off all signs around the LTN. Even gone to the effort of ripping the signs off all the side roads leading to ours.


Surprised with all the video footage that was previously posted that no one manages to report it in progress. The Ferndale gates are far more heavily overlooked than many others.


----------



## Briz345 (Dec 4, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Surprised with all the video footage that was previously posted that no one manages to report it in progress. The Ferndale gates are far more heavily overlooked than many others.



There are cameras on the one on Concanon Road now so hopefully they do!


----------



## Briz345 (Dec 4, 2020)

editor said:


> I appear to have been kicked out of OneLambeth's shitty FB group too. Petty, controlling wankers.



I am tempted to join that group just to troll them.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 4, 2020)

So people who oppose LTNs can't win.

If they go through all the correct channels (raising money for Judiciall Review) or alleged vandalism  they are to be criticised.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 4, 2020)

Briz345 said:


> Why are a small minority getting so mad at these LTNs? I live in Lambeth and there has been a huge reduction in traffic using the road as a rat run. This has improved the quality of life for all residents in the area.
> 
> It seems that anyone that is getting but blasted about these changes are the ones that are using residential streets as rat runs. Just use the main arteries.



It was not small minority in Loughborough Junction. Explains why this time the Council has left LJ alone. Does not want angry Council tenants having a go at them.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 4, 2020)

Briz345 said:


> Unfortunately in Ferndale, whilst the boxes are still there, someone has ripped off all signs around the LTN. Even gone to the effort of ripping the signs off all the side roads leading to ours.



From what Ive seen here the Ferndale LTN is getting more opposition than some of the other LTNs. Other example is Shakespere Road closure in the Railton LTN.

If the State is going to impose things on people this is what is going to happen. 

Something that could change this is if the Council stated that these LTNs are temporary for the Pandemic. 

That full consultation would be done say next spring when pandemic is over. 

That the proper consultation woul include option to remove LTN in a particular area. Or amend. Example would be Shakespear Road road closure being removed. 

The proper consultation would also include option that those who live in an LTN should have free movement around the area in a car. 

Another issue ( broughtt up here) nagapie is people who are carers for those who need transport by car.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 5, 2020)

Next steps:









						Love Lambeth
					

Details of the monitoring during the experimental period and an update on the consultation on Lambeth's five emergency low traffic neighbourhood schemes.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 5, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Next steps:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im unclear what the next steps are.

Thr article says:


> The council has now begun moving each scheme onto a formal trial basis using experimental traffic orders, which allow changes to road layouts to be trialled for up to 18 months so that residents can see how the changes work in practice, and share their feedback.



Then says this:



> A full consultation will then take place where everyone will be able to have their say, with views considered alongside the data collected.



My understanding is that it is not necessary to do a ETO if this is about the pandemic. ( see my previous post where I looked this up). A temporary measure for pandemic does not have to be a ETO.

Nor do I understand why Clllr Holland is saying a full consultation will take place later on.

The point of a ETO is that the consultation takes place whilst the ETO is in place with that it goes to be permanent. The consultation that takes place whilst ETO is current is about tweaking the LTN.

Im lost to understand what Cllr Holland is going on about.

It  is mixing up pandemic emergency measures with changes to road by using ETO. Which is not about full consultation after the the time period is over.

The"consultation" is during the 18 months.

An ETO to bring in a permanent LTN and the changes to roads during pandemic as temporary measure are separate issues.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im unclear what the next steps are.
> 
> Thr article says:
> 
> ...


Maybe start by reading the document attached rather than the web page summary.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 6, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Maybe start by reading the document attached rather than the web page summary.



Read it.

The summary is misleading.

ETO were put in place early on. There was no early period with the Council now moving to formal period.

Cllr Holland says full consultation will happen at end of scheme.

But reason for an ETO is that the consultation takes place during the 18 months. With decision at the end. 

The longer docoment appears to be suggesting that in particular cases consultation will be extended.

That may be so but Council if it puts in place an ETO is not obliged to. All it needs to show is that it consulted people during the ETO time period.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Dec 6, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Read it.
> 
> The summary is misleading.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that the council are committing to a consultation above and beyond the objection period that is legally part of an ETO

There is no obligation to consult as part of the ETO process according to this Experimental


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2020)

Update Lambeth LTNs:  ‘Rain fails to wash away cycling boom in Brixton’ claims local study


----------



## madolesance (Dec 9, 2020)

This is worth engaging in- Annual Road User Survey 2020/2021
Some very loaded questions but worth getting creative.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 10, 2020)

Interesting and maybe sort of relevant









						Why Highway Teardowns Make Great Infrastructure (and Equity) Investments
					

Progressive advocates are making the case that new infrastructure money would actually be best spent tearing urban highways down — and reinvesting in the Black and brown communities that those bad …




					usa.streetsblog.org
				






> In a groundbreaking new policy proposal, nonprofits Transportation for America and Third Way recommended that the next administration create a new, $5-billion competitive grant program that states could draw on to tear down their misguided downtown highways and redevelop the land that’s left behind in better ways.
> 
> 
> But notably, the proposal also specifies that all that newly highway-free land would be held in trust for the benefit of the communities that surround it — communities that, often, are the direct descendants of Black and brown residents whose lives were upended when the highways were built in the first place. The groups say spending the money is essential to maximizing the antiracist potential of the major transportation investment.
> ...


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 10, 2020)

editor said:


> Update Lambeth LTNs:  ‘Rain fails to wash away cycling boom in Brixton’ claims local study



A very local study. One road


----------



## Brian Taylor (Dec 11, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> A very local study. One road


and one very highly motivated man with a clipboard and a pencil standing there for a whole hour once a month. 4 times. A rigorous and thorough survey indeed. Good to see he's now appointed himself as a survey designer on top of his role as a self appointed community leader.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 11, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> and one very highly motivated man with a clipboard and a pencil standing there for a whole hour once a month. 4 times. A rigorous and thorough survey indeed. Good to see he's now appointed himself as a survey designer on top of his role as a self appointed community leader.


I'm guessing the anti campaign are just sticking with to pulling up plants, vandalising the planters and signs and a few unverifiable and exaggerated anecdotes?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Dec 11, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I'm guessing the anti campaign are just sticking with to pulling up plants, vandalising the planters and signs and a few unverifiable and exaggerated anecdotes?


I wouldn't know, I've never pulled up a plant or vandalised anything. Aren't most stories of a personal experience difficult to verify and prone to exaggeration? As for signs, you can ask the survey designer - he was running round the area sticking signs up on lampposts not that long ago. Spend more time on that than he has on his 'survey'.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 11, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> I wouldn't know, I've never pulled up a plant or vandalised anything. Aren't most stories of a personal experience difficult to verify and prone to exaggeration? As for signs, you can ask the survey designer - he was running round the area sticking signs up on lampposts not that long ago. Spend more time on that than he has on his 'survey'.


Yes, it's why decisions are generally made based on data not 'lived experience' or whatever you want to call it.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Dec 11, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Yes, it's why decisions are generally made based on data not 'lived experience' or whatever you want to call it.


and for once... we agree


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> and one very highly motivated man with a clipboard and a pencil standing there for a whole hour once a month. 4 times. A rigorous and thorough survey indeed. Good to see he's now appointed himself as a survey designer on top of his role as a self appointed community leader.


Are you part of OneLambeth? If so, could you ask then why I've been banned from the group. For a group that bangs on about democracy they sure seem to be ready to exclude anyone who isn't towing the party line.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 11, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I'm guessing the anti campaign are just sticking with to pulling up plants, vandalising the planters and signs and a few unverifiable and exaggerated anecdotes?


Is this guess based on data or on your lived experience or whatever you want to call it?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Dec 11, 2020)

editor said:


> Are you part of OneLambeth? If so, could you ask then why I've been banned from the group. For a group that bangs on about democracy they sure seem to be ready to exclude anyone who isn't towing the party line.


Someone asked me to join at the start and i did but i don't actually know any of the people who run it and, to be honest, i don't participate in it. I could post a general question as to why people are getting banned.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> Someone asked me to join at the start and i did but i don't actually know any of the people who run it and, to be honest, i don't participate in it. I could post a general question as to why people are getting banned.


Please do.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Dec 11, 2020)

editor said:


> Are you part of OneLambeth? If so, could you ask then why I've been banned from the group. For a group that bangs on about democracy they sure seem to be ready to exclude anyone who isn't towing the party line.


I'm assuming there is a level of paranoia in there that goes back to the way people were being harassed and shouted down elsewhere. NextDoor was quite bad for that and that was where my invite came from. The Railton WhatsApp was pretty ugly at times too.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Dec 11, 2020)

editor said:


> Please do.


Will do


----------



## Brian Taylor (Dec 11, 2020)

editor said:


> Please do.


My post was declined with a message from an admin.
'People are asked if they support the LTNs or not. This is a place for those who do not'

Personally i don't agree with excluding people or censoring posts or questions, but it's a private group and it's up to them. In reality little different from the way Lambeth uses proxies to manage certain twitter feeds to keep them 'on message'.

Maybe i'll get banned for asking


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2020)

Brian Taylor said:


> My post was declined with a message from an admin.
> 'People are asked if they support the LTNs or not. This is a place for those who do not'
> 
> Personally i don't agree with excluding people or censoring posts or questions, but it's a private group and it's up to them. In reality little different from the way Lambeth uses proxies to manage certain twitter feeds to keep them 'on message'.
> ...


Funny thing is that I hadn't expressed an opinion either way on that group. What a bunch of puffed up wankers.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 11, 2020)

Were you invited by anyone? There was a comment months back when some one was banned along the lines of 'all posts removed, plus anyone they invited'. That was someone who was being toxic and encouraging vandalism.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Dec 11, 2020)

editor said:


> Funny thing is that I hadn't expressed an opinion either way on that group. What a bunch of puffed up wankers.


Sadly this is what it's come to. So damn divisive and depressing.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Were you invited by anyone? There was a comment months back when some one was banned along the lines of 'all posts removed, plus anyone they invited'. That was someone who was being toxic and encouraging vandalism.


They must have changed their policy on that, because in the couple of weeks before I got booted off, I was reading quite a few posts explicitly condoning vandalism, or "direct action" depending on your preferred term.


----------



## editor (Dec 11, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Were you invited by anyone? There was a comment months back when some one was banned along the lines of 'all posts removed, plus anyone they invited'. That was someone who was being toxic and encouraging vandalism.


I joined ages, and maybe contributed a handful of fairly neutral posts weeks ago. And the found out that I'd been booted off. What a bunch of utterly pathetic twats. They've lost all sympathy from me.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 11, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Is this guess based on data or on your lived experience or whatever you want to call it?





teuchter said:


> They must have changed their policy on that, because in the couple of weeks before I got booted off, I was reading quite a few posts explicitly condoning vandalism, or "direct action" depending on your preferred term.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> They must have changed their policy on that, because in the couple of weeks before I got booted off, I was reading quite a few posts explicitly condoning vandalism, or "direct action" depending on your preferred term.



Well on whatsapp the people I speak to say new posts are pre-moderated but comments are not. People report any comments about vandalism or that are too toxic and they get eventually deleted. 

Compared to the other groups i'm on Lambeth is tame. North of the river groups seem to be a cesspit and I left all but one for that reason.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Well on whatsapp the people I speak to say new posts are pre-moderated but comments are not. People report any comments about vandalism or that are too toxic and they get eventually deleted.
> 
> Compared to the other groups i'm on Lambeth is tame. North of the river groups seem to be a cesspit and I left all but one for that reason.



All that can be said is that there are some people in the OneLambeth group who want to use "direct action" in the form of destroying the infrastructure as a way of opposing the LTNs. I would certainly agree that this does't mean that everyone in that group would take that view, and it could well be a minority view. I would not agree with tarring everyone who opposes LTNs with that brush.

But really, I'm not all that interested in what a minority of OneLambeth think, and to some extent it doesn't even matter what OneLambeth thinks in general, because its membership is only a tiny fraction of Lambeth's population.

What is of more interest to me is: of those who are "critical" of LTNs, what proportion of them simply don't buy or want the concept at all, and what proportion are only critical at the level of the specifics of how they have been implemented locally.

Rushy implied a few days ago that he thinks that most of the criticism comes from people who just want some more input into the detail of how the schemes are implemented at a local level. But when I asked what he bases that on, no answer was forthcoming.

Why does it matter? Because if the majority of the resistance comes from people who just want some adjustments to the way the schemes have been implemented, then it's certainly true that more extensive consultation and engagement would have a big impact on the success of the schemes.

But if the reality is, that the majority of the resistance comes from people who just don't want LTNs or anything of a similar concept at all, then consulation and engagement isn't going to make much difference. It more comes down to a numbers game of who does and doesn't want these kind of changes. 

Well, my prejudice is that a very large proportion of resistance comes from people who just don't want the things, and aren't going to have their minds changed by argument or by 5 more years of consultations. In fact they are more likely to have their minds changed if the schemes are implemented, some time passes, and nothing terrible actually happens. 

That's my prejudice, which of course is influenced by the fact that I do think they are a good idea in principle, and also results from my biased observations of the real world. It doesn't mean that I think that all objections to local details are groundless, nor does it mean that I think that all consultation and community engagement is a waste of time, nor does it mean that I think Lambeth are doing a great job in everything they are doing, much as some people would like to make out.

But I'm waiting to see some convincing evidence that there's a big load of people out there who would be getting behind these schemes if only they'd been consulted more. There was certainly zero evidence of that on the OneLambeth group but I don't make the assumption that they represent everyone who has "concerns".


----------



## Rushy (Dec 11, 2020)

thebackrow

So neither data ; nor your own lived experience (whatever you think that is) ; but second hand lived experience of trolling a small group of angry folk on a Facebook page. Glad to see you keeping up to the standards you demand of others.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> All that can be said is that there are some people in the OneLambeth group who want to use "direct action" in the form of destroying the infrastructure as a way of opposing the LTNs. I would certainly agree that this does't mean that everyone in that group would take that view, and it could well be a minority view. I would not agree with tarring everyone who opposes LTNs with that brush.
> 
> But really, I'm not all that interested in what a minority of OneLambeth think, and to some extent it doesn't even matter what OneLambeth thinks in general, because its membership is only a tiny fraction of Lambeth's population.
> 
> ...



The only person I have seen calling for direct action is the lady who was on the mic at the protests. Calling for things from protests, to not paying council tax to having marches. Only seen some pics of vadalism. I dont spend long on facebook, just a little in the evenings.

I can tell you that from someone who was at the LJ LTN meeting years ago - dont assume facebook is everything. I wasnt even on it when I heard about that meeting and we turned up 400 strong. I am surrounded by the elderly who are utterly bewildered by what is going and feel they have no say or voice. They don't have social media and those who have emailed are not happy with the canned responses. When or if councillor surgeries open theyre going to have a whole demographic waiting at the door, vaccinated or not.

Does having a group less than the population of Lambeth mean that anyone not in it is happy? How many out there have no idea? Don't use Facebook?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> The only person I have seen calling for direct action is the lady who was on the mic at the protests. Calling for things from protests, to not paying council tax to having marches. Only seen some pics of vadalism. I dont spend long on facebook, just a little in the evenings.
> 
> I can tell you that from someone who was at the LJ LTN meeting years ago - dont assume facebook is everything. I wasnt even on it when I heard about that meeting and we turned up 400 strong. I am surrounded by the elderly who are utterly bewildered by what is going and feel they have no say or voice. They don't have social media and those who have emailed are not happy with the canned responses. When or if councillor surgeries open theyre going to have a whole demographic waiting at the door, vaccinated or not.
> 
> Does having a group less than the population of Lambeth mean that anyone not in it is happy? How many out there have no idea? Don't use Facebook?



I don't assume facebook is everything. I was pretty much pointing out the opposite.

As for the LJ numbers. That "packed meeting" is frequently used as a means of implying it's incontrovertible that a majority of "local residents" didn't want the road changes. Well, 400 is nowhere near the majority of the population of even just the Loughborough Estate. The population of Coldharbour Ward is 17,000. Vassall Ward is 14,000.

And I was at that meeting too.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't assume facebook is everything. I was pretty much pointing out the opposite.
> 
> As for the LJ numbers. That "packed meeting" is frequently used as a means of implying it's incontrovertible that a majority of "local residents" didn't want the road changes. Well, 400 is nowhere near the majority of the population of even just the Loughborough Estate. The population of Coldharbour Ward is 17,000. Vassall Ward is 14,000.
> 
> And I was at that meeting too.



But enough to show that there was enough concern raised and opposition to give pause. Whats being rolled out now is 10 fold LJ


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Rushy implied a few days ago that he thinks that most of the criticism comes from people who just want some more input into the detail of how the schemes are implemented at a local level.
> ....
> Why does it matter? Because if the majority of the resistance comes from people who just want some adjustments to the way the schemes have been implemented, then it's certainly true that more extensive consultation and engagement would have a big impact on the success of the schemes.
> ....
> But I'm waiting to see some convincing evidence that there's a big load of people out there who would be getting behind these schemes if only they'd been consulted more. There was certainly zero evidence of that on the OneLambeth group but I don't make the assumption that they represent everyone who has "concerns".



One indicator would be if OneLambeth, or whoever else, were calling for specific changes (Not -  'residents should be exempt' - ie 'I'm fine with it so long as it doesn't affect my own driving in any way).  I don't think I've seen a single post of someone saying "they've left a rat run here - that one needs to be stopped too" or "this area would work better if these roads were closed instead". 

No, it's all "rip it all out" or "pause" (which seems to mean the same thing). 



Rushy said:


> Is this guess based on data or on your lived experience or whatever you want to call it?


_Someone_ seems to be repeatedly vandalising the planters in Railton as I've seen that they've been cleaned up a number of times before being vandalised again. And they seem to use 'OneLambeth' slogans which suggests they're engaged with the group in some way.
Likewise I've noticed that signs have been removed in Ferndale when I've cyded through, then I've been through when they had been replaced only to be taken down again.  These are somewhat more binary verifiable observations than 'pollution is worse' or 'there are more cars on this road'.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> @Rushy implied a few days ago that he thinks that most of the criticism comes from people who just want some more input into the detail of how the schemes are implemented at a local level. But when I asked what he bases that on, no answer was forthcoming.


Wow - three times you have demanded a reply now!   

If you go back and read what I wrote it was very specifically about the debate on this thread. Pro arguments are very macro. Critical arguments are much more hyper local because it is a hyper local forum. The two arguments don't mesh well. Unlike most of you I am not debating this anywhere else and I'm not all that interested to either - but from what you describe, the criticism on here is a world apart from arguments on the One thread which you so dutifully report back to us. Really the only person objecting on a macro level was Newbie and he hasn't posted for months. My post was neither directed to or specifically about you, so when you chose to ignore the context of my post I decided that it was not worth relying to.  I'm sorry that I was unable to give you the attention that you felt you deserved on that occasion.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 11, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> _Someone_ seems to be repeatedly vandalising the planters in Railton as I've seen that they've been cleaned up a number of times before being vandalised again. And they seem to use 'OneLambeth' slogans which suggests they're engaged with the group in some way.


Can't argue with that smear free statement. Not a generalisation about anyone who does not share your enthusiam for LTNs in sight . Keep it up!


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 11, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Can't argue with that smear free statement. Not a generalisation about anyone who does not share your enthusiam for LTNs in sight . Keep it up!


I don't know why your'e being such a twat about this. I can't see where that is smearing anyone - are you denying that the vandalism (of which there are photos) has taken place? Or that the slogans written on the planters are those used by One Lambeth?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2020)

Rushy said:


> Wow - three times you have demanded a reply now!
> 
> If you go back and read what I wrote it was very specifically about the debate on this thread. Pro arguments are very macro. Critical arguments are much more hyper local because it is a hyper local forum. The two arguments don't mesh well. Unlike most of you I am not debating this anywhere else and I'm not all that interested to either - but from what you describe, the criticism on here is a world apart from arguments on the One thread which you so dutifully report back to us. Really the only person objecting on a macro level was Newbie and he hasn't posted for months. My post was neither directed to or specifically about you, so when you chose to ignore the context of my post I decided that it was not worth relying to.  I'm sorry that I was unable to give you the attention that you felt you deserved on that occasion.



I didn't choose to ignore the context of your post - it's only obvious that that's what you were trying to say, now that you clarify it.

But I don't agree that it's true as a description of the discussion that's taken place on this thread, either. There's been pro- and anti- argument relating to some very specific local situations and there has been pro- and anti- argument relating to more macro issues as well.

It seems to be to be an oversimplification that sets things up to look like those arguing from the "pro" position are only willing to engage on some kind of abstract level and aren't interested in talking about specific local effects. Which as it happens was the very direct implication of your reply to me about my supposed "position".

You also can't just separate wider issues out from more local ones. Sometimes the answer to a question about something very local has to involve looking at a bigger picture. There are lots of things that this applies to - not just the LTN argument. What exactly do you mean when you say the two arguments don't "mesh well"? What would "meshing well" look like?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 11, 2020)

A study showing a reduction in car ownership in an LTN. Actual stats and investigations!









						The Impact of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and Other Active Travel Interventions on Vehicle Ownership: Findings from the Outer London Mini-Holland Programme | Published in Findings
					

By Anna Goodman, Scott Urban & 1 more. Car/van ownership fell in areas introducing ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’ (-6%, or 23 cars/vans per 1000 adults, after two years).  Smaller reductions occurred in areas introducing cycle tracks.




					findingspress.org


----------



## Rushy (Dec 11, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I don't know why your'e being such a twat about this. I can't see where that is smearing anyone - are you denying that the vandalism (of which there are photos) has taken place? Or that the slogans written on the planters are those used by One Lambeth?


No. You finally distilled your original nonsense into a smear free factual statement and I agreed with it and congratulated you. It has clearly come as a shock. Sorry.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 11, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I don't assume facebook is everything. I was pretty much pointing out the opposite.
> 
> As for the LJ numbers. That "packed meeting" is frequently used as a means of implying it's incontrovertible that a majority of "local residents" didn't want the road changes. Well, 400 is nowhere near the majority of the population of even just the Loughborough Estate. The population of Coldharbour Ward is 17,000. Vassall Ward is 14,000.
> 
> And I was at that meeting too.



I was at the meeting.I also know people on the estate.

Local business, estate residents and some of the local residents groups were all against it.

To get 400 people to turn out to meeting is achievement. The sheer numbers showed that it was representing a lot of the local community.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 11, 2020)

Im not clear what the objection to direct action is.

One argument is that vandalising planters and signs cost other residents money as Council has to replace them and this will come out of Council Tax. Money that could have been spent elsewhere.

Apart from that what is the argument against direct action?

Another one could be that people should go through all the correct channels to oppose something. Given way Lambeth works that is not always going to work. ( See the Hondo Tower issue or Lambeth Estate "regeneration" programme)

XR are built on direct action. I have no problem with that. But if some people here are opposing direct action is it a case of all direct action in a representative democracy is bad?

Im not against direct action against property. As long as it is not sexist or racist in intent.


----------



## alex_ (Dec 11, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> A very local study. One road



pls bring more data


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 11, 2020)

alex_ said:


> pls bring more data



With a bar set so low i'm not young enough to Limbo any more hun


----------



## teuchter (Dec 11, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I was at the meeting.I also know people on the estate.
> 
> Local business, estate residents and some of the local residents groups were all against it.
> 
> To get 400 people to turn out to meeting is achievement. The sheer numbers showed that it was representing a lot of the local community.


It shows that there were a lot of people against it. That's all. It doesn't prove a majority of any particular group, as seems often to be claimed.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 12, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Im not against direct action against property. As long as it is not sexist or racist in intent.


that's interesting - so you'd support, say, an LTN supporter taking a baseball bat to any car ignoring the no-motor vehicle signs or a car parked on the pavement or a double yellow line

Isn't there a bit of a difference between XR style NVDA (which tends to be demonstrations rather than destruction of property*) and the criminal damage (removing road signs) and vandalism (graffiti'd planters and signs) that Rushy assures me are nothing to do with OneLambeth (though we've established members of their forum have encouraged it and there seems to have been an absence of any statement to condemn it)?

*I could be wrong here - I've by no means followed everything they've done, but what I have seen has shown an impressive desire to 'leave no trace' - cleaning up after themselves in Brockwell, reseeding grass in Vauxhall)


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 13, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> that's interesting - so you'd support, say, an LTN supporter taking a baseball bat to any car ignoring the no-motor vehicle signs or a car parked on the pavement or a double yellow line
> 
> Isn't there a bit of a difference between XR style NVDA (which tends to be demonstrations rather than destruction of property*) and the criminal damage (removing road signs) and vandalism (graffiti'd planters and signs) that Rushy assures me are nothing to do with OneLambeth (though we've established members of their forum have encouraged it and there seems to have been an absence of any statement to condemn it)?
> 
> *I could be wrong here - I've by no means followed everything they've done, but what I have seen has shown an impressive desire to 'leave no trace' - cleaning up after themselves in Brockwell, reseeding grass in Vauxhall)



XR non violent direct action was organised attempt to bring the country to a standstill. To make the elected government agree to their demands. To make it ungovernable. In XR view representative democracy was unlikely to deal with climate change qucik enough. Also politicians who are elected are likely to be swayed by the elecorate. Representive democracy would be replaced by Citizens Assemblies drawn by lot. Like Jury service. This would get around have to deal with elected politicians. After bringing democracatically elected government to the negoitation table XR would demand a law be passed to bring in zero carbon by a certain number of years. The People Assemblies would have to abide by that and would be given a range of choices by experts of how to get there.

So it was less damage to property than damage to the economy.

So both the direct action of destroying planters or the more organised disruption to the economy of XR is going to be at a cost.

An argument could be that both are not the way to do things. That people should go through the regular procedures that are allowed in a representative democracy.

I see from looking at One Lambeth the main thing recently from the organisers is asking people to donate to help fund the judiicial review. Which is peoples right in the way the system works.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 13, 2020)

How about it though, a bit of tyre slashing and so on, for cars that have been observed speeding, or parking on pavements. Or...why stick to taking actions against things that are actually illegal. How about any car you consider an ostentatious display of wealth.

It's always been of interest to me that cars seem to be almost unique amongst items of private property, in that you can leave them around in the open and they are very rarely subject to vandalism. Why are graffiti artists so keen on targetting vehicles that are communally owned or used? You pretty much never see a car that's been graffiti'd unless it's obviously abandoned. Maybe a culture change is needed?


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 14, 2020)

Up here in Streatham about 40 cars in few different streets had their windows smashed over night last week. Maybe the backlash has started......


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 14, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> An argument could be that both are not the way to do things. That people should go through the regular procedures that are allowed in a representative democracy.
> I see from looking at One Lambeth the main thing recently from the organisers is asking people to donate to help fund the judiicial review. Which is peoples right in the way the system works.


Now I'm really confused - you're saying hypothetically an argument _could_ be made or that is what you believe?  

These schemes were put in place by a democratically elected Council, on the back of policy/strategy documents that had been consulted on, with instruction and funding from a democratically elected national government and using a legal process of traffic orders. You're right that OneLambeth can challenge those processes using a judicial review if they think some part of the process hasn't been followed properly.

Presumably that means you _do_ actually condemn the vandalism (not least since it's just incurring more costs to repair which could be spent on other things)?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Now I'm really confused - you're saying hypothetically an argument _could_ be made or that is what you believe?
> 
> These schemes were put in place by a democratically elected Council, on the back of policy/strategy documents that had been consulted on, with instruction and funding from a democratically elected national government and using a legal process of traffic orders. You're right that OneLambeth can challenge those processes using a judicial review if they think some part of the process hasn't been followed properly.
> 
> Presumably that means you _do_ actually condemn the vandalism (not least since it's just incurring more costs to repair which could be spent on other things)?



Ive aready made my views known.

I was replying to your suggestion that XR leave no trace.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 14, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Now I'm really confused - you're saying hypothetically an argument _could_ be made or that is what you believe?
> 
> These schemes were put in place by a democratically elected Council, on the back of policy/strategy documents that had been consulted on, with instruction and funding from a democratically elected national government and using a legal process of traffic orders. You're right that OneLambeth can challenge those processes using a judicial review if they think some part of the process hasn't been followed properly.
> 
> Presumably that means you _do_ actually condemn the vandalism (not least since it's just incurring more costs to repair which could be spent on other things)?



We are going to have to disagree on the consultation.

Even the Council say they would not normally put in place scheme like this without thorough prior consultation.


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2020)

An opposing view: Opinion: Railton Road LTN: Lambeth’s traffic nightmare is no solution to pollution


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 15, 2020)

editor said:


> An opposing view: Opinion: Railton Road LTN: Lambeth’s traffic nightmare is no solution to pollution


I note you've correctly marked it as 'opinion'...


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I note you've correctly marked it as 'opinion'...


I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think there are some points worthy of discussion in there - that's why I published it.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 15, 2020)

editor said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think there are some points worthy of discussion in there - that's why I published it.


Just that there whole paragraphs of statements made without any evidence provided - so quite correct that it should be marked as opinion.  That they do reference two points (cost of a planter and number of Norris vehicles, which of course we're already using the road) highlights how much of the rest is just conjecture. 

It's not a bad rant but weakened by being anonymous - it seems strange that someone who feels strongly about this wouldn't put their name to it.


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Just that there whole paragraphs of statements made without any evidence provided - so quite correct that it should be marked as opinion.  That they do reference two points (cost of a planter and number of Norris vehicles, which of course we're already using the road) highlights how much of the rest is just conjecture.
> 
> It's not a bad rant but weakened by being anonymous - it seems strange that someone who feels strongly about this wouldn't put their name to it.


Give the rancour surrounding LTNs, I'm not going to dismiss an article because someone hasn't applied their real name to it. But as the article states, it was put together by several residents.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2020)

This comment on the buzz article is a classic of the genre:

_LTNs are in place to raise tax revenue by the backdoor. No other reason.
The need to address climate change is urgent but if the environment was the primary concern, I ask
– where are the charging points for electric cars?
– where are the financial incentives to swap petrol vehicles for electric?
– when can we look forward to an expansion of London’s inadequate public transport network?
– why is London’s public transport among the most expensive in the world?


We all love children. We all love riding our bikes. LTNs won’t help. They are a dangerous, undemocratic fantasy._


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2020)

The article has already received 17 comments on Buzz so it's doing its job of getting a conversation going


----------



## Crispy (Dec 15, 2020)

teuchter said:


> why is London’s public transport among the most expensive in the world?


A very fair comment


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 15, 2020)

Because it’s (unlike most other European cities) under subsidised?

Unlike car drivers.


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 15, 2020)

editor said:


> The article has already received 17 comments on Buzz so it's doing its job of getting a conversation going



From the user names posting, it’s a pile on from the OneLambeth boards. 

They’ve called it ‘a very balanced article for once. Which is on our side’. 😄


----------



## editor (Dec 15, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> From the user names posting, it’s a pile on from the OneLambeth boards.
> 
> They’ve called it ‘a very balanced article for once. Which is on our side’. 😄


They're usually kept busy slagging off Buzz and kicking me out of their shitty FB group.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2020)

Crispy said:


> A very fair comment


In what way is it actually relevant to the discussion about the Railton LTN though?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2020)

snowy_again said:


> Because it’s (unlike most other European cities) under subsidised?
> 
> Unlike car drivers.


In fact the London public transport farebox has to pay for London's trunk road network, which unlike anywhere else in the country doesn't get any central govt funding.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 15, 2020)

editor said:


> They're usually kept busy slagging off Buzz and kicking me out of their shitty FB group.



They're saying nice things about this article! Figures.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 16, 2020)

editor said:


> I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think there are some points worthy of discussion in there - that's why I published it.




Why publish shit-stirring rubbish like this?



> Many people such as those with limited mobility, key workers, community nurses, patient transport crews, family/paid carers, tradespeople, and delivery drivers simply do not have the privilege of choosing to use a bicycle in their daily lives. Lambeth rather disingenuously refers to these people as ‘rat runners’.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 16, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why publish shit-stirring rubbish like this?


Indeed. I’ve seen comments assuming it was the equivalent of a newspaper editorial - ie the “Brixton Buzz view”.  which is why I commented on the lack of clarity about author.

”This article by local contributors]” at the bottom is both vague and likely to be missed.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Indeed. I’ve seen comments assuming it was the equivalent of a newspaper editorial - ie the “Brixton Buzz view”.  which is why I commented on the lack of clarity about author.


It says 'Opinion' in the title, is credited to 'contributor' and even states, 'This article by local contributors' at the bottom of the piece. 

Have to say I'm getting fucked off taking flak from both sides here


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 16, 2020)

editor said:


> It says 'Opinion' in the title, is credited to 'contributor' and even states, 'This article by local contributors' at the bottom of the piece.
> 
> Have to say I'm getting fucked off taking flak from both sides here


Im not giving you flak, and have no issue with you publishing it but I just don’t think it’s very clear - to me “contributor“ suggests a frequent writer rather some random.  (which is how I’ve seen it interpreted elsewhere). This is basically One Lambeth and should be flagged as such if an individual doesn’t want to put their name to it. It shows every sign of having been written by the same person that’s written much of their other comms.

I think you’re doing a good job of covering both sides but I don’t think the attribution on this is clear enough.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 17, 2020)

editor said:


> It says 'Opinion' in the title, is credited to 'contributor' and even states, 'This article by local contributors' at the bottom of the piece.
> 
> Have to say I'm getting fucked off taking flak from both sides here



Its doing its job by promoting discussion on what is clearly a key, and local, topic. Don't be put off because you're only going to please half the people with each article.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Its doing its job by promoting discussion on what is clearly a key, and local, topic. Don't be put off because you're only going to please half the people with each article.


We do really need as much _discussion_ as possible on straw-man stuff like "tradespersons and patient transport crews" being expected to go about their business on bicycles.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> We do really need as much _discussion_ as possible on straw-man stuff like "tradespersons and patient transport crews" being expected to go about their business on bicycles.



Or you could have 'consultation'. Its a new fangled thing all the kids are talking about in order to find out the impact of sweeping changes before they are made.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2020)

It's a shame the authors of the piece want to be anonymous, because when they talk about:

"fair consultations in order to develop more equitable inclusive schemes which benefit the many and not the few"

there's no way to ask them what they think those schemes might look like.

The rest of the article gives some clues though.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's a shame the authors of the piece want to be anonymous, because when they talk about:
> 
> "fair consultations in order to develop more equitable inclusive schemes which benefit the many and not the few"
> 
> ...



Ah right. No one could be found to consult. Where oh where can these people be hiding. Their houses probably.


----------



## John Schofield (Dec 17, 2020)

Quite a useful article:









						The outcry over LTNs is not a culture war – it’s more serious than that
					

Map by LiveWestEaling We knew the latter half of 2020 would see arguments about Brexit, lockdown restrictions, masks and the US election. What we didn’t foresee was that, in many places, the row of…




					flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com


----------



## Winot (Dec 17, 2020)

John Schofield said:


> Quite a useful article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very good.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 17, 2020)

John Schofield said:


> Quite a useful article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow. 50% of LTN noise on Twitter is from just 20 accounts. That is utterly   I wonder whether those accounts are all unique users?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 17, 2020)

teuchter said:


> It's a shame the authors of the piece want to be anonymous, because when they talk about:
> 
> "fair consultations in order to develop more equitable inclusive schemes which benefit the many and not the few"
> 
> ...


Well the majority of people in Lambeth don’t own a car - maybe he wants more LTNs?


----------



## CH1 (Dec 17, 2020)

John Schofield said:


> Quite a useful article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I love the (alleged) quote from St Augustine in the penultimate paragraph.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 17, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well the majority of people in Lambeth don’t own a car - maybe he wants more LTNs?



Well, the majority of people have lungs. I'm pretty sure about that..........its probably what he is talking about


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 18, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Well, the majority of people have lungs. I'm pretty sure about that..........its probably what he is talking about


If the majority of people have lungs then he wants less traffic?.

How do you know its a 'he's btw?


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2020)

I hate car culture, traffic, big cars with one person sat in them and exhaust fumes, so I'm not feeling the love around my hood of late.



Photo taken 2.50pm today.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 18, 2020)

And you wonder where everyone is going, given the situation?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

John Schofield said:


> Quite a useful article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is one persons view. But I see and agree with where he says that it is not culture war in sense that ( argued by posters on here) that anti LTN is right wing  ( EDL/ racist cabbies/ Farage supporters funded by shadowy right wing groups as posted here)

He is talking from his own personal experience. I also don't think anti LTN people in Lambeth can be categorised in that way.


----------



## John Schofield (Dec 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> It is one persons view. But I see and agree with where he says that it is not culture war in sense that ( argued by posters on here) that anti LTN is right wing  ( EDL/ racist cabbies/ Farage supporters funded by shadowy right wing groups as posted here)
> 
> He is talking from his own personal experience. I also don't think anti LTN people in Lambeth can be categorised in that way.


I also agree - I thought that was the most useful point in the blog.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Yes, a lot of sense there in that piece - 

_But even if LTNs were proven beyond doubt to reduce levels of traffic and emissions, I suspect it would have little impact on the debate. LTNs require a significant shift in behaviour and such things are not generally popular.

The row over Low Traffic Neighbourhoods may turn out to be a storm in a teacup. Maybe we will just get used to them or perhaps the opposition will kill the idea stone dead. The outcry does draw attention to an important question though. Most of us recognise, at least in the abstract, that we will need to change our behaviour if we are to have a hope of even slowing down the rate of climate change. The government’s emission targets will be unachievable without reduced car use. But that ‘we’ is abstract and somewhere in the future. I’m reminded of St Augustine, who is supposed to have said, “Please God, make me good, but not just yet.”

"Yes, I know reducing the number of short car journeys is a good idea but not in my area, or, at least, not yet. Yes, I know we have to save the planet but right now I need to get to West Ealing Sainsbury’s for my weekly shop and I’m annoyed that I have to do a 270 degree journey to get there"_


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> If the majority of people have lungs then he wants less traffic?.
> 
> How do you know its a 'he's btw?



Well so far two boroughs have shown pollution to go up in and around the LTNs. But lets keep posting pics happy pics of kids on tricycles and put wads of toilet tissue in our ears while those of us on the roads, where the traffic now sits barely moving, choke.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Well so far two boroughs have shown pollution to go up in and around the LTNs. But lets keep posting pics happy pics of kids on tricycles and put wads of toilet tissue in our ears while those of us on the roads, where the traffic now sits barely moving, choke.


Source?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

Wandsworth and Sutton.

Council data & Imperial College


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Wandsworth and Sutton.
> 
> Council data & Imperial College


This would be the Wandsworth ltn which was never given a chance to bed in?. Some of those planters were in there for days.

Here’s a better study from Waltham Forest, an ltn which has been in place for a while:


			https://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Population%20Exposure%20Comparison%20F1.pdf
		




> Waltham Forest has used 49 NO2 diffusion tube sites to compare exposure to NO2 between 2007 and 2017 and found the number of households exposed to more than the EU recommended maximum amount of Nitrogen Dioxide has dropped dramatically, from 58,000 in 2007 to just 6,300 in 2017.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> This would be the Wandsworth ltn which was never given a chance to bed in?. Some of those planters were in there for days.
> 
> Here’s a better study from Waltham Forest, an ltn which has been in place for a while:
> 
> ...



Just asked on whatsapp.

"This is a model, not a measurement. In addition if you look at the 2007 report they refer to they have omitted most of the 'bad news' from the model. In addition, it does not mention LTNs - at the time of its writing the LTN would have been a tiny area and reductions are bigger in areas that were not near the LTN. Every borough has a similar story as NO2 dropped due to Euro5/6 standards.'


----------



## teuchter (Dec 19, 2020)

To the best of my knowledge there is zero data that tells us anything reliable about the effect on pollution of teh recent LTN implementations. That's partly because of the bedding in period effect, partly because you need to look at things over a longer timescale anyway to find a meaningful baseline and partly because it's all tangled up with lockdown and covid effects.

That's a problem for both sides of the argument because it can't really be proven either way at the moment, but anyone claiming there's clear evidence that LTNs have increased pollution is talking rubbish.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Just asked on whatsapp.
> 
> "This is a model, not a measurement. In addition if you look at the 2007 report they refer to they have omitted most of the 'bad news' from the model. In addition, it does not mention LTNs - at the time of its writing the LTN would have been a tiny area and reductions are bigger in areas that were not near the LTN. Every borough has a similar story as NO2 dropped due to Euro5/6 standards.'


There’s an expert on WhatsApp! 

Did they make up this modelling then? What is the bad news they left out?.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

My simple brain looks at the Wandsworth figures and takes them as granted. LTN on, LTN off. No other factors in that time period that im aware of such as lockdowns suddenly being lifted and they kept the A24 restrictions. Then I look at Walthamstow and ask if they have had it for years why are they modeling and not measuring? Why are they ignoring most of the worst offending 'tubes' in their update? Surely walthamstow measurement would be the key data in support?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> There’s an expert on WhatsApp!
> 
> Did they make up this modelling then? What is the bad news they left out?.



I'm in my community whatsapp group. I'm not as educated or up to date as most on there (or here) but i'm not afraid to ask when I dont know something. Its not even an LTN whatsapp group but many in there keep up to date with the details.

Apparently this latest model ommitted many of the tubes - most of the high ones...and its still a model.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> My simple brain looks at the Wandsworth figures and takes them as granted. LTN on, LTN off. No other factors in that time period that im aware of such as lockdowns suddenly being lifted and they kept the A24 restrictions. Then I look at Walthamstow and ask if they have had it for years why are they modeling and not measuring? Why are they ignoring most of the worst offending 'tubes' in their update? Surely walthamstow measurement would be the key data in support?


But if you want to lower pollution then you need to discourage motor traffic and enable alternatives, I can’t really see any way around this.

Me and others have posted up plenty of studies, I’ve yet to see any arguments against.

 What do you think they are modelling, where did they get this data from?. Do you think they made it up?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> But if you want to lower pollution then you need to discourage motor traffic and enable alternatives, I can’t really see any way around this.
> 
> Me and others have posted up plenty of studies, I’ve yet to see any arguments against.
> 
> What do you think they are modelling, where did they get this data from?. Do you think they made it up?



I'm all for lower pollution but like many - still waiting to see that LTNs actually achieve this.

As for the study, why model when you can measure? Wandsworth and sutton measured. That report says 'modelled' many times. If I put a pot on the stove and put a thermometer in it I know how hot it is. If I wave my hand over it and say 'oooo feels like 40 degrees' i'm just guessing


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I'm all for lower pollution but like many - still waiting to see that LTNs actually achieve this.
> 
> As for the study, why model when you can measure? Wandsworth and sutton measured. That report says 'modelled' many times. If I put a pot on the stove and put a thermometer in it I know how hot it is. If I wave my hand over it and say 'oooo feels like 40 degrees' i'm just guessing


Are you for traffic reduction?

It actually cites the report it got the measurements from in the references section?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> As for the study, why model when you can measure? Wandsworth and sutton measured. That report says 'modelled' many times. If I put a pot on the stove and put a thermometer in it I know how hot it is. If I wave my hand over it and say 'oooo feels like 40 degrees' i'm just guessing


Here you go. This might explain it a bit better. 
To follow your thinking. if you have a thermometer it only measures at a point. You know what the temperature of the water in the kettle is. But you don’t know how hot it is 30cm away. But you can _model_ it because there are predictable rates of heat transmission.





__





						Air quality | Waltham Forest Council
					

Air pollution in Waltham Forest, including how to report air pollution problems.




					www.walthamforest.gov.uk


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I'm all for lower pollution but like many.


Don’t actually want to do anything about it.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are you for traffic reduction?
> 
> It actually cites the report it got the measurements from in the references section?



Yes, looks like they based their modelling on old modelling from old data collected in 2007. Oh and they kept the worst offenders out of the new models.

begs the question - the ability to measure is there so why has someone not drawn up a simple chart to show the actual measured pollution from 2007 onwards. Long before LTN, as LTN was implemented and years after.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Don’t actually want to do anything about it.



Yup, just because I don't agree with these schemes makes me a bad bad person who farts diesel and burns my rubbish in my garden.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

teuchter said:


> To the best of my knowledge there is zero data that tells us anything reliable about the effect on pollution of teh recent LTN implementations. That's partly because of the bedding in period effect, partly because you need to look at things over a longer timescale anyway to find a meaningful baseline and partly because it's all tangled up with lockdown and covid effects.
> 
> That's a problem for both sides of the argument because it can't really be proven either way at the moment, but anyone claiming there's clear evidence that LTNs have increased pollution is talking rubbish.



A problem I have with those advocating LTNs is your post.

To summarise:


LTNs need to bed in
LTNs have been introduced during abnormal times - covid
Therefore longer "baseline" is needed
LTNs "bed in" time needs to be extended
It can't be proven either way but what is alternative to reducing car use

Perhaps LTNs should not have been put in place during Covid. That this should have been done after Covid emergency. If main reason for introducing LTNs is about reducing car use long term it imo was not great idea to to put them in place when Covid pandemic is happening. Then a proper baseline could have been set. 

As a cyclist I simply don't buy the argument that LTNs had to be put in place now in inner London. It was a discussion that should have happened after Covid.

Many people ( including me) have enough to deal with without the authorities imposing this on pubic with minimal consultation.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yup, just because I don't agree with these schemes makes me a bad bad person who farts diesel and burns my rubbish in my garden.


You admit you’re not that educated or up to date on this but you reckon all the data is faked or it’s a big conspiracy and  “some guy on your WhatsApp group” is better informed than the Lambeth transport team, TfL and the Mayors team and central government who mandated this nationally.

I do love this idea that all these people are wrong and all that’s needed is for some guy who’d never shown any interest in transport until his drive to Sainsbury’s got 5 minutes longer to have a brainstorm and come up with something no one else has ever thought of.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You admit you’re not that educated or up to date on this but you reckon all the data is faked or it’s a big conspiracy and  “some guy on your WhatsApp group” is better informed than the Lambeth transport team, TfL and the Mayors team and central government who mandated this nationally.
> 
> I do love this idea that all these people are wrong and all that’s needed is for some guy who’d never shown any interest in transport until his drive to Sainsbury’s got 5 minutes longer to have a brainstorm and come up with something no one else has ever thought of.



I didn't say fake and I trust the people on my whatsapp group having been part of my community for years. These are not random strangers. People have shoved these reports at them and they have actually bothered to read them.

Yet when Wandsworth and Sutton produce measurements specifically around LTNs (one by Imperial College who look after the air monitoring) there's always an excuse. I've had traffic on my road for months, what's the bedding in time? A month? A year?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> A problem I have with those advocating LTNs is your post.
> 
> To summarise:
> 
> ...



If it had begun with measurement of traffic, pollution and consultation there wouldn't be one tenth the opposition to it. The whole 'in order to aid social distancing' line is a joke. Literally mugging people off.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes, looks like they based their modelling on old modelling from old data collected in 2007. Oh and they kept the worst offenders out of the new models.
> 
> begs the question - the ability to measure is there so why has someone not drawn up a simple chart to show the actual measured pollution from 2007 onwards. Long before LTN, as LTN was implemented and years after.


They based their modelling on the actual measurements in the report they cited in the references section, and compared it with 2007. I’m not sure what problem you have with this.

Do you think traffic causes pollution?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Perhaps LTNs should not have been put in place during Covid. ....
> 
> As a cyclist I....


Pointed out to you _many_ times.

 - public transport capacity reduced by social distancing requirements

need to enable more people to walk and cycle, who previously felt unsafe to do so because of traffic
this obviously doesn’t bother you as you’re a cyclist already.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> They based their modelling on the actual measurements in the report they cited in the references section, and compared it with 2007. I’m not sure what problem you have with this.
> 
> Do you think traffic causes pollution?



We have not touched on the base of this. Why model when you can measure? Why base a model on an old model and exclude the worst offenders from the actual 13 year old measurements?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 19, 2020)

For an illustration of why you can't come to any conclusions about local air pollution by looking just at a period of a couple of weeks - see the graphs I posted here onwards:








						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

As Im on the roads all day and know a lot of people who work on the roads providing a service for other people thought Id post what I have been hearing from the horses mouth so to speak,   Gramsci , you are probably showing too much empathy on this thread. I have seen posts here mostly by the...




					www.urban75.net
				




It varies quite wildly according to weather conditions, time of year and so on.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> We have not touched on the base of this. Why model when you can measure? Why base a model on an old model and exclude the worst offenders from the actual 13 year old measurements?


They did measure. They based the model on the measurements. That is in the references section.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> They did measure. They based the model on the measurements. That is in the references section.



2007 measurements....and they based it on some of the measurements. From the link posted above it seems there are ongoing measurements. Can the WF one be seen?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I trust the people on my whatsapp group having been part of my community for years. These are not random strangers. People have shoved these reports at them and they have actually bothered to read them.



But for some reason you think no one  at Lambeth or TfL or in Government has read them? How are your mates better qualified to interpret these reports than transport or air quality professionals (or the presumably clever academics who did the studies)?

What’s the motive for all the professionals in the field to supposedly misrepresent these findings and take this footpath (rather than some other one you don’t specify that you think would be more effective)?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You admit you’re not that educated or up to date on this but you reckon all the data is faked or it’s a big conspiracy and  “some guy on your WhatsApp group” is better informed than the Lambeth transport team, TfL and the Mayors team and central government who mandated this nationally.
> 
> I do love this idea that all these people are wrong and all that’s needed is for some guy who’d never shown any interest in transport until his drive to Sainsbury’s got 5 minutes longer to have a brainstorm and come up with something no one else has ever thought of.



That would be Boris Tory government who mandated this. 

On Lambeth Council reading what has been happening with Cressingham Gardens recently I don't think it is great idea to argue these kind of people know best.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> That would be Boris Tory government who mandated this.



I know your politics get in the way of your thinking but do you not think it strange that both a Tory government and a labour mayor both agree with the approach?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> But for some reason you think no one  at Lambeth or TfL or in Government has read them? How are your mates better qualified to interpret these reports than transport or air quality professionals (or the presumably clever academics who did the studies)?
> 
> What’s the motive for all the professionals in the field to supposedly misrepresent these findings and take this footpath (rather than some other one you don’t specify that you think would be more effective)?



Who said anything about TFL or Lambeth? Something was posted here and I highlighted some points, just as teuchter did to mine


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Pointed out to you _many_ times.
> 
> - public transport capacity reduced by social distancing requirements
> 
> ...



OK so temporary measure for pandemic then ends when pandemic finishes.

It been pointed out to YOU more than once that Boris Tory government and some Labour Councils are trying to make these permanent schemes.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I know your politics get in the way of your thinking but do you not think it strange that both a Tory government and a labour mayor both agree with the approach?



What are your politics?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> 2007 measurements....and they based it on some of the measurements. From the link posted above it seems there are ongoing measurements. Can the WF one be seen?


No, they actually referenced the 2018 report they got their measurements from in the references section, are you trying to wind me up or something?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I know your politics get in the way of your thinking but do you not think it strange that both a Tory government and a labour mayor both agree with the approach?



I'm surprised you say this as the article you liked gave a reason:



> The government is not messing about here! It is determined to see Low Traffic Neighbourhoods implemented and it will beat councils up if they don’t comply. It’s no wonder, then, that hundreds of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have appeared all over the country in the space of a few months.











						The outcry over LTNs is not a culture war – it’s more serious than that
					

Map by LiveWestEaling We knew the latter half of 2020 would see arguments about Brexit, lockdown restrictions, masks and the US election. What we didn’t foresee was that, in many places, the row of…




					flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com
				




The right wing Tory government has got hard pressed local Councils over a barrel on this one.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> It been pointed out to YOU more than once that Boris Tory government and some Labour Councils are trying to make these permanent schemes.



Absolutely. Because these schemes are already in local and London  plans to address climate, air quality and inactivity crises.

All these Lambeth schemes were already in their strategy pre Covid - in Streatham to work with high road cycleways, around Brixton through Liveable Neighbourhood.




Gramsci said:


> The right wing Tory government has got hard pressed local Councils over a barrel on this one.


so over a barrel Lambeth and TfL are getting funding to do stuff _they had already said they were going to do_. Wow.

and my politics?
Not driven by ideology- I can accept an evidence based or societally desirable   policy regardless of who is proposing it and I can accept that a party or group can make both good and bad policy.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, they actually referenced the 2018 report they got their measurements from in the references section, are you trying to wind me up or something?



No, you're right. However with the kids in bed i've had time to look into the places where they get the data as others have mentioned all boroughs have seen an improvement. This is Lambeth attached. Huge improvements accross the borough 2013 vs 2016.in all areas bar the very, very north,

Begs the question. Can the improvements you linked be because of the LTNs or in spite of them?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Who said anything about TFL or Lambeth? Something was posted here and I highlighted some points, just as teuchter did to mine


You think all the decision makers at TFL and Lambeth are wrong and your mate on What’sApp knows better and he’s told you its all bollocks.  You know there’s a local guy who writes on bins and _he’s_ read the evidence too - he says Covid is fake and masks limit your oxygen intake.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> You think all the decision makers at TFL and Lambeth are wrong and your mate on What’sApp knows better and he’s told you its all bollocks.  You know there’s a local guy who writes on bins and _he’s_ read the evidence too - he says Covid is fake and masks limit your oxygen intake.



Don't get a vaccine. Bill gates wants to control you

Wake up people


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> Absolutely. Because these schemes are already in local and London  plans to address climate, air quality and inactivity crises.
> 
> All these Lambeth schemes were already in their strategy pre Covid - in Streatham to work with high road cycleways, around Brixton through Liveable Neighbourhood.
> 
> ...



As you have been told more than once the Council promised that the consultation over the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood would learn from the mistakes of the LJ road closures.

So you are incorrect to say the Council would already do this.

I know as I attend local community meetings and this is what the relevant Council officer who dealt with with the Brixton liveable neighbourhood said. He also said If they could not show support for the scheme to TFL it would not go ahead.

The pandemic cut short the consultation on the Brixton liveable neighbourhood.

Bringing in short term measures for the pandemic is reasonable.

Using pandemic to push through permanent schemes is not.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 19, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> No, you're right. However with the kids in bed i've had time to look into the places where they get the data as others have mentioned all boroughs have seen an improvement. This is Lambeth attached. Huge improvements accross the borough 2013 vs 2016.in all areas bar the very, very north,
> 
> Begs the question. Can the improvements you linked be because of the LTNs or in spite of them?


The fundamental point though is if you want to reduce pollution then you reduce traffic, can you agree with that?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> I know as I attend local community meetings and this is what the relevant Council officer who dealt with with the Brixton liveable neighbourhood said. He also said If they could not show support for the scheme to TFL it would not go ahead.
> 
> 
> Bringing in short term measures for the pandemic is reasonable.
> ...


I thought there was no consultation and the council didn’t listen to residents?  You seem to have a awful lot of meetings and chances to speak with them

To your second point - it’s very clearly set out that there has to be consultation before schemes are made permanent. So why are you so unhappy ?


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

[


thebackrow said:


> I thought there was no consultation and the council didn’t listen to residents?  You seem to have a awful lot of meetings and chances to speak with them



This is a thread on Brixton liveable neighbourhood.

I've pointed out to you more than once the consultation on it was cut short due to pandemic.

That is a fact.

So I don't know what you are going on about.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I thought there was no consultation and the council didn’t listen to residents?  You seem to have a awful lot of meetings and chances to speak with them
> 
> To your second point - it’s very clearly set out that there has to be consultation before schemes are made permanent. So why are you so unhappy ?



So what is your experience?

I attend local neighbourhood forum for LJ. I also attend Brixton neighbourhood forum sometimes.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> I thought there was no consultation and the council didn’t listen to residents?  You seem to have a awful lot of meetings and chances to speak with them
> 
> To your second point - it’s very clearly set out that there has to be consultation before schemes are made permanent. So why are you so unhappy ?



The Council has decided to not consult imo.

It is using ETOs. It didn't have to do this.

It could have kept the Covid emergency measure in place and then consulted.

ETO have nothing to do with a health emergency.

It is way Councils have learnt is convenient way to put in place a scheme getting around lengthy pre consultation. Makes their lives easier.

It never was part of Brixton liveable neighbourhood project before pandemic.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The Council has decided to not consult imo.
> 
> It is using ETOs. It didn't have to do this.
> 
> ...


There’s a point at which it’s just easiest to say “you’re wrong”, because all this has be covered repeatedly.

and yes, that may be your opinion. But you are wrong.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 19, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> There’s a point at which it’s just easiest to say “you’re wrong”, because all this has be covered repeatedly.
> 
> and yes, that may be your opinion. But you are wrong.



Im talking facts here on this thread on the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood about the consultation process.

Based on my personal experience of attending my local neighbourhood forums and hearing officers say how it would be done ( pre pandemic)

What is your actual experience? What have you attended?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> The Council has decided to not consult imo.
> 
> It is using ETOs. It didn't have to do this.
> 
> ...


There are six statements you’ve made there and IMO they are all false.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2020)

Some nice stats here, get the WhatsApp guy!









						Love Lambeth
					

Figures from Lambeth Council’s first stage of independent traffic monitoring indicate that traffic levels have been cut by over a quarter when taking into account roads inside and on the boundary of the Railton low traffic neighbourhood.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Some nice stats here, get the WhatsApp guy!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A quarter doesn't seem that much of as reduction given that we've been in lockdown/semi lockdown the whole time. Shame they didn't monitor the traffic on Coldharbour Lane too.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> Some nice stats here, get the WhatsApp guy!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From their guide:

"We will be monitoring a range of before and after data sets to assess the impact of our LTN programme."

When were the before stats? They put them in first and measured after.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 22, 2020)

I await the full report in the new year.


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2020)

Crispy said:


> I await the full report in the new year.


There's still enough there to make the OneLambeth group go supernova with rage


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 22, 2020)

editor said:


> A quarter doesn't seem that much of as reduction given that we've been in lockdown/semi lockdown the whole time. Shame they didn't monitor the traffic on Coldharbour Lane too.



"compared with a baseline calculated using data from previous years, as well as considering background traffic data for the wider London network."
suggests it's adjusted to take this year's strangeness into account


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 22, 2020)

Also they only mention counts, despite saying they will monitor a range of things. What's the issue with counts?

Oh yes! Look! So few cars going by! Only one every minute now. Problem solved. High fives all around


----------



## Crispy (Dec 22, 2020)

It's also selective enough to make it weak evidence for now.
They're obviously keen to make some good news and so there are fuzzy words like "the area" and "the majority"
I bet CHL _is_ busier than it was, and its abscence from these stats is pretty blatant.

Still, pretty good signs that the LTNs are broadly effective.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 22, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> "compared with a baseline calculated using data from previous years, as well as considering background traffic data for the wider London network."
> suggests it's adjusted to take this year's strangeness into account



FOI's have been raised asking for this data from the council. Their only data is relating to 20mph limits and nowhere near these LTNs. I.e if they had such data they would have to share it. TFL had cameras on Effra road! Who knew.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 22, 2020)

editor said:


> There's still enough there to make the OneLambeth group go supernova with rage



You just had to post a certain councillors name for that!


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2020)

Crispy said:


> It's also selective enough to make it weak evidence for now.
> They're obviously keen to make some good news and so there are fuzzy words like "the area" and "the majority"
> I bet CHL _is_ busier than it was, and its abscence from these stats is pretty blatant.
> 
> Still, pretty good signs that the LTNs are broadly effective.


It kind of undermines the 'independent' nature of the survey when the council get to frame what stats get collected. The omission of Coldharbour Lane is also going to infuriate a lot of people, and just create more division and distrust of the council.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 22, 2020)

editor said:


> It kind of undermines the 'independent' nature of the survey when the council get to frame what stats get collected. The omission of Coldharbour Lane is going to infuriate a lot of people, and just spreads more distrust in the council.



This.

When you look at the window and see traffic all day long when before there was only traffic during rush hour and then the THIS LOOKS GREAT PEOPLE stuff startscoming out


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 22, 2020)

Counts for the northern part of Shakespeare Road are interesting given that's where a lot of vocal opposition seemed to come from.  I seem to remember claims being made on here that it was perfectly fine for cycling before, there was now more HGV traffic than ever.  


Car traffic levels are down on Shakespeare Road (-56%) and HGV levels on the northerly end of Shakespeare Road are slightly down too by 5%
Cycling levels are up 36% overall including 74% on Shakespeare Road and 50% on Railton Road


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2020)

editor said:


> A quarter doesn't seem that much of as reduction given that we've been in lockdown/semi lockdown the whole time. Shame they didn't monitor the traffic on Coldharbour Lane too.


They mention one of the improvements as


Improvements to the signal phasing of the Coldharbour Lane /Atlantic Road junction to improve traffic flows along Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> They mention one of the improvements as
> 
> 
> Improvements to the signal phasing of the Coldharbour Lane /Atlantic Road junction to improve traffic flows along Coldharbour Lane.


But zero stats so it's pretty much meaningless. Don't you think it's strange that there's plenty of stats for everywhere else?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2020)

editor said:


> But zero stats so it's pretty much meaningless. Don't you think it's strange that there's plenty of stats for everywhere else?


They mention the traffic light phasing, so they've obviously been monitoring it.


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> They mention the traffic light phasing, so they obviously been monitoring it.


So why do you think they're not mentioning the numbers? The press release is clearly trying to give the scheme a positive spin, but such obvious obfuscation is just going to make people more angry and lead to more divisions.  I don't give a fuck about the nuances of signal phasing when traffic and pollution is clearly up in my street - and Lambeth can't even be honest about it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 22, 2020)

editor said:


> So why do you think they're not mentioning the numbers? The press release is clearly trying to give the scheme a positive spin, but such obvious obfuscation is just going to make people more angry and lead to more divisions.  I don't give a fuck about the nuances of signal phasing when traffic and pollution is clearly up in my street - and Lambeth can't even be honest about it.


I'd expect that to be in the full report.


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2020)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'd expect that to be in the full report.


If you were the one breathing in more exhaust every time you left the house, perhaps you'd understand the frustration caused by its curious omission from Lambeth's report.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Dec 22, 2020)

editor said:


> If you were the one breathing in more exhaust every time you left the house, perhaps you'd understand the frustration caused by its curious omission from Lambeth's report.



Especially seeing as other some boroughs seem to have this information to hand quite easily.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 22, 2020)

editor said:


> If you were the one breathing in more exhaust every time you left the house, perhaps you'd understand the frustration caused by its curious omission from Lambeth's report.


"It rose slightly (6%) on Coldharbour Lane." 

on a Claire Holland Tweet.  maybe they heard you!


----------



## Rushy (Dec 22, 2020)

Given that cycling is supposed to be replacing public transport during a period of emergency, a 50% increase in cyclists seems somewhat modest given the low pre COVID base of cycle vs high number of public transport journeys. Particularly when considering the scale of the interventions and that we are six months in. I look forward to seeing the actual numbers.

It would also seem important to separate out what increase is due to the interventions and what would have happened regardless as commuters sought a COVID times alternative to public transport. Is there comparable data for areas where LTNs have not been introduced?

It would also be interesting to see whether cycling remains the "peakiest" form of transport or whether this modest increase has flattened out usage throughout the day.

Cycling up Railton about 5pm this evening I had the road pretty much to myself. There was a gentle drizzle. Didn't see any clip board holders lurking.


----------



## editor (Dec 22, 2020)

thebackrow said:


> "It rose slightly (6%) on Coldharbour Lane."
> 
> on a Claire Holland Tweet.  maybe they heard you!


I'd like to see the stats to support that assertion and know which part of Coldharbour Lane they are referring to.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 23, 2020)

Rushy said:


> It would also seem important to separate out what increase is due to the interventions and what would have happened regardless as commuters sought a COVID times alternative to public transport. Is there comparable data for areas where LTNs have not been introduced?



I don't have any data sorry, but I'm in an area that is due for an LTN but it has not been implemented yet. Anecdotally I can tell you that the alternative to public transport in covid times has, for most people, been the car. I'm waiting still for Lambeth to send me the stats from their 2018 transport strategy (when 10,000 vehicles a day were cited) so that our local group can do some comparisons. The fact that I now don't really use the front part of my house due to traffic noise, pollution, unable to open a window and effects on my MH tells me all I need to know, the traffic is much worse than in 2018. Before the pandemic, people would be working in central London and so wouldn't use their car at all during the daytime . They are now are now furloughed or WFH, so of course car use is going up.

On Sunday night some idiots decided to use the 'lockdown' as an excuse to start a car and motorbike race around the streets of Streatham - until the police finally came and they fucked off. What is WRONG with people??


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 23, 2020)

editor said:


> I'd like to see the stats to support that assertion and know which part of Coldharbour Lane they are referring to.


Good point - I think they are monitoring the 'boundary' roads, and the part of Coldharbour which abuts the LTN is between Railton and Effra Road, as far as I can see.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 23, 2020)

sparkybird said:


> Good point - I think they are monitoring the 'boundary' roads, and the part of Coldharbour which abuts the LTN is between Railton and Effra Road, as far as I can see.


Surely that would now count the same anywhere between ritzy and barrington since Railton and Atlantic not open to motors.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 23, 2020)

I would say CHL becomes a "boundary" road at the Shakespeare Rd junction or Hinton Rd junction because those are points at which someone who would otherwise drive up Shakespeare Rd towards Herne Hill would take a different route.


----------



## Not a Vet (Dec 23, 2020)

Show us the data they said, here it is. Oh no, not that data, that’s wrong. I think Shakespeare north being down is the interesting one. They are obviously getting all the skip lorries which were split before but I would imagine that this is offset by the lack of other through traffic. Is the plan, still to move Norris to an industrial site? If so, that would help


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 23, 2020)

Since the Brixton buzz article came out the Love Lambeth article has been amended.

Added:



> Car traffic levels rose 6% on Coldharbour Lane.



Lambeth say they are going to change the signal phasing on CHL to improve "traffic flows"

This reads to me that increased traffic on CHL is considered ok by Lambeth as long as traffic is reduced in the LTN.

Thanks Lambeth. CHL is the road I live on.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 23, 2020)

Improving flow is not _necessarily_ the same thing as increasing flow rate.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 23, 2020)

6% is not much tbf, especially seeing as Atlantic Road is still closed.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 23, 2020)

Crispy said:


> 6% is not much tbf, especially seeing as Atlantic Road is still closed.


If the 'before' count was when Atlantic Rd was still open, and is taken on the dogstar-ritzy section of CHL then feasibly an increase on that section could be accompanied by a decrease on the barrier block section. It would certainly be helpful to see counts on the barrier block section. It could be that the number of vehicles per hour on that section is the same or has decreased, but they are moving more slowly, giving rise to the increase in queuing traffic that's been observed recently.


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2020)

Gramsci said:


> Since the Brixton buzz article came out the Love Lambeth article has been amended.
> 
> Added:
> 
> ...


Notwithstanding the lack of info (like, which part of Coldharbour Lane), a claimed rise of 6% for an already busy road_ during a lockdown_ does not bode well for the future.


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2020)

Crispy said:


> 6% is not much tbf, especially seeing as Atlantic Road is still closed.


It feels a shit load more than 6% outside where I live.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 23, 2020)

editor said:


> Notwithstanding the lack of info (like, which part of Coldharbour Lane), a claimed rise of 6% for an already busy road_ during a lockdown_ does not bode well for the future.


As I've already said, they seem to be claiming they've adjusted for London wide traffic - would need to in order to get a comparable figure for a particular week. 
"compared with a baseline calculated using data from previous years, as well as *considering background traffic data *for the wider London network."


----------



## editor (Dec 23, 2020)

I'd be interested to see the figures for the stretch of Coldharbour Lane between Shakespeare Road and Brixton Road.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 23, 2020)

teuchter said:


> Improving flow is not _necessarily_ the same thing as increasing flow rate.



Its Lambeth speak for increasing flow rate.

It speaks volumes that the Council didn't put in figure for CHL until later today.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 23, 2020)

If baseline ( which apparently Lambeth are not very forthcoming in detail) is made up of previous years then 6% increase on CHL could be under estimate.

The Council should have measured traffic before the putting in place of road closures as well as baseline using data ( which I hope is explained more in full report next year) for last several years.

Given the unusual times traffic will not get back to normal ( if it ever does) for months.

If/When that happens will CHL get even more traffic?

TBF I don't like living on road that Council have decided to use as an experiment.

Nothing from Council on increase except helping traffic to "flow" better on my street.

Thanks Lambeth.

So 6% is not much. That's alright then.


----------



## Gramsci (Dec 23, 2020)

Lambeth: Independent analysis shows traffic levels cut by a over a quarter in the Railton LTN area
					

Lambeth has released figures indicating that traffic levels have been cut by over a quarter when ‘taking into account roads inside and on the boundary of the Railton low traffic neighbourhood…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




Worth having a look at comments from people who live on Shakespeare Road North.

I was chatting to someone who lives there few weeks ago. The Norris skip lorries are thundering past at speed up the road now.


----------



## blameless77 (Dec 30, 2020)

Jeanette Moo said:


> With a bar set so low i'm not young enough to Limbo any more hun




‘hun’
?????


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 8, 2021)

Herne Hill is getting a free cargo bike sharing scheme and a wider TfL grant to promote walking and cycling


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 8, 2021)

Ask and you shall receive:









						Shakespeare Road, new development
					

Interesting news for Shakespeare rd north dwellers, planning permission has gone in to turn the waste factory into flats:  https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QBCVPEBOMA700




					www.urban75.net


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ask and you shall receive:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The local estate agents will be rubbing their hands together greedily. Another step towards that absolutely delightful little middle class gated community they so want. 
The recycling waste gets pushed out onto someone elses doorstep just as they've done with the traffic and pollution.
The 15 minute village gets a step closer.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 11, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> The local estate agents will be rubbing their hands together greedily. Another step towards that absolutely delightful little middle class gated community they so want.
> The recycling waste gets pushed out onto someone elses doorstep just as they've done with the traffic and pollution.
> The 15 minute village gets a step closer.



So do I get this right -  you want to _keep_ the recycling plant that you've moaned so much about and _not_ have more housing built?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 12, 2021)

Just gone in over in Camberwell,  with support from Guys and st Thomas's trust:


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 12, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> So do I get this right -  you want to _keep_ the recycling plant that you've moaned so much about and _not_ have more housing built?


You're almost correct. 
I've never complained about the recycling plant being where it is or doing what it does. It provides an essential service to the wider community and has to go somewhere.
My "moaning" has been about the road being blocked and all of the plants traffic being forced onto our side of the barriers.

Same answer as for the general traffic and pollution.
Do I want less traffic - of course I do
Do I want less pollution - of course I do

Do I want these things by forcing my share of the general burden onto someone else - NO!


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 12, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> You're almost correct.
> I've never complained about the recycling plant being where it is or doing what it does. It provides an essential service to the wider community and has to go somewhere.
> My "moaning" has been about the road being blocked and all of the plants traffic being forced onto our side of the barriers.
> 
> ...


It’s not though. They are moving that recycling centre out of residential neighbourhood to an industrial estate. There will still be lorries to and from that site but until Tesla start making electric skip lorries, not a lot you can do except making the sites where they operate more suitable.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 12, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> It’s not though. They are moving that recycling centre out of residential neighbourhood to an industrial estate. There will still be lorries to and from that site but until Tesla start making electric skip lorries, not a lot you can do except making the sites where they operate more suitable.


The traffic going in and out of it will be travelling up and down broadly similar streets as it is at the moment, just someone elses. The plant itself has little impact on the area other than the traffic. 
Is the area any more a residential area than the area directly behind it with the large Milkwood industrial estate on it?
Maybe Lambeth, the property developers and the others in the area standing to make a load of money off of it are eyeing up the ambulance station over there for redevelopment next.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 12, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> The traffic going in and out of it will be travelling up and down broadly similar streets as it is at the moment, just someone elses. The plant itself has little impact on the area other than the traffic.
> Is the area any more a residential area than the area directly behind it with the large Milkwood industrial estate on it?
> Maybe Lambeth, the property developers and the others in the area standing to make a load of money off of it are eyeing up the ambulance station over there for redevelopment next.


You sound like a member of the let’s keep Brixton shit campaign. I don’t really want this new development as I have concerns about the height of it, whether the local infrastructure can cope with it or how much social housing will be available but I’d rather have more housing for local people than a waste site particularly if it remains a low traffic neighbourhood


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 12, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> The traffic going in and out of it will be travelling up and down broadly similar streets as it is at the moment, just someone elses. The plant itself has little impact on the area other than the traffic.
> Is the area any more a residential area than the area directly behind it with the large Milkwood industrial estate on it?
> Maybe Lambeth, the property developers and the others in the area standing to make a load of money off of it are eyeing up the ambulance station over there for redevelopment next.


If it’s just traffic then overall this will be down due to cars not using it as a through road.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Jan 12, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> You sound like a member of the let’s keep Brixton shit campaign.


Where do I sign up for this campaign? Can I  get a badge??


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 13, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> You sound like a member of the let’s keep Brixton shit campaign. I don’t really want this new development as I have concerns about the height of it, whether the local infrastructure can cope with it or how much social housing will be available but I’d rather have more housing for local people than a waste site particularly if it remains a low traffic neighbourhood


I'd like to see social housing for local people too, but his isn't it. It's an 11 storey block of luxury flats in a gated development. The social housing element is the absolute bare minimum required to get it past planning regulations and we'll see how much of that survives the building/marketing/pleading/weaseling stages to come.

What i really don't get is the how obsessed some of the local activists are on getting rid of a recycling plant. 
There's a Network Rail facility next to it, a large business/light industrial park behind it and a few hundred yards up the road there's a council office and large bin lorry park next door to a school.
Why the recycling plant?
Maybe the local LTAG/XR people have found an ancient treasure map with a big X on it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 13, 2021)

I guess because the skip lorries seem to have been a problem for the Shakespeare north residents, if that's not the case then it can stay.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 13, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I guess because the skip lorries seem to have been a problem for the Shakespeare north residents, if that's not the case then it can stay.


The recycling plant has been here longer than I have (15+ years). 
We were used to the traffic it generated and no one really bothered to much about it. Then Lambeth blocked off the road and turned it into a very long cul-de-sac. 
On one hand we've got less cars on the road as you would expect. It was an important through road that eased the congestion on the lower half of Coldharbour Lane, the Shakespeare north traffic is now forced back on Coldharbour.
On the other hand we now have all the recycling plant traffic coming up and down Shakespeare north and a lot of it at speed as they try to make up the time they've lost coming/going from south of the LTN.

Of course the blessed residents of the new village don't deal with any of this as they don't take their share of the traffic or pollution. Wouldn't want their rural fantasy shattered by anything as urban as a lorry going past.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 13, 2021)

Can we get away from the "rural fantasy" nonsense please? Almost all rural areas are entirely dominated by cars and motor traffic.

This was a constant theme in the One Lambeth group. "Why don't they just move to the country if they don't like traffic".

"Urban" is another word for city and the word for city is related to the word "citizen". It's people who are citizens, not cars. Cities are supposed to be for people.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 13, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> The recycling plant has been here longer than I have (15+ years).
> We were used to the traffic it generated and no one really bothered to much about it. Then Lambeth blocked off the road and turned it into a very long cul-de-sac.
> On one hand we've got less cars on the road as you would expect. It was an important through road that eased the congestion on the lower half of Coldharbour Lane, the Shakespeare north traffic is now forced back on Coldharbour.
> On the other hand we now have all the recycling plant traffic coming up and down Shakespeare north and a lot of it at speed as they try to make up the time they've lost coming/going from south of the LTN.
> ...


I’d be very surprised if they were speeding given the number of serious speed bumps on that road, it’s impossible to go fast.

Why would that traffic use Coldharbour rd, surely Milkwood would make more sense? . I have not seen any congestion at Loughborough junction, the congestion on coldharbour is down Brixton way and is more likely to be due to Atlantic and Gresham roads being shut.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 14, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I’d be very surprised if they were speeding given the number of serious speed bumps on that road, it’s impossible to go fast.
> 
> Why would that traffic use Coldharbour rd, surely Milkwood would make more sense? . I have not seen any congestion at Loughborough junction, the congestion on coldharbour is down Brixton way and is more likely to be due to Atlantic and Gresham roads being shut.


All the HGV traffic going in and out of the recycling plant is now forced to use Shakespeare north and it's bouncing over those speed bumps as fast as it can. Those HGVs that would have traveled south now head for the Milkwood area and whatever route the diversions around there allow.
Shakespeare north was an important through road that took part of the load off normal southbound traffic on Coldharbour Lane (not the traffic coming in and out of the recycling plant) and that's now a part of the congestion down Brixton way.
Hope that clarifies what i said earlier.

I don't blame the HGV drivers for their increased speeds, from what i understand they're on fixed time delivery contracts and are just trying to make a living and not get penalised by their employers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 14, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> All the HGV traffic going in and out of the recycling plant is now forced to use Shakespeare north and it's bouncing over those speed bumps as fast as it can. Those HGVs that would have traveled south now head for the Milkwood area and whatever route the diversions around there allow.
> Shakespeare north was an important through road that took part of the load off normal southbound traffic on Coldharbour Lane (not the traffic coming in and out of the recycling plant) and that's now a part of the congestion down Brixton way.
> Hope that clarifies what i said earlier.
> 
> I don't blame the HGV drivers for their increased speeds, from what i understand they're on fixed time delivery contracts and are just trying to make a living and not get penalised by their employers.


Not really, it doesn't follow that traffic that used to go down Shakespeare would now go down Coldharbour instead when Milkwood is pretty much parallel to Shakespeare, just the other side of the tracks. 

I'd be very surprised if recycling lorries are on fixed time delivery contracts, can you back that up?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 14, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'd be very surprised if recycling lorries are on fixed time delivery contracts, can you back that up?



I'll put my money on "someone on the whatsapp group said so".

If it's true that skip lorries are consistently speeding and driving dangerously, then perhaps folk need to raise the issue with the operator of the site, Norris





__





						Contact
					

We’re here to help with your inquiry - just get in touch.




					norriskips.co.uk


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 14, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not really, it doesn't follow that traffic that used to go down Shakespeare would now go down Coldharbour instead when Milkwood is pretty much parallel to Shakespeare, just the other side of the tracks.
> 
> I'd be very surprised if recycling lorries are on fixed time delivery contracts, can you back that up?


You may well be correct
Some of them might now go down Milkwood.
Some may carry on down Coldharbour.
Some may come all the way down to the end of the cul-de-sac and then turn and go back down Coldharbour.
Some may come all the way down to the end of the cul-de-sac and then turn and go down Milkwood.
They all go somewhere other than the LTN, apart from the ones that simply evaporate.
The ones that haven't vanished in a puff of smoke all add to the general congestion somewhere else.

And teuchter wins his bet on the "someone on the whatsapp group said so"!!! That's the "from what i understand" bit.
Someone asked Norris about it and got told that they have instructed their own drivers to be more careful, but that they have no control of all the other independents who come and go from the plant. 
Obviously that is not verbatim as it wasn't me who asked and even if it had been I don't have it in writing or a verified recording of the conversation.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 14, 2021)

Your observation is that lorries heading to and from the Norris site have increased by a number that is greater than the number of lorries that used to, but no longer use Shakespeare Rd as an 'important through road". Is that right? Is it based on a count or just a general impression?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Your observation is that lorries heading to and from the Norris site have increased by a number that is greater than the number of lorries that used to, but no longer use Shakespeare Rd as an 'important through road". Is that right? Is it based on a count or just a general impression?



2 separate discussions.

1. Norris HGV traffic. All the stuff about speed bumps, Independent/Norris drivers etc.
2. General traffic/"important through road". Where the coldharbour lane traffic that used to use SRN as an important through road now goes.

Since all the Norris traffic is now forced to use SRN instead of some coming and going from the south then the SRN portion must be more than if it was before when it was split. The general impression agrees.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 14, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> 2 separate discussions.
> 
> 1. Norris HGV traffic. All the stuff about speed bumps, Independent/Norris drivers etc.
> 2. General traffic/"important through road". Where the coldharbour lane traffic that used to use SRN as an important through road now goes.
> ...


Right, but the through traffic must have involved non-Norris related HGVs, which now no longer use the road.

So you have gained a few Norris HGV trips and you have lost a few general HGV through trips. The question is whether they balance each other out. And whether there's any evidence of an overall increase.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Right, but the through traffic must have involved non-Norris related HGVs, which now no longer use the road.
> 
> So you have gained a few Norris HGV trips and you have lost a few general HGV through trips. The question is whether they balance each other out. And whether there's any evidence of an overall increase.


Of course. There is much less through traffic since the road was blocked, it can't actually get through and has to turn and go back. A general impression is that the increase in Norris related HGV outweighs the decrease in HGV through traffic.
It's only an impression since without actual data there isn't any actual evidence only what the residents can see and hear.

I've looked round Lambeths website and they do have an Open Data policy but there's no sign of any traffic data on the Open Data portal. 

Anyone know how Lambeth get their traffic data, do they collect it themselves or use data from another source?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 16, 2021)

Had a letter through today, enforcement on all the cameras starts on Monday 18th


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 16, 2021)

Also 6 months trial starts from then too so mark the date June 18th is when decisions start to be taken/consulted


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 17, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Also 6 months trial starts from then too so mark the date June 18th is when decisions start to be taken/consulted


I admire your optimism on this.

Lambeth used a TTO (Temporary Traffic Order) to avoid consultation and shove this through last July.
Now they've switched to a new ETO (Experimental) which gives them another 6 months.

Their determination to avoid consultations might have something to do with a TfL survey buried away in their Sept 2020 report, page 215 of the pdf.  http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf
19% in support of people affected by the LTN but living outside it. 56% support inside the LTN. Not great results for Lambeth.

_above corrected after getting it wrong_


----------



## mbyrde12 (Jan 17, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> I admire your optimism on this.
> 
> Lambeth used a TTO (Temporary Traffic Order) to avoid consultation and shove this through last July, that had a 6 month clause obligating them to consult or cancel.
> That 6 month period is up and to avoid their obligations they've switched to a new ETO (Experimental) which gives them another 6 months.
> ...


My understanding is temporary orders can last up to 18 months without consultation, no six month limit. Experimental orders have an inbuilt 6 month objection period & a decision can be taken any time after that six months up until 18 month limit


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 17, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> I admire your optimism on this.
> 
> Lambeth used a TTO (Temporary Traffic Order) to avoid consultation and shove this through last July, that had a 6 month clause obligating them to consult or cancel.
> That 6 month period is up and to avoid their obligations they've switched to a new ETO (Experimental) which gives them another 6 months.
> ...


Apologies for the typo... 7% should be 19%. Posting 1st thing(ish) on a Sunday morning isn't a great idea.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 17, 2021)

mbyrde12 said:


> My understanding is temporary orders can last up to 18 months without consultation, no six month limit. Experimental orders have an inbuilt 6 month objection period & a decision can be taken any time after that six months up until 18 month limit


your understanding is right... i got it the wrong way round.. apologies


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 18, 2021)

Popped into the One Lambeth page - where someone is hoping that anyone who agrees with LTNs catches covid and dies 😯


----------



## editor (Jan 18, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Popped into the One Lambeth page - where someone is hoping that anyone who agrees with LTNs catches covid and dies 😯


Can you post up a screen grab of that?


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 18, 2021)

editor said:


> Can you post up a screen grab of that?



What was the One Lambeth sign off? Peace Love Unity?

I think the 'fascists' comment was about the volunteer building a 'parklet'  on Railton Road with Father Nature.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 18, 2021)

I don’t know what upsets me more, the sentiment or the complete lack of punctuation and spelling mistakes


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2021)

I bet she’s not actually reasonable, courteous and kind.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 19, 2021)

The recent changes to the scheme seem to have raked it all up again judging by the furious debates on Nextdoor


----------



## ash (Jan 19, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> What was the One Lambeth sign off? Peace Love Unity?
> 
> I think the 'fascists' comment was about the volunteer building a 'parklet'  on Railton Road with Father Nature.
> 
> View attachment 249847






 Delightful isn’t she


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 19, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I bet she’s not actually reasonable, courteous and kind.


Seems to have been removed now.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 19, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> The recent changes to the scheme


What are these?


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 19, 2021)

There was a recent letter from Claire Holland saying that fines will now be implemented for infringing the LTNs.

I wonder what that means for emergency services and utilities as they’ve been using the Railton Road one for a while.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 19, 2021)

It’s also changes to a few of the other roads off effra and jelf


----------



## teuchter (Jan 19, 2021)

Some changes in consequence of consultation and feedback, then?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Some changes in consequence of consultation and feedback, then?


Shush, that doesn’t follow the narrative


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 19, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> There was a recent letter from Claire Holland saying that fines will now be implemented for infringing the LTNs.
> 
> I wonder what that means for emergency services and utilities as they’ve been using the Railton Road one for a while.


Emergency services can go through the gates.


----------



## KillahEmzMeanz (Jan 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> As you have been told more than once the Council promised that the consultation over the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood would learn from the mistakes of the LJ road closures.
> 
> So you are incorrect to say the Council would already do this.
> 
> ...


I personally do not understand how Lambeth can collect data during a pandemic where traffic is low across the world pretty much. Where the population is at home. How can we determine the true levels of traffic? Ofcourse pollution is low! Of course traffic is low - hardly anyone is on the road. Nothing is open for anyone to go any where.


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 20, 2021)

KillahEmzMeanz said:


> I personally do not understand how Lambeth can collect data during a pandemic where traffic is low across the world pretty much. Where the population is at home. How can we determine the true levels of traffic? Ofcourse pollution is low! Of course traffic is low - hardly anyone is on the road. Nothing is open for anyone to go any where.


Traffic might be less in some more central parts of London ( and Lambeth) but it's not the case further out. If you think about it, more people have cars in the suburbs and use them as an alternative to public transport, which they would have used pre covid. Working from home means people aren't in offices in the centre all day, so they can jump in their cars at lunchtime to go to the park, shops etc. Car use has definitely increased during the pandemic in my area. This is what TfL and Lambeth are trying to address by making streets more attractive for alternative forms of transport for short trips (walking and cycling) for those who are able


----------



## BigTom (Jan 20, 2021)

KillahEmzMeanz said:


> I personally do not understand how Lambeth can collect data during a pandemic where traffic is low across the world pretty much. Where the population is at home. How can we determine the true levels of traffic? Ofcourse pollution is low! Of course traffic is low - hardly anyone is on the road. Nothing is open for anyone to go any where.



You can compare areas which have had an LTN put in place against similar areas which have not and see how traffic changes differ between them.


----------



## Winot (Jan 20, 2021)

KillahEmzMeanz said:


> I personally do not understand how Lambeth can collect data during a pandemic where traffic is low across the world pretty much. Where the population is at home. How can we determine the true levels of traffic? Ofcourse pollution is low! Of course traffic is low - hardly anyone is on the road. Nothing is open for anyone to go any where.



TfL stats for end Sep 2020:

"Traffic on the roads, which initially fell by half during lockdown, recovered much more rapidly towards near normal – 92% of pre-Covid rates in outer London at the end of September, 90% in inner London and 78% in the central area – underlining the risk of a “car led” recovery and raising “concerns about the ability of London’s limited road capacity to cope as activity returns,” the report warns."

Summary article here with link to TfL report:








						Latest Travel in London report details extent of Covid's impact on capital's transport - OnLondon
					

Congestion charging is doing its job in curbing traffic levels in Central London, even as road traffic in the capital recovers significantly faster than public transport usage, according to Transport for London’ latest Travel in London report, published today. The authoritative annual compendium...




					www.onlondon.co.uk


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 21, 2021)

Judicial review of LTN’s including Lambeth set for February 12th at the high court. Widespread road closures, pavement widening etc deemed unlawful at the high court yesterday so we will see


----------



## teuchter (Jan 21, 2021)

Some more on that judgement here

Blow for active travel in London as High Court judge rules Sadiq Khan’s Streetspace initiative unlawful

Looks like the judgement doesn't include a requirement for things to be removed immediately?


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 21, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Judicial review of LTN’s including Lambeth set for February 12th at the high court. Widespread road closures, pavement widening etc deemed unlawful at the high court yesterday so we will see



Do you mean the LTDA and UTAG victory?

Its all over the Taxi press.

It was Bishopgate that really annoyed the Cab drivers. Its now blocked off half way down. With only buses and cycles allowed through.

The Judge was withering on how TFL and Khan used the pandemic to push through streetscape without proper thought.

Disabled group also welcome the judgement that Equalities Impact was very poorly dealt with by TFL and Khan.

Basically Judge said the Cabbies should be treated as a form of public transport like buses. They provide necessary service.

(I think the argument by Cabbies is that they should be able to move freely and not be constrained by bus gates/ LTNs etc as Cabbies are a form of public transport.)

This does not mean the end of Streetspace or LTNs. It should mean a rethink.









						London ‘Streetspace’ ruling ‘confirms’ failure of meaningful consultations with disabled people
					

London ‘Streetspace’ court ruling ’confirms’ many local authorities and transport bodies have failed to carry out meaningful consultations with disabled people says leading disability organisation. The comments come following yesterday’s High Court ruling that Transport for London’s (TfL)...




					www.taxi-point.co.uk
				



.









						TAXI WIN: High Court rules Mayor and TfL’s Streetspace Plan and Bishopsgate Traffic Order “unlawful”
					

The High Court has today ruled that the Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) “acted unlawfully” in their treatment of licensed taxis, in the Streetspace for London Plan and associated Guidance and the A10 Bishopsgate Traffic Order. The landmark judgement follows a judicial review...




					www.taxi-point.co.uk
				




From the Taxi Point article:

The case succeeded on four of the five grounds advanced on behalf of the taxi trade:


In the Streetspace Plan and subsequent Guidance, the Mayor and TfL respectively failed to distinguish the special status of taxis from “general traffic”, neither taking into account the distinct status of taxis as a form of public transport nor the travel needs of those who rely on accessible taxis.
The Mayor and TfL failed to have proper regard to their Public Sector Equality Duties under Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010.
The Plan, Guidance and the A10 Order unlawfully breached licensed taxi drivers’ “legitimate expectation” of being permitted to use bus lanes to ply for hire effectively as a vital part of London’s integrated public transport network.
The treatment of taxis in the Plan, Guidance and the Order and the decisions to exclude them were “seriously flawed” and “irrational
Im not clear how this will affect Lambeth.


----------



## Gramsci (Jan 21, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Judicial review of LTN’s including Lambeth set for February 12th at the high court. Widespread road closures, pavement widening etc deemed unlawful at the high court yesterday so we will see



I looks to me the Cabbies victory will mean Equalities Impact will be an issue in Lambeth. Whether Lambeth has done proper EIA.

Going to be a lot of work for lawyers on both sides.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jan 22, 2021)

The judgement is here


			https://www.ltda.co.uk/assets/files/downloads/Approved-Judgment-R(UTAG-and-Anor)-v-TfL-and-Anor.pdf
		


Snippets carefully chosen by me to suit my purpose.

_'In my judgment, the flaws identified were symptomatic of an ill-considered response which sought to take advantage of the pandemic to push through, on an emergency basis without consultation, “radical changes”, “plans to transform parts of central London into one of the largest car-free zones in any capital city in the world”, '

'The stated justification for the restrictions on vehicle access, namely, that after lockdown, because of the limited public transport capacity, there would be a major increase in pedestrians and cyclists, and excessive traffic with consequent risks to safety and public health, was not evidence-based. It was mere conjecture, which was not a rational basis upon which to transform London’s roads.'_


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 22, 2021)

The judgement is on black cabs using a bus lane on an A road isn’t it?


----------



## teuchter (Jan 22, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> The judgement is on black cabs using a bus lane on an A road isn’t it?


I think it also covers the wider guidance that TfL provided to LAs.
But I've yet to read through it in detail.
I'm hoping someone somewhere who knows what they are talking about, will write up a summary of what it actually means and to what extent it is relevant to other schemes.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 22, 2021)

Meanwhile in New York









						Owning a Car in the City Should Suck
					

Many New Yorkers are finding out owning a car in the city sucks. That's good.




					www.vice.com
				







> In that sense, all these New Yorkers realizing—either for the first time or once again—that owning a car in New York is and will always be a pain in the ass are learning the lesson we want them to learn. Owning a car in the city _should_ suck. In fact, it should suck way more than it currently does. It's nice for individual people's circumstances that they now have weekend escape pods or cars to visit their parents in the suburbs, but these are exactly the types of car ownership use cases—people who have cars not because they need one for their livelihoods but because they can—the city should be seeking to phase out (while making car ownership and parking easier for people with disabilities or specific occupational requirements like parcel delivery services and maintenance workers). The city should be accomplishing this not by banning cars—an urbanist fever dream in the auto-centric U.S.—but by making car ownership and use more unpleasant while boosting public options.


----------



## snowy_again (Jan 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think it also covers the wider guidance that TfL provided to LAs.
> But I've yet to read through it in detail.
> I'm hoping someone somewhere who knows what they are talking about, will write up a summary of what it actually means and to what extent it is relevant to other schemes.


There’s a London Cycling Campaign analysis - along the lines of it doesn’t  affect schemes that have started.

The transport for all review of LTNs and disabled people came out today:



			https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf
		


It’s caveats are that it has a small sample size but that some disabled people like it (better access, quieter, it’s better than before but more needs to be done to include them in active travel planning) others didn’t like it (potentially longer routes for those with chronic illness amongst other things).

What was consistent was that they felt as if both sides were using disability (and ableist terms) and people with disability weren’t involved enough.

Also that this isn’t new - communities of disabled people are always left out and that the pre-situation (poor physical access, inaccessible public transport) had to change.

There’s a good recommendations page.

I’ll try and read it in more depth throw weekend.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 22, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Do you mean the LTDA and UTAG victory?
> 
> Its all over the Taxi press.
> 
> ...


Point of detail. Point 3 did  not succeed.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 22, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> The judgement is here
> 
> 
> https://www.ltda.co.uk/assets/files/downloads/Approved-Judgment-R(UTAG-and-Anor)-v-TfL-and-Anor.pdf
> ...


Sounds like the judge is part of a pro motorist One group and that part of judgement seems to go far beyond what she should have been considering.

I predict most or all of findings overturned at appeal.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 22, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Sounds like the judge is part of a pro motorist One group and that part of judgement seems to go far beyond what she should have been considering.
> 
> I predict most or all of findings overturned at appeal.



A judge in the one group? Bit of a stretch. Maybe she was that woman who gets all ranty?

Also the judge denied appeal. LBC said this evening that in order to appeal they would have to take it to the court of appeal. To win, they would have to find fault on all points in order to succeed.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 23, 2021)

I did think it was a bit of a stretch to ban traffic on bishopsgate, it’s a really busy road outside one of the biggest stations in London. Maybe they will change the plans to let black cabs through the gates, that would sort it.


----------



## CH1 (Jan 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Sounds like the judge is part of a pro motorist One group and that part of judgement seems to go far beyond what she should have been considering.
> 
> I predict most or all of findings overturned at appeal.


What would you have made of Lord Denning vs Ken Livingstone over Fair's Fare?
Surely Lord Denning was a Hampshire Tory who knew that trains were for conveying the gentry to London - which is presumably why he got the case to try.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 24, 2021)

CH1 said:


> What would you have made of Lord Denning vs Ken Livingstone over Fair's Fare?
> Surely Lord Denning was a Hampshire Tory who knew that trains were for conveying the gentry to London - which is presumably why he got the case to try.


Somewhat before my time, and google doesn't return any results regarding Denning and Fair's Fare so I don't know


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2021)

Someone's nicking the signs!
















						Brixton councillor condemns vandalism to Low Traffic Neighbourhood signage in Ferndale LTN
					

What appears to be intentional sabotage by opponents of Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme continues to take place around the Ferndale LTN, with traffic signs being  repeatedly …



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 31, 2021)

Green road closure signs removed after motorists baffled
					

The green sign meant to celebrate road closures has been removed by a council amid fears it has confused elderly motorists leading to fines




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




Related?


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 31, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Green road closure signs removed after motorists baffled
> 
> 
> The green sign meant to celebrate road closures has been removed by a council amid fears it has confused elderly motorists leading to fines
> ...


the article relates to west London (only read that on the caption as there's no way I'm subscribing to the Torygraph). The signs removed in Brixton are proper highways signs, which state no entry for vehicles as part of the LTN road changes. I wonder if the cameras are also vandalised? If not, Lambeth must be issuing lots of fines.....


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 31, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> the article relates to west London (only read that on the caption as there's no way I'm subscribing to the Torygraph). The signs removed in Brixton are proper highways signs, which state no entry for vehicles as part of the LTN road changes. I wonder if the cameras are also vandalised? If not, Lambeth must be issuing lots of fines.....



I saw the same signs all over Lambeth planters so thought it may be the same thing


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 1, 2021)

I see all the COVID pavement widening has been taken out in Herne hill, is that the taxis work?


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 1, 2021)

I had a letter from network rail saying they’re towards the end of their refurb work (after 2 different vehicles hit the bridge). To do that, they need to shuffle the bits of pavement access around for a few days as that was interfering with their access.

All that work and they still haven’t stopped the pigeons nesting in the eaves and producing mounds of guano...


----------



## editor (Feb 1, 2021)

Here's the OneLambeth (fan account)


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2021)

TfL going for appeal against Streetspace ruling









						Sadiq Khan seeks permission to appeal 'unlawful' Streetspace ruling
					

Sadiq Khan has today submitted an application to appeal against a High Court ruling that deemed his "Streetspace" plan illegal. Last month the court ruled




					www.cityam.com


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 10, 2021)

Looks like Sutton are removing the LTNs









						New consultation on road schemes this spring
					

Sutton Lib Dems




					www.suttonlibdems.org.uk


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2021)

> On 28th January, Sutton Council intended to discuss and amend its ‘low-traffic neighborhoods’ and ‘school streets’ schemes.
> 
> 
> The meeting was put on hold because a recent High Court judgement against the Mayor of London implied that London Boroughs were misdirected and should not have been prevented from consulting in advance of implementing the schemes. Last year, the Mayor and the Conservative government required us to move at pace to introduce these schemes and only consult _after_ the measures were in place. We told them at the time that this was a mistake. We have now been proven right.
> ...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 10, 2021)

_sigh_

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 10, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Looks like Sutton are removing the LTNs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes but they are planning to consult and get them reinstated (or some form of traffic controls at least)


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 11, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Yes but they are planning to consult and get them reinstated (or some form of traffic controls at least)


They will remove the LTN, consult with residents and act based on the consultations. Pretty much what people have been asking for the last 8 months.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 11, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> They will remove the LTN, consult with residents and act based on the consultations. Pretty much what people have been asking for the last 8 months.


No need to remove them to do that. Delay, defer, long grass.   If there are genuine problems, tweak them.  There are a pretty limited number of ways to modify the road network to remove traffic and make the streets safer for walking and cycling and if the those opposing current measures haven't managed to research and propose a viable alternative by now they're never going to.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 11, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> No need to remove them to do that. Delay, defer, long grass.   If there are genuine problems, tweak them.  There are a pretty limited number of ways to modify the road network to remove traffic and make the streets safer for walking and cycling and if the those opposing current measures haven't managed to research and propose a viable alternative by now they're never going to.


" *we have no choice given the legal judgement.* "

Their lawyers seem to think otherwise.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 11, 2021)

Other councils don't appear to be responding in the same way to the 'legal judgement'.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 11, 2021)

Croydon council at Crystal Palace. They issued a report on the 12th January 


			https://democracy.croydon.gov.uk/documents/s26662/TMAC%2012%20Jan%20LTN_Finalv2.pdf
		

Their intention was, despite their own surveys results, to continue with a version of the LTN. 
The judgement came out and they decided to just remove the LTN and wait to see what happened in the courts before continuing.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 11, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> " *we have no choice given the legal judgement.* "
> Their lawyers seem to think otherwise.


That's obviously complete bollocks given TfL themselves are not changing anything (including Bishopsgate itself) before the appeal is heard.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 11, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> That's obviously complete bollocks given TfL themselves are not changing anything (including Bishopsgate itself) before the appeal is heard.


Just repeating what Sutton Council said in their statement.
Croydon Council seem to think it serious enough to remove the LTN this week and stop any further plans until it's resolved.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 11, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Just repeating what Sutton Council said in their statement.



Yes, I know.  And adding you own spin to it. 

Croydon council used it to _justify_ something they'd already announced they were doing. Other boroughs (and TfL) have made no changes to their schemes.  

Make of that what you will


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 11, 2021)

Let's see what happens in the courts tomorrow and with TfLs appeal to appeal. 
If I was inclined to bet I'd put my money on the institutions with the deepest pockets and the least to lose on a personal level.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 11, 2021)

I actually went and read the Sutton doc over lunch and there is now a legal opinion appendix.  Whatever else they've decided this seems pretty unambiguous (and their emphasis not mine)


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 11, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I actually went and read the Sutton doc over lunch and there is now a legal opinion appendix.  Whatever else they've decided this seems pretty unambiguous (and their emphasis not mine) View attachment 253778


Could you share a link to that as I can't see it on their site, probably my poor google skills


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 11, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Other councils don't appear to be responding in the same way to the 'legal judgement'.



Quite a few others have their own court case coming up!


----------



## teuchter (Feb 11, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Quite a few others have their own court case coming up!


Yes. This has not escaped my attention.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 12, 2021)

The Railton Road parklet from the other side. No plants in yet but I guess it’s not the appropriate weather this week. 

Spotted one on Jelf too.


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> View attachment 253955
> The Railton Road parklet from the other side. No plants in yet but I guess it’s not the appropriate weather this week.
> 
> Spotted one on Jelf too.


I took some pics last night and chatted to two lads from Bradford who were enjoying some cans there.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 12, 2021)

Dp


----------



## teuchter (Feb 12, 2021)

Are the kitten pictures an attempt to de-escalate any rage from One Lambeth types?


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> View attachment 253955
> The Railton Road parklet from the other side. No plants in yet but I guess it’s not the appropriate weather this week.
> 
> Spotted one on Jelf too.


Do you mind if I use this pic as the kitten photos weren't there last night!


----------



## teuchter (Feb 12, 2021)

At risk of going a bit off topic for this thread - 

Judicial reviews seeming to be the thing now, here's one that's been aimed at the government's national roadbuilding plans.










						£27bn roads plan in doubt after Shapps overrode official advice
					

Exclusive: transport secretary dismissed guidance calling for review of environmental impact




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2021)

Some more pics






















						In photos: A parklet is constructed on the Railton Road LTN, Brixton
					

Popping up outside the Hamilton supermarket on Railton Road is this wooden ‘parklet,’ providing seating within the controversial Railton Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN).



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 12, 2021)

editor said:


> Some more pics
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What kind of utter knobhead can look at stuff like that and say “nah, let’s have cars instead”?


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What kind of utter knobhead can look at stuff like that and say “nah, let’s have cars instead”?


I anticipate the comments section under this article soon filling up with people accusing Brixton Buzz of unforgivable bias by virtue of simple recording the existence of this thing.

I think there are problems with the way that this was implemented and some people have justification for being pissed off, but the way some of the anti-LTN mob behave is way out of order.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 12, 2021)

editor said:


> Do you mind if I use this pic as the kitten photos weren't there last night!


Ah - it’s not mine - it’s from the park lets own twitter account! @railtonparklet


----------



## Crispy (Feb 12, 2021)

Much nicer than the anti-social seating in Windrush Square for example.


"TWO PEOPLE SIT HERE, AT THIS ANGLE. AND ONE PERSON HERE. AND THAT'S THAT."


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2021)

The comments have already kicked off, but apparently..."you risk becoming the local version of Buzzfeed. ‘Local people get upset about a scheme which impacts them, look how angry they are, click me click me’ "


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 12, 2021)

Today ws the day so been keeping an eye out. Court update from the Lambeth case

"So.... This morning at 10.30am the Judge found in our favour, that we have a case to be heard! And it will be heard in June 2021.

This gives us time to raise the funds for the case. Remember WE WIN LAMBETH FOOTS THE BILL WE WILL BE REFUNDED OUR COSTS!
Please let’s do this together The judge was extremely firm and fair.

WE HAVE A GOOD STRONG CASE AND GREAT LEGAL TEAM WHO KNOW THEIR SH**!

the Judge even commented on the waste of taxpayers money.

Xxx Sofia"


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 12, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes. This has not escaped my attention.


the only people who win are the lawyers.  Costs the councils money. Costs the applicants money. Even if they win it's a process thing so it doesn't mean the decisions


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 12, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Today ws the day so been keeping an eye out. Court update from the Lambeth case
> 
> "So.... This morning at 10.30am the Judge found in our favour, that we have a case to be heard! And it will be heard in June 2021.
> 
> ...



Good news!


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 12, 2021)

The irony of the same old posters in the  Brixton Buzz comments complaining about the tatty state, graffiti and vandalism of the Shakespeare Road planters being the very same campaign  cheering on and justifying vandalism of said planters.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 12, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> They will remove the LTN, consult with residents and act based on the consultations. Pretty much what people have been asking for the last 8 months.


What you want is them gone completely, be honest.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 12, 2021)

a little light relief to end the week
View attachment VIDEO-2021-02-12-19-16-15.mp4


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 12, 2021)

Leading the race to the bottom Brian!


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 12, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> What you want is them gone completely, be honest.


Of course that's what I want, I've never said otherwise. 

I want them removed and then proper consultations with all the residents in the affected area. If the residents decide to put them back or not then that's an end to it.
It's always been more about Lambeths behaviour and complete disregard for most of the people affected than about a few plant pots in the road.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 12, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Leading the race to the bottom Brian!


Thank you for your kind words


----------



## teuchter (Feb 12, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Of course that's what I want, I've never said otherwise.
> 
> I want them removed and then proper consultations with all the residents in the affected area. If the residents decide to put them back or not then that's an end to it.
> It's always been more about Lambeths behaviour and complete disregard for most of the people affected than about a few plant pots in the road.


What's the "affected area" and how does the consultation determine what people want? Is there a vote?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 12, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Of course that's what I want, I've never said otherwise.
> 
> I want them removed and then proper consultations with all the residents in the affected area. If the residents decide to put them back or not then that's an end to it.
> It's always been more about Lambeths behaviour and complete disregard for most of the people affected than about a few plant pots in the road.


It was never the case that there would be no consultation at all though.

What better way to find out what something is like?. These schemes need time to bed in.


----------



## editor (Feb 12, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> The irony of the same old posters in the  Brixton Buzz comments complaining about the tatty state, graffiti and vandalism of the Shakespeare Road planters being the very same campaign  cheering on and justifying vandalism of said planters.


It's turned the street into the Wild West:





			
				Buzz comment said:
			
		

> The no man’s land created by the planters on Shakespeare Road is pretty bleak with street drinking, graffiti, accumulation of rubbish and men seen peeing into the planters on several occasions. Not nice for lone women to walk through (or line men for that matter). at any time of day but particularly after dark.


----------



## editor (Feb 13, 2021)

The daft comments from the Buzz article continue:


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 13, 2021)

new twitter account "One Lambeth Justice" making a completely tasteful connection between stopping rat running traffic and, er, [edited - that's not a recent pic] 1980's? Police treatment of black youth in their choice of profile pic.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 13, 2021)

“Social injustice”

Fuck me these cunts are stupid.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 13, 2021)

Covid bike and walking schemes do not delay ambulances, trusts say
					

FOI responses also reveal no schemes introduced without relevant service being consulted




					www.theguardian.com
				




Useful work from Cycling UK getting FOI responses from ambulance trusts - I don't know if there was a response from the ambulance trust covering this LTN but they should all be available to the public if someone wanted to look through them for one.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 13, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Covid bike and walking schemes do not delay ambulances, trusts say
> 
> 
> FOI responses also reveal no schemes introduced without relevant service being consulted
> ...


There's only one argument against them. "I don't want to be mildly inconvenienced for the sake of others". That's it. That's all they have.


----------



## Ol Nick (Feb 13, 2021)

It’s been interesting. I suspect the genie is out of the bottle now and people won’t enjoy the resumption of rat running when it’s allowed again. Add chronic air pollution, concerns about climate change and the Trumpish response of the pro-rat-running lobby and I foresee a much more anti-car regime being on place in a couple of years from now.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 13, 2021)

I guess we can add homophobia to the “things that are fine with OneLambeth” list.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 15, 2021)

Changes to the A23. It's been a long time since I cycled through Brixton, Its such a mess I avoid it entirely. 









						Love Lambeth
					

The main road between Oval and Streatham, the A23, is set to get extra cycle safety measures under a new TfL trial project




					love.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Changes to the A23. It's been a long time since I cycled through Brixton, Its such a mess I avoid it entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cheers for posting that. 









						TfL to introduce bike lane trial along A23 from Oval, Brixton and Streatham (including Brixton Road)
					

The busy main drag through Brixton has always been a perilous route for cyclists, and TfL have responded with plans of a new bike lane trial and ways to improve bus efficiency. Here’s what La…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




(awaits indignant comments)


----------



## Crispy (Feb 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Changes to the A23. It's been a long time since I cycled through Brixton, Its such a mess I avoid it entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This should probably be in a separate thread, as it's nothing to do with LTN
Details: A23 Oval - Streatham               - Transport for London             - Citizen Space
Summary:
From Oval to Brixton, the changes are mostly just enlarging ASLs, removing parkling bays and a load of bike symbols painted on the road.
Also, new ASL at Vassall Road junction
Bus lanes widened on the wide bit of Brixton Road just North of the Railway (so it's effectively 2 lanes of bus/bikes and 1 lane of cars each way, instead of 1 and 2)
Zero material change through Brixton center apart form the ASLs are enlarged a little bit.
Brixton Hill bus lanes made 24/7, ASLs enlarged

Barely seems worth the effort. The "early release" cycle phases at lights will be nice, but I'll still be going round, not through, Brixton center.

Certainly not worth using the words "bike lane"


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 15, 2021)

Crispy said:


> This should probably be in a separate thread, as it's nothing to do with LTN
> Details: A23 Oval - Streatham               - Transport for London             - Citizen Space
> Summary:
> From Oval to Brixton, the changes are mostly just enlarging ASLs, removing parkling bays and a load of bike symbols painted on the road.
> ...


If it isn't physically separated from cars, it isn't a bike lane IMHO. It's just paint.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 15, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> If it isn't physically separated from cars, it isn't a bike lane IMHO. It's just paint.


It's not even paint. It's just removing loading bays and making bus lanes 24/7
The road is wide enough (for 90% of its length) for a fully segregated lane, but there's no money for that sort of thing at TfL any more.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 15, 2021)

Crispy said:


> This should probably be in a separate thread, as it's nothing to do with LTN
> Details: A23 Oval - Streatham               - Transport for London             - Citizen Space
> Summary:
> From Oval to Brixton, the changes are mostly just enlarging ASLs, removing parkling bays and a load of bike symbols painted on the road.
> ...



I think a dedicated thread might be a good idea yes.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 15, 2021)

Ol Nick said:


> It’s been interesting. I suspect the genie is out of the bottle now and people won’t enjoy the resumption of rat running when it’s allowed again. Add chronic air pollution, concerns about climate change and the Trumpish response of the pro-rat-running lobby and I foresee a much more anti-car regime being on place in a couple of years from now.



Few years back the Council tenants on Loughborough estate along with their good Labour Cllr Rachel Heywood opposed Council road closures and won.

I don't see in my area clamour from my nearby working class Council tenants for this Council to reinstate an LTN on their patch.

Council have wisely left Loughborough Junction alone whilst implementing new LTNs elsewhere.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 15, 2021)

I dont get it. 

If One Lambeth use legal methods to oppose LTNs they are wasting "taxpayers money".

If some people mouth off on social media it shows One Lambeth are socially bigots.

As a neutral in this from what I can see is that those people organised to oppose LTNs can't win in eye of those fervant supporters.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 15, 2021)

BTW the wasting taxpayers money argument is one used by the right in this country every time ordinary people try to stand up for their rights.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 15, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Few years back the Council tenants on Loughborough estate along with their good Labour Cllr Rachel Heywood opposed Council road closures and won.
> 
> I don't see in my area clamour from my nearby working class Council tenants for this Council to reinstate an LTN on their patch.
> 
> Council have wisely left Loughborough Junction alone whilst implementing new LTNs elsewhere.



Rachel Heywood. Thats a name I have not heard in a long time. She was good to us and its terrible what they did to her.

Don't think the junction isn't up in arms. Seeing the impact of these schemes all over again.

First thing the vaccinated elderly around me want to do? Have a F2F with the councillors.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 15, 2021)

This thread gets a bit Groundhog Day from time to time.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 16, 2021)

Yesterday the equivalent One Hackney group* lost their application to the High Court to submit a judicial review case to remove the LTNs.

Lost mostly (I think) on procedural grounds - they submitted their application too late, which for a JR is sadly an expensive mistake.

*the second one as the funds from the initial fundraising drive were taken by one of the group admins to launch his own UKIP type political election campaign.

More LTN infrastructure is going in across Hackney but using ANPR instead of bollards (to allow emergency services).


----------



## alex_ (Feb 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> More LTN infrastructure is going in across Hackney but using ANPR instead of bollards (to allow emergency services).



which is what should have happened originally, as it fucks off most of oneschill’s objections and done sensibly ( it won’t be ) crushes rat running w/o affecting residents.

alex


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 16, 2021)

alex_ said:


> which is what should have happened originally, as it fucks off most of oneschill’s objections and done sensibly ( it won’t be ) crushes rat running w/o affecting residents.
> 
> alex


What's needed is both. Cameras alone don't stop cars speeding through. You need physical barriers also, with cameras to catch those that drive round/through them.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 16, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What's needed is both. Cameras alone don't stop cars speeding through. You need physical barriers also, with cameras to catch those that drive round/through them.



if someone wants to pay 100 quid a time to Lambeth to rat run down my street, I’m ok with that - it’s not like they’ll do it more than a couple of times and if they do it’s not like Lambeth don’t need the money - they can spend it on traffic calming.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2021)

alex_ said:


> which is what should have happened originally, as it fucks off most of oneschill’s objections and done sensibly ( it won’t be ) crushes rat running w/o affecting residents.
> 
> alex


This has all been discussed before but it depends what you want to get out of the LTNs - whether you only want to deal with 'rat-running' or whether you want to use them to change people's travel habits, including those within the LTNs.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This has all been discussed before but it depends what you want to get out of the LTNs - whether you only want to deal with 'rat-running' or whether you want to use them to change people's travel habits, including those within the LTNs.



But because they’ve tried to deal with every problem they’ve been easy to paint as being high impact, picking off rat running - then deal with the rest over 5 years would have been much easier to implement.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2021)

alex_ said:


> But because they’ve tried to deal with every problem they’ve been easy to paint as being high impact, picking off rat running - then deal with the rest over 5 years would have been much easier to implement.


I don't know but I'm not sure it would have met with much less resistance. It would only remove some of the objections. And then you'd have to go through it all again a few years down the line. And (if you believe in them) these changes need to happen quite urgently.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 16, 2021)

I think a slow and steady approach which addressed small areas one by one, withmeasurement and consultation would have been successful. Divide and conquer. No one would have noticed or been inclined to care if a small LTN popped up somewhere.

Instead the big bang approach has caused concern, issues and all the groups to pop up. But I get it, money was made available and it had to be used.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 16, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I think a slow and steady approach which addressed small areas one by one, withmeasurement and consultation would have been successful. Divide and conquer. No one would have noticed or been inclined to care if a small LTN popped up somewhere.
> 
> Instead the big bang approach has caused concern, issues and all the groups to pop up. But I get it, money was made available and it had to be used.



If you define 'success' as a scattering of small, half-baked schemes implemented 5 or 10 years from now, then yeah.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 16, 2021)

alex_ said:


> if someone wants to pay 100 quid a time to Lambeth to rat run down my street, I’m ok with that - it’s not like they’ll do it more than a couple of times and if they do it’s not like Lambeth don’t need the money - they can spend it on traffic calming.


Although of course Lambeth's LTNs are already seeing cameras repeatedly vandalised and drivers covering up their plates before driving through.  I think the estimate is that 10% of London's drivers are uninsured and I'd guess a similar number unregistered or to a fake name or address. Plus drivers on cloned or overseas plates - I'm guessing a fair few of the blacked out window crew who drive round Brixton at speed are illegal in one way or another. 

You don't any of those problems with full closures of the roads as was done in Waltham Forest and where there was no impact on fire or ambulance response times.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Although of course Lambeth's LTNs are already seeing cameras repeatedly vandalised and drivers covering up their places before driving through.  I think the estimate is that 10% of London's drivers are uninsured and I'd guess a similar number unregistered or to a fake name or address. Plus drivers on cloned or overseas plates - I'm guessing a fair few of the blacked out window crew who drive round Brixton at speed are illegal in one way or another.
> 
> You don't any of those problems with full closures of the roads as was done in Waltham Forest and where there was no impact on fire or ambulance response times.



taller poles, cameras for the cameras ?

alex


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 16, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I think a slow and steady approach which addressed small areas one by one, withmeasurement and consultation would have been successful. Divide and conquer. No one would have noticed or been inclined to care if a small LTN popped up somewhere.
> 
> Instead the big bang approach has caused concern, issues and all the groups to pop up. But I get it, money was made available and it had to be used.



It's interesting that at the outset Lambeth claimed it was all to do with COVID and that's why there wasn't any consultation. 
When I spoke to a local Labour councillor at the end of the summer she didn't make any attempt to defend the LTN and just kept blaming it all on the Tory government and how 'they made us do it!'.
Now you've got the Sutton LibDems saying the same thing and using the TfL judgement as an excuse to stop and start consultations.
Wonder which version is closer to the truth. 
Both avoid the obvious comment that they could just have said NO.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> a little light relief to end the week
> View attachment 254075



These "parklets" don't come cheap. Father Nature is one business that has done well out of LTNs.

I thought reason to bring in these changes to roads now was the pandemic. More space for cycling and pedestrians.

These parklets are not going to encourage social distancing. So I wonder what the justification for them is.

See something similar happening in Ragent street and LJ. Large planters have appeared on the pavements. Regent st pavement was widened. Reason gven that people need wider pavements to be able to socially distance. Now in last few days large planters have been put in where the pavement was widened. Defeating the object of widening the pavement to help social distancing.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 16, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> These "parklets" don't come cheap. Father Nature is one business that has done well out of LTNs.
> 
> I thought reason to bring in these changes to roads now was the pandemic. More space for cycling and pedestrians.
> 
> ...



The planters on the pavement at LJ are a few feet from big signs warning of road narrowing to make more room for pedestrians. 
A neighbour put some of that yellow tape with the 2 metre warning message on the "parklet" as a reminder to people, his partner works for the NHS in the thick of it. He'll probably be accused of vandalism.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 16, 2021)

You see determined to confuse different schemes 

Regent street changes are led by The Crown Estate and LB Westminster, not TFL or Shapps.

It’s been a long time in the planning of it - way before Covid, but is being spun recently as helping that street recover. You can see the plans and the trees here,






						Regent Street plans unveiled to deliver a greener, cleaner, safer and more accessible West End | Regent Street plans unveiled to deliver a greener, cleaner, safer and more accessible West End
					






					www.thecrownestate.co.uk
				




I don’t think those trees are going to stop social distancing but clearly you do.

LJ new planters - likewise is an urban greening scheme. Part of the Mayor’s Greener Cities fund.

Father nature remains as far as I know - let me know if you know anything different, an award winning not for profit organisation which trains and mentors people alongside the construction work - which could explain why they don’t just knock together some non FSC accredited bit of wood from acre lane timber and why seeing just the capital outlay is wrong. Plus there’s that thing about paying a decent wage for an honest days work, contributing towards a not for profits’ overheads etc.

It’s quite easy to google that; Father Nature Archives - Father Nature


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 16, 2021)

Regent street plans website says this:



> These plans have been designed to respond to the need for more pavement space on Regent Street, to support social distancing



The position of the planters in website looks different to what Ive seen being put in during last week.

Thing is no one has come back to shop in Regent street. Yet this looks like it is being made permanent.


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> These "parklets" don't come cheap. Father Nature is one business that has done well out of LTNs.
> 
> I thought reason to bring in these changes to roads now was the pandemic. More space for cycling and pedestrians.


Most of the increased pedestrian space on roads that was created for the pandemic have now disappeared, which seems daft given how bad the infection rate has been up until very recently.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Regent street plans website says this:


It doesn't say that's what's driving the scheme. Obviously it's going to mention it as a benefit, if the scheme completes at a time where we may still need to encourage social distancing for a while.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It doesn't say that's what's driving the scheme. Obviously it's going to mention it as a benefit, if the scheme completes at a time where we may still need to encourage social distancing for a while.
> 
> View attachment 254765



It says to support social distancing. I can't see what else that means except for the pandemic.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

editor said:


> Most of the increased pedestrian space on roads that was created for the pandemic have now disappeared, which seems daft given how bad the infection rate has been up until very recently.



The one is LJ is still under the Railway bridge. It does not work as its a mess now.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Regent street plans website says this:
> The position of the planters in website looks different to what Ive seen being put in during last week.
> 
> Thing is no one has come back to shop in Regent street. Yet this looks like it is being made permanent.



Yes, it’s permanent because it was a pre covid planned work by the crown estate & Westminster to improve those streets (and to protect their retail space). Just because a press officer had squeezed a bit of covid into the press release to get some attention from the media doesn’t mean that’s its only purpose.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Yes, it’s permanent because it was a pre covid planned work by the crown estate & Westminster to improve those streets (and to protect their retail space). Just because a press officer had squeezed a bit of covid into the press release to get some attention from the media doesn’t mean that’s its only purpose.



It is what the official website says. The one you posted up to prove your point. You are now saying its wrong.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> It is what the official website says. The one you posted up to prove your point. You are now saying its wrong.



No, I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying it’s not the primary purpose of the refurb. 

Do you think it takes < 12 months to consult, plan, design and construct new pavements and road layouts on a street that is entirely listed for its architectural heritage, and that coincidentally happens just after its 200 year anniversary?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> No, I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying it’s not the primary purpose of the refurb.
> 
> Do you think it takes < 12 months to consult, plan, design and construct new pavements and road layouts on a street that is entirely listed for its architectural heritage, and that coincidentally happens just after its 200 year anniversary?



Did you edit your orginal post? Press release seems to have gone?


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Did you edit your orginal post? Press release seems to have gone?


Post #3764? No - but in quoting it whilst using a mobile the link seemed to disappear.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 17, 2021)

editor said:


> Most of the increased pedestrian space on roads that was created for the pandemic have now disappeared, which seems daft given how bad the infection rate has been up until very recently.


Largely because risk of virus transmission in well ventilated outdoor space is very very low. Sitting opposite someone at a pub table on a still day for an hour might not be a good idea, but passing people in the street at less that 2m has never been shown to be a material risk.   And most of the temporary pavement widening schemes - at least those that didn't create a level, kerb free, pavement didn't really work for anyone.









						Catching coronavirus outside is rare but not impossible
					

Almost all documented coronavirus transmissions have occurred indoors, but experts say that wearing a mask outside is justified because there is still a risk of infection.




					medicalxpress.com
				






> One study published in April identified a single case of transmission outdoors, between two Chinese villagers, out of more than 7,000 studies.
> 
> In an analysis of 25,000 cases, which has not yet been independently reviewed, six percent of cases were linked to environments with an outdoor element, such as sporting events or concerts.
> 
> These were enclosed areas where social distancing was not observed, or where people stayed for a while, moving around and talking loudly or singing.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> See something similar happening in Ragent street and LJ. Large planters have appeared on the pavements. Regent st pavement was widened. Reason gven that people need wider pavements to be able to socially distance. Now in last few days large planters have been put in where the pavement was widened. Defeating the object of widening the pavement to help social distancing.



I'm intrigued - do you think Regent Street was better for pedestrians - the main users of the street - with 4 lanes of motor traffic or two?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 17, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> It's interesting that at the outset Lambeth claimed it was all to do with COVID and that's why there wasn't any consultation.
> When I spoke to a local Labour councillor at the end of the summer she didn't make any attempt to defend the LTN and just kept blaming it all on the Tory government and how 'they made us do it!'.
> Now you've got the Sutton LibDems saying the same thing and using the TfL judgement as an excuse to stop and start consultations.
> Wonder which version is closer to the truth.
> Both avoid the obvious comment that they could just have said NO.


If you go back to the start of the thread you'll see these schemes were planned long before covid and have value in their own right. Covid just gave them more impetus.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> It's interesting that at the outset Lambeth claimed it was all to do with COVID and that's why there wasn't any consultation.
> When I spoke to a local Labour councillor at the end of the summer she didn't make any attempt to defend the LTN and just kept blaming it all on the Tory government and how 'they made us do it!'.
> Now you've got the Sutton LibDems saying the same thing and using the TfL judgement as an excuse to stop and start consultations.
> Wonder which version is closer to the truth.
> Both avoid the obvious comment that they could just have said NO.



At local neighbourhood meeting a Cllr said they had to put in place these schemes as the government told them to spend the money quickly. So yes the line when under pressure from Cllrs is "they made us do it". This was in response to asking about lack of consultation. Line being the Cllr would have preferred to consult more but the Tories made us spend the money on these schemes quickly.

Of course they could have taken the political decision to say no.

Or they could have taken decision to put in place really temporary schemes and not use any Experimental Traffic Orders. They had powers under pandemic to introduce temporary social distancing measures as at LJ. I wasn't arguing with that.

My impression is that senior officers and some senior officers thought pandemic was once in a lifetime oppurtunity to fast track finishing working up and implementing pet schemes.

Fact that backbench Cllrs have caught the flack has led to what you and I have heard some of these Cllrs say. In some ways not backbbench Cllrs fault. The Progress led Council is so tightly run from the top that the poor old back bench Cllr is caught between the Chief Whip and angry constituents.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Post #3764? No - but in quoting it whilst using a mobile the link seemed to disappear.



Im sure Crown Estate have been planning this. There has been a load of work on New Bond Street / Burlington Gardens to widen pavements / make roads more pedestrian friendly.

What appears to have happened is that the pandemic has been used to fast track the Regent street proposals. Intially the temporary barriers were Khans Streets Space blue barriers. ie a temporary widening of pavement last year. In run up to Christmas this made sense as it looked like the economy would be opened up a bit and Christmas shoppers would be encouraged to come to shop.

This did not happen- no ones fault.

Then I saw builders making the temporary widening permanent.

I did not understand this as by then it was obvious that no one would be coming to Regent street to shop for months.

The Crown Estate press release sums up my whole issue with the roll out of these schemes.

Councils / large organisations always have projects in the pipeline. Some make it to fruiton some don't.

My criticism is that pandemic is being used by fast track projects.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I'm intrigued - do you think Regent Street was better for pedestrians - the main users of the street - with 4 lanes of motor traffic or two?



Regent street pavements were wide enough for pedestrians between Oxford Circus and Piccadilly pre pandemic. 

The problem area was around Oxford Circus.

At rush hour ( pre pandemic) and during Christmas shopping period it was always at times an over crowded bottleneck. People coming in and out of tube did not help. Not sure what can be done about that. 

So no given my experience of Regent street I do not think permanent pavement widening on that stretch is necessary.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> My criticism is that pandemic is being used by fast track projects.


Oh no, there might be nice things faster than usual, how terrible.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Regent street pavements were wide enough for pedestrians between Oxford Circus and Piccadilly pre pandemic.
> The problem area was around Oxford Circus.
> At rush hour ( pre pandemic) and during Christmas shopping period it was always at times an over crowded bottleneck. People coming in and out of tube did not help. Not sure what can be done about that.
> So no given my experience of Regent street I do not think permanent pavement widening on that stretch is necessary.



I'm not a regular West End shopper by any means but I've been on Regent Street many times when the pavements were unpleasantly overcrowded. Yes, area around tube entrances even worse (partly because the entrances narrow the pavement but also because they close the barriers frequently when the station is overcrowded. Used to happen almost nightly when I was working there. 

But that specifically wasn't the question I asked.  It's one of London's 'premier' shopping destinations - a place where huge numbers of people visit on foot. Do you think it is better for pedestrians with 2 lanes of traffic rather than 4?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I'm not a regular West End shopper by any means but I've been on Regent Street many times when the pavements were unpleasantly overcrowded. Yes, area around tube entrances even worse (partly because the entrances narrow the pavement but also because they close the barriers frequently when the station is overcrowded. Used to happen almost nightly when I was working there.
> 
> But that specifically wasn't the question I asked.  It's one of London's 'premier' shopping destinations - a place where huge numbers of people visit on foot. Do you think it is better for pedestrians with 2 lanes of traffic rather than 4?



Ive answered your question.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> My criticism is that pandemic is being used by fast track projects.



Why's that a problem? If anything, the period of reduced traffic and footfall is the ideal time to get disruptive work done.

I sort-of understand your objection to consultation being fast-tracked but for projects that are already decided, what's the issue with them happening faster than originally planned (if that's even what's happening)?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh no, there might be nice things faster than usual, how terrible.



Do you work or live in that area?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Ive answered your question.


You said you didn't think it was 'necessary'. You didn't comment on whether it would make things better for pedestrians.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Why's that a problem? If anything, the period of reduced traffic and footfall is the ideal time to get disruptive work done.
> 
> I sort-of understand your objection to consultation being fast-tracked but for projects that are already decided, what's the issue with them happening faster than originally planned (if that's even what's happening)?



Because they are not already decided.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You said you didn't think it was 'necessary'. You didn't comment on whether it would make things better for pedestrians.



I've given full answer.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

An observation.

I find the both the hardline advocates of LTNs and the hard line anti LTN people equally annoying.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You said you didn't think it was 'necessary'. You didn't comment on whether it would make things better for pedestrians.



BTW I cycle on that road every day. Do you?


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> An observation.
> I find the both the hardline advocates of LTNs and the hard line anti LTN people equally annoying.


You are truly hilarious.



Gramsci said:


> BTW I cycle on that road every day. Do you?


That is in no way relevant to the question that was asked.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> BTW I cycle on that road every day. Do you?


No. When I worked in central London I walked on it most days though.

But is it that your objection is that it makes things worse for cyclists?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No. When I worked in central London I walked on it most days though.
> 
> But is it that your objection is that it makes things worse for cyclists?



Im lost here. When did I say it would make things worse for cyclists?

To answer your question impact on cyclists is neutral at this time.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> You are truly hilarious.
> 
> 
> That is in no way relevant to the question that was asked.



Sorry. I gave you a full answer to your question.

Ive recently left a Whats App group as it became dominated by hard line anti LTN people.

I see you as mirror image of some anti LTN people.  Dismissive of anyone who wants a comprimise or proper consultation.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Do you work or live in that area?


No, but I live in a city that is also having lots of LTN’s introduced, with the same sort of moaning idiots.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, but I live in a city that is also having lots of LTN’s introduced, with the same sort of moaning idiots.



The kind of abuse I see on both sides of this debate about LTNs. Does not help whether its done by pro or anti LTN people.


----------



## Not a Vet (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Sorry. I gave you a full answer to your question.
> 
> Ive recently left a Whats App group as it became dominated by hard line anti LTN people.
> 
> I see you as mirror image of some anti LTN people.  Dismissive of anyone who wants a comprimise or proper consultation.


I’m quite happy to discuss a compromise but I’m met with deafening silence about what that might be. All I hear is rip them out.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 17, 2021)

The regent street scheme, as currently implemented, is daft. The extra pavement is clogged up with planters so doesn't help pedestrian flow. I'd much rather that space was used for a segregated cycle lane. Good N-S routes through the city are sorely needed


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Im sure Crown Estate have been planning this. There has been a load of work on New Bond Street / Burlington Gardens to widen pavements / make roads more pedestrian friendly.
> 
> What appears to have happened is that the pandemic has been used to fast track the Regent street proposals. Intially the temporary barriers were Khans Streets Space blue barriers. ie a temporary widening of pavement last year. In run up to Christmas this made sense as it looked like the economy would be opened up a bit and Christmas shoppers would be encouraged to come to shop.
> 
> ...


But Regent Street has had things like car free / pedestrian only days for years. These plans aren’t new and if you’re Westminster you’re likely to be opportunistic and tap into Covid budgets to offset some of your planned expenditure. 

Here’s an example: 'SUMMER STREETS' BY REGENT STREET 

And as part of the cleaner air strategy https://heartoflondonbid.london/wp-...t-summer_streets_road_closure_letter_2018.pdf 

Specifically on Regent Street - if they had already been doing it, had plans to do more of it, and were doing more of it, why do you have an issue with them doing it faster during lockdown?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I’m quite happy to discuss a compromise but I’m met with deafening silence about what that might be. All I hear is rip them out.



I agree. That is why I regard both the supporters of "real" LTNs here and some of the rip them out Anti LTN as mirror images of each other.

Take the example of LJ. Not everyone was against traffic calming/ closing rat runs etc. The whole thing got out of hand and only one side could win. Council learnt no lessons from that and same thing is happening now.. This time I think the Council and its supporters are likely to win.  The resentment will remain.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

double post


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

double post


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> But Regent Street has had things like car free / pedestrian only days for years. These plans aren’t new and if you’re Westminster you’re likely to be opportunistic and tap into Covid budgets to offset some of your planned expenditure.
> 
> Here’s an example: 'SUMMER STREETS' BY REGENT STREET
> 
> ...



The press release that I quoted from and disappeared from here somehow shows why.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

double post


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

double post


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 17, 2021)

This one: Regent Street plans unveiled to deliver a greener, cleaner, safer and more accessible West End | The Crown Estate ?

Do you mean this line “Construction commenced on the new designs this week, following on from the measures put in place to widen pavements using temporary barriers.”


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> This one: Regent Street plans unveiled to deliver a greener, cleaner, safer and more accessible West End | The Crown Estate ?
> 
> Do you mean this line “Construction commenced on the new designs this week, following on from the measures put in place to widen pavements using temporary barriers.”



No - it does not have the quote I used.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 17, 2021)

__





						Regent Street: greener, safer and more accessible | The Crown Estate
					






					www.thecrownestate.co.uk
				






> These plans have been designed to respond to the need for more pavement space on Regent Street, to support social distancing, and replace the temporary barriers that have been in place since May 2020



It sound like they are using an ETO to do this.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Council learnt no lessons from that and same thing is happening now.. This time I think the Council and its supporters are likely to win.



I actually think they possibly did learn something from the LJ experience and that might be why they might manage to 'win' this time, at least to some extent.

In LJ they basically crumpled at the first sign of opposition. There was no-one ready to argue back; they weren't prepared for it.


----------



## hypernormalized (Feb 18, 2021)

There seems to be some confused messaging in the Regent's Street proposals.

Permanently modifying the built environment to support social distancing is nonsensical - as long as we're still doing it, there will not be a significant number of people on the street anyway because the vast majority get there via public transport which is incompatible with social distancing. Have they forgotten that 95% of Londoners live outside Westminster?

Given that, the claim that there exists "limited space" for a segregated cycle route falls apart. The street is plenty wide enough as it is with the exception of a few busy periods around Christmas etc.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 18, 2021)

I agree that to a certain extent the social distancing justfication is nonsense. However - that's not being presented as the main reason to do this.

Likewise, perhaps there is a missed opportunity for better cycle provision.

But if you want Regent St to be better for pedestrians, then I don't see why anyone would object to what's being done. Pavement width, and how crowded pavements are, aren't the sole measure of whether a street is good for pedestrians. Two lanes of traffic not only encourages more traffic in general, it makes the street more difficult to cross. Regent St is one of London's main shopping streets - the amount of space currently given over to motor traffic is disproportionate.

It's often easy to say that pavements are wide enough and it's all fine so let's not change it. But very often, some time after the changes have been made, looking back at how it used to be, the previous arrangement then looks to be totally disproportionate. A good example of this is the road through the centre of Brixton. While there was perhaps more obvious pavement crowding there - when the pavements were widened there were people saying it was unnecessary (and also criticising the removal of the central barrier. But now - look back at photos of that road 20 years ago, and I think most people would agree it looks outrageous how compressed the pedestrian space had become.

As for cycle provision - is Regent street actually well suited to becoming a principal cycle route? It's one place where I might say that pedestrians should be given priority. A segregated cycle lane would inevitably cause conflict with pedestrians.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 18, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Take the example of LJ. Not everyone was against traffic calming/ closing rat runs etc. The whole thing got out of hand and only one side could win. Council learnt no lessons from that and same thing is happening now.. This time I think the Council and its supporters are likely to win.  The resentment will remain.



That is what struck me about LJ - you're right that not everyone was against it.  As you said at the time - 
_“How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me.“
“For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?“
“What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist. There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.”
“Walthamstow "mini Holland”. Waltham Forest Council pushed it through despite opposition. This article suggests its becoming a success. Lambeth have effectively ditched there manifesto committment to making Lambeth a cycle and pedestrian friendly borough. I have seen the Walthamstow Mini Holland as a friend of mine lives in it. It basically stops rat runs. “_


----------



## Winot (Feb 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> As for cycle provision - is Regent street actually well suited to becoming a principal cycle route? It's one place where I might say that pedestrians should be given priority. A segregated cycle lane would inevitably cause conflict with pedestrians.



As Crispy says, N-S cycle routes are a real problem in that part of town. The new segregated route on Park Lane isn’t bad, but falls to bits at the north end where cyclists are discharged into a pedestrian crossing. Charing Cross Rd/TCR is pretty bad. Kingsway/Woburn Place is awful.

The advantage of Regent St is that it is wide and that it has plenty of pedestrians. Cars don’t tend to speed. With decent design there is enough room for a segregated cycle lane and for peds. I‘d like to see a single bus lane in both directions, wide pavements and segregated cycle routes. I don’t see why private motor vehicles need access.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 18, 2021)

Winot said:


> As Crispy says, N-S cycle routes are a real problem in that part of town. The new segregated route on Park Lane isn’t bad, but falls to bits at the north end where cyclists are discharged into a pedestrian crossing. Charing Cross Rd/TCR is pretty bad. Kingsway/Woburn Place is awful.
> 
> The advantage of Regent St is that it is wide and that it has plenty of pedestrians. Cars don’t tend to speed. With decent design there is enough room for a segregated cycle lane and for peds. I‘d like to see a single bus lane in both directions, wide pavements and segregated cycle routes. I don’t see why private motor vehicles need access.


I wish the Park Lane route could be sorted out properly. Like you say it's incomplete. But it seems much better suited to a focused N-S route, because cyclists don't need to be in conflict with large numbers of pedestrians, and frequent bus stops. 

In the segregated vs non segregated debate, I've come round over time to the segregated approach in most cases. But for central, shopping streets I'm not so sure.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Park Lane...But it seems much better suited to a focused N-S route, because cyclists don't need to be in conflict with large numbers of pedestrians, and frequent bus stops.



Surely you need both - Regent Street is a km east of Park Lane.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 18, 2021)

TFL Cycle map: Cycle

You can see the big gap in the West End. Ideally needs a N-S route roughly following Regent Street, and an E-W route paralleling Ocford Street (there are patchy bits and pieces of the latter that don't appear on this map). Purple routes are "quietways" which can be anything from actual dedicated road space to pictures of bicycles painted on quiet(er) back streets. Green and blue are true cycle lanes (ish. the Superhighways are included despite many of them being bus lanes)



Reason for this big lack of routes in the West End?
Westminster don't like bikes.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 18, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Surely you need both - Regent Street is a km east of Park Lane.


yes - I don't really have a solution. Just saying, I can see that there are issues with making a busy shopping street also a major cycle route.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 18, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> That is what struck me about LJ - you're right that not everyone was against it.  As you said at the time -
> _“How supporting unrestricted access to roads for motorised traffic ( for in practise that is the position of those here who opposed the road closures) is supporting the working class is beyond me.“
> “For example one of the earlier discussions here was that these road closures were in working class areas and why not reduce through traffic by doing it in "middle class" areas. Such as at Hinton road? To deter through traffic?“
> “What has happened is that the Council has now caved in completely to the motorist. There will be a further statutory consultation on the "improvements" that the new steering group are formulating. My opinion is that its a farce. All suggestions to reduce road traffic have been ruled out of the discussion. So the new improvements will be motorist first, pedestrians and cyclists second.”
> “Walthamstow "mini Holland”. Waltham Forest Council pushed it through despite opposition. This article suggests its becoming a success. Lambeth have effectively ditched there manifesto committment to making Lambeth a cycle and pedestrian friendly borough. I have seen the Walthamstow Mini Holland as a friend of mine lives in it. It basically stops rat runs. “_



The way you go on is enough to put anyone off LTNs.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 18, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh I see you think that’s what it is - do you want to find the ETO if it is one?


Gramsci said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No it doesn’t.

It’s not an LTN, no cars are restricted from using it (except on pretty infrequent car free days), and there’s no timed restrictions during the day.

It’s Westminster and Crown Estate investing in what they call ‘the public realm’ to promote the street as a shopping destination and to meet some green agenda plans.

If there was an ETO or a LTN for Regent St then details of both or either of those would exist on the Westminster.gov.uk website or TfL or Westminstertransportservices.co.uk etc.

On the Westminstertransportservices.co.uk site you can search for *all* streetscape, TMOs, ETOs etc.

There is a new ETO for Vigo Street / Burlington gdns (which tweaks some of the Mayfair streets. There isn’t one for Regent Street and LB Westminster is generally avoiding them.


Gramsci said:


> The way you go on is enough to put anyone off LTNs.


Who should have priority - pedestrians or car drivers?


----------



## Not a Vet (Feb 22, 2021)

One Lambeth been sticking leaflets under car wipers on brixton water lane today.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> One Lambeth been sticking leaflets under car wipers on brixton water lane today. View attachment 255601


Stickers all along Coldharbour Lane too.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2021)

Parklets are certainly more fancy around Barbican way


----------



## alex_ (Feb 23, 2021)

editor said:


> Parklets are certainly more fancy around Barbican way
> 
> View attachment 255742



looks like it’ll cost more than 5k too


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2021)

alex_ said:


> looks like it’ll cost more than 5k too


It could be argued that by spending more you'll get something that is more attractive to use and will cost less in the long term.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 23, 2021)

editor said:


> It could be argued that by spending more you'll get something that is more attractive to use and will cost less in the long term.


The Barbican one was probably built by a professional carpenter.


----------



## Not a Vet (Feb 23, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> The Barbican one was probably built by a professional carpenter.


Father nature built the Railton road one, pretty good organisation that. I can’t see what you can object to


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 23, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Father nature built the Railton road one, pretty good organisation that. I can’t see what you can object to


Nothing against Father Nature, seem like a great community based company. If Lambeth are daft enough to throw that kind of money around who can blame them for taking it.
The actual construction wasn't done by them though, believe it was done by a local LTN enthusiast working as a freelance, carpentry apparently not one of his main skills.


----------



## Not a Vet (Feb 23, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Nothing against Father Nature, seem like a great community based company. If Lambeth are daft enough to throw that kind of money around who can blame them for taking it.
> The actual construction wasn't done by them though, believe it was done by a local LTN enthusiast working as a freelance, carpentry apparently not one of his main skills.


Well they were there today, father nature that is. Looks pretty good to me but then I’m not a carpenter


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 23, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Well they were there today, father nature that is. Looks pretty good to me but then I’m not a carpenter


Looks a bit shoddy to me, but that's just my view. 
Strange place to put some benches though, right on a main road with cars and buses inches away. There's a park a few yards up the road that could do with a bench or 2. 
Bit rough on the shopkeeper too, they've got that blocking delivery vans from the front of their shop.


----------



## Not a Vet (Feb 23, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Looks a bit shoddy to me, but that's just my view.
> Strange place to put some benches though, right on a main road with cars and buses inches away. There's a park a few yards up the road that could do with a bench or 2.
> Bit rough on the shopkeeper too, they've got that blocking delivery vans from the front of their shop.


Hammy still have the cul de sac next to the shop for deliveries. As a Railton resident I like it and with it being so quiet, buses aside, can’t see what the problem is. Obviously if the LTN is removed, might be a different story. Brockwell has quite a few benches. Honestly Brian, I get that you hate the LTN but do you have to object to everything related?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 23, 2021)

That Tiktok thing posted further up, making out like the problem with the parklets was that they didn't match the (fictional) vision of fully planted, tree lined car free boulevards. Then it's that they are too expensive. Then that the carpentry is shoddy. Then concerns about Covid safety and then that buses pass too close. All these concerns...if only the streets had been properly dug up and permanent planting put in at great expense then there'd be nothing to complain about eh?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2021)

This has been in news media and on twitter. Over past few days. Ive looked at not seen any statement from LCC. So posting this now.

Its on Telegraph paywall. Been trying to find non paywall news outlet for this.

London Cycling Campaign employee and leading light in Lambeth Cyclists section has been alleged to be suspended from job due to "racist" tweets.

Cllr Tim Briggs has written letter to Lambeth Council about this which contains the details.









						A London Cycling Campaign employee is suspended over 'racist' Tweets following spat with drivers
					

A pro-cycling campaigner who has helped introduce 'low traffic neighbourhoods' has been suspended from his job over 'offensive' tweets




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2021)

Cllr Tim Briggs letter to Lambeth: With the tweets.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 23, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Looks a bit shoddy to me, but that's just my view.
> Strange place to put some benches though, right on a main road with cars and buses inches away. There's a park a few yards up the road that could do with a bench or 2.
> Bit rough on the shopkeeper too, they've got that blocking delivery vans from the front of their shop.



It was always been double yellow lines Brian and I thought you’d know that.

Why can’t we have benches in the park and a parklet on Railton?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 23, 2021)

The BMJ come out in favour









						Low traffic neighbourhoods and population health
					

Evidence shows powerful local improvements   Car use harms health, the environment, and society in many ways. In 2019, 1752 people were killed by vehicle collisions in Great Britain, with another 25 945 seriously injured.1 Motor traffic is also a major contributor to air pollution, which is...




					www.bmj.com


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That Tiktok thing posted further up, making out like the problem with the parklets was that they didn't match the (fictional) vision of fully planted, tree lined car free boulevards. Then it's that they are too expensive. Then that the carpentry is shoddy. Then concerns about Covid safety and then that buses pass too close. All these concerns...if only the streets had been properly dug up and permanent planting put in at great expense then there'd be nothing to complain about eh?


It’s a _change_ though. Can’t have that.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2021)

Just been pointed out to me that London Cycling Campaign have put out this:









						Statement in Response to Complaints against a Staff Member
					





					www.lcc.org.uk
				






> The London Cycling Campaign (LCC) recently received a number of complaints alleging racist tweets by a member of the LCC staff team, Mr Simon Still, posted prior to his employment with the charity. LCC takes such complaints extremely seriously and suspended Mr Still, prior to an urgent investigation.
> 
> The investigation has been completed, and has concluded that the tweets were indeed racist. LCC believes there can be no excuse for such racist statements, condemns them and deeply regrets the offence that these tweets have caused.
> 
> Mr Still did not contest that the tweets were racist. He has apologised unreservedly for the offence this has caused, especially to BAME people, and to the charity


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2021)

deleted


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2021)

First made public on Talk Radio Cristo progamme. Cristo is as he says is Lambeth resident. Very much anti LTNs.

Starts properly 6mins in giving the details.. Nearly all of programme is on this.

Its unfortunate that Cristo goes on to use this to have a go at all those who support LTNs in Brixton. It is the they are all middle class white gentrifiers line of argument. Plus having a go at the so called "woke" middle class left.

When in fact this is one person with a leading position - they do not represent all those who support LTN idea.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 23, 2021)

LCC say this person will not have "external facing duties". So I assume will not be seen on social media  for some time. Or having meetings with Cllrs/ officers of Lambeth as they have had in the past.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2021)

deleted


----------



## teuchter (Feb 24, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> First made public on Talk Radio Cristo progamme. Cristo is as he says is Lambeth resident. Very much anti LTNs.
> 
> Starts properly 6mins in giving the details.. Nearly all of programme is on this.
> 
> ...



It's not exactly "unfortunate". It's very much the whole agenda isn't it?

It goes along with Councillor Tim Briggs who seems to have brought this issue to people's attention. The last time he was going on about woke lefties and magic money trees, it was in protest at BLM related reparations stuff.

I don't defend those tweets in any way by the way. I'm glad they've accepted they were wrong.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's not exactly "unfortunate". It's very much the whole agenda isn't it?
> 
> It goes along with Councillor Tim Briggs who seems to have brought this issue to people's attention. The last time he was going on about woke lefties and magic money trees, it was in protest at BLM related reparations stuff.
> 
> I don't defend those tweets in any way by the way. I'm glad they've accepted they were wrong.



I have not posted this up as I was waiting for other media to take it up. None did. So was left with Cllr Briggs and Cristo. And the Telegraph.

Im no supporter of the politics of Cristo ( I did listen nearly all of the radio show) or Cllr Briggs but I waited in vain for several days for other news outlets like Guardian to report this.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I have not posted this up as I was waiting for other media to take it up. None did. So was left with Cllr Briggs and Cristo. And the Telegraph.
> 
> Im no supporter of the politics of Cristo ( I did listen nearly all of the radio show) or Cllr Briggs but I waited in vain for several days for other news outlets like Guardian to report this.



Here's the text of the paywalled Telegraph article for anyone who hasn't already read it and wants to.

_'By Steve Bird
A London Cycling Campaign adviser who has helped introduce low traffic neighbourhoods has been suspended after launching a “racist” tirade accusing black motorists of being “gangster” high on drugs.
Simon Still, a key campaigner for the pro-cycling charity known as LCC, used social media to describe “young black men in silver Mercs” as having “obvious anger management issues”.
The charity has launched an “urgent” investigation amid claims his comments prove the Government policy of introducing road closures and pop-up cycle lanes is being used as a form of “white middle class gentrification” in the capital.
Mr Still, who works as LCC’s infrastructure database coordinator, posted his comments on Twitter after becoming embroiled in rows with three separate motorists while out on his bike.
The tweets singled out black motorists as “young thugs driving cars aggressively and dangerously”.
He wrote: “These are the same guys driving at 60mph up my 20mph residential street. They’re probably the same ones carrying knives and stabbing people.”
He asked: “What is wrong with young black men in silver Mercs in London” before urging police to “take their cars away”.
He added: “I’m guessing they’d all blood test positive for cannabis.”
Another tweet read: “I’m guessing these are all gangsters-they’re driving around during the day in £30k+ cars with obvious anger management issues. I don’t think they’re on the 9-5 work treadmill.”
The tweets were written two years ago after Mr Still, 49, claimed he was cut up by one motorists, then looked “wrong” at another who threatened him, and finally someone drove at him.
When admonished on social media for using offensive racial stereotypes, Mr Still wrote: “This isn’t a race thing-it’s about young thugs driving cars aggressively and dangerously. In South West London they’re mostly black… in Essex/Norfolk/South Wales they’re white.”
His comments, which came to light last week, prompted Tim Briggs, a Conservative Lambeth councillor, to write to town hall bosses, urging them to sever links with Mr Still, who was in charge of the Lambeth section of the LCC charity at the time he posted his messages.
Mr Still had attended meetings with the council cabinet to promote controversial ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’ (LTNs).
The letter accuses the local authority of being “heavily influenced” by Mr Still who is seen as a “source of authority and advice” despite his “racist slurs”.
Councillor Briggs also wrote how road closures that Mr Still had helped introduce have “displaced” traffic from affluent areas to main roads “which disproportionately affects people on lower incomes including people from Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.”
Mr Still, who lives in Lambeth in a house estimated to be worth £1.6 million, has been a prominent cycling campaigner who helped create a road sign celebrating roads being closed to cars. His Twitter account shows him wearing a T-shirt stating: ‘Evil Cycling Lobby-Lifetime Member’. Mr Still declined to comment.'
Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, whose daughter Ella died after a fatal asthma attack triggered by air pollution and who has campaigned against LTNs over concerns they shift traffic to poorer areas, accused Mr Still of “awful stereotyping”.
“When Mr Still says the word ‘black people’ and doesn’t say ‘some black people’ he is talking about all black people,” she said.
“Lambeth is a very multicultural borough. He really should have thought first before tweeting.”
Kevin Hylton, emeritus professor of equality and diversity in sport and education at Leeds Beckett University and chairman of the Sheffield Race Equality Commission, said: “Mr Stills has shared racist views, and in those moments a disposition that belies the trust Londoners place in organisations like LCC to treat them fairly.
“Last year British Cycling made a very clear statement about black lives and the need to rid their sport of racism.”
He added how the “ill-informed tirades” have set back the “democratisation of cycling” and undermined the “good thing” he was doing by promoting LTNs.
The LCC said: “We have recently received a number of complaints about a tweet by LCC staff member Simon Still, published prior to him joining LCC.
“LCC takes such issues extremely seriously, and Simon Still is currently suspended until the outcome of an urgent internal hearing.”
A Lambeth Council spokesman said Mr Still’s comments were “unacceptable”.
Calvin Robinson, a political adviser on race relations, said: “This wasn't a case of someone misspeaking, this is an entire thread based on racial stereotypes. It has somehow become acceptable for the hard-Left to be overtly racist towards people they disagree with. When did this happen?
“I'm not a proponent of cancel culture, and I'm not campaigning for Simon to lose his job, but I do think he should publicly apologise for the vile messages he put out there. Then it's our job to forgive and move on.
“We have to let these people know racism-of all forms-is unacceptable.”
Cristo Foufas, a Lambeth resident and LTN opponent who hosts a Talk Radio show where the tweet was revealed, said Mr Still’s comments demonstrated the “middle-class thinking they can inflict their racist views on one of the multicultural parts of London”.'_

I think the LCC internal enquiry was started by complaints form other LCC members and not a councillor.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 25, 2021)

not on topic... but for any over 60s in here








						Over 60s can book their NHS Covid-19 vaccination appointments online NOW!
					

If you’re over 60 and still waiting to get a date for your Covid-19 vaccination jabs, the good news is that you can go online now and immediately book appointments for your two doses.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				



booked an appointment for this morning... in and out of the pharmacist at LJ in 5 minutes.


----------



## editor (Feb 25, 2021)

On a related note









						Lambeth Council pledges support to Idling Action London’s “Engines Off. Every stop” anti-pollution campaign
					

Lambeth Council has announced that it’s supporting the new ‘Engines Off. Every Stop’ anti-idling advertising campaign, which targets London drivers. Running from from 22 February until 21 Mar…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 25, 2021)

Imagine the confusion in your average Telegraph reader that article causes.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Imagine the confusion in your average Telegraph reader that article causes.


NB the sharp elbowed liberals are rebranded as "hard left".


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> NB the sharp elbowed liberals are rebranded as "hard left".


But hardly surprising from a Murdoch owned shock jock radio station (most of the article quotes are from the radio show Gramsci posted) and that specific one is from a Daily Mail & Telegraph columnist who is part of that Defund the BBC lot and is a Cristo guest.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 25, 2021)

i just listened to the first bit of the radio programme.

Cristos’ friend Jody calls in and gets a large chunk of time describing cyclists as ‘like East German Stasi’.

That will be Jody Graber who spoke on the steps of Lambeth Town Hall that I think Gramsci photographed for the Buzz piece in september.

The Jody who took the money raised in the Islington anti LTN campaign fundraiser and used it to stand as a local councillor despite saying he wouldn’t do that and the fundraising ask specifically saying it wouldn’t be used for that sort of thing. Created lots of bad blood in the Islington Road Closure Madness movement; STATEMENT FROM THE ADMIN OF LUDICROUS ROAD CHANGES

Jody who’s David Kurtens friend and who invited him to speak on the steps of Lambeth Town Hall.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 25, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Here's the text of the paywalled Telegraph article for anyone who hasn't already read it and wants to.
> 
> _'By Steve Bird
> A London Cycling Campaign adviser who has helped introduce low traffic neighbourhoods has been suspended after launching a “racist” tirade accusing black motorists of being “gangster” high on drugs.
> ...



telegraph are most pissed off with the guy for encroaching on their turf.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 25, 2021)

LB Westminster is bringing back the road closures (to allow for restaurants under their ‘temporary al fresco’ scheme from April 13 until October.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Imagine the confusion in your average Telegraph reader that article causes.




What confusion?


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> i just listened to the first bit of the radio programme.
> 
> Cristos’ friend Jody calls in and gets a large chunk of time describing cyclists as ‘like East German Stasi’.
> 
> ...





BTW I took photos and posted them up of the demo. I heard a lot of people who were pissed off locals. So please do not try to imply otherwise. Thankyou.

Cristo also had Rosamand Kissi Debrah on the show.

What is your take on her?

She imo is very levelled headed. Cristo was trying to get her to have a go at the mayor which she resisted.

Her comments on Simon twitter posts seemed fair enough to me.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> i just listened to the first bit of the radio programme.
> 
> Cristos’ friend Jody calls in and gets a large chunk of time describing cyclists as ‘like East German Stasi’.
> 
> ...


Is this him too? Jody Graber - IMDb


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> BTW I took photos and posted them up of the demo. I heard a lot of people who were pissed off locals. So please do not try to imply otherwise. Thankyou.
> 
> Cristo also had Rosamand Kissi Debrah on the show.
> 
> ...



I’m not implying anything - just pointing out that some people are using the issue for a separate, distinctly populist political recruitment purpose. There’s a faction who will use any green issue as ‘woke liberalism’ to quote one of Cristos guests as a grift for votes, cash and power. Pound shop Farage if that’s a thing, and all very post Trump politics.

Kurten a full on climate change denier / ‘cultural marxist are destroying our country’ type - I can’t image the people at the demo would agree with that bigotry, but his party manifesto is to scrap all road measures from LTNs to ULEZ  (which is the most palatable bit of their manifesto - the rest goes full bigot). He’s a regular on the anti LTN demo world and a regular Talk Radio guest.

That’s why private eviction specialist Briggs is also buzzing around the issue - he doesn’t care for the residents of Ferndale. He kicked off at the council when asked to support the notion that the council could be institutionally racist, he’s a member of the Tory party... but he’s not thrown out of the room when he says he’s going to scrap them.

Rosamund - will reply tomorrow - she deserves a much longer, more positive reply.


----------



## snowy_again (Feb 25, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Is this him too? Jody Graber - IMDb


Who knows? Some articles say it is, but he’s also claimed to be a frontline NHS worker (but very little evidence of that) and is now a trader.


----------



## CH1 (Feb 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Who knows? Some articles say it is, but he’s also claimed to be a frontline NHS worker (but very little evidence of that) and is now a trader.


I'm intrigued. If he'd spent his youth being filmed by Derek Jarman in The Garden at Dungerness I would have expected him to be in favour of low traffic.
I won't say what Edward II brings to mind.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I’m not implying anything - just pointing out that some people are using the issue for a separate, distinctly populist political recruitment purpose. There’s a faction who will use any green issue as ‘woke liberalism’ to quote one of Cristos guests as a grift for votes, cash and power. Pound shop Farage if that’s a thing, and all very post Trump politics.
> 
> Kurten a full on climate change denier / ‘cultural marxist are destroying our country’ type - I can’t image the people at the demo would agree with that bigotry, but his party manifesto is to scrap all road measures from LTNs to ULEZ  (which is the most palatable bit of their manifesto - the rest goes full bigot). He’s a regular on the anti LTN demo world and a regular Talk Radio guest.
> 
> ...



I watched a lot of the Cristo programme.I can see he is against LTNs.

Thing is I waited for the liberal media to take up the issue of the tweets. So far none have that I can see. So that is why I posted up Telegraph and Cristo. Only them covered it. If I had seen alternative in Guardian I would have used it. Dead silence from the liberal media.

So as I was at the anti LTN demo to see who turned up and take photos you do accept the most people present at the demo were local people. Ferndale had a big presence. I've said this before. 

You have throughout this thread asserted that anti LTN is pushed by the right wing bigots.

I would have thought that the tweets show its not that simple.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 27, 2021)

From the LCC
_' After considering his position following the investigation of racist tweets made prior to his employment at LCC, Simon Still has resigned from the charity with immediate effect '_

From Lambeth Cyclists
_' Yesterday, LCC released a statement on the conclusion of its investigation regarding Simon Still. You can find that statement below. Given these events, Simon Still is no longer Joint Coordinator for Lambeth Cyclists '_


----------



## cuppa tee (Feb 27, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Is this him too? Jody Graber - IMDb


Probably....I have an entry on IMDB and all I did was hang around on location for a couple of days, occasionally sitting down on set with a few others with a camera pointing at me when directed, don’t even appear in the finished product.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2021)

Posted on Buzz:  Lambeth London Cycling Campaign member resigns after publishing racist tweets


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2021)

The anti-LTN lot are keen to tar all of the LCC as racist now (from Buzz comments)



> It took two weeks for the racist to be removed. What does that say about #LCC and @clairekholland
> who used whataboutery to deflect criticism of her racist friend
> #LCC blocked those that pointed out racism in their organisation, hardly the actions of an organisation that takes racism seriously
> #LCC is still racist





> Well said. Will Lambeth council and Living Streets now stop working with this racist organisation, the LCC?


----------



## CH1 (Feb 27, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> Probably....I have an entry on IMDB and all I did was hang around on location for a couple of days, occasionally sitting down on set with a few others with a camera pointing at me when directed, don’t even appear in the finished product.


Pity I didn't know this trick back in the 60s. I could have quite fancied appearing in some Ken Russell numbers.
Derek Jarman was the designer for _The Devils_ by the way.

As for Jody Graber - he has three listings, all Jarman films.
I wonder what Simon Still (dismissed LCC spokes) might have said about that in an indiscrete Tweet?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 27, 2021)

I don't think the LCC is racist but their actions towards those who were leaves a lot to be desired. 

Tweets come out and person suspended pending an investigation. Standard. 

Investigation completed and employee given back office tasks and told to go on a course!?! Total shock. 

A few days later when it it spreads more the LCC announce the person resigned. 

If I had made those comments I would have been met in the foyer of my work by HR and a manager. Taken to a side room and sacked. 

The whole slap on a wrist and take a course is what has lead many to question how seriously LCC take such things.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 27, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> If I had made those comments I would have been met in the foyer of my work by HR and a manager. Taken to a side room and sacked.



Bullshit, 99.999% of racist incidents online have no consequences whatsoever.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 27, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Bullshit, 99.999% of racist incidents online have no consequences whatsoever.



We are not talking about the same thing. If your employer was made aware of such comments would you still havea job? I wouldn't.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> We are not talking about the same thing. If your employer was made aware of such comments would you still havea job? I wouldn't.


Be interesting to see the full dialogue that took place on Twitter for some context. Is it available anywhere? 

Of course, anyone posting that kind of shit in such a job has to go of course, but I'd like to see who he was arguing with and what else was said.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 27, 2021)

editor said:


> Be interesting to see the full dialogue that took place on Twitter for some context. Is it available anywhere?
> 
> Of course, anyone posting that kind of shit in such a job has to go of course, but I'd like to see who he was arguing with and what else was said.



Ask on the article or the comments. Someone has them I'm sure


----------



## Winot (Feb 27, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> If I had made those comments I would have been met in the foyer of my work by HR and a manager. Taken to a side room and sacked.



What about if you had made those comments before you were employed by your company? If they are summarily sacking people in that situation they must be losing a lot of employment tribunals.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Ask on the article or the comments. Someone has them I'm sure


I'd rather find an independent source.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 27, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> We are not talking about the same thing. If your employer was made aware of such comments would you still havea job? I wouldn't.



you didn’t say this though.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 27, 2021)

Winot said:


> What about if you had made those comments before you were employed by your company? If they are summarily sacking people in that situation they must be losing a lot of employment tribunals.



No difference. Would your employer hire you in the first place if they knew you had made these comments? 

It's not like saying you prefer burger King burgers and then go and work for McDonald'sa year later. Its racist remarks.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Feb 27, 2021)

alex_ said:


> you didn’t say this though.


... Given the scenario we are talking about I didn't think it needed pointing out. 

However, here have a point in the point scoring competition that you seem so keen on. 

One point to house pedantic.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 27, 2021)

editor said:


> Be interesting to see the full dialogue that took place on Twitter for some context. Is it available anywhere?
> 
> Of course, anyone posting that kind of shit in such a job has to go of course, but I'd like to see who he was arguing with and what else was said.


His twitter account seems to have gone and I think the comments had been deleted anyways, here's a link London Cycling Campaign condemns employee’s racist tweets – but stops short of sacking him
Not sure how complete the screenshots are, but that's all there is.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2021)

editor said:


> Be interesting to see the full dialogue that took place on Twitter for some context. Is it available anywhere?
> 
> Of course, anyone posting that kind of shit in such a job has to go of course, but I'd like to see who he was arguing with and what else was said.



Cllr Brigg put the screenshots of the tweets on bottom of his letter to the Council. Its on my post 3743.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2021)

Winot said:


> What about if you had made those comments before you were employed by your company? If they are summarily sacking people in that situation they must be losing a lot of employment tribunals.



I was wondering about this and whether it was a contractual thing but reading around it looks like "bringing a company into disrepute" does not need to be in a contract or staff handbook to be a gross misconduct offence, it's implied in any contract of employment on a basis of "mutual trust" that an employee would not do things that would bring their employer into disrepute.
I don't think it matters if what they said was before they were employed, there can be no question that his tweets have brought LCC into disrepute and I reckon this should be gross misconduct and immediately sackable without concern for employment tribunal.
Of course they may have taken advice from an actual employment solicitor or HR firm to decide on their actions and been told that they didn't have the contractual basis for saying this was gross misconduct in which case I'll stand corrected but I think they could have straight sacked him here for gross misconduct.


----------



## Winot (Feb 27, 2021)

I’m sceptical, but I am not an employment lawyer (edit - I have however taken advice from employment lawyers on the issue of gross misconduct, albeit not in this context). 

Anyway, in case it’s not clear, I am not defending the remarks.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2021)

Winot said:


> I’m sceptical, but I am not an employment lawyer (edit - I have however taken advice from employment lawyers on the issue of gross misconduct, albeit not in this context).
> 
> Anyway, in case it’s not clear, I am not defending the remarks.



for clarity, I never thought you were defending the remarks or the LCC's actions.
If it's not gross misconduct then the LCC simply cannot have sacked him regardless of whether they wanted to or not, and I think there's a good question whether actions you did before you were employed by an organisation, which then bring that organisation into disrepute, would be considered gross misconduct.
If LCC took advice from an employment solicitor who told them that they could be open to a tribunal claim if they sacked him, then the lack of sacking doesn't say anything about LCCs internal attitude to racism.

Another thing though is that he made those tweets in Feb 2019, 2 years ago. If he's less than 2 years into employment then they could have sacked him anyway even if that wasn't considered gross misconduct legally. As long as they are not being fired for a protected characteristic or if they were whistleblowing, LCC would be fine afaik.


----------



## editor (Feb 27, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Cllr Brigg put the screenshots of the tweets on bottom of his letter to the Council. Its on my post 3743.


Yes, but I was interested in seeing the entire discussion and finding out who else was part of it.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Feb 27, 2021)

editor said:


> Yes, but I was interested in seeing the entire discussion and finding out who else was part of it.


Think it's gone. The versions i've seen online are all screenshots.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2021)

editor said:


> Yes, but I was interested in seeing the entire discussion and finding out who else was part of it.



He has his twitter closed to public view now.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2021)

Been reading the comments at end of the Brixton Buzz article. 



> Thanks for letting people know about this. Simon was chair of Lambeth Cyclists (volunteer led subsidiary of LCC) while he made these tweets and 2 weeks later was meeting with Claire Holland, so he was essentially a part of LCC when he posted these vile statements. He was very aggressive across all social media platforms to anyone raising concerns or issue with the LTNs, this was condoned by our councillors who don’t respond to us. The LCC still have a problem with diversity and should do much more to be more representative and deal with the racism within their organisation



I think reason his twitter was looked over is because of way he used social media to have a go at anyone who opposed LTNs or raised issues about them.

One lesson LCC could learn from this is to put staff and leading activists in learning programme about how to use Twitter , FB and social media.


----------



## Gramsci (Feb 27, 2021)

There is a lot of whataboutery on past few pages. Rather depressing stuff about employment rights.

Im not at all keen on people being sacked for things they have done out of work time. And I don't think he should have been forced to leave. People imo can learn from mistakes.

Thing is LTNs wre imposed on local population without the consultation that should have happened.

Groups like LCC do have the ear of local Councils. Most locals dont. Lambeth should not have imposed LTNs in the way it has.

Cllr Holland said while back its a "Culture War" . That need not have happened.

I see the comments on the Brixton Buzz article ( and elsewhere) are putting the line that it is middle class white people pushing these LTNs. That Lambeth Council are comfortable talking to these kind of people. That it fits in with this Labour Councils gentrifying agenda. Simon said publicly on twitter what these middle class greens think in private.

Some of this is based on fact. This right wing New Labour Council is pursuing policies that aid gentrification. To just dismiss these criticisms as right wing will not work.

I do not think LCC is racist as a whole.

I do think that Lambeth has been politically inept


----------



## Rushy (Feb 27, 2021)

editor said:


> Yes, but I was interested in seeing the entire discussion and finding out who else was part of it.


As I read it (although I'm not exactly au fait with Twitter) it wasn't so much a discussion between posters but a post complaining publicly about something that had happened to him that day and only copying in the police. It looked to me like the comments went largely unnoticed and received no likes and one reply.

FWIW I've read a fair few of his more recent posts and I didn't get the  impression that there is any theme of racial intolerance running through them. But I think he generally treated with contempt anyone who did not show him and his opinions the respect that he feels he deserves - regardless of race. He is not unique in that regard and so seemed to get in some nasty public spats. I can see how when there is a matter of race involved it could be hard to differentiate from racism.

I also noticed that his main Twitter bio (like so many of the LTN activists, he had more than one account) used to say Chair of Lambeth Cyclists but a couple of months ago he removed the mention and replaced it with "views are my own". So I wonder whether there was already some question about his posting behaviour getting in the way of his job. It certainly struck me as unprofessional and I had wondered why a seemingly respectable group would want to be associated with it (not to mention a council). I am guessing that the way it panned out was pretty much inevitable and the "racist tweets" merely sped that up.

The fact is that he is a propagandist with a very narrow agenda. And there is nothing wrong with that - he represents a particular viewpoint. If he wants to spend his time lecturing and ranting online that's OK too. What's not fine is the council choosing to allow him to become so influential. And allowing themselves to be convinced by the polar rhetoric. And sucking up the idea that he is so fond of - that there will be opposition but it will all be unreasonable and can be ignored - something to steamroller.

Someone posted a video of Clare Holland saying of her closest advisers something along the lines of '_I realised that I needed them because they are the ones who are pushing me'_.  Well, yup. That's very obvious.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 27, 2021)

It seems to me that there's potential for overstatement of one individual's influence on the council and what they do. Lambeth is not the only borough choosing to implement stuff and I don't believe the objections they are receiving are unique. If you trawl through the multiple members of multiple groups who might be involved in lobbying, supporting or advising multiple local authorities and you find a few who have made very ill advised and/or racist comments on twitter then I'm not sure what you can really take away from that. I'm not saying the comments are ok or unimportant but would question how significant they are in the wider argument about LTNs. Gramsci pointed out earlier that the story had been 'ignored' by the guardian etc and he may have a point there to some extent. Maybe they would have covered it if the tweets were from a racist cabbie protesting LTNs. Either way ... Perhaps it should be reported and discussed but is it actually an 'LTN story'.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2021)

Some of those anti-LTN lot are seriously unhinged. This one has decided that _everyone_ involved in the London Cycling Campaign is racist, and Brixton Buzz is racist too for not knowing about some two-year old tweets posted by Simon Still - someone we’d never even heard of until very recently.



> Lambeth councillors, LCC, LTN activists, Brixton Buzz can’t claim they didn’t know about Still’s tweets. He was one of the most vocal, bullying, aggressive and self promoting AND posted this on his social media. Did all of the above simultaneously fall asleep at the wheel whilst the race hate was being published ?
> Maybe that’s why it’s taking a while before they figure out how to comment without incriminating themselves in the platform they all gave him.
> Certainly there is deafening silence from people who always supported him.
> And he continued targeting black owned Brixton business until freedom of information requests exposed it. Again the above safe havens for this racist didn’t expose or stop him. Shame on you.
> ...


----------



## edcraw (Mar 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I have not posted this up as I was waiting for other media to take it up. None did. So was left with Cllr Briggs and Cristo. And the Telegraph.
> 
> Im no supporter of the politics of Cristo ( I did listen nearly all of the radio show) or Cllr Briggs but I waited in vain for several days for other news outlets like Guardian to report this.



Is it that surprising that this hasn't been picked up by other national media? 

It's a local issue and the racist tweets don't have an effect on whether LTNs work or not. 

Telegraph & TalkRadio are looking to use this for their own agenda and that's pretty distasteful (as is suddenly caring about minorities because you've been slightly inconvenienced as Cristo's recent tweets show).


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2021)

Not that it'll likely change many people's minds but









						Low-traffic schemes benefit most-deprived Londoners, study finds
					

Data dispels myth that low-traffic neighbourhoods are disproportionately found in privileged areas




					www.theguardian.com
				






			https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Not that it'll likely change many people's minds but
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As if anything so sensible as facts and data will dissuade the loons.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Is it that surprising that this hasn't been picked up by other national media?
> 
> It's a local issue and the racist tweets don't have an effect on whether LTNs work or not.
> 
> Telegraph & TalkRadio are looking to use this for their own agenda and that's pretty distasteful (as is suddenly caring about minorities because you've been slightly inconvenienced as Cristo's recent tweets show).



Guardian have given a lot of coverage of the LTNs.

So no its not just a local issue.

Person was also employee of LCC. Which is a well-known organisation.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2021)

Some interesting data here







			https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/


----------



## edcraw (Mar 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Guardian have given a lot of coverage of the LTNs.
> 
> So no its not just a local issue.
> 
> Person was also employee of LCC. Which is a well-known organisation.


I mean the Simon Still angle is a local issue. He was an employee of the LCC and chair of the Lambeth branch but not senior in the LCC so of local interest. 

Personally if I agreed with The Telegraph, TalkRadio & Nigel Farage on something I'd change my mind 😉.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Guardian have given a lot of coverage of the LTNs.
> 
> So no its not just a local issue.
> 
> Person was also employee of LCC. Which is a well-known organisation.


It is a bit surprising that is has picked up so little attention, although I'd never heard of him until last week.

I just did a search for him and found out that he was writer for Brixton Blog and has a pointless parody Twitter account.

Edit - adding in 'Lambeth Cyclists' came up with this A London Cycling Campaign employee is suspended over 'racist' Tweets following spat with drivers


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 2, 2021)

editor said:


> Some of those anti-LTN lot are seriously unhinged. This one has decided that _everyone_ involved in the London Cycling Campaign is racist, and Brixton Buzz is racist too for not knowing about some two-year old tweets posted by Simon Still - someone we’d never even heard of until very recently.


They’re not happy with you on the One Lambeth fb!


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> They’re not happy with you on the One Lambeth fb!


I'm sure there's some entirely reasonable people in OneLambeth but as a group they can make no claim to represent the community when they instantly silence dissent and censor any broader discourse. And they certainly can't claim to hold any kind of higher moral ground after seeing some of the stuff that gets posted there.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I mean the Simon Still angle is a local issue. He was an employee of the LCC and chair of the Lambeth branch but not senior in the LCC so of local interest.
> 
> Personally if I agreed with The Telegraph, TalkRadio & Nigel Farage on something I'd change my mind 😉.



Nigel Farage hasn't anything to do with this.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 2, 2021)

Given that Farage has said the Reform UK Party is going to target councils who implement better provision for pedestrians and people who cycle, there’s some relevance.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 2, 2021)

or there's this guy: Brian For Mayor: Brian Rose - Your Next Mayor of London


----------



## cuppa tee (Mar 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> or there's this guy: Brian For Mayor: Brian Rose - Your Next Mayor of London



think this gentleman has been ruled out of running for mayor.


----------



## editor (Mar 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> or there's this guy: Brian For Mayor: Brian Rose - Your Next Mayor of London


A complete conspiracy nutcase.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Given that Farage has said the Reform UK Party is going to target councils who implement better provision for pedestrians and people who cycle, there’s some relevance.



Talk Radio Cristo and Daily Telegraph covered the tweets issue. As far as I know Farage hasn't said anything on the matter. 

So unless you can point to where Farage has said something Ive missed its not relevant.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 2, 2021)

editor said:


> A complete conspiracy nutcase.


Not the worst thing about him but having a shot of Edinburgh at 2:20 in his transport video is not a good look for a London mayor.









						Fixing the Transport System - London Real Party
					

As your next Mayor I will ensure TfL is energised to behave like a business, not a charity, using the land it owns to generate investment revenue.




					brianformayor.london


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2021)

editor said:


> Some of those anti-LTN lot are seriously unhinged. This one has decided that _everyone_ involved in the London Cycling Campaign is racist, and Brixton Buzz is racist too for not knowing about some two-year old tweets posted by Simon Still - someone we’d never even heard of until very recently.



I did read all the comments. TBF after that person posted up that comment at end of Brixton Buzz article several people came on to say it was out order to have a go the Buzz.  

Brixton Buzz has been even handed on the LTN controversy and given views of both sides fairly imo. Notice the Blog has yet to say anything on the tweets.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2021)

Here's that Brian for Mayor loon talking a whole load of complete nonsense about LTNs


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2021)

When the Loughborough Junction road closures happened local people who opposed them were able to put their grievances to the local Labour Cllr - Rachel. Who took them up.

This time around, whatever individual Labour Cllrs might feel, they aren't going to take this up. After what happened to Cllr Rachel.

Looking at the comments under the Brixton Buzz article and what Ive seen elsewhere I don't think lumping together all those in Lambeth who oppose LTNs or question aspects of them as in bed with Farage/ racist Cabbies etc etc is at all helpful.

I would have thought the "tweets" issue would have meant a pause for thought at stereotyping all those who oppose LTNs.

 was chatting to work mate today who drives a van for a living in London. He is an immigrant from African country. He is against LTNs. He is not some kind of conspiracy nut or Farage supporter. Far from it. A he said he drives to make a living and feed his kids. Not because he wants to.

I really object to continual simplisitic anti LTN = right wing/ racist.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> When the Loughborough Junction road closures happened local people who opposed them were able to put their grievances to the local Labour Cllr - Rachel. Who took them up.
> 
> This time around, whatever individual Labour Cllrs might feel, they aren't going to take this up. After what happened to Cllr Rachel.
> 
> ...


I agree, you shouldn't lump everyone together. Different people may be opposed for different or even contradictory reasons.
However it's perfectly legitimate to point out strands of objection that are based on certain ideological grounds. On either side of the argument.
But - it's not legitimate to extrapolate from this isolated twitter incident that significant portions of the support for LTNs are founded on or result from racial prejudice. Or do you think they are?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I agree, you shouldn't lump everyone together. Different people may be opposed for different or even contradictory reasons.
> However it's perfectly legitimate to point out strands of objection that are based on certain ideological grounds. On either side of the argument.
> But - it's not legitimate to extrapolate from this isolated twitter incident that significant portions of the support for LTNs are founded on or result from racial prejudice. Or do you think they are?



Well you seem to think that anti LTN people are right wing supporters.

You take great relish in putting up stuff about the right wing candidate.

So dont come all not lump everyone together at me thankyou.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 2, 2021)

Okay, I was being flippant but trying to make the point that I don’t think The Telegraph or Cristo were reporting on those racist tweets out of any genuine concern but rather to further their anti LTN views. The attached pretty much shows Cristo really doesn’t care anyone apart from himself tbh.

I suspect no one else nationally has picked it up as it doesn’t have a reflection on the schemes and he was a fairly minor employee of the LCC. If it was their chairman for example than it would be news.

There are of course genuine concerns around LTNs but most against them don’t seem to be open to an evidence in favour of them - I suspect this is because they don’t agree with the basic aim to reduce car usage & dependency.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Well you seem to think that anti LTN people are right wing supporters.
> 
> You take great relish in putting up stuff about the Tory candidate.
> 
> So dont come all not lump everyone together at me thankyou.


The Tory councillor and his position and the reasons for his position are absolutely relevant to the wider debate. Highlighting this is not lumping anyone together.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I agree, you shouldn't lump everyone together. Different people may be opposed for different or even contradictory reasons.
> However it's perfectly legitimate to point out strands of objection that are based on certain ideological grounds. On either side of the argument.
> But - it's not legitimate to extrapolate from this isolated twitter incident that significant portions of the support for LTNs are founded on or result from racial prejudice. Or do you think they are?



Another thing.

Im white and lived in Brixton for ages.

Reading reaction from Black Brixton online I can see why some of them do " extrapolate".  They have grown up in country where direct and indirect racism are still prelevant. I as white person don't experience this day to day. I notice for some is the question is what Simon Still said on twitter something others who support LTNs hold, but are more sensible and do not air publicly , but also think at some level when pushed.

The twitter posts were not outright racist they were racial stereotyping. I don't like going on about individuals here. This kind of stereotyping is all to common. So I can see why some Lambeth resident "extrapolate"


----------



## teuchter (Mar 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Another thing.
> 
> Im white and lived in Brixton for ages.
> 
> ...


So can I and I don't blame them. However, what does it mean for the LTN debate?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So can I and I don't blame them. However, what does it mean for the LTN debate?



This is the LTN debate. If you can't see that then Im at a loss.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 2, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> think this gentleman has been ruled out of running for mayor.


Why? He is an American of course but so is Boris Johnson technically.
His publicity looks like a de-politicised RealDonaldTrump - so I;m happy to do without him.
But has he been disqualified by the returning officer, or what?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 3, 2021)

The council's released more data on the Railton LTN - highlights attached showing a decrease of traffic on boundary roads.









						Analysis
					

An overview of initial traffic analysis undertaken.




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## teuchter (Mar 3, 2021)

This is the map that most people will probably be interested in. Monitoring sites marked, with + or - changes in no. of cars


----------



## teuchter (Mar 3, 2021)

And HGVs


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 3, 2021)

There's a guy on WhatsApp says its rubbish.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 3, 2021)




----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The council's released more data on the Railton LTN - highlights attached showing a decrease of traffic on boundary roads.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've had a stab at putting it all together onto one page 









						Lambeth releases Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood Stage One Monitoring Report
					

Rarely have we encountered a project that has proved so divisive and as embittered as the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) zones introduced by Lambeth Council last year. Multiple web pages and petit…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## editor (Mar 3, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> There's a guy on WhatsApp says its rubbish.


I wish they'd include the main drag of Coldharbour Lane in their stats though. Seems strange that it's omitted when it's clearly being affected by the LTNs.


----------



## Winot (Mar 3, 2021)

I can’t work out what’s going on on Rattray Rd. Are southbound cars using that cut through to get to Dulwich Rd while avoid Effra Rd/Morval Rd? If so, seems unconnected with the LTN (although maybe they used Railton Rd before).


----------



## teuchter (Mar 3, 2021)

As far as I can see, it has to be inferred that the count along the Ritzy<>Dogstar section of CHL must also apply to the Dogstar<>Gresham Rd section, because what would be an explanation for the Dogstar<>Gresham Rd section being significantly busier? That could only result from traffic that's coming from the east, and then turning left up Somerleyton Rd, or am I missing something?

It would be plausible that there could be a different count on the section between Shakespeare Rd<>Gresham Rd, because that could be a traffic flow using Gresham Rd instead of going through central Brixton. But the count on the section of CHL just to the east of Shakespeare Rd is _down_ so if there were an increase on the Shakespeare<>Gresham Rd section, that would have to result in extra traffic coming off Shakespeare Rd - but we know that's not the case.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 3, 2021)

Winot said:


> I can’t work out what’s going on on Rattray Rd. Are southbound cars using that cut through to get to Dulwich Rd while avoid Effra Rd/Morval Rd? If so, seems unconnected with the LTN (although maybe they used Railton Rd before).


Yeah, I don't really understand that either.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 3, 2021)

Winot said:


> I can’t work out what’s going on on Rattray Rd. Are southbound cars using that cut through to get to Dulwich Rd while avoid Effra Rd/Morval Rd? If so, seems unconnected with the LTN (although maybe they used Railton Rd before).





editor said:


> I wish they'd include the main drag of Coldharbour Lane in their stats though. Seems strange that it's omitted when it's clearly being affected by the LTNs.



Agrees, but I think they are using sites that already had monitoring carried out on so they can compare and presumably that's the site that's been monitored before.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay, I was being flippant but trying to make the point that I don’t think The Telegraph or Cristo were reporting on those racist tweets out of any genuine concern but rather to further their anti LTN views. The attached pretty much shows Cristo really doesn’t care anyone apart from himself tbh.
> 
> I suspect no one else nationally has picked it up as it doesn’t have a reflection on the schemes and he was a fairly minor employee of the LCC. If it was their chairman for example than it would be news.
> 
> There are of course genuine concerns around LTNs but most against them don’t seem to be open to an evidence in favour of them - I suspect this is because they don’t agree with the basic aim to reduce car usage & dependency.



So you search through Cristo tweets to find something right wing.

You do realise the quick implementation of LTNs is due to central Government funding? That Grant Shapps is the relevant minister who encouraged Councils in London to do this?

I looked at Grant Shapps voting record. Its here;

Voting record - Grant Shapps MP, Welwyn Hatfield

Looking through it he comes across as fairly typical Tory. Whether that automatically means he does not care about anyone else I will let you judge.

Implementation of LTNs is not right left issue. Some Tories ( this government) have been supporting them some on the ground dont ( Cllr Briggs).

In my area those in LJ who were against road closures were mainly working class Labour voters.

This continual smearing of anti LTN as purely right wing is inaccurate.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 3, 2021)

editor said:


> I wish they'd include the main drag of Coldharbour Lane in their stats though. Seems strange that it's omitted when it's clearly being affected by the LTNs.



Saw this on Cllr Holland twitter:



I have not had time to try and see where this is in this is in the report. Says Brixton end traffic has gone up 10% and what they call LJ it has gone down. Which I dont understand

Does say here lights will be changed on CHL so they stay green for longer. Which shows Council regard CHL as main road to take more traffic that is displaced.









						Upcoming changes
					

A summary of upcoming improvements we intend to make in response to community feedback whilst working within the constraints of the ongoing lockdown




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Mar 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So you search through Cristo tweets to find something right wing.
> 
> You do realise the quick implementation of LTNs is due to central Government funding? That Grant Shapps is the relevant minister who encouraged Councils in London to do this?
> 
> ...


Come on - I know who Grant Shapps is. I didn’t search Cristo’s tweets he’d just posted this and I thought it apt.

LTNs were Lambeth Labour policy before central government.

I was not trying to smear but pointing out it isn’t that surprising that the racist tweets were only picked up nationally by those with an agenda.

LTNs are meant to be a progressive policy and today’s data shows they are reducing traffic overall which is the aim. Hopefully this will reassure those genuinely concerned about LTNs increasing traffic on boundary roads.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 3, 2021)

Anyway - speaking of Cllr Briggs anyone know what happened here.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Come on - I know who Grant Shapps is. I didn’t search Cristo’s tweets he’d just posted this and I thought it apt.
> 
> LTNs were Lambeth Labour policy before central government.
> 
> ...



I dont see how it was apt as when someone with the politics of Shapps has been supporting them. 

Lambeth promised that full consultation would have taken place before any LTNs were put in place. This never happened. Lambeth used pandemic and saying it the government making them put these LTNs. Supposed to be emergency measures.


----------



## cresconius (Mar 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Lambeth promised that full consultation would have taken place before any LTNs were put in place. This never happened. Lambeth used pandemic and saying it the government making them put these LTNs. Supposed to be emergency measures.


This is the main issue, no prior consultation to agree the methods of assessment and analysis. And so you get these outputs which can easily be spun whichever way you want. Further, I presume Lambeth got to control how The assessment was conducted and what to measure. All of which can be approached to get the answer you want.

That said, I would like to see proper evidence as well from One Lambeth onto their claims.

The whole thing is a mess and could have been avoided input Lambeth had not used the pandemic to push through a passion project.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 4, 2021)

cresconius said:


> This is the main issue, no prior consultation to agree the methods of assessment and analysis. And so you get these outputs which can easily be spun whichever way you want.


What's been measured is fairly basic. It's how many vehicles pass this point, in a number of locations. Those numbers, and the dates on which they were measured, have now been published.

The analysis that has been applied to them is not hugely complex or sophisticated. The outcome is that they simply don't show what has been pushed as a major, claimed downside of the scheme - large amounts of traffic getting displaced onto peripheral roads.

I don't actually see how you could spin the numbers to claim that. To be honest, I am a bit surprised by them - I might have expected them to show a moderate increase on many of the peripheral roads, and that I would be saying this is anticipated in the short term and we need to wait for the next stage of assessment before making kneejerk reactions. But in fact they show significant reductions in some places, and all of the increases are rather modest.

Everything is hugely complicated by the Covid impact of course - but the measurements were taken during a period where traffic in London generally had returned to levels close to what was the norm before, and the method they have used to adjust for this seems uncontroversial to me.

What alternative methods of assessment and analysis do you think prior consultation would have come up with? They seem to be using quite a conventional approach. The results are not the product of mathematical gymnastics - they are just simple counts of vehicles passing a location.

There are two further stages to come and we are yet to see how the picture looks at those points; I would say that any optimism at this stage should be cautious.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 4, 2021)

cresconius said:


> This is the main issue, no prior consultation to agree the methods of assessment and analysis. And so you get these outputs which can easily be spun whichever way you want. Further, I presume Lambeth got to control how The assessment was conducted and what to measure. All of which can be approached to get the answer you want.
> 
> That said, I would like to see proper evidence as well from One Lambeth onto their claims.
> 
> The whole thing is a mess and could have been avoided input Lambeth had not used the pandemic to push through a passion project.


You don’t trust Lambeth to not manipulate the findings so what does it matter when the LTNs were brought in?. You seem to have bias yourself, labelling it as a passion product.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 4, 2021)

Why are the idiots so obsessed by people being “consulted” about all this? Given the choice people are always going to kick back against things that might inconvenience them or force a change of behaviour in some way, even if it is for an overall benefit to others.

Fuck consulting, just get the damn things in place and let people get used to it.


----------



## cresconius (Mar 4, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You don’t trust Lambeth to not manipulate the findings so what does it matter when the LTNs were brought in?. You seem to have bias yourself, labelling it as a passion product.


I’m not saying Lambeth are manipulating the findings.

I am saying I find it problematic that there was no consultation and no predefined KPIs as to measure the success of LTNs against any pre-agreed criteria.

Lambeth are clearly pro-LTN and don’t waste a second to pat themselves on the back about how great they are, especially over Twitter, and are even shameless about spending 6k on that parklet that could have been put up for under 500£.

This to me is problematic as they are the ones sponsoring the research, which surprise surprise comes out all positive against criteria they decide.

Now OneLambeth are not unbiased either and spout a load of anecdotal evidence that is less convincing than anything Lambeth put up.

Personally, I am very pro-LTNs and would accept quite large disruption for the benefits they bring. However, when Lambeth next push through something it may not be something I agree with. I would much rather Lambeth were ambitious with LTNs, put in place a robust methodology for measuring outcomes BEFORE implementation and used that as a mandate to expand further.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What's been measured is fairly basic. It's how many vehicles pass this point, in a number of locations. Those numbers, and the dates on which they were measured, have now been published.
> 
> The analysis that has been applied to them is not hugely complex or sophisticated. The outcome is that they simply don't show what has been pushed as a major, claimed downside of the scheme - large amounts of traffic getting displaced onto peripheral roads.
> 
> ...


From a post on Brixton Buzz, One Lambeth have FOI’d TFL to get the traffic camera data within the LTN and what they say is crucial to them - roads on the borders (which are covered in the Lambeth dataset and through the Aldred et al research) as they didn’t get the ‘it’s had a negative impact effect’ they wanted from the Lambeth data.

The person doing the FOIs is a Birmingham based anti LTN person who’s submitted almost 20 requests this year - mostly for the anti Kings  Heath LTN group (and relationships between the LA and a local health charity) but a few on Lambeth. 

They’re competent at FOI requests and have clearly done it before.

They seem to have submitted one strange one to TfL asking for tube pollution data - the response was along the lines of ‘no - you’re wasting our time, we publish this on a regular basis and will do some as per our published schedule ‘.


----------



## cresconius (Mar 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fuck consulting, just get the damn things in place and let people get used to it.


Lambeth do this on a regular basis which is why estates are getting demolished left right and centre. Then everyone is asking for consultations.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 4, 2021)

cresconius said:


> I’m not saying Lambeth are manipulating the findings.
> 
> I am saying I find it problematic that there was no consultation and no predefined KPIs as to measure the success of LTNs against any pre-agreed criteria.
> 
> ...


They’re comparing traffic counts, what other KPIs did you have in mind?

If they had brought out some negative results as well, would that have made the results more credible to you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Why are the idiots so obsessed by people being “consulted” about all this? Given the choice people are always going to kick back against things that might inconvenience them or force a change of behaviour in some way, even if it is for an overall benefit to others.
> 
> Fuck consulting, just get the damn things in place and let people get used to it.


Perhaps they saw what happened at Loughborough junction where a scheme wasn’t given time to bed in before the consultations started.


----------



## cresconius (Mar 4, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> They’re comparing traffic counts, what other KPIs did you have in mind?
> 
> If they had brought out some negative results as well, would that have made the results more credible to you?


It would be a miracle if it didn’t reduce traffic counts in the LTN zones. The issue I have is that all of this has been done post-hoc after the fact with what smacks of winging it. I have been in these situations at work and it is so easy to make it look like you have been a success if objective KPIs have not been agreed

But my big issue is none of what they measure fully answers questions on the traffic displacement, additional pollution on surrounding roads, and impact on local businesses. As I said I am pro-LTN but these criticisms come up time and time again and it just grinds my gears that Lambeths lack of consultation and hubris means they are caught in these unnecessary arguments.


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Fuck consulting, just get the damn things in place and let people get used to it.


Residents have every damn right to be consulted properly about  things that are likely to directly affect them.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 4, 2021)

cresconius said:


> It would be a miracle if it didn’t reduce traffic counts in the LTN zones. The issue I have is that all of this has been done post-hoc after the fact with what smacks of winging it. I have been in these situations at work and it is so easy to make it look like you have been a success if objective KPIs have not been agreed
> 
> But my big issue is none of what they measure fully answers questions on the traffic displacement, additional pollution on surrounding roads, and impact on local businesses. As I said I am pro-LTN but these criticisms come up time and time again and it just grinds my gears that Lambeths lack of consultation and hubris means they are caught in these unnecessary arguments.


But the traffic counts on surrounding roads specifically measures traffic displacement. 
Impact on local businesses would be difficult to measure when a lot of them are shut...


----------



## edcraw (Mar 4, 2021)

editor said:


> Residents have every damn right to be consulted properly about  things that are likely to directly affect them.


And we will be consulted. It can’t be made permanent without consultation. It’s an experimental traffic order to see what impact it has.

For something that is so controversial and seems counterintuitive (eg. they are meant to reduce traffic on boundary roads) it’s useful to trial it so people can see what actual happens and can give useful feedback rather than based on what they think will happen.


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> And we will be consulted. It can’t be made permanent without consultation. It’s an experimental traffic order to see what impact it has.
> 
> For something that is so controversial and seems counterintuitive (eg. they are meant to reduce traffic on boundary roads) it’s useful to trial it so people can see what actual happens and can give useful feedback rather than based on what they think will happen.


But if people aren't properly forewarned and consulted as to the aims of the project, then you're going to get a very angry reaction from some and a divided community. Which is exactly what we have here.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 4, 2021)

editor said:


> Residents have every damn right to be consulted properly about  things that are likely to directly affect them.


Maybe - once the scheme has been in place for a significant amount of time, and it’s effects can be properly judged.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 4, 2021)

editor said:


> But if people aren't properly forewarned and consulted as to the aims of the project, then you're going to get a very angry reaction from some and a divided community. Which is exactly what we have here.


Agreed - ideally it would have been just an experimental traffic order but due to COVID and the government making the money available it was an emergency one and then the experimental. The council did send out letters beforehand and have set out the aims though.

 It does mean that central government is paying for these rather than the council so that’s positive surely!


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Agreed - ideally it would have been just an experimental traffic order but due to COVID and the government making the money available it was an emergency one and then the experimental. The council did send out letters beforehand and have set out the aims though.
> 
> It does mean that central government is paying for these rather than the council so that’s positive surely!


The council's communication was awful beforehand, as was that baffling website with the stupid name.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 4, 2021)

editor said:


> The council's communication was awful beforehand, as was that baffling website with the stupid name.


not sure what website? But there were letters to each area beforehand. There was a speed they needed to do it to get the funding, doesn’t excuse it but is a reason for rushing. I think they’ve been good since introduction.

Also, not sure how divided the community actually is. Strong views on either side but lots aren’t vocal and hopefully will take part in the consultation (for and against). That’ll be a big thing - get as many people aware of the consultation as possible & I’m sure Brixton Buzz can help!

Lots of the most vocal OneLambeth are also from other boroughs.


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Also, not sure how divided the community actually is. Strong views on either side but lots aren’t vocal and hopefully will take part in the consultation (for and against). That’ll be a big thing - get as many people aware of the consultation as possible & I’m sure Brixton Buzz can help!


Amongst friends and locals I know in Brixton - including quite a few activists - opinions are definitely divided. It's pointless to pretend otherwise. Every time we post an article about LTNs on Buzz, traffic goes through the roof. 


edcraw said:


> Lots of the most vocal OneLambeth are also from other boroughs.


Now you're sounding a bit like some of the anti-LTN bunch who are always accusing pro-LTN people as being outsiders etc. I don't think it helps the debate on either side.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 4, 2021)

Fair enough - I just think having it as a trial means it will be a more meaningful consultation. People have genuine concerns - I’m obviously pro but couldn’t support if it does just increase traffic & pollution on boundary roads. It needs to reduce car journeys.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 4, 2021)

Inner London boroughs have the lowest car ownership in the country and yet are the most polluted - we need solutions!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Inner London boroughs have the lowest car ownership in the country and yet are the most polluted - we need solutions!


There is a solution. It will take decades, cost a huge amount of money, require huge social and structural change, and many people will fight it every step of the way.

For an example, look at The Netherlands over the last 40 years.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 5, 2021)

Good to see the One Lambeth pile on taking place on the latest Buzz article - lots of the same people posting on their FB page about cyclists and pedestrians being secondary citizens to car drivers.


----------



## Not a Vet (Mar 5, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Good to see the One Lambeth pile on taking place on the latest Buzz article - lots of the same people posting on their FB page about cyclists and pedestrians being secondary citizens to car drivers.


Seems like more first time posters expressing positively for the scheme now there’s some data behind it. Whoever ever Adam is, although banned, did make me laugh out loud. Can’t be having the personal insults though


----------



## editor (Mar 5, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Seems like more first time posters expressing positively for the scheme now there’s some data behind it. Whoever ever Adam is, although banned, did make me laugh out loud. Can’t be having the personal insults though


He was unstoppable! I kept asking him to tone it down but he kept piling in the insults so I banned him for a week. Some of the ones I've since deleted have been _corkers_!


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 5, 2021)

I did wonder if Adam was invented by One Lambeth to make LTN supporters look bad.

He was doing a good job in that.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 5, 2021)

I thought you might appreciate his fight against car culture hegemony


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 5, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I thought you might appreciate his fight against car culture hegemony





Most people I know who drive do it to make a living. They are not rich. LTNs has added anther difficulty for them. Life is not easy for those who do deliveries for people in pandemic. Transporting goods to people. These were at one point considered Key Workers. These kind of people don't count.

Adam comes across to me as nasty unpleasant , aggressive and not caring about other people.

First person Ive seen being banned from Brixton Buzz comment section.

Its the kind of person LTN supporters dont need.

So why do you think that kind of person is good publicity?


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 5, 2021)

It was a joke on your namesake.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 8, 2021)

In minor news. the _other_ OneLambeth posted a strange international women’s day FB post today - celebrating Nancy Astor being the first women to take a seat in Parliament.


----------



## Not a Vet (Mar 8, 2021)

I got election material from the conservative mayoral candidate, Shaun Bailey through the door today. Lots of promises about scrapping the ULEZ extension and congestion charge hike but no mention whatsoever of LTN‘s which I thought was interesting


----------



## Winot (Mar 8, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I got election material from the conservative mayoral candidate, Shaun Bailey through the door today. Lots of promises about scrapping the ULEZ extension and congestion charge hike but no mention whatsoever of LTN‘s which I thought was interesting



It’s not in his gift, is it? They are decided at a local authority level. Not that it hasn’t stopped him making all sorts of promises for things that he has no power over up to now.


----------



## Not a Vet (Mar 8, 2021)

Winot said:


> It’s not in his gift, is it? They are decided at a local authority level. Not that it hasn’t stopped him making all sorts of promises for things that he has no power over up to now.


Ah I see, can’t understand then why a lot of the high profile anti LTN Twitter mob focus a lot of their ire on the current mayor if it’s a hyper local decision


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 8, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Ah I see, can’t understand then why a lot of the high profile anti LTN Twitter mob focus a lot of their ire on the current mayor if it’s a hyper local decision



TFL roads come under Khan so some of this is down to Khan.

What I find bizarre is that Tories like Cllr Briggs and the candidate for Mayor are shifting blame for LTNs and alterations to roads to enable social distancing onto the Labour party. When the funding is coming from Tory government.

LTN in particular is funded by central government. Shapps encouraged them. 

I have van driver mate blaming all this on Khan. 

I do loathe the Tories. Whatever they do they seem to get political mileage out of it. 

This whole LTN thing is a political mess and neither Labour Councils or Tories ( central government and local politicians ) are coming out of it well.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 9, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> This whole LTN thing is a political mess and neither Labour Councils or Tories ( central government and local politicians ) are coming out of it well.



In your opinion - personally I think Lambeth are handling this pretty well. There's a good update below on all the Lambeth schemes:









						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Update 08/03/2021
					

Read the latest project update on Streatham Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood.




					streathamhilllowtrafficneighbourhoodproposals.commonplace.is


----------



## teuchter (Mar 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> In your opinion - personally I think Lambeth are handling this pretty well. There's a good update below on all the Lambeth schemes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that is good that they are providing some form of updates.

Although, typically shambolic approach to their multitude of different websites and page, with updates to all of the LTNs being placed on a streatham hill specific URL.

The way Lambeth does their website, information is scattered all over the place and it's really difficult to track what information was issued when. It's almost possible to find things like reports unless you happen to know part of the title and Google has indexed it, and even then there are dead links everywhere.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 9, 2021)

Lots more bike storage (but not enough) being installed across the borough this month. 

Mostly hangars I think and Lambeth are slowly moving towards realising they need to be more accessible/ inclusive as well as catering for things like cargo bikes.

They’ve got a new 0.5m budget for cycle storage on estates too but that’s been much slower to materialise.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 9, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Lots more bike storage (but not enough) being installed across the borough this month.
> 
> Mostly hangars I think and Lambeth are slowly moving towards realising they need to be more accessible/ inclusive as well as catering for things like cargo bikes.
> 
> They’ve got a new 0.5m budget for cycle storage on estates too but that’s been much slower to materialise.


Just estates? Any idea how to feed into locations? I've requested hangers numerous times over the years for Tunstall Road but always no budget, no room or no response.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 9, 2021)

Rushy - No - 200 on street ones- it’s on the Lambeth twitter and separate from the estate funding.

But as you say - never enough of them.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 9, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> 200 on street ones- it’s on the Lambeth twitter


have you got a link to that?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 9, 2021)

200 spaces - list below:


----------



## edcraw (Mar 9, 2021)

As you say not enough - but it's progress. 

Also, unsurprisingly, lots of people have objected to these in the past so they haven't been put in.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 9, 2021)

Certainly better than nothing but 200 spread across the borough is a drop in the ocean really.

Especially when you consider that a single road like Leander Road probably has going on for 200 car parking spaces on it.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 9, 2021)

The council have also published this video with info about LTNs. Obviously a bit late as well but good to see:


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 200 spaces - list below:
> 
> View attachment 258017


is that it for the whole borough do you know? My ward (Streatham Wells) with some 6,000 households, has ONE bike hangar. Have asked and asked for more.
sorry I don't do twitter or I would look


----------



## edcraw (Mar 9, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> is that it for the whole borough do you know? My ward (Streatham Wells) with some 6,000 households, has ONE bike hangar. Have asked and asked for more.
> sorry I don't do twitter or I would look


That’s the whole borough for this month, don’t know if there are plans for more but they do seem to be stepping up on this. Write/email your councillors to ask if there are plans maybe.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> In your opinion - personally I think Lambeth are handling this pretty well. There's a good update below on all the Lambeth schemes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In my opinion-well this is an online forum not run by Lambeth Council. So voices that differ from the Council line which you keep posting up will get a say here.

Unlike outlets like this forum and Brixton Buzz ( which I donate to now) my Council tax goes to supporting Lambeth propaganda whether I like it or not.

Those who have concerns about implementation of LTNs or oppose them do not have the resources of central Government or local Councils. Which you appear to be happy with seeing the amount of links you put up.

If it was not for Brixton Buzz and this forum dissenting voices would not get heard.

BTW as you are new here I will make it plain Im not against LTNs. Im against them being imposed without the promised proper consultation.


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2021)

Here's that Scoot data they were going on about. Or at least a selective glimpse of some of it.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 10, 2021)

Often used argument (with no evidence) is that LTNs make streets less safe & its reached this point. Not okay.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2021)

I actually thought last night, I bet someone's going to try and use this in the LTN argument and there it is.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 10, 2021)

Did she actually walk near one of the LTNs?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 10, 2021)

editor said:


> Here's that Scoot data they were going on about. Or at least a selective glimpse of some of it.



Shimano Steve - I’m a cyclist myself.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 10, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Shimano Steve - I’m a cyclist myself.


Makes me laugh now when groups of LTN protestors include an obligatory "cyclist" usually in suspiciously new-looking cycling gear. There was one in the group heckling Sadiq Kahn the other week.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 10, 2021)

Parliamentary inquiry into public transport is on today:





__





						Parliamentlive.tv
					

Transport Committee




					parliamentlive.tv


----------



## edcraw (Mar 10, 2021)

editor said:


> Here's that Scoot data they were going on about. Or at least a selective glimpse of some of it.



Is anyone meant to know what any of that shows?


----------



## editor (Mar 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Is anyone meant to know what any of that shows?


No, but it definitely  proves_ something._


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 10, 2021)

Has that Shimano Steve person inadvertently posted someone’s personal phone number and a few other photos in their reply tweet?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Is anyone meant to know what any of that shows?



Even according to Lambeth Council traffic has increased on the street I live on - CHL. Is that ok with you as long as your LTNs are in place?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 11, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Even according to Lambeth Council traffic has increased on the street I live on - CHL. Is that ok with you as long as your LTNs are in place?


No, the aim is to decrease traffic across boundary roads as well. My point was that those screenshots don’t show anything in a meaningful way.

You’re super confrontational btw.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No, the aim is to decrease traffic across boundary roads as well. My point was that those screenshots don’t show anything in a meaningful way.
> 
> You’re super confrontational btw.



Its not decreasing traffic on my street.

BTW Ive hardly been the "super confrontational " poster on this thread. Go have a look.


----------



## BusLanes (Mar 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Often used argument (with no evidence) is that LTNs make streets less safe & its reached this point. Not okay.
> 
> View attachment 258074View attachment 258075



I don't believe there are any LTNs in Thornton Ward, where she is reported as having gone missing (well last I looked at the news anyway).


----------



## editor (Mar 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No, the aim is to decrease traffic across boundary roads as well. My point was that those screenshots don’t show anything in a meaningful way.
> 
> You’re super confrontational btw.


You know what? I'm broadly in support of LTNs - although I think Lambeth have done a really shit job of introducing these - but what is increasingly winding me up is the way that the concerns of anyone living on streets that have unequivocally suffered an increase in traffic are just being brushed aside.


----------



## lang rabbie (Mar 11, 2021)

This appeared on Twitter earlier this evening from *One Lambeth Justice* - "Community run account supporting Lambeth residents & businesses against the social injustice of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) including the legal campaign."


Has the sign been Photoshopped by a professional?
Or has it really appeared outside Brixton tube? 
I wouldn't have thought the anti-LTN campaigners are sufficiently well organised to fabricate fake signs and put them up in central Brixton?

*EDITED TO ADD:  They aren't - see replies below - this has been put up by a separate campaign group who are neither pro/anti LTN.*


----------



## Winot (Mar 11, 2021)

lang rabbie said:


> This appeared on Twitter earlier this evening from *One Lambeth Justice* - "Community run account supporting Lambeth residents & businesses against the social injustice of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) including the legal campaign."
> 
> Has the sign been Photoshopped by a professional?
> Or has it really appeared outside Brixton tube?
> ...




Details here:








						Anti-pollution guerrilla road signs for Brixton
					

The 'guerilla signs' in English and Bengali    Brixton is one of the places where young activists will mount a campaign of guerrilla road signs at pollution hotspots, warning that “breathing kills”.    Choked Up, a group of Black and brown teens from South London, were spurred into action by the inq




					brixtonblog.com


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2021)

Seeing as One Lambeth are so concerned about air pollution from motor traffic they no doubt support the campaign behind these signs. The campaign behind the signs wants motor traffic reduced across London and of course One Lambeth are totally on board with that. The only thing is that they don't want that reduction to be achieved by putting restrictions on motorists. So they've obviously got some other plans that they are nearly ready to make public. They need to get on with it though, otherwise folk might start to question the sincerity of their great concern about air pollution.


----------



## editor (Mar 11, 2021)

lang rabbie said:


> This appeared on Twitter earlier this evening from *One Lambeth Justice* - "Community run account supporting Lambeth residents & businesses against the social injustice of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) including the legal campaign."
> 
> Has the sign been Photoshopped by a professional?
> Or has it really appeared outside Brixton tube?
> ...



They've done a pretty good job of plastering the streets with their stickers...


----------



## edcraw (Mar 11, 2021)

editor said:


> You know what? I'm broadly in support of LTNs - although I think Lambeth have done a really shit job of introducing these - but what is increasingly winding me up is the way that the concerns of anyone living on streets that have unequivocally suffered an increase in traffic are just being brushed aside.


I’m really not brushing it aside. It’s my biggest concern about them - the stated aim is to decrease traffic on all roads including boundary roads. I live next to the Sth Circular.

Gramsci asked if I was okay with it increasing and I said I’m not. But we need to know what is happening before we can make a long term decision.

Its not about making quiet enclaves - they need to reduce car dependency.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 11, 2021)

Winot said:


> Details here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The blog article says the campaign was spurred into action by death of Ella Kissi Dedrah.

I heard her mother speak on the Christo radio programme which gave news of Lambeth Cyclists issues with racism. 

Her mother is sceptical about LTNs

Mum whose daughter may have died of pollution poisoning condemns toxin-cutting road measures

This is her take at the time of her local Council pandemic imposed LTN:



> She said: “The numbers from the BAME community on this side are more than on the other side. The other side is more affluent.
> 
> “It’s environmental racism.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 11, 2021)

Does anyone know where this SCOOT data comes from?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2021)

This is an article about that campaign









						London teenagers' road signs highlight effect of toxic air on people of colour
					

Choked Up group demands action from mayoral candidates to tackle traffic pollution




					www.theguardian.com
				






> Choked Up is calling on the mayoral candidates to dramatically improve air quality along the capital’s major roads, the so-called “red routes”, which make up 5% of London’s roads but carry a third of its traffic.
> 
> Choked Up co-founders, from left, Nyeleti Brauer-Maxaeia, Anjali Raman-Middleton, Destiny Boka Batesa. Photograph: Martin Godwin/The Guardian
> They are calling for a reduction in goods vehicle and private car use, and a renewed focus on “a world-class walking and cycling network, as well as affordable and accessible zero-emission public transport”.
> ...



That seems entirely compatible with the principles behind LTNs.

And seeing as the "Choked up" campaign are retweeting the Railton LTN supporters account it wouldn't appear they are against LTNs.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Does anyone know where this SCOOT data comes from?


I'm assuming it was via a FOI or something.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Mar 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Does anyone know where this SCOOT data comes from?



TFL. They are the traffic measurement cameras that are dotted around major roads.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Mar 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Often used argument (with no evidence) is that LTNs make streets less safe & its reached this point. Not okay.
> 
> View attachment 258074View attachment 258075



Sorry but you're wrong or trying to downplay a serius feeling that many women have felt with these LTNs....and this was long before the Sarah Everard incident and - not feeling safe in LTNs due to the decrease in passing traffic. It resonates so much that people have no idea just how women feel going out. Having keys in your hands, trainers so you can run and having to text when you leave and get hoem. It literally is not a thought that occurs to most people that this is our life at night when just trying to go home at night.

Ferndale had a safety zoom a few days ago that has been scheduled for weeks. In it many members tried to provide the evidence of increased crime within the LTNs. Evidence was attempted to be handed over that showed the sheer increase (increases far in excess of non-LTN areas). Fell on deaf ears.

No wonder Onelambeth have resorted to 'open letters' because people are sick of not being listened to, councillors hiding behind email, zoom meetings where you are literally being given two minutes to cover a range of issues and then promptly cut of with a 'thanks we will take it into account'. THey even tried to present the stats from the area showing the increased level in crime. Nope, cut off.

2019 vs 2020.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 13, 2021)

Women should be able to walk home safely and there should be less pollution. Sarah Everard was abducted from a busy road. LTNs aren’t the problem, it’s male behaviour.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Often used argument (with no evidence) is that LTNs make streets less safe & its reached this point. Not okay.



Not a good look for either side of the argument to be using this tragic case for posturing even before any details were known. It seems to me an insensitive original Tweet and an insensitive rebroadcasting of the tweet with no purpose but trying to score points. Some people seem so single minded that they can only see the world through one lens.

Entirely separately, as to whether any evidence exists about LTNs being or simply feeling less safe - are you aware of that information being actively sought or collated? 

It is certainly something that people bring up. I've posted on here conversations with a couple in which the husband loves the LTN but the wife has stopped making even short journeys without the car after dark because she feels it is too quiet. She certainly did not strike me as unusually timid. Most regular posters know that Lambeth's chief advisers read this site and even participate in this thread and I wonder whether they have gone back to Lambeth and said - hmmm, there may be an issue here worth investigating: is it perception? is there some truth to it? either way, should we be exploring this and dealing with it? 

Perhaps Lambeth and their advisers _have _given it their consideration and responsibly concluded it's not worth looking into? Or maybe it just does not fit the narrative and it is more convenient to decide that people with alternative agendas are making it up, or exceptionally sensitive and ignore it? Given the macho posting and posturing that LCC were involved in and Lambeth supported I suspect that the steamrollering of such views could easily happen.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the "traffic makes places safer" argument and was truly disappointed when Effra Road stayed open as a result of it (when Windrush was redesigned - I'd have actually made it busses only and moved some of the stops out of the centre which would have kept a lot of activity). Huge missed opportunity IMO. I'd expect that problems (perceived or real) will be very specific to every street. But it seems like a genuine issue for a proportion of people. I have no idea what proportion. I don't think that ignoring it or belittling it is smart policy.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 14, 2021)

editor said:


> Here's that Scoot data they were going on about. Or at least a selective glimpse of some of it.



Some interesting looking graphs there, which confirm my gut feelings.
But where do they come from?
I saw a Tweet  the other day from Lambeth Council also makes me wonder:


The idea that Effra Road traffic is down by eighteen percent due ro the LTN seems odd. Effra Road is on the boundary and there seems no reason to believe it would be affected by the LTN Now if you said it was because of the lock-down I would believe it. Likewise Milkwood Road..

If these stats are significantly affected by the Covid lockdown a truthful statistician would point that out.
As it is these statistics were being bandied about using Megaphone diplomacy in the manner of Donald Trump - just as he was assuring us he had won the biggest landslide in history.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2021)

If you read the report the numbers are adjusted to try and compensate for the Covid effect. This is done by comparing with a london-wide baseline.

If they had not made this adjustment then the numbers would appear better. In other words, they would show an even greater reduction.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Mar 14, 2021)

I remember asking months here about how measurements can be taken without baselines. I. E Road counter strips put in after. 

The reply was that TFL had a range of cameras.... But from everything I can read these cameras and their data were not used?

In fact it is these very cameras that are being used to counter the Lambeth report??


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2021)

As far as I understand, the road counter strips were put in for a while before, and a while after. So there are measurements from 2019 (before LTN) and measurements from 2020 (after LTN). When comparing them an adjustment is made to reflect the fact that traffic across London (including everywhere with no LTNs) was a little lower than 'normal' at the time of the 2020 measurements.

I'm not clear where this 'Scoot' data comes from, I haven't had time to look into it all. Those who are posting graphs etc on twitter don't seem to offer much in the way of explanation of what it is or what exactly they think it demonstrates. I've also seen screenshots of the air pollution data with claims that it demonstrates an LTN effect. I posted some of these air pollution graphs on this thread some time ago and tried to explain why I thought they showed no obvious evidence of a negative effect. I didn't get much response to that at the time.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2021)

Regarding the night time risk stuff, I agree with Rushy it shouldn't be belittled. As far as I am aware it's nearly all about perceived risk rather than real risk, so mitigations should focus on that. If people feel at risk then you have to recognise that. I could go on about the various arguments there, but it may not be helpful for such arguments to come from a man and would be much better for them to be delivered by other women, and really this is something Lambeth should be putting some effort into, especially at this moment.
What women I speak to tell me is that they feel at risk (as pedestrians and cyclists) from traffic, have been harassed by men in cars as well as men on foot and also that they feel safest on streets with more pedestrians around, not streets with more traffic around. Of course, I am likely to be biased in who I speak to and in what I hear.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Some interesting looking graphs there, which confirm my gut feelings.
> But where do they come from?


They’re interesting alright in that none of them show what’s on the y axis!.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Mar 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> As far as I understand, the road counter strips were put in for a while before, and a while after. So there are measurements from 2019 (before LTN) and measurements from 2020 (after LTN). When comparing them an adjustment is made to reflect the fact that traffic across London (including everywhere with no LTNs) was a little lower than 'normal' at the time of the 2020 measurements.
> 
> I'm not clear where this 'Scoot' data comes from, I haven't had time to look into it all. Those who are posting graphs etc on twitter don't seem to offer much in the way of explanation of what it is or what exactly they think it demonstrates. I've also seen screenshots of the air pollution data with claims that it demonstrates an LTN effect. I posted some of these air pollution graphs on this thread some time ago and tried to explain why I thought they showed no obvious evidence of a negative effect. I didn't get much response to that at the time.



This was my point earlier in the topic. Lambeth had been FOId to get any and all traffic data or if they had employed any company to get some. They had nothing apart from some data relating to 20mph limits many years ago. Nothing in 2019. Nothing close to the LTNs. 

Also these counters only appeared after the LTNs went in. There is no 'before' data. 

It was said (on here, so likely an assumption) that the TFL cameras would be used. These are the Scoot cameras that sit in traffic lights and monitor major roads. They measure a wide range of details from congestion to flow of traffic. Solid data that has been monitored for years. 

People have gone off and got the data by FOI.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 14, 2021)

This says they used data from ATCs in 2017 and 2019


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 21, 2021)

Data from the Tulse Hill ltn is in:









						Tulse Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood Stage One Monitoring Report
					

A report on the impact of the Tulse Hill low traffic neighbourhood. This stage one report is part of our continuous monitoring of the scheme.




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## editor (Mar 24, 2021)

Some interesting research:



> The latest research by Redfield & Wilton Strategies finds that *47% of Londoners support the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)*, up slightly from 44% in January but still lower than the 52% in October. Support thus remains high for LTNs—residential roads with limited motor traffic which have proliferated across England following the UK Government’s £250m Emergency Active Travel Fund in May 2020.











						Steady Support for for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London
					

The latest research by Redfield & Wilton Strategies finds that 47% of Londoners support the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods…




					redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com


----------



## edcraw (Mar 26, 2021)

Here's the Fire Brigade's report on response times for 2020 includes the below quote:

"We haven’t yet noticed any impact on our attendance times due to the LTN schemes established in 2020; however, we will continue to monitor their impact at a local level. The attendance times to boroughs in inner London, where the majority of the LTNs seem to be, still remain quicker than those in outer London."



			https://data.london.gov.uk/download/incident-response-times-fire-facts/0e2535d5-f0b7-4c28-8001-f6febf67582f/Fire%20Facts%20-%20Incident%20response%20times%202020.pdf


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 26, 2021)

Update on the Ferndale ltn:


----------



## teuchter (Mar 26, 2021)

I wish they'd put a bit more detailed explanation on the website, about why the additional measures and specifically what they are addressing. 

Good that they are making modifications to try and deal with the problems though.

No doubt there will now be lots of people kicking off about the new filters.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Data from the Tulse Hill ltn is in:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I find distasteful about this is Council using pandemic to push through pet schemes without proper consultation.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2021)

I see Black Cabs LTDA have commented that Lambeth Council should allow them as part of public transport system to be able to use bus gates and have free access to LTNs.

This sounds sensible suggestion to me. And I think should apply to all cab drivers such as Uber.

They all are part of public transport network.

If people are to be discouraged from car ownership other options should be freely available. Including private hire.


----------



## madolesance (Mar 26, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I see Black Cabs LTDA have commented that Lambeth Council should allow them as part of public transport system to be able to use bus gates and have free access to LTNs.
> 
> This sounds sensible suggestion to me. And I think should apply to all cab drivers such as Uber.
> 
> ...


They really are not part of the 'public transport system'. The London public transport system is funded by TFL and provides subsidised transport, where as Black cabs, Uber, Mini cabs are allowed to operate for profit and gain. Make them pay to use 'Bus Gates and Ltn's'. Why should they get access for free?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2021)

madolesance said:


> They really are not part of the 'public transport system'. The London public transport system is funded by TFL and provides subsidised transport, where as Black cabs, Uber, Mini cabs are allowed to operate for profit and gain. Make them pay to use 'Bus Gates and Ltn's'. Why should they get access for free?



Forgive me but I thought that buses had been privatised some years ago? 

Or did I get that wrong and buses are publicly owned?


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2021)

madolesance said:


> They really are not part of the 'public transport system'. The London public transport system is funded by TFL and provides subsidised transport, where as Black cabs, Uber, Mini cabs are allowed to operate for profit and gain. Make them pay to use 'Bus Gates and Ltn's'. Why should they get access for free?







__





						Who runs your bus
					

Find out who runs your bus, contact details of bus operators in London




					tfl.gov.uk
				




So which of these is non profit making?

Maybe some of the bus companies do not operate under profit and gain. Let me know please.


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 26, 2021)

madolesance said:


> They really are not part of the 'public transport system'. The London public transport system is funded by TFL and provides subsidised transport, where as Black cabs, Uber, Mini cabs are allowed to operate for profit and gain. Make them pay to use 'Bus Gates and Ltn's'. Why should they get access for free?


Sure black cabs and private taxis are not 'public' transport in that sense, but people do use them as such for example if the public transport is not an option for them eg disabled, or if the transport links are not accessible. I also think that it might help quell the opposition anger a little if they felt they had won a concession. Just my two pennyworth. Black cabs are not that numerous anyway and likely to be shrinking in number.


----------



## BillRiver (Mar 26, 2021)

I'd like to see proper funding provided so that any one who can't ride a standard bike due to disabilities gets an accessible/adapted bike or trike automatically, and if that wouldn't work for them then a mobility scooter.
With training and support given to help them get confident using them.
There are some amazing adapted/accessible bikes and trikes on the market but they're out of reach for most disabled people and many don't realise they're even an option.
Independent active travel should be available for everyone.
A lot of the objections to road filters would disappear if this was rolled out properly.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2021)

madolesance said:


> They really are not part of the 'public transport system'. The London public transport system is funded by TFL and provides subsidised transport, where as Black cabs, Uber, Mini cabs are allowed to operate for profit and gain. Make them pay to use 'Bus Gates and Ltn's'. Why should they get access for free?



More on your naive view that Black Cabs are just working for profit and gains unlike say buses. 

Arriva funnily enough is owned by German state owned transport company. So profit and gains go to Germany. 









						Arriva
					






					weownit.org.uk
				




This gives list of shit services by Arriva.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 26, 2021)

Lets just kick the working class self employed black cab driver or mini cab driver and assume big companies who make profit subsidised by state handouts are part of "public" transport. Making profit with public handouts.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 26, 2021)

This is a few years old but things haven’t changed much : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7294746.

In fact recent user reviews in Euans guide are no better: Black Cabs London with Disabled Access - Euan's Guide

“I have had mixed experiences with London cabbies. Some of them refuse to stop for a wheelchair user. Some are delightfully friendly and helpful. Some ask intrusive questions about my reason for using a wheelchair. Some cabbies start the meter the moment you hail them, & then take a very long to to find the key to unlock and deploy the ramp, which means that you are being charged extra for being a wheelchair user, which is illegal - and prosecutions have been successfully brought against black cab drivers for this. Some treat me as if I'm an imbecile. Some have ex-military friends who are wheelchair users and are thoughtful, tactful & well tuned-in to the concept of disability.

*Anything else you wish to tell us?*
I hate using black cabs. I hate the dangerously steep and flimsy ramps, the risk of getting an unfriendly driver, or a driver who wants to rip me off by starting the meter too early. I hate having to crick my neck because there isn't enough headroom to get into the taxi. I hate leaving a taxi backwards down a steep ramp. I hate the prospect of being treated as an imbecile. If I can possibly avoid taking a taxi I will, even if the alternative is a long and tedious bus journey, or a tiring self-propel to my next destination.”


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 26, 2021)

And I’m happy to see Manchester has taken back control of bus franchises


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wish they'd put a bit more detailed explanation on the website, about why the additional measures and specifically what they are addressing.
> 
> Good that they are making modifications to try and deal with the problems though.
> 
> No doubt there will now be lots of people kicking off about the new filters.


It’s interesting that they are doing this before even repairing the vandalised Pulross Road and Concannon Road filters. They’ve been broken for ages now even when most other filters have been fixed.


----------



## CH1 (Mar 27, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> And I’m happy to see Manchester has taken back control of bus franchises


I don't often feel moved by your posts - but as a Manchester resident in the seventies I could hardly agree more with this one.
The bizarre privatised system was utterly confusing for visitors. One day tickets for Stagecoach only and various other deals on other carriers. One route I went on apparently had three different operators simultaneously.
It was so absurd one wonders if this concocted by one of Friedrich Hayek's supporters on acid.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 27, 2021)

Black cabs do a lot of the school runs for disabled children. Another part of the accessibility for people with disabilities that's been overlooked in order to hurry through the implementation. 
It irks me how quickly they can bring in new measures but seem unable to address these issues.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 27, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Sure black cabs and private taxis are not 'public' transport in that sense, but people do use them as such for example if the public transport is not an option for them eg disabled, or if the transport links are not accessible. I also think that it might help quell the opposition anger a little if they felt they had won a concession. Just my two pennyworth. Black cabs are not that numerous anyway and likely to be shrinking in number.


Black cabs have been protesting against bike lanes etc for a long time, not just this. It is their livelihood but it’s a massively polluting, inefficient and expensive form of transport.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 27, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Black cabs do a lot of the school runs for disabled children. Another part of the accessibility for people with disabilities that's been overlooked in order to hurry through the implementation.
> It irks me how quickly they can bring in new measures but seem unable to address these issues.


Are cabs actually blocked from going anywhere though? Or just like any other car being made to avoid rat runs and go a longer way around?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 27, 2021)

No-one is blocked from anywhere.

I can see some argument for letting cabs through. I imagine the problem is that you can't just give them permissions for the LTN where their passenger lived like you potentially could for a resident. They'd be able to use all LTNs to do rat run routes on longer journeys. Maybe they would be few enough in number that it would be ok. But it would defeat the purpose of the LTNs somewhat if they ended up hosting streams of private hire vehicles making their way across london meaning that those who could afford to go everywhere by cab can get around much quicker than everyone else.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 27, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Are cabs actually blocked from going anywhere though? Or just like any other car being made to avoid rat runs and go a longer way around?


They're forced into the now busy roads making journey times that are already long for disabled school kids longer. Many of these children struggle with these journeys already due to complex medical and learning needs.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 27, 2021)

nagapie said:


> They're forced into the now busy roads making journey times that are already long for disabled school kids longer. Many of these children struggle with these journeys already due to complex medical and learning needs.


Which is an argument against all the people clogging the roads in cars when they don’t need to be, not LTN’s. If everyone who didn’t actually need to drive travelled by other means there wouldn’t be any bother for those who have the genuine need.

The problem is cars.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 27, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Which is an argument against all the people clogging the roads in cars when they don’t need to be, not LTN’s. If everyone who didn’t actually need to drive travelled by other means there wouldn’t be any bother for those who have the genuine need.
> 
> The problem is cars.


Doesn't matter what the problem is, these vulnerable children should have been thought of and adjustments made to the scheme not be told tough shit till a society not of their making changes.


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 27, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Which is an argument against all the people clogging the roads in cars when they don’t need to be, not LTN’s. If everyone who didn’t actually need to drive travelled by other means there wouldn’t be any bother for those who have the genuine need.
> 
> The problem is cars.


Or more accurately, the problem is the drivers of the cars not choosing to leave their car at home for a short trip that could easily be walked (or cycled) by them and therefore make more space on the roads for those who genuinely have no other option of getting around than by car/taxi/van


----------



## edcraw (Mar 27, 2021)

Not sure black cabs using LTNs is much of a problem in South London


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 27, 2021)

I did think main justification for LTNs in my area was to reduce through traffic. That is traffic pre pandemic going south to inner London and back again. Council were putting the argument that a lot of drivers use Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood area to go from south London to central London. They aren't visiting Brixton area just using it as transit area.

As that is the case put by Council (it was for LJ and is for the Railton one) I don't see how concessions for say car drivers in an LTN or people needing to use cabs who live in an LTN is an issue as such.

The main difficulty is how to do this technically.

I would have thought.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 28, 2021)

The initially stated aims of the LTNs are still there, quoted and linked on the very first post of this thread.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2021)

The stated aim was also for full consultation and design of LTNs with local communities. That got binned.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2021)

Also remember bring told they would not happen if Council could not show support for them.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 28, 2021)

Maybe we can set a new record for the number of times the same argument can go round in circles on the one thread.


----------



## nagapie (Mar 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Maybe we can set a new record for the number of times the same argument can go round in circles on the one thread.


But it didn't have to be this way. You could have had LTNs with proper consultation and recognition and implementation of strategies to iron out the problems.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Maybe we can set a new record for the number of times the same argument can go round in circles on the one thread.



No point really.

The way this Tory government and some Labour Councils has imposed LTNs on communities without consultation has divided communities.

I'm on one side and you are on another.

As nagapie says it didn't have to be this way.

Difference between me and you from the other side is that you are happy with this.

This further puts me off trying to engage with Council. The way LTNs have happened can be added to the list of other "consultations" by New Labour Lambeth. Libraries, estate regeneration, Hondo planning application.


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 28, 2021)

This seems to be more about your opinion of Lambeth* than an opinion on a national programme to improve streets that has widespread public support (as per Ed’s earlier post on recent consultations, TfL consultation, govt consultation, charity consultation) and proven comparable global examples and trends.
*i’m not a fan of Lambeth, but this isn’t just a Lambeth scheme.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 28, 2021)

They haven’t “divided communities”, they’ve given an overly vocal minority something to whinge about.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 28, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> This seems to be more about your opinion of Lambeth* than an opinion on a national programme to improve streets that has widespread public support (as per Ed’s earlier post on recent consultations, TfL consultation, govt consultation, charity consultation) and proven comparable global examples and trends.
> *i’m not a fan of Lambeth, but this isn’t just a Lambeth scheme.



I specifically said in my post it was not just a Lambeth scheme. Its coming from this Tory government. 

I know you are trying to make out I'm being unreasonable here. And trying to personalise it as well.

The promised consultation on the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood stopped due to pandemic. That is the thread topic.

This Council decided to use pandemic to push through this scheme. 

Its caused a lot of opposition which you have portrayed as right wing and racist. 

Your view of Cabbies, and I know a few Cabbies, is gross generalisation. 

I think you need to re read what I actually said. Rather than trying to make out this is me being unreasonable.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Mar 29, 2021)

Merton council actually did a consultation on some new LTNs, unlike the existing ones that were setup in the same manner as Lambeth. They were rejected.


----------



## Not a Vet (Mar 29, 2021)

Merton council is Labour run but they only have a majority of 3. I’m guessing that they don’t want to jeopardise that with going against public opinion. No such worries for Lambeth though.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 29, 2021)

In Merton 64% of adults have household access to a car. In Lambeth it's 40%.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 30, 2021)




----------



## Brian Taylor (Mar 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In Merton 64% of adults have household access to a car. In Lambeth it's 40%.



*Crystal Palace consultation Jan 2021*


			https://democracy.croydon.gov.uk/documents/s26662/TMAC%2012%20Jan%20LTN_Finalv2.pdf
		



_Analysis of responses from those living within the Temporary LTN area:_
_
Individual addresses were printed onto the individual letters hand delivered to the households in the area of the Temporary LTN (the area bounded by the A Roads including that in Bromley) and on the bordering A Roads. In response to the 6,022 letters delivered 1,523 responses were received, a response rate of 25%. A few households submitted more than one response. 75% of households / addresses within the Temporary LTN were not sufficiently motivated by the introduction of the Temporary LTN to respond, suggesting they did not have a particular view on the temporary scheme or its future.

Those living within the area of the Temporary LTN that responded, did so in the following ways:

Introduction of ANPR enforced LTN:

Agree or Strongly Agree with implementing an ANPR solution: 392 (26%)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree with implementing an ANPR solution: 951 (62%)

Should the scheme remain in its current format?

Agree or Strongly Agree with the scheme remaining: 236 (15%)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree with scheme remaining: 1,136 (75%)



Should the scheme be removed in its entirety?

Agree or Strongly Agree with removing the scheme: 932 (61%)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree with removing scheme: 345 (23%)

In summary, of those living within the LTN area that responded, 75% disagreed with scheme remaining and 62% disagreed with the implementation of an ANPR enforced LTN. However this only represents the views of people in around 25% households in the LTN area, the majority of people did not provide a response suggesting that they don’t have a particular view on this scheme._

*Railton LTN from TfL report Sep 2020*


			http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf
		


_The survey of attitudes revealed that there are advocates for and against LTNs being suitable for the local area. Some 56 per cent of those living inside the LTN believe it is suitable for their area (38 per cent disagree) and 53 per cent would like to see it continue (38 per cent disagree). However, outside the LTN, only 19 per cent believe it is suitable for their area (75 per cent disagree) and only 21 per cent would like to see it continue (72 per cent disagree)._


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Merton council actually did a consultation on some new LTNs, unlike the existing ones that were setup in the same manner as Lambeth. They were rejected.


By a whole 30% of respondents.

Whereas in Lambeth people can see how they work first.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Mar 30, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> By a whole 30% of respondents.
> 
> Whereas in Lambeth people can see how they work first.


The Merton rejection was for new LTNs, they had plenty of opportunity to see 'how they work' in the area around them with the existing ones.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 30, 2021)

Why should we care what a lot of people “want”? Large numbers of people “want” to drive their car half a mile to the shops and not be mildly inconvenienced in any way. Their “want” can, and should, be ignored.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Mar 30, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> By a whole 30% of respondents.
> 
> Whereas in Lambeth people can see how they work first.



Turnout in my ward 2018
*Coldharbour council Election 2018*

Coldharbour (3)

PartyCandidateVotes%±%*Labour Co-op**Emma Nye**2,325**66.8**Labour Co-op**Donatus Anyanwu ***2,257**64.8**Labour Co-op**Matthew Parr ***1,975**56.7*GreenMichael Groce76121.9GreenRashid Nix68319.6IndependentRachel Heywood *66019.0ConservativeMichael Johnson2286.5ConservativeAmy Hennessy2176.2ConservativeYvonne Stewart-Williams1895.4Liberal DemocratsOlivier Bertin1825.2Liberal DemocratsHenry McMorrow1805.2Liberal DemocratsClive Lewis1735.0Turnout3,487*28.7*


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Turnout in my ward 2018
> *Coldharbour council Election 2018*


There's no point in turning out for that, labour will win.

Why only 30% against if they had seen what a failure they were?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Mar 30, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> There's no point in turning out for that, labour will win.
> 
> Why only 30% against if they had seen what a failure they were?



for anyone who had a problem with the Merton jpg I attached.

The actual responses on the proposed new LTNs were
LTN 1. 75.5% against
LTN 2. 59.9% against
LTN 3. 73.5% against
LTN 4. 71.6% against

on a response rate of 39.4%


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> for anyone who had a problem with the Merton jpg I attached.
> 
> The actual responses on the proposed new LTNs were
> LTN 1. 75.5% against
> ...


Yes, so a maximum of 29.7% of the households they polled. In a borough where the majority do have access to a car.

It's even worse with the Crystal Palace one you posted up with a whopping 18.75% rejecting the plans.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Mar 30, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yes, so a maximum of 29.7% of the households they polled. In a borough where the majority do have access to a car.
> 
> It's even worse with the Crystal Palace one you posted up with a whopping 18.75% rejecting the plans.



Maybe they should try that approach to counting votes at elections, or any other type of referendum or survey.

By that logic
_'Why only 7% in support if they had seen what a success they were?'_

Merton council didn't take your approach to counting, they cancelled the new LTNs. Does make you wonder what the numbers were in the 433 responses they discounted as not being within the consultation exercise.

715​AgreeDisagreeNot sureTotalBarrier 136​213​33​282​Barrier 279​169​34​282​Barrier 343​207​32​282​Barrier 433​202​47​282​Average47.75​197.75​36.5​282​% of Responses16.93%​70.12%​12.94%​100.00%​% of Sent Out6.68%​27.66%​5.10%​39.44%​


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2021)

LTN news Survey claims that walking is up by 38% along Brixton’s Railton Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Maybe they should try that approach to counting votes at elections, or any other type of referendum or survey.
> 
> By that logic
> _'Why only 7% in support if they had seen what a success they were?'_
> ...


You seem to think the voices of those who own cars should carry equal weight with those who don’t in this debate. You’re wrong.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Maybe they should try that approach to counting votes at elections, or any other type of referendum or survey.
> 
> By that logic
> _'Why only 7% in support if they had seen what a success they were?'_
> ...


I would suggest it’s because a greater percentage of them own cars compared to Lambeth.

I wonder what the results would be if they suggested ripping up the historical ltns in Merton....


----------



## Brian Taylor (Mar 30, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would suggest it’s because a greater percentage of them own cars compared to Lambeth.
> 
> I wonder what the results would be if they suggested ripping up the historical ltns in Merton....


Would be nice if they asked


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Would be nice if they asked


You want to get rid of the old historical ones as well?. Like the one on lambert/strathleven  Rd in Brixton?.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Would be nice if they asked


No, it wouldn’t.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 30, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You want to get rid of the old historical ones as well?. Like the one on lambert/strathleven  Rd in Brixton?.


I've yet to find an LTN opponent who doesn't dodge this question.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Mar 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've yet to find an LTN opponent who doesn't dodge this question.



Maybe they just can't be bothered playing along with another attempt to deflect attention. 
Maybe you should ask the people round there who know the background and the affect, which I don't.


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 30, 2021)

I’m also hoping they’ll keep Atlantic and Coldharbour shut to cars after the works are complete. Central Brixton is a much more pleasant place to be with them closed.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Maybe they just can't be bothered playing along with another attempt to deflect attention.
> Maybe you should ask the people round there who know the background and the affect, which I don't.


But you're happy to post up results from another borough entirely,  do you know the background there?

The question still stands though, if through traffic is good, what shouldn't all the historical ones go too?


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 30, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> But you're happy to post up results from another borough entirely,  do you know the background there?
> 
> The question still stands though, if through traffic is good, what shouldn't all the historical ones go too?



And the Crystal Palace one times with one of the roads being closed due to a car driving into one of the shops in the CP triangle. 

Lots of people blamed the  traffic calming measures when really the increased traffic was caused by a speeding driver destroying someone’s business premises.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> And the Crystal Palace one times with one of the roads being closed due to a car driving into one of the shops in the CP triangle.
> 
> Lots of people blamed the  traffic calming measures when really the increased traffic was caused by a speeding driver destroying someone’s business premises.


This one ?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 30, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Maybe they just can't be bothered playing along with another attempt to deflect attention.


No, I feel pretty clear about the reason.

A very large portion of the openly presented argument against the LTN principle is the idea that it displaces traffic and pollution. On this specific point, there is agreement that things improve (pollution-wise) for those inside the LTN.

There is disagreement about the consequences for streets around the LTN, with opponents claiming that things here become unacceptably worse, and supporters claiming that the effects are small, and/or temporary, and are outweighed by the larger benefits.

Because those who support the LTNs are the ones that want to make a change from the status quo, they are put in this position of defending possible negative effects of making a change. They can talk all they wish about the current, ongoing negative consequences of not doing anything, but the anti-LTN side can avoid being held responsible for that because hey, they aren't suggesting changing anything, and it's for someone else to come up with alternative solutions.

Well, if the anti LTN side really believes that there's an overall benefit of maintaining things as they are; that is, traffic should not be concentrated on main roads but be allowed to disperse freely as it wishes, then there should be no objection to widening that strategy so that more people can benefit from it. Any existing measures which are designed to keep traffic on main roads are already causing harm, so these measures should be removed.

The purpose of asking the question "ok should we remove historical LTNs" is to put the anti side in the position of defending and justifying an active intervention that follows their claimed principles and beliefs.

Of course an anti LTN person doesn't want to be put in the position where they have to advocate something that will directly increase traffic and pollution on someone's street. Of course they don't want to become answerable to those people. That would require full courage in their convictions, and I don't believe they have it. If they did, they would prove it by being happy to advocate removing long-existing restrictions.

Speaking for myself - but I think this would apply to most people who are basically in favour of the LTNs - I do have the courage of my convictions. It might be that I am wrong, but I do genuinely believe that LTN type strategies are part of what needs to be done to reduce the problems that traffic creates. It is never easy when you are confronted with someone who tells you that they live on a main road, and they believe pollution has increased as a result. I am able in most cases to say to those people that I genuinely believe that pursuing the LTNs will in the long term make things better or at least no worse for them.

If those who oppose LTNs on the basis that they unfairly displace pollution to main roads really believe that, then their rationale should apply to LTNs whether they were put in place in 2020 or 1970. I would stop short of saying that all those who use this argument are doing so disingenuously (although I think some certainly are). I think there are probably lots of people for whom it's a genuine worry, but they may not be willing to examine the thinking behind it. Either way, the result is that whenever this question is asked, it is avoided.


----------



## Ol Nick (Mar 30, 2021)

Ol Nick said:


> I’m also hoping they’ll keep Atlantic and Coldharbour shut to cars after the works are complete. Central Brixton is a much more pleasant place to be with them closed.


Well it’s too late. They’ve opened Atlantic. Go along and take a look at the beautiful condition of those new arches.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 30, 2021)

Ol Nick said:


> Well it’s too late. They’ve opened Atlantic. Go along and take a look at the beautiful condition of those new arches.


I wonder if any of the traders along Atlantic Rd might wish for a return to the closure, once traffic starts grinding along there again.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 31, 2021)

Cristo, a vocal opponent of LTNs, gave air time to a v dangerous lie without carrying out even basic checks.


----------



## Gramsci (Mar 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Cristo, a vocal opponent of LTNs, gave air time to a v dangerous lie without carrying out even basic checks.




Sorry I don't see the relevance of this to the thread topic.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2021)

Well it prompted me to go and have a look what other nonsense that Cristo chap was putting on twitter, and the first thing I find is him linking to a rambling Daily Mail article that mentions a new report that it claims proves that LTNs are increasing congestion. So I looked for the original report, which I can't actually find online anywhere, but I could find this article with a different take on the results









						Traffic in London is up by 30 per cent since before the Covid-19 pandemic, study shows
					

Regions that have seen an increase in traffic are generally densely populated areas that have traditionally relied heavily on public transport




					inews.co.uk
				




In short (if you accept the interretation), in places like London that traditionally rely on a large proportion of people using public transport to get around, even a small portion of those people switching journeys to private car rapidly leads to congestion, and that's what we see evidence of, compared to places where everyone always uses cars anyway, so not much has changed other than a bit of a reduction due to WFH.

This all entirely justifies the strategy that London has adopted, to try and strongly discourage people from switching to private cars in response to the pandemic, because it simply doesn't and can't work in densely populated areas. If you want to live somewhere where everyone can drive, you have to move to suburbia or the countryside.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Sorry I don't see the relevance of this to the thread topic.



There’s a lot of misinformation about LTNs and so think it’s useful to know how reliable the sources are - Cristo regularly reports on LTNs.

Here’s a clip of him explaining this segment, which suggests he doesn’t do a lot of fact checking before reporting on something and doesn’t see that as much of an issue.



Happy to delete these posts if too off topic.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Sorry I don't see the relevance of this to the thread topic.







__





						Ad hominem - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## pave (Apr 1, 2021)

Shouldn't the roads around Railton Road  be reopened while the end of Coldharbour Lane is closed? I had to drive via Herne Hill to get from Coldharbour Road to Tescos yesterday. With trips to France currently banned, it's essential to take advantage of the supermarket 25% off wine deals whenever they come up. As I was buying 36 bottles, surely even the most hard-hearted LTN supporter would consider that an essential journey!

Dave


----------



## edcraw (Apr 1, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’d attack his argument but not sure what it is apart from generally hating people not in cars.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> There’s a lot of misinformation about LTNs and so think it’s useful to know how reliable the sources are - Cristo regularly reports on LTNs.
> 
> Here’s a clip of him explaining this segment, which suggests he doesn’t do a lot of fact checking before reporting on something and doesn’t see that as much of an issue.
> 
> ...



It's a late night shock jock call in show. The format and its weaknesses are as old as the hills. It's hardly a surprise that not every caller's contribution is immediately and fully fact checked. No one on here was paying any attention to it or discussing it, so why are you?

Is it a coincidence that on the day you signed up to Urban75 your first two posts were about the very same radio host Cristo and criticising the part he played in Simon Still's suspension from the board of LCC?

For those who have forgotten, Still was the chair of Lambeth Cyclists (part of LCC) and a key adviser to Lambeth Council's Clare Holland on LTNs. He had an unfortunately intolerant and unprofessional manner on Twitter which Cristo publicised resulting in him being suspended, signed up to racism awareness training and then resigning. I don't think there was any debate about the fact checking here: the LCC concluded and Simon Still admitted that his Twitter rants were racist and Lambeth declared them unacceptable. Cristo further accused Still of doxing, and of stalking him personally.

In those first posts of yours you cast doubt on Cristo's motivation for calling Simon Still out for making racists posts. It's not an entirely unfair point - if slightly irrelevant given that he was formally deemed to be accurate. Yet here you are apparently despairing at Cristo's reckless stoking of racial tensions with the Muslim community. On a Brixton LTN thread. Where Cristo and his views are otherwise not being discussed. Are you certain about your own motivations in bringing this up? Or are you just trying to drag everyone here into a bitter Twitter spat and settle a score in a "safe space"?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 1, 2021)

Oh well - this looks fun, some positivity.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 1, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not really an ad hominem when it's about questioning the reliability of a source.
If you can show that someone has lied about other topics, are they someone you should listen to about this one? I'd say probably not - their reliability as a source is questionable.

If you said "Cristo is a dick, s/he was rude to me one time", that would be ad hominem for sure but it's perfectly reasonable to ask about the reliability of sources and look at previous reporting from journalists to decide if they are worth paying attention to, or should be ignored - anything they say you will need other sources to verify, ones which are reliable, so just go with the reliable sources.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Oh well - this looks fun, some positivity.




I agree with what Rushy has posted.

I find your response insulting.

Are you going to answer any of Rushy questions?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I agree with what Rushy has posted.
> 
> I find your response insulting.
> 
> Are you going to answer any of Rushy questions?


I wasn’t really sure what the questions were tbh.

I was lurking for ages here - I thought the turn Cristo took was pretty bad and if anything an ad hominem attack on pro LTN people. Making out that the LCC is somehow a racist organisation or something nefarious and that then LTNs are as well.

I thought he was being very disingenuous with this and thought it worthwhile pointing out that he’s hardly a reliable source.

I see LTNs as a progressive policy and find it interesting generally who the people are that are attacking them. I’m not saying they’re perfect but think it’s useful to see who the people are that are attacking them. There’s discussions to be had but people opposed (like OneLambeth) aren’t having those - it’s just rip them out.

Happy to have a proper discussion but when people like Tim Briggs & Cristo are talking about the ‘social injustice’ of LTNs I feel it’s worth pointing out their hypocrisy & it really does looks like they just care about this when it restricts their rights to drive wherever they want.

Please point out the people opposed to LTNs that are genuinely trying to improve actual problems but I struggle to find them.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 1, 2021)

Ol Nick said:


> I’m also hoping they’ll keep Atlantic and Coldharbour shut to cars after the works are complete. Central Brixton is a much more pleasant place to be with them closed.


Brixton BID was in favour of Coldharbour Lane becoming a beer garden even before Covid arrived.
A bit of lobbying Brewdog and Satay Bar - ie the BID chair - ought to set things on the right track, at least for you.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I wasn’t really sure what the questions were tbh.
> 
> I was lurking for ages here - I thought the turn Cristo took was pretty bad and if anything an ad hominem attack on pro LTN people. Making out that the LCC is somehow a racist organisation or something nefarious and that then LTNs are as well.
> 
> ...



I think the reason you have it in for Cristo is that he made known Simon Stills racist comments and aggressive online presence to the public. That is when you turned up here.

You say you having been lurking here. I've put up posts where I've pointed out from personal experience that not all people who are anti LTN are right wing and racist.


----------



## editor (Apr 2, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Brixton BID was in favour of Coldharbour Lane becoming a beer garden even before Covid arrived.
> A bit of lobbying Brewdog and Satay Bar - ie the BID chair - ought to set things on the right track, at least for you.


I think there's an argument for the closure of the central part of Coldharbour Lane but the BID's zero-consultation plan to close off he entire centre was an awful idea, driven by self interest.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 2, 2021)

editor said:


> I think there's an argument for the closure of the central part of Coldharbour Lane but the BID's zero-consultation plan to close off he entire centre was an awful idea, driven by self interest.



Are there details of the plans, I can’t find them on their website?

The closure at them moment does seem to have caused terrible traffic.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 3, 2021)

Cycled to Peckham today with my daughter through several LTNs and took just over 20mins. Would never have done that before and used to take nearly an hour with the walk to the train station.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 3, 2021)

editor said:


> I think there's an argument for the closure of the central part of Coldharbour Lane but the BID's zero-consultation plan to close off he entire centre was an awful idea, driven by self interest.


Agree about consultation. Regarding closing the town centre part of Coldharbour Lane, total closure would be detrimental to the popular P5 bus route - but allowing buses only would stop the opportunity for turning CHL-Central into some sort of Old Compton Street.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are there details of the plans, I can’t find them on their website?
> 
> The closure at them moment does seem to have caused terrible traffic.


This was an aspiration floated by Brixton BID on behalf of local businesses a couple of years back. Nothing to do with the current LTN emergency Covid legislation  craze.
The present closure of CHL is due to gas mains rrewal according to the contractors.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are there details of the plans, I can’t find them on their website?
> 
> The closure at them moment does seem to have caused terrible traffic.











						Brixton Playground - Brixton Bid
					

Reopening Brixton means reimagining the public realm for businesses, residences, customers and visitors alike. Brixton Playground would see the pedestrianisation…




					brixtonbid.co.uk
				




Details of Brixton BID idea for a Brixton Playground.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Brixton Playground - Brixton Bid
> 
> 
> Reopening Brixton means reimagining the public realm for businesses, residences, customers and visitors alike. Brixton Playground would see the pedestrianisation…
> ...


The map in that documentation shows Coldharbour Lane closed from the Ritzy to Gresham Road.
I reckon if that goes through you can say goodbye to the bus service to the Moorlands state and The Guinness Trust ie Electric Quarter.
I doubt the knobs who think up these schemes give a toss about pensioners and disabled people with no cars who use the bus for heavy shopping.

Who was it who said "Let them take cabs"?  Marie Antoinette wasn't it - and look what happened to her.


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 4, 2021)

CH1 said:


> The map in that documentation shows Coldharbour Lane closed from the Ritzy to Gresham Road.
> I reckon if that goes through you can say goodbye to the bus service to the Moorlands state and The Guinness Trust ie Electric Quarter.
> I doubt the knobs who think up these schemes give a toss about pensioners and disabled people with no cars who use the bus for heavy shopping.
> 
> Who was it who said "Let them take cabs"?  Marie Antoinette wasn't it - and look what happened to her.


Yeah. It’s a shame but it’s probably not feasible in the short term. We have to leave _some_ roads open and the railway lines mean options are limited.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 4, 2021)

CH1 said:


> The map in that documentation shows Coldharbour Lane closed from the Ritzy to Gresham Road.
> I reckon if that goes through you can say goodbye to the bus service to the Moorlands state and The Guinness Trust ie Electric Quarter.
> I doubt the knobs who think up these schemes give a toss about pensioners and disabled people with no cars who use the bus for heavy shopping.
> 
> Who was it who said "Let them take cabs"?  Marie Antoinette wasn't it - and look what happened to her.



Too many wheels on a cab, this is the new approved mode of transport


----------



## teuchter (Apr 4, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I doubt the knobs who think up these schemes give a toss about pensioners and disabled people with no cars who use the bus for heavy shopping.


If only someone would think up a scheme that would make streets better for these people without cars. Perhaps you could try and substantially cut the amount of traffic on residential streets, to make them much easier to negotiate for people with mobility problems or in a wheelchair, or people doing their shopping using a trolley. Whether they are making their way to the bus stop or the shops. Perhaps you could have a system where you let buses continue to circulate freely on these streets, maybe even a bit more freely than before. Perhaps you can have something called a 'bus gate'. All just a crazy utopian dream though!


----------



## teuchter (Apr 4, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Too many wheels on a cab, this is the new approved mode of transport
> View attachment 261728


Once her servants have carried her home she'll be instructing them to off and vandalise some CCTV cameras so they can get her back slightly quicker next time. I would say that we have here an antecedent of a certain type of self important bloated SUV driver.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If only someone would think up a scheme that would make streets better for these people without cars. Perhaps you could try and substantially cut the amount of traffic on residential streets, to make them much easier to negotiate for people with mobility problems or in a wheelchair, or people doing their shopping using a trolley. Whether they are making their way to the bus stop or the shops. Perhaps you could have a system where you let buses continue to circulate freely on these streets, maybe even a bit more freely than before. Perhaps you can have something called a 'bus gate'. All just a crazy utopian dream though!


Once again the issue is displacement: what have the many Gresham Road residents done to get environmentally punished?
I bet if you count the number of residents proximate to Gresham Road it's twice or thrice those on your cherished booze strip of Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 5, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Once again the issue is displacement: what have the many Gresham Road residents done to get environmentally punished?
> I bet if you count the number of residents proximate to Gresham Road it's twice or thrice those on your cherished booze strip of Coldharbour Lane.


I wasn't necessarily advocating for the coldharbour lane proposal but making a more general point, because I don't believe you are a big fan of the LTNs in principle despite their aim being to make things better for the groups of people you mention.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wasn't necessarily advocating for the coldharbour lane proposal but making a more general point, because I don't believe you are a big fan of the LTNs in principle despite their aim being to make things better for the groups of people you mention.


I don't believe that LTNs make things better for the majority of wheelchair users. Less traffic is probably one of the lower down issues that impacts on people getting around in wheelchairs. I think it will be very little help to this group at all so wish you would stop using them to make your point.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2021)

Quotes did not work


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If only someone would think up a scheme that would make streets better for these people without cars. Perhaps you could try and substantially cut the amount of traffic on residential streets, to make them much easier to negotiate for people with mobility problems or in a wheelchair, or people doing their shopping using a trolley. Whether they are making their way to the bus stop or the shops. Perhaps you could have a system where you let buses continue to circulate freely on these streets, maybe even a bit more freely than before. Perhaps you can have something called a 'bus gate'. All just a crazy utopian dream though!



On post #4006 CH1 does advocate buses being allowed through. But correctly says that this proposal by BID does not include this.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 5, 2021)

If I remember it right no one on here supported the BID plans at the time. It was one of those rare moments of consensus. Anyway, it’s an irrelevance - it was a plan by some private enterprises to take over (well used) public roads blocking public transport to support their businesses.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I don't believe that LTNs make things better for the majority of wheelchair users. Less traffic is probably one of the lower down issues that impacts on people getting around in wheelchairs.





			https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf
		


This is a really good read, covering both the positive and negative aspects of LTN's and accessible travel for all.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 5, 2021)

Also worth pointing out that the common argument of increased journey times for disabled people is a feature of people still taking non essential journeys in cars, not LTN's. If those who don't _need_ to drive used alternatives then there wouldn't be a problem. As for taxis that ask people to meet them at the bottom of a road because they can't be arsed to go a long way around? Take away their license. Simple as that. No taxi - not a single one - is prevented from using a road in an LTN. They're just being lazy twats.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Also worth pointing out that the common argument of increased journey times for disabled people is a feature of people still taking non essential journeys in cars, not LTN's. If those who don't _need_ to drive used alternatives then there wouldn't be a problem. As for taxis that ask people to meet them at the bottom of a road because they can't be arsed to go a long way around? Take away their license. Simple as that. No taxi - not a single one - is prevented from using a road in an LTN. They're just being lazy twats.


It's a good article. But it highlights a lot more than that as obstacles, as I regularly point out.
It also highlights how negative the impact has been of lack of proper consultation.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Also worth pointing out that the common argument of increased journey times for disabled people is a feature of people still taking non essential journeys in cars, not LTN's. If those who don't _need_ to drive used alternatives then there wouldn't be a problem. As for taxis that ask people to meet them at the bottom of a road because they can't be arsed to go a long way around? Take away their license. Simple as that. No taxi - not a single one - is prevented from using a road in an LTN. They're just being lazy twats.



You really don't understand how the economy works. Shows how people like you are out of touch.

You sound more like a boss of a delivery company.

This comment shows prejudice and contempt for the working class.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 5, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> You really don't understand how the economy works. Shows how people like you are out of touch.
> 
> You sound more like a boss of a delivery company.
> 
> This comment shows prejudice and contempt for the working class.


Oh fuck off


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh fuck off



You are just an ignorant poster.


----------



## Winot (Apr 6, 2021)

Interesting article from New Zealand arguing that there is an advantage to consulting on the fly (for a scheme that can also be adjusted on the fly).





__





						“It’s really good but where’s the consultation?!” tactical urbanism, social licence and opening minds - Talk Wellington - Kōrero Shaping Wellington
					

A Low Traffic Neighbourhood project in Onehunga, using tactical urbanism, is a theatre for some very familiar angst – but also some very unfamiliar progress.




					talkwellington.org.nz


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I don't believe that LTNs make things better for the majority of wheelchair users. Less traffic is probably one of the lower down issues that impacts on people getting around in wheelchairs. I think it will be very little help to this group at all so wish you would stop using them to make your point.


That's a fair enough point and I should be careful about speaking for people whose experiences I don't directly share. 

But I have tried to limit my claims for what is achieved by the current implementation of the trial LTNs. It's certainly true that they don't include a lot of things that would be needed to make a meaningful difference for people in wheelchairs. Throughout, I've said that I'd agree that if technically feasible there should be exemptions for blue badge holders, while I'll continue to argue against a general exemption for residents.

I would see the current schemes as an early step along the road to street infrastructure that genuinely prioritises those who are walking, or getting around on non motorised wheels. Pavements need to be widened and made level, there needs to be consistent level access everywhere and there needs to be an absolute ban on things like pavement parking, and widened to remove other obstructions whether they are wheely bins on pavements that are simply to narrow for them, or people dumping giant christmas trees or other rubbish on pedestrian routes that ought to be maintained clear, in the same way that such obstructions are not tolerated on the roadway at present.

My opinion is that if we are going to get to that point, then LTNs are part of the path to it, and continuing the status quo absolutely isn't.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 6, 2021)

Winot said:


> Interesting article from New Zealand arguing that there is an advantage to consulting on the fly (for a scheme that can also be adjusted on the fly).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that article from New Zealand is a bit glib. Very glib in fact.
New Zealand has not had the experience of years of Brexit paranoia followed by Trump paranoia rammed down their throats every day.
I think that as in New Zealand the average punter is annoyed about measures being sprung on them - in our case by misusing and abusing Corona-virus legislation.
I personally do not think these measures are reversible. Its like Brexit. I voted against it - but I now have to lump it.
But then again its not like Brexit - because the public were not consulted on it Only The Elite to coin a phrase.

What this all boils down to is that the traffic engineers and their political masters are sure they are right - and eventually the public will cease complaining and resisting.
Or so they hope,.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2021)

One Lambeth launches with the aim of holding Lambeth Council to account over LTNs, housing , parks and libraries
					

Residents living around Oval, Stockwell, Ferndale and Clapham may have received a leaflet recently from One Lambeth – a new group that aims to hold the Council to account.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




Read this interesting article. Looking at the website it looks to me that they are building up to try to field candidates against the Progress led Council. I agree with a lot of what this new organisation is saying about how Lambeth deals with residents and how this Progress led Council works.

Estate "regeneration", libraries and now LTNs - all demonstrate how poorly this Labour Council deal with residents. 



			https://onelambeth.co.uk/


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That's a fair enough point and I should be careful about speaking for people whose experiences I don't directly share.
> 
> Throughout, I've said that I'd agree that if technically feasible there should be exemptions for blue badge holders, while I'll continue to argue against a general exemption for residents.



Have you argued this throughout?

I'm not so sure. Here is what you said to nagapie in post 1465:



> These schemes do not exclude the needs of those with disabilities.
> For some of those with a disability and access to a car, it may lengthen some of their journey times by a small amount.For some those with a disability and no access to a car, it is likely to reduce exclusion


.

You have sometimes agreed for exemption for Blue badge holders at other times not. So it hasn't been throughout.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2021)

Here are all the posts I can find where I've mentioned blue badge exemptions. 

Feel free to show me where I've argued against exemptions being considered for blue badge holders.



teuchter said:


> If you mean, can blue badge cars drive through the modal filters, then as I understand it the answer is no. I am not sure if this is because of technological limitations or something else. If it's something that would be possible to implement then I would probably support it.





teuchter said:


> It's not that difficult to understand - there has to be a balance struck - the relative convenience of short car journeys made such that people will be persuaded to change behaviours, but not made so inconvenient that it becomes completely unreasonable for those who genuinely do need to use a car. And if there's not a system to exempt blue badge holders, then that obviously has some impact on what can be called reasonable.
> 
> As for privilege - it's great if the motability scheme can provide some disabled people mobility and independence - a good solution for those for whom it can work - but let's not pretend that this is a solution for all or most people with a disability.
> 
> ...





teuchter said:


> If the technology is there, definitely do it for blue badge holders.
> 
> Do a "locals exempted" as a last resort perhaps, if it's that or nothing. You do however lose the aspect of the scheme that's supposed to be about discouraging unnecessary short journeys. How much traffic that would then add back onto Railton Rd etc I don't know. I'd be worried that it would create a situation where things are a bit better than before, but it hasn't really changed anything fundamental, people living inside the zone are better off because they get the quieter streets and no restrictions on their car use, and the benefits outside the zone would take the larger hit (because it loses some of its strength as a policy aimed at reducing the number of car journeys overall). And - the benefits for those inside the zone would be greater for car owners than they would be for non car owners.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> One Lambeth launches with the aim of holding Lambeth Council to account over LTNs, housing , parks and libraries
> 
> 
> Residents living around Oval, Stockwell, Ferndale and Clapham may have received a leaflet recently from One Lambeth – a new group that aims to hold the Council to account.
> ...


I lway like to know who is behind things.
I would have a heart attack if I was inveigled into supporting Richard Tice and  Isabel Oakeshott by deception.

All I've seen so far is that there is a OneLambeth fundraiser organised by Charles Jenkins:








						OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

In May 2020, Lambeth Council began closing residential roads to create “Low Traffic Neighb… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge



					uk.gofundme.com
				




He and his wife possibly were Lib Dem proposers/supporters in  Clapham Common ward seven years back


			https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/er-Statement-of-Persons-Nominated-CLAPHAM-COMMON-25-4-14.pdf
		


I must say this traffic issue is a bit of a poser - party-wise.
I tell you in confidence that the Green Party agent in recent elections was bitterly opposed to controlled parking in Thornton Road where he himself lives.
Just goes to show that the most environmental among us can also be nimbies.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 7, 2021)

StoneRoad said:


> replies





Gramsci said:


> One Lambeth launches with the aim of holding Lambeth Council to account over LTNs, housing , parks and libraries
> 
> 
> Residents living around Oval, Stockwell, Ferndale and Clapham may have received a leaflet recently from One Lambeth – a new group that aims to hold the Council to account.
> ...


Costs £25 a year to be a member, which strikes me as quite high? Also you have to agree with all their aims. So if you support some but not others, that's it, you can't join. 🤷.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Apr 7, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> One Lambeth launches with the aim of holding Lambeth Council to account over LTNs, housing , parks and libraries
> 
> 
> Residents living around Oval, Stockwell, Ferndale and Clapham may have received a leaflet recently from One Lambeth – a new group that aims to hold the Council to account.
> ...



Whats interesting about a bunch of right wing trolls and haters setting up a party?


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2021)

Re One Lambeth as a political entity
One Lambeth launches with the aim of holding Lambeth Council to account over LTNs, housing , parks and libraries
the whole thing is a bit odd as far as I am concerned. They behave like a political party, but they are not registered at the Electoral Commission.

I can't quite see if they are going to stand candidates how this works. If you are standing as an Independent that is what you are. supposed to be.

Supposing One Lambeth stood candidates in all the LTN affected wards, and they were all supposed to be Independent the returning officer and the Electoral Commission could probably disqualify them for breaking the rules.

Maybe One Lambeth is still in the process of registering. For sure they will not be registered in time for the Mayoral/GLA election in May.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 7, 2021)

They’re also seeking donations from the One Lambeth FB group via their gofundme page that’s specifically about LTN judicial review, not wider party political work. Are political groups allowed to accept anonymous donations?


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2021)

Here's a wonderfully balanced post about LTNs in Brixton 



> Its 2020. Black Lives Matter. It’s out of order that Lambeth is trying to create a whites-only ghetto just south of Brixton, stopping black people from going south from black areas in Brixton and Loughborough Junction, to use white and middle class services in Herne Hill and Brockwell Park. Lambeth is keeping poor black people in crowded accommodation in polluted areas, and now stopping us getting to cleaner areas just because they are white and middle class.











						Problems the community is having with the Railton Road LTN.
					

One Community for All




					oneshakespeare.wordpress.com


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 7, 2021)

editor said:


> Here's a wonderfully balanced post about LTNs in Brixton
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh my!
I hadn't realised that was still there, let alone visible. 

Not balanced at all, to be fair it is a copy of someone else's comments from Nextdoor(?) at a point where feelings were running particularly high.

It was just me trying out the website tool and wasn't ever intended to be live. 
It definitely doesn't represent the views of any of my neighbours and they never saw it let alone approved it. 
That'll teach me to tidy up behind myself a bit more thoroughly in future.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Oh my!
> I hadn't realised that was still there, let alone visible.
> 
> Not balanced at all, to be fair it is a copy of someone else's comments from Nextdoor(?) at a point where feelings were running particularly high.
> ...


To be fair, there's really no 'to be fair' to be applied to that nonsense that looks to groundlessly stir up racial divisions.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 7, 2021)

editor said:


> To be fair, there's really no 'to be fair' to be applied to that nonsense that looks to groundlessly stir up racial divisions.



I agree.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> They’re also seeking donations from the One Lambeth FB group via their gofundme page that’s specifically about LTN judicial review, not wider party political work. Are political groups allowed to accept anonymous donations?


That is one function of th electoral commission Donations have to be reported to the commission - iincluding any which are not accepted eg from foreign donors which would be illegal. It would not be permissible to have anonymous donations - but the commission would not expect to be notified of the names of donors below a threshold - though they would expect the party to keep a record of these.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 7, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Oh my!
> I hadn't realised that was still there, let alone visible.
> 
> Not balanced at all, to be fair it is a copy of someone else's comments from Nextdoor(?) at a point where feelings were running particularly high.
> ...


Interesting that you chose that particular quote for your website.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 7, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Whats interesting about a bunch of right wing trolls and haters setting up a party?



They aren't.

I would have thought that Lambeth Cyclists recent problem with online racism would have led to more balanced view of both sides in this LTN argument.

I know people who are against LTNs. I've listened to people who aren't happy with LTNs.

They aren't all right wing trolls and haters.

Trolling and hating isn't the preserve of anti LTN people.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 7, 2021)

As far as I can gather the One Lambeth judicial review case is about rights of disabled. Hardly something right wing trolls and haters would do.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 7, 2021)

On being right wing haters and trolls. 

My popular Labour Cllr Rachel Heywood supported her constituents to oppose Road closures in Loughborough Junction. 

One of the reasons the Progress Labour leadership destroyed her. 

If one is going to look at "haters" that should include many still in leading posts in the Lambeth Labour Group.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 8, 2021)

This One xxx phenomenon is restricted to Lambeth and Wandsworth as far as I can see. The websites are stylistically similar, but not the same.

Presumably as the One Lambeth battleground issues, setting aside the LTNs, are about council oppression in terms of regeneration schemes imposed and library cuts etc the Lambeth Green Party is in the situation of the Whigs and Tories regarding the Repeal of the Corn Laws.

To  quote Disraeli:


> The Right Honourable Gentleman caught the Whigs bathing and walked away with their clothes. He has left them in the full enjoyment of their liberal position, and he is himself a strict conservative of their garments.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

CH1 said:


> This One xxx phenomenon is restricted to Lambeth and Wandsworth as far as I can see.


There's a "One Ealing" and a "One Lewisham" and I'm sure others too.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 8, 2021)

Chiswick, real one Dulwich, One Islington, one oval, one Sutton...

One Lambeth has two fb profiles - the public more wider community based issues one and the closed membership ‘wE PaY RoAd TAx, CyCLisTs dON’t’ one.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 8, 2021)

Latest yougov survey (based on mayoral voting intentions) shows 52% support for LTN and 35% objecting. Which leaves 13% in the don’t know category.

Details on p15



			https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/yf4kwp7gmh/QMUL_Results_MayoralVI_210401.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Latest yougov survey (based on mayoral voting intentions) shows 52% support for LTN and 35% objecting. Which leaves 13% in the don’t know category.
> 
> Details on p15
> 
> ...




Interesting.


overall support even in outer london
overall support higher in BME ethnicity than white ethnicity
support higher in ABC1 than in C2DE, but still overall support in C2DE

- only identified demographics with an overall oppose are tory voters, leave voters and over 65s.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter snowy_again the One Lewisham website is a clear winner in my opinion.
Seems to stick to the facts rather than dispute the ideology.
Their strapline - "Healthy streets for all" is an aspiration no-one could quarrel with.
The One Lewisham counter-anaylsis of Lewisham Council's policy justification leaflet is clear.

Living in Lewisham Borough is the traffic equivalent to living under an approach to Heathrow Airport I imagine.

Nearly 40 years back I attended a Brixton Society meeting where a motorway campaigner showed a film contrasting the rural delights of the South Circular Road with the urban hell of the North Circular Road. All this on Super 8 with projector and portable screen. The point was to campaign against making or replacing the South Circular with a more authentic ring-road (as has been on the cards since World War II).

It's a shame this film is not extant. The flipping from Vivaldi's Four Seasons on the South Circular to super-enhanced traffic noise on the North Circular was a dramatic example of music as agitprop.

As you know I live on Coldharbour Lane. My subjective feeling is that since the Coronavirus outbreak there have been more cars parked up on the street. - night and day. And on both sides. As a non-car owner I don't know what the rules are. But it was normal until recent times for cars to park on the north side and never on the south side.
This rule seems to have been sidelined now.

I guess in LTNs its the same thing. So long as you have a parking permit you can clog up the side-roads. Just make sure no-one else is allowed to drive down them?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2021)

Hadn't seen this - it looks like Southwark have decided to make an exemption for blue badge holders. That suggests it's technically feasible so I hope Lambeth decide to do the same





__





						Parking with a Blue Badge
					






					www.southwark.gov.uk
				




*



			Dulwich Village and Walworth Low Traffic Neighbourhood Schemes
		
Click to expand...

*


> Blue Badge holders who live within the Dulwich Village and Walworth Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) trials can register for a free exemption from the camera enforced traffic restrictions, in their neighbourhoods.
> 
> LTNs are designed to make residential streets safer, encourage people to walk and cycle more and reduce air pollution. However, in the course of our work listening to the people who live in the Dulwich Village and Walworth LTN trials, we have learned that Blue Badge holders may be disproportionately impacted by the schemes.
> 
> Blue Badge holders often have reduced mobility, which can make walking and cycling much more difficult.  In the interest of equality and in response to our residents, we are therefore inviting Blue Badge holders to register for an exemption. The exemption is to allow blue badge holders living in the LTN to travel with ease in their local area.  Access to every property within the LTN remains available at all times for all road users


----------



## spitfire (Apr 8, 2021)

One Tower Hamlets is a frothing lunatic twitter account who harasses councillors and anyone pro LTN.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 8, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I guess in LTNs its the same thing. So long as you have a parking permit you can clog up the side-roads. Just make sure no-one else is allowed to drive down them?



Except that anyone can still drive down them, park in them on a meter etc, but not use them as through routes or rat runs.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 8, 2021)

Interesting that those who feel strongly either way are fairly evenly split 19/18%.  It's the difference between those who on balance tend towards supporting LTNs and those who tend towards not doing so where the majority in favour lies. 

Out of interest - where would people vote?

I would struggle to answer the questions. As an general concept I think that I'd tend to support. Possibly strongly? But I have strong reservations about the local implementation - and I don't think there is a question about that. So my strong reservations would not be noted.  I might possibly end up in the IDKs. I wonder whether that is similar amongst those who only tend one way or another? And I wonder whether there is much difference in support between those who live in LTNs and those who don't? (I have not read it so perhaps that info is available).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> - only identified demographics with an overall oppose are tory voters, leave voters and over 65s.


Who could possibly have predicted that?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 9, 2021)

Change Starts Now - Lambeth Residents Petition for a Committee System
					

Imagine having a council that represents you; one where your elected councillors all have a say? OneLambeth and many other residents from around the ...



					gem.godaddy.com
				




For anyone that’s interested.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 10, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Change Starts Now - Lambeth Residents Petition for a Committee System
> 
> 
> Imagine having a council that represents you; one where your elected councillors all have a say? OneLambeth and many other residents from around the ...
> ...



Signed. 

I've emailed my ward Cllrs about this. 

Asking for return of committee system is reasonable proposal by One Lambeth.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Hadn't seen this - it looks like Southwark have decided to make an exemption for blue badge holders. That suggests it's technically feasible so I hope Lambeth decide to do the same
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's been technically feasible since day 1. Lambeth have been exempting Veolia vehicles and their own vehicles. 
They were asked to extend it to blue badge holders 9 months ago and chose not to.


----------



## Winot (Apr 10, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> It's been technically feasible since day 1. Lambeth have been exempting Veolia vehicles and their own vehicles.
> They were asked to extend it to blue badge holders 9 months ago and chose not to.



Isn’t the problem that the badge is associated with the individual not the vehicle?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 10, 2021)

Winot said:


> Isn’t the problem that the badge is associated with the individual not the vehicle?


That is true, but 

*To qualify for a free, local Blue Badge exemption you must:*

have a valid  Blue Badge, issued  by Southwark Council 
live in Walworth or Dulwich, within the boundary area shown on the maps A&B
identify one vehicle to be registered for the scheme, per Blue Badge.
Not really any more difficult than registering all the Veolia vehicles or your own council vehicles, if you wanted to.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 11, 2021)

And of course, it's only available to the select few who live within the LTN. Not all Blue Badges are equal.
Maybe that will make it a more attractive option for Lambeth council though.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2021)

End of free movement, apparently


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 12, 2021)

editor said:


> End of free movement, apparently



These people are fucking morons


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 12, 2021)

That bit where they say they’re not very good at driving because of ‘too many signs and too many cyclists’ is a bit of a worry. Liked by OL of course.


----------



## nick (Apr 12, 2021)

> all the signs and cyclists are very distracting and dangerous for all concerned.



Fucking cyclists going out and injuring all innocents left right and centre.  (Charlie Alliston excepted)


----------



## BusLanes (Apr 13, 2021)

The anti LTN movement seems to be a broad church. In Ealing one of the local Labour MPs seemed to be saying that LTNs made woman vulnerable and afraid of assault. In Lewisham I believe at least one Labour MP came out against.

I know Labour activists in Streatham who are anti (although that doesn't mean they necessarily campaign). I know of some Lambeth Greens who are anti too. So would not surprise me of various Lib Dems here and there were too. I also recall reading that Vauxhall Conservatives were quite split when deciding whether to oppose LTNs or not.

On the other hand the One Lambeth plan now seems to be signing up to all of the traditional criticisms against Lambeth Labour (not that this a bad thing) so maybe they could turn into a political party?

I believe that similar groups exist all over, the residents associations that provide councillors in various local authorities for one. So assumedly they are in some way recognised by the EC


----------



## editor (Apr 13, 2021)

BusLanes said:


> The anti LTN movement seems to be a broad church. In Ealing one of the local Labour MPs seemed to be saying that LTNs made woman vulnerable and afraid of assault. In Lewisham I believe at least one Labour MP came out against.
> 
> I know Labour activists in Streatham who are anti (although that doesn't mean they necessarily campaign). I know of some Lambeth Greens who are anti too. So would not surprise me of various Lib Dems here and there were too. I also recall reading that Vauxhall Conservatives were quite split when deciding whether to oppose LTNs or not.
> 
> ...


Given the heavy handed way I and many others were treated by OneLambeth on Facebook - where even the mildest criticism results in instant banning without appeal  - I don't see them as a particularly credible or even likeable alternative.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2021)

BusLanes said:


> The anti LTN movement seems to be a broad church. In Ealing one of the local Labour MPs seemed to be saying that LTNs made woman vulnerable and afraid of assault. In Lewisham I believe at least one Labour MP came out against.
> 
> I know Labour activists in Streatham who are anti (although that doesn't mean they necessarily campaign). I know of some Lambeth Greens who are anti too. So would not surprise me of various Lib Dems here and there were too. I also recall reading that Vauxhall Conservatives were quite split when deciding whether to oppose LTNs or not.
> 
> ...



I agree with your analysis.

The hardening of battle lines on both pro and anti sides is due to Council using pandemic to push this through without the consultation they promised before pandemic. Gone are "we have learned lessons from failed LJ project" as one officer said pre pandemic.

Take this a woman with disabilities being part of One Lambeth case against Council.









						Woman takes Lambeth Council to court over controversial LTNs
					

A Lambeth resident is taking the council to court over Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) for discriminating against people with disabilities.




					www.swlondoner.co.uk
				




I notice in the article the Council response is dismissive to the point of being insulting. Back to business as usual for Lambeth consultation.

The Council reply in article funnily enough omits this Tory government told them to do this as well as giving funding.

Would not fit the narrative of this right on Council doing its best for underprivileged local people.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2021)

I hope that One Lambeth put up lots of candidates, so we can get a good picture of how much support they really have.

If they are turning into an active political entity rather than just a collective of objectors on a single issue, then they can be asked what their proposals are to deal with air pollution, congestion, road safety and equitable access to transport. If they are going to put people up for election then surely they will have some policies that deal with all things better than LTNs do. I look forward to seeing them. And then if they get into power I look forward to going along to all the consultations they'll be organising to get feedback on their proposed interventions.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 13, 2021)

At least One Lambeth candidates might be proposing that people are consulted and listened to properly unlike the One Party State of New Labour Lambeth.

I think a few more Cllrs independent from the New Labour Party would be good thing.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 14, 2021)

While my observations of course are not going to be neutral, I feel it's now a while since I've seen traffic backed up along Coldharbour Lane.

We're now partially out of lockdown, and today I happened to walk from Brixton to Loughborough Junction at around 5.30 which ought to be rush hour time, but I was struck by how quiet the roads seemed (with the exception of a queue of cars waiting to get into the car wash by the barrier block).

Have the dwellers of Coldharbour Lane noticed things being better than they were a few months back? I know there is currently the complication of CHL being closed in central Brixton, but on the other hand Atlantic Road is now open again. And Gresham Rd as far as I could see did not seem to be particularly busy.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> While my observations of course are not going to be neutral, I feel it's now a while since I've seen traffic backed up along Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> We're now partially out of lockdown, and today I happened to walk from Brixton to Loughborough Junction at around 5.30 which ought to be rush hour time, but I was struck by how quiet the roads seemed (with the exception of a queue of cars waiting to get into the car wash by the barrier block).
> 
> ...



Your point is? 

Perhaps you should go an look at where CHL traffic has been displaced. 

On general note I'm seeing a lot more traffic in West End. Since shops re opened. 

'normal " road use will only happen when pandemic is fully ended. 

There may be some changes as depending on how much WFH becomes permanent.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> While my observations of course are not going to be neutral, I feel it's now a while since I've seen traffic backed up along Coldharbour Lane.
> 
> We're now partially out of lockdown, and today I happened to walk from Brixton to Loughborough Junction at around 5.30 which ought to be rush hour time, but I was struck by how quiet the roads seemed (with the exception of a queue of cars waiting to get into the car wash by the barrier block).
> 
> ...


Photos can lie - particularly if the Coldharbour Lane Atlantic section is closed due to Gas Main replacement work. I note the photos are not date stamped anyway. Could even be early on a Sunday morning.

My living room and kitchen look out over Coldharbour Lane.
I can assure everyone that it is still full of intensive traffic at busy times - LTN ot no LTN.
Why don;t you get the council do a traffic count here instead of Railton Road which is now next best thing to Desert Island Discs apparently.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 15, 2021)

Quite strong reactions to someone asking a question there.

For what it's worth the queues westbound on Christchurch Rd (Sth Circular) seem to have gone down a lot in the last few months. Traffic's going to be doing very odd things though this year so it's going to difficult to tell what is causing what.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 15, 2021)

I live in Shakespeare Road just round the corner from Coldharbour Lane. 
Coldharbour has been quiet since they closed off the section where it joins the main junction at Brixton a few weeks ago. 
Up to that point it was very busy and when they reopen it I don't doubt it will be very busy again.

We'll see the full impact of these schemes as the lockdown slowly ends and people start to drift back to normal work patterns and traffic resumes.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2021)

I did also notice yesterday that Robsart street had quite a bit of traffic on it and looking at google maps it's quite plausible that some journeys are being diverted that way.

We will have to see what happens when the gas works finish.

As far as I know Lambeth are doing a count - somewhere near the LJ Tesco. As per the first monitoring report that was released a couple of weeks back.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 15, 2021)

Lambeths report showed a *5% decrease* at that spot back in September and a *9% increase* at the bit between Atlantic Road and Brixton cross. That's for All Motor Vehicles and not just cars.

TfLs traffic light data showed
N09/027: J09/027 Coldharbour Lane/Loughborough Road/Hinton Road                               *3% increase*
N09/025: J09/025 Coldharbour Lane/Gresham Road/Barrington Road/Moorland Road        *8% increase*
N09/026: J09/026 Coldharbour Lane/Atlantic Road                                                               *14% increase*
N09/010: J09/010 A23 Brixton Road/Brixton Hill/Acre Lane/Coldharbour Lane                    *12% increase*
That's for the same weeks in 2020 and 2019 with Lambeths Covid weighting applied.

We'll just have to wait and see what the numbers look like later in the year when things are, hopefully, back to normal.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Lambeths report showed a *5% decrease* at that spot back in September and a *9% increase* at the bit between Atlantic Road and Brixton cross. That's for All Motor Vehicles and not just cars.
> 
> TfLs traffic light data showed
> N09/027: J09/027 Coldharbour Lane/Loughborough Road/Hinton Road                               *3% increase*
> ...


What's the source for the traffic light data?


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 15, 2021)

Brixton Hill and Effra Road were catastrophically busy last week and deserted this. It’s very odd. And I’ve seen traffic far from the LTNs like in Sydenham do the same.  It’s going to be hard to make sense of it. Public transport is looking busier so that may have something to do with it.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What's the source for the traffic light data?


It was released in a FOI to TfL.








						SCOOT Data Request for Lambeth - a Freedom of Information request to Transport for London
					

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (2000), can you please provide traffic flow and congestion data from any traffic lights enabled with SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique), from the following sites in the London Borough of Lambeth since January 2018 to present...




					www.whatdotheyknow.com
				




It's the raw data for Lambeths traffic light sensor data (SCOOT) from 2018 till early 2021.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> It was released in a FOI to TfL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see, thank you.

I don't have the knowledge or database skills to analyse it, but I would like it to be incorporated into Lambeth's monitoring if possible.

What does it say for the other periphery roads, for example Effra Rd / Dulwich Rd / Milkwood Rd?


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I see, thank you.
> 
> I don't have the knowledge or database skills to analyse it, but I would like it to be incorporated into Lambeth's monitoring if possible.
> 
> What does it say for the other periphery roads, for example Effra Rd / Dulwich Rd / Milkwood Rd?


I'm a software developer and I've done a fair amount of work with databases over the last 4 decades.

I've mapped the Lambeth and TfL data onto google maps

Railton








						Railton LTN - Lambeth Data and TfL/SCOOT Traffic Light Data week starting 21/09/2020 – Google My Maps
					

% changes are against the same week in 2019 (23/09/2019) with the COVID adjustment used by Lambeth Council (93.59%)




					www.google.com
				




Ferndale








						Ferndale LTN - 19 to 25-10-2002 compared to same week 2019 – Google My Maps
					

Lambeth Councils LTN assessment data and TfLs SCOOT data released in an F.O.I. Lambeths date ranges  and COVID weighting applied to get the % differences.




					www.google.com
				




Tulse Hill








						Tulse Hill LTN - Lambeth Data and TfL/SCOOT Traffic Light Data week starting 29/10/2020 – Google My Maps
					

% changes are against the same week in 2019 (31/10/2019) with the COVID adjustment used by Lambeth Council (89.21%)




					www.google.com
				




Oval








						Oval LTN - Lambeth & TfL Data – Google My Maps
					

% changes are against the same month in 2019 (December) with the COVID adjustment used by Lambeth Council (76.53%)




					www.google.com
				




The obvious caveats apply - no one else other than me has checked the work as it was done for my own amusement when the data was released
So if you see anything that looks wildly wrong or doesn't work let me know


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What's the source for the traffic light data?


WhatsApp.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> I'm a software developer and I've done a fair amount of work with databases over the last 4 decades.
> 
> I've mapped the Lambeth and TfL data onto google maps
> 
> ...


Thank you; these are interesting to look at.

One thing I notice; there seems to be quite a big variation in the traffic light data between different dates. So for example if I compare the same sites between your Railton map and the Ferndale one, which seem to be based on sampling weeks about a month apart. The Branksome Rd junction is +11% on one and -15% on the other.

Or, Villa Rd/Brixton Rd: +43% on the Railton map (September 2020), +51% on the Ferndale map (October) and then -22% on the Oval map (December).

I assume similar variations would be seen in traffic counts.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 15, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> I'm a software developer and I've done a fair amount of work with databases over the last 4 decades.
> 
> I've mapped the Lambeth and TfL data onto google maps
> 
> ...



Impressive!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 15, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> I'm a software developer and I've done a fair amount of work with databases over the last 4 decades.
> 
> I've mapped the Lambeth and TfL data onto google maps
> 
> ...


Also, the tfl data measures flow, and only works where there are actual traffic lights.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 15, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> I'm a software developer and I've done a fair amount of work with databases over the last 4 decades.
> 
> I've mapped the Lambeth and TfL data onto google maps
> 
> ...


Is the traffic light at the junction of St Matthews Road and Effra Road not scoot enabled? What's the camera symbol at that junction mean? Often seems to be  a tailback there up towards Sainburys on Tulse Hill. Sometimes due to northbound traffic congestion on the gyratory. But also sometimes just due to phasing, with no congestion beyond the lights.

What's your take on the data you have processed?



Ol Nick said:


> Brixton Hill and Effra Road were catastrophically busy last week and deserted this. It’s very odd.


Last week I counted at least fifteen cars backed up on Kellett Road trying to get onto Effra Road. Not a chance of turning into Kellett Road. Everything was being held up by northbound Brixton Road traffic backing around the gyratory. Southbound traffic heading for Brixton Hill also held up because the tailback blocks the single lane junction between Effra Road and St Matthews Road. This makes Effra Road northbound back up all the way to Sainsburys too. Mayhem.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Thank you; these are interesting to look at.
> 
> One thing I notice; there seems to be quite a big variation in the traffic light data between different dates. So for example if I compare the same sites between your Railton map and the Ferndale one, which seem to be based on sampling weeks about a month apart. The Branksome Rd junction is +11% on one and -15% on the other.
> 
> ...


It's probably a mix of the variations in traffic, as you said, and the fact that Lambeth have used different weighting from LTN to LTN and week to week.

Railton week of the 21 September - 93.59%
Ferndale week of the 19th October - 78.02%
Tulse Hill week of the 29th October - 89.21%
Oval month of December - 76.53%

There are a few inconsistencies within the Lambeth data that make you wonder how closely it was checked 
In the Oval one
Site 2: Meadow Road - North uses a weighting of 99.55% and Site 4: Meadow Road South uses 75.21%.
Site 11: Stockwell Park Road uses  96.47%
Ferndale is pretty consistent as is Tulse Hill.
Railton has a couple of strange ones, Site 8: Railton Road (Daily Flows) at 86.57% and Site 9: Regent Road (Daily Flows) at 86.5%
and the table of data for Site 17: Coldharbour Lane (Daily Flows) is scramble and repeats the PreCovid numbers as the Baseline.

it's difficult to know why neighbouring areas vary in weighting within a relatively short period of time, let alone 2 halves of one street (Meadow Road).

I've tried to use the averages for each LTN and week as above.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Also, the tfl data measures flow, and only works where there are actual traffic lights.


Traffic lights tend to be on roads that have a high enough volume of traffic to justify the need.
There aren't (m)any traffic lights within the LTN zones as the traffic was never high enough to require them.

That's probably why Lambeth didn't use it as it only measures the flow of motor vehicles at traffic lights and their focus is within the LTNs and also on bicycles.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 15, 2021)

Rushy said:


> Is the traffic light at the junction of St Matthews Road and Effra Road not scoot enabled? What's the camera symbol at that junction mean? Often seems to be  a tailback there up towards Sainburys on Tulse Hill. Sometimes due to northbound traffic congestion on the gyratory. But also sometimes just due to phasing, with no congestion beyond the lights.
> 
> What's your take on the data you have processed?
> 
> ...


I checked the TfL data again, that traffic light isn't in there. Why I don't know. The camera symbol is an LTN barrier according to the map here and I may have misplaced it 


What I see, when the TfL data is added to show the areas outside the LTN, seems to back up what most of us have seen when we go out and about. The quieter roads within the LTN are even quieter and the busier roads surrounding them are even busier. Not a surprise really.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 15, 2021)

And that is why I assume TfL put a big caveat on using that data for traffic flow monitoring (from the FOI)

“Scoot Flows may differ flow other validated counts as the SCOOT system utilises loop occupancy as it primary source of data, this is then
modelled into a flow count via an average occupancy per vehicle.

This is often sensitive to over or under saturation,  e.g. when vehicles are sat
over the detector for long period of time such as in congestion queuing at
the lights. The detectors are often siting at a distance from the junction
where this is minimised but sometime especially when junctions are close
together this issue is exasperated.

*Therefore Scoot Flow should be used more to generalise trend of demands and not actual counts.*”


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 15, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Traffic lights tend to be on roads that have a high enough volume of traffic to justify the need.
> There aren't (m)any traffic lights within the LTN zones as the traffic was never high enough to require them.
> 
> That's probably why Lambeth didn't use it as it only measures the flow of motor vehicles at traffic lights and their focus is within the LTNs and also on bicycles.


Are you trying to prove that Lambeth are wrong?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> and the table of data for Site 17: Coldharbour Lane (Daily Flows) is scramble and repeats the PreCovid numbers as the Baseline.



I noticed that too.

I wouldn't say I'm hugely impressed with the reports produced for Lambeth, and see them as "better than nothing". I don't really see why they don't use the traffic light data as well, partly because it seems it provides a continuous record, and as long as it's interpreted properly by people who actually understand what it represents and what its limitations are, that seems an opportunity to average things out and avoid misleading artefacts arising from the particular conditions in a particular week. But I imagine that Lambeth does not have an enormous budget out of which to pay its traffic consultants.

Even though you are coming at this from an anti LTN angle I'm impressed with the maps you've produced. I don't know how easy it is to automate it all but it would certainly be interesting to use them to look at the data week by week, and see how things change over time.

Like I think I've already said, I was a bit surprised by how positive Lambeth's results were, because it would not be abnormal to expect disruption in the months immediately following introduction. For this same reason, the numbers shown in the SCOOT data don't cause me too much concern. What's more important is to look at how things are going 6 and 12 months in.

In any case, it's incredibly difficult right now to untangle LTN effects from everything else that is currently going on.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I noticed that too.
> 
> I wouldn't say I'm hugely impressed with the reports produced for Lambeth, and see them as "better than nothing". I don't really see why they don't use the traffic light data as well, partly because it seems it provides a continuous record, and as long as it's interpreted properly by people who actually understand what it represents and what its limitations are, that seems an opportunity to average things out and avoid misleading artefacts arising from the particular conditions in a particular week. But I imagine that Lambeth does not have an enormous budget out of which to pay its traffic consultants.
> 
> ...



I agree with you 
Getting the data into the maps isn't too difficult or time consuming, but so far we only have what Lambeth gives us and what we can get out of TfL via FOI requests.

We'll all have to wait and see this plays out over the next few months.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> And that is why I assume TfL put a big caveat on using that data for traffic flow monitoring (from the FOI)
> 
> “Scoot Flows may differ flow other validated counts as the SCOOT system utilises loop occupancy as it primary source of data, this is then
> modelled into a flow count via an average occupancy per vehicle.
> ...


It seems fairly legitimate to use it to say that there's more or less traffic at a certain location, when you compare two date ranges. But I'd want to hear that from someone who fully understood what the data represents and what it can and cannot tell us.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 16, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Well you seem to think that anti LTN people are right wing supporters.
> 
> You take great relish in putting up stuff about the right wing candidate.
> 
> So dont come all not lump everyone together at me thankyou.



Too true that anti LTN people aren’t all right wing - Claire fox also hates them.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Too true that anti LTN people aren’t all right wing - Claire fox also hates them.




Don't quite see what you are getting at. Can you make it clear?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 16, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Don't quite see what you are getting at. Can you make it clear?



Isn't it clear? I'm agreeing with your point that people against LTNs aren't all right wing. Claire Fox certainly isn't right wing is she?


----------



## CH1 (Apr 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Isn't it clear? I'm agreeing with your point that people against LTNs aren't all right wing. Claire Fox certainly isn't right wing is she?


I guess she is a fellow traveller with George Galloway.
Anti EU anti Scottish referendum anti Blair etc etc.

But I fear your question is a tortuous self-contradiction from the philosophy school of Frank Furedi.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Apr 16, 2021)

I saw a car in our LTN with two number plate covers. Looked quite well made. 
Assume they were removed after exiting the area


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> I checked the TfL data again, that traffic light isn't in there. Why I don't know. The camera symbol is an LTN barrier according to the map here and I may have misplaced it
> View attachment 263402View attachment 263402
> 
> What I see, when the TfL data is added to show the areas outside the LTN, seems to back up what most of us have seen when we go out and about. The quieter roads within the LTN are even quieter and the busier roads surrounding them are even busier. Not a surprise really.


I think that would be an interesting light to have data for. It is the stretch from that light up to Sainsburys which has become so often congested. Yet Lambeth has said there is a 20% (IIRC) decrease in traffic on that road. It does not look (or sound) that way but it varies tremendously.

Gate 5 on St Matthews Road is is such an afterthought that they don't even bother showing the road on their maps - and not just the map you have appended above. It should be just north of the junction of St Matthews Road with Hicken Road.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 16, 2021)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I saw a car in our LTN with two number plate covers. Looked quite well made.
> Assume they were removed after exiting the area



Yep, seen that a fair bit. You've got to be pretty brave/foolish to do that as the consequences are pretty harsh.

Does rather smack of driver entitlement & selfishness.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Apr 16, 2021)

Rushy said:


> I think that would be an interesting light to have data for. It is the stretch from that light up to Sainsburys which has become so often congested. Yet Lambeth has said there is a 20% (IIRC) decrease in traffic on that road. It does not look (or sound) that way but it varies tremendously.
> 
> Gate 5 on St Matthews Road is is such an afterthought that they don't even bother showing the road on their maps - and not just the map you have appended above. It should be just north of the junction of St Matthews Road with Hicken Road.
> 
> View attachment 263525


I'll fix that. The gates were a best guess based on Lambeths description.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 16, 2021)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I saw a car in our LTN with two number plate covers. Looked quite well made.
> Assume they were removed after exiting the area


On Railton Road (Herne Hill end) motorbikes are driving up onto the pavement and driving through parks to avoid the cameras.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Isn't it clear? I'm agreeing with your point that people against LTNs aren't all right wing. Claire Fox certainly isn't right wing is she?



Do you think she is right wing?


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 16, 2021)

I see the failed actor has ‘fewer cycle lanes’ on the front page of his ‘open london’ manifesto!


----------



## edcraw (Apr 16, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Do you think she is right wing?



No, that’s my point. I was trying to be helpful to back up your point.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I see the failed actor has ‘fewer cycle lanes’ on the front page of his ‘open london’ manifesto!


The green party has been notably quiet on the LTN issue (or at least that has been my impression) so it's interesting to see LTNs specifically mentioned in their Mayoral manifesto.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Isn't it clear? I'm agreeing with your point that people against LTNs aren't all right wing. Claire Fox certainly isn't right wing is she?


She is Brexit party and was made a peer by Johnson. 

There is always the aptly named ukip candidate:


----------



## edcraw (Apr 16, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> She is Brexit party and was made a peer by Johnson.



Indeed - but as an (ex)Marxist I’m not sure you could call her right wing. An idiot though....


----------



## teuchter (Apr 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Indeed - but as an (ex)Marxist I’m not sure you could call her right wing. An idiot though....


A thread is available for the pursuit of that discussion!









						RCP/Spiked/IoI
					

Turns out someone I know is friends with Claire Fox and others from associated groups on Facebook. I made a comment about disliking Claire Fox and attracted the attention of other IoI types. They seem a bit weird, almost cult like, they certainly don't like criticism! Reminds me a bit of the...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## lordnoise (Apr 16, 2021)

An increasing occurrence as traffic gets back to pre Covid levels - a queue from Herne Hill all the way along Dulwich Rd to Dalberg Rd.

Me and my 50 or so neighbours in the council block  in the first photo have to put up with the noise and exhaust fumes as a direct consequence of the Railton LTN.

Look at those buses too - all carrying fellow 'ordinary' South Londoners who are now subject to 10 minute waiting times in the queue.

Well done to all those in the 'elite' who, while this mayhem is happening, are no doubt sipping herbal teas on the reclaimed furniture within the LTN!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 16, 2021)

Yep, definitely the fault of the LTN and not all those people making unnecessary car journeys.


----------



## wurlycurly (Apr 16, 2021)

Rushy said:


> On Railton Road (Herne Hill end) motorbikes are driving up onto the pavement and driving through parks to avoid the cameras.



One of the mopeds nearly hit me on the pavement the other day, near the recycling bins!  Most drivers adopting that tactic dismount and push the moped/motorbike along the pavement. It's quite common now at night. Seems a bit of a strange thing to do, risking two fines. I'm sure the cameras will clock them.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No, that’s my point. I was trying to be helpful to back up your point.



But you say in later post she is an idiot. So how is that helpful?

Post 4111.

Why if you think Claire Fox is an idiot did you use her twitter post to "back up" my point?

You also say now you are not sure if she is right wing. So which is it. To "back up" my point she must not be right wing.

Can you clarify for me where on the political spectrum you think Claire Fox is?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 16, 2021)

lordnoise said:


> View attachment 263580View attachment 263581
> 
> 
> An increasing occurrence as traffic gets back to pre Covid levels - a queue from Herne Hill all the way along Dulwich Rd to Dalberg Rd.
> ...



So traffic jams are caused by people not driving cars? Sounds uncannily like bullshit to me.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> But you say in later post she is an idiot. So how is that helpful?
> 
> Post 4111.
> 
> ...


I was trying to be lighthearted. I don’t really know where she’s on the political spectrum and suspect she doesn’t either.

She’s an opportunistic nutter using LTNs to advance herself and her own weird agenda like all the other opportunistic nutters (Laurence Fox, Gammons, Rose etc.) that seem to want to make these schemes part of their culture wars.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I was trying to be lighthearted. I don’t really know where she’s on the political spectrum and suspect she doesn’t either.
> 
> She’s an opportunistic nutter using LTNs to advance herself and her own weird agenda like all the other opportunistic nutters (Laurence Fox, Gammons, Rose etc.) that seem to want to make these schemes part of their culture wars.



You said in previous posts you don't consider her right wing. Now you are saying that you don't know. 

You now say she is in a category of "opportunistic nutters".  

So in "lighthearted" way you search the Internet for twitter post by one of the "opportunistic nutters" and decide its the ideal way to show you agree with me. 

Someone until now you were sure was "certainly" not right wing.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 17, 2021)




----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


>



What's this about?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


>



You've got something to say to me? Just say it.


----------



## a_chap (Apr 17, 2021)

lordnoise said:


> View attachment 263580View attachment 263581
> 
> Well done to all those in the 'elite' who, while this mayhem is happening, are no doubt sipping herbal teas on the reclaimed furniture within the LTN!



That is not "mayhem".

I suspect you do not even know what the word means.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 18, 2021)

a_chap said:


> That is not "mayhem".
> 
> I suspect you do not even know what the word means.


Anyone sips herbal tea near me, & they'll know what mayhem is!!!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 18, 2021)

lordnoise said:


> View attachment 263580View attachment 263581
> 
> 
> An increasing occurrence as traffic gets back to pre Covid levels - a queue from Herne Hill all the way along Dulwich Rd to Dalberg Rd.
> ...


The pinch point is the junction and that would be the same even if there was no ltn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone sips herbal tea near me, & they'll know what mayhem is!!!


Or at least how a herbal shower feels


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


>


----------



## Crispy (Apr 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The pinch point is the junction and that would be the same even if there was no ltn.


Quite. What's the alternate route that's been taken away here?


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 18, 2021)

Harrow removing their LTN’s and OneLambeth have managed to get their story about a disabled resident on Shakespeare suing Lambeth re LTN in the mail on Sunday


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 18, 2021)

Typically, having built up a head of speed down Morval Road, you’d forget to indicate and swing a fast left onto Barnwell Road. They had to extend the pavement, add bollards and put in a raised table to reduce that happening but it had little effect. You’d then speed down barnwell road (speed bumps were put in) turn right on to Railton (20mph area) and then try and beat the traffic by driving a longer distance to come out at the top of Dulwich Road at Rymer Road.


----------



## wurlycurly (Apr 18, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Typically, having built up a head of speed down Morval Road, you’d forget to indicate and swing a fast left onto Barnwell Road. They had to extend the pavement, add bollards and put in a raised table to reduce that happening but it had little effect. You’d then speed down barnwell road (speed bumps were put in) turn right on to Railton (20mph area) and then try and beat the traffic by driving a longer distance to come out at the top of Dulwich Road at Rymer Road.



Happy days.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 18, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Harrow removing their LTN’s and OneLambeth have managed to get their story about a disabled resident on Shakespeare suing Lambeth re LTN in the mail on Sunday



the Mail on Sunday..,,


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> the Mail on Sunday..,,


I know but it’s all publicity to the anti LTN cause. Main complaint was that it now took 22 minutes to drive to Herne hill, (I’m assuming) when before it was only 6. To be fair, it’s the sort of issue (as others have said) that would go away if blue badge holders were allowed through the filters without penalty. I know that it’s issued against a person rather than a vehicle but that’s easily sorted, ie register a vehicle or vehicles to a person for local access.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2021)

Why is article on LTNs in Daily Mail an issue. These LTNs are due to this right wing Tory Government.

LTNs aren't a right/left issue.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 18, 2021)

Disabled woman takes London council to court over Low Traffic scheme
					

Sofia Sheakh is taking Lambeth Council to court over its use of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods which she says has cut off the closest route to 'half her life' and lengthened her trips to hospital.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




Here is the actual article.

They have given the disabled person media space to say how the Railton LTN had affected them. It is the Shakespeare Road section that is causing her problems.

From previous comments here, what I've seen elsewhere and been told personally the road closure on Shakespeare Road is particularly contentious.

The article does give impression its all Lambeth fault and giving figures of money Lambeth has spent without saying where money comes from. Thus giving impression that Lambeth have been spending Council tax payers money on this. Which they haven't as far as I know. So that is somewhat misleading.

Article does go on about other studies on traffic. I'm not expert enough to criticise those.

Apart from that looks to me that Mail have picked up on story in local media and given the disabled woman a fair coverage.



> I've been an active person and I can't do that anymore but I'm not an anti-cyclist. I'm not anti-walking or anti-active. I'm actually quite an eco-friendly recycling nut environmentalist-type person.



Is what she says.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 21, 2021)

Very strong support from Sadiq Khan today:









						Sadiq Khan vows to defy ‘vocal minority’ fighting plans to cut traffic in London
					

Clean air for children is ‘social justice’ issue says Labour candidate ahead of report on pollution death




					www.independent.co.uk
				






> Our roads should be limited to blue light services, to electricians, to plumbers, to commercial drivers, to taxis, to those that need to use our roads - delivery drivers and so forth - rather than individuals that could be walking, cycling and using public transport.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Very strong support from Sadiq Khan today:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good. I'm glad he is making it clear. Assuming he is re-elected it provides a mandate for not giving in.

Was just the other day reading the election booklet that came through the door with each candidate's "mini-manifesto". Several of them stating that they wanted to take out LTNs and also take out cycle lanes, but none of them seem likely to get many votes.

Shaun Bailey's says he wants to reverse the congestion charge rise and scrap the ULEZ extension but doesn't seem to specifically mention LTNs or cycle lanes.

He does say he wants 30 minutes free parking for outer London high streets


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2021)

On Independent article.










						Sadiq Khan vows to defy ‘vocal minority’ fighting plans to cut traffic in London
					

Clean air for children is ‘social justice’ issue says Labour candidate ahead of report on pollution death




					www.independent.co.uk
				




The mother of the girl who died is not happy with LTN in her area.

So not sure why Khan is using this to support LTNs.









						'Like a slap in the face': Leading campaigner on traffic from LTN
					

A leading environmental campaigner whose daughter’s death may have been linked to air pollution said the surge in traffic by her home following a…




					www.newsshopper.co.uk
				




Khan also says roads should be limited to those who use them for work. Delivery drivers, builders etc.

But he gives no indication of how he is going to do this.

I know delivery drivers. LTNs are increasing their journey times to pick up and drop off. LTNs aren't making their necessary use of roads easier. Its doing the opposite.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2021)

So, are you no longer in principle in support of LTNs Gramsci ? What has changed your mind?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So, are you no longer in principle in support of LTNs Gramsci ? What has changed your mind?



This is example of the problem.

Your supposed to choose one side or the other.
I'm neither hard line advocate of LTNs or part of the let's get rid of LTNs, ULEZ, Cycle lanes we hate Khan One Lambeth. 

I read the Independent article and put forward my view of what Khan is saying. Is there anything incorrect about the points I made?

I do object to implementation of LTNs in pandemic without consultation.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 21, 2021)

I must say I'm struggling to find a candidate for Mayor I want to vote for. I may not vote.

There are a lot of Independents who are right wing. 

Khan is hardly inspiring. And I don't want to vote Labour and it be counted as support for the new Starmer leadership


----------



## teuchter (Apr 21, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> This is example of the problem.
> 
> Your supposed to choose one side or the other.
> I'm neither hard line advocate of LTNs or part of the let's get rid of LTNs, ULEZ, Cycle lanes we hate Khan One Lambeth.
> ...


It's just that a while ago you were saying you supported LTNs in principle but were not happy with the way they have been introduced.

But now you are questioning basic aspects of them, suggesting that they worsen pollution or cause unacceptable delays to drivers. If these things had always been concerns I don't see that you would have said you supported them in principle.

It seems that you are now uncertain about whether they can work at all. So I am wondering whether something has changed your mind. Or maybe I misunderstood your previous position.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's just that a while ago you were saying you supported LTNs in principle but were not happy with the way they have been introduced.
> 
> But now you are questioning basic aspects of them, suggesting that they worsen pollution or cause unacceptable delays to drivers. If these things had always been concerns I don't see that you would have said you supported them in principle.
> 
> It seems that you are now uncertain about whether they can work at all. So I am wondering whether something has changed your mind. Or maybe I misunderstood your previous position.



I was querying what Khan said about those who use Road for work in his Independent article.

Nothing more or less.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 22, 2021)

The complication that Open The Roads Anti LTN campaigners* have in endorsing Rosamund Kissi-Debra is that the coroners’ recommendation yesterday was to recommend that we impose severe emissions and particulate controls.

So that may be removing ltns but also means *significantly* reducing private car use, revolutionising last mile delivery, electrifying buses, scrapping silver town, lowering max speeds, further encouraging active travel at a level beyond the current plans etc. 

Particulate emissions apparently didn’t go down during lockdown. Fewer drivers so they drove faster so they stayed constant.

*one Lambeth and their other variations, Jody Graber, Kurten etc.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Apr 22, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Khan is hardly inspiring.


agree


Gramsci said:


> And I don't want to vote Labour and it be counted as support for the new Starmer leadership


And this is why we have 10+ years of tory tyrrany.  Because we on the left are never pure enough. Might as well write in a vote for jeremy clarkson.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 22, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> agree
> 
> And this is why we have 10+ years of tory tyrrany.  Because we on the left are never pure enough. Might as well write in a vote for jeremy clarkson.


That is an extreme response indeed.

But having a Mayoral system of local government is a way of imposing US style top-down anti-radicalism - which is what Blair wanted when he introduced it. 

If you recall it can be defeated - Ken Livingstone did it in 2000 just that because he had massive recognition and the official Labour candidate first time round, Frank Dobson, was unable to project anything - to the point there were press allegations he was suffering depression.

The mayoral vote this time is irrelevant - Khan will win.
It might be worth studying smaller parties regards the list members on the GLA.
A lot of GLA members at the moment seem to have aggression issues. A beefy bouncer might sort them out.


----------



## BusLanes (Apr 22, 2021)

I think if both the greens and lib dems end 3 or so AMs that would help a fair bit - as they often seem more willing to hold the mayor to account on the smaller issues. The Tories sometimes do but they're often as interested in national politics and of course the Labour AMs, even when good, will have to be loyal to some degree.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 22, 2021)

WATCH: London Mayoral Candidate Brian Rose Drinks His Own Urine, Twice
					

Footage has emerged of London Mayoral candidate Brian Rose drinking his own urine on two separate occasions. In clips first shared in 2018, Rose can be




					order-order.com


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 22, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> agree
> 
> And this is why we have 10+ years of tory tyrrany.  Because we on the left are never pure enough. Might as well write in a vote for jeremy clarkson.



I usually vote Labour.

Labour party take peoples vote for granted in London. It leads to the kind of Council that Lambeth has. On libraries, estate regeneration and now LTNs Council pushes ahead with what it whats to do. Knowing that when faced with choice of Tories or Labour people will still vote Labour even if they don't like things the Council has done.

That strategy works up to a point. In the Red Wall it didn't in the end. The assumption in the Labour party is that people have no where else to go.

On that I may , like other people , still in end vote for a Labour mayor.

That does not mean I'm giving him a mandate for LTNs. It means I think the only other candidate likely to have a chance of winning us a Tory one. I don't want Tories in charge.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 22, 2021)




----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Apr 22, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Labour party take peoples vote for granted in London. It leads to the kind of Council that Lambeth has. On libraries, estate regeneration and now LTNs Council pushes ahead with what it whats to do. Knowing that when faced with choice of Tories or Labour people will still vote Labour even if they don't like things the Council has done.
> 
> ..l
> 
> I don't want Tories in charge.



i once lived in Barnet.  Have a look at that train wreck. No sane person wants tories in charge.  There are barely any libraries left in Barnet.  I agree with you about the entitlement of the lambeth lot but i just see us (yes im  labour and was all in with corbyn) constantly killing ourselves with purity purges while the tories clean up with corrupt incompetents with great message discipline. Its depressing.  And the whole LTN debate seems like a well engineered trap to split the left, no matter how well intentioned some of the antis are. ‘Strategic communications’ at its finest. Khan will be getting my vote.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 23, 2021)

__





						Opponents of LTNs claim they delay emergency services – but look at the facts | Road transport | The Guardian
					

One thing is clear: there is virtually no evidence that low-traffic neighbourhood schemes hold up emergency vehicles




					amp.theguardian.com


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 23, 2021)

One Lambeth now retweeting that all cyclists should wear a helmet, carry a registration plate and hold insurance.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 23, 2021)

And also strangely endorsing Jody Graber for his election campaign in Islington - he spoke at their town hall meeting and is the bloke who ‘took’ the anti LTN fundraising money to fund his campaign and who’s also been arrested recently for ABH and then intimidating a witness related to the ABH.

Keeping lovely company.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 23, 2021)

Ooh it’s the big demo in windrush tomorrow. Wonder how many will turn up? Will there be enough parking or will people see it as an unnecessary journey and walk or use public transport.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 23, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> i once lived in Barnet.  Have a look at that train wreck. No sane person wants tories in charge.  There are barely any libraries left in Barnet.  I agree with you about the entitlement of the lambeth lot but i just see us (yes im  labour and was all in with corbyn) constantly killing ourselves with purity purges while the tories clean up with corrupt incompetents with great message discipline. Its depressing.  And the whole LTN debate seems like a well engineered trap to split the left, no matter how well intentioned some of the antis are. ‘Strategic communications’ at its finest. Khan will be getting my vote.



The purists are the right of the Labour Party.

Before last election I told one of my local Cllrs that I would be voting Labour and hoped Corbyn would do well.

He was to put it mildly not overjoyed at this.

His exact words to me were "I know you like Corbyn he will have to go if he doesn't win election"

The Blairites (they now call themselves Progressives) don't want to work with anyone else. They disliked the increase in membership under Corbyn and weren't happy members choose Bell Ribeiro Addy as candidate for Streatham.

I think they wanted Corbyn to do badly.

Its not "us" who is the problem.

Khan who got chosen instead of Tessa Jowell has turned out to be of the same mould.

I'm fed up of this shit.

The New Labour Council decided to work with this Tory government to put in place LTNs without the promised consultation. It was not a trap. It was just typical of how this Council does things.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

That’s just crazy to say Labour Lambeth have worked with the Tories to introduce LTNs. They were in favour before and simply took the money that was made available.

As you’ve said before LTNs aren’t a left or right issue.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

As for the rest of your points: To paraphrase Trump - I like Labour politicians that win elections.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

And to present LTNs as Tory policy is laughable when Wandsworth and Kensington & Chelsea wasted money by introducing them and then ripped them out without giving them a chance.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

Today’s OneLambeth line up for anyone interested


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 24, 2021)

Tory / Right Wing politicians getting 45 minutes of time. In Lambeth.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 24, 2021)

Couple of mayoral candidates but no count bin face, shame


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 24, 2021)

The absolute fucking state of this.

“A lot of these vehicles... would have been able to cut through some of these backstreets to miss out the traffic jam”

Yes, that’s the entire point of having them you fucking muppet


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 24, 2021)

No one can get Shaun’s name right either.

I wonder whether anyone will ask him why he recommended reduced funding to youth centres when he was one of Cameron’s advisors.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

Sofia the disabled lady taking Council to court talking at the demo today


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

Few more photos of demo


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

Cllr Briggs


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)




----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)




----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

Farah London independent candidate for Mayor speaking. Said will scrap all LTNs if elected.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

Bailey missed his spot - did Gammons get a turn?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

Thoughless?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)




----------



## Winot (Apr 24, 2021)

“Our roads”. 

Pure entitlement.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 24, 2021)

Looks like they managed a crowd of about 50 people?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 24, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> View attachment 264736


----------



## madolesance (Apr 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> View attachment 264742


Loads of support eh.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Looks like they managed a crowd of about 50 people?


I’d say 90-100. There were people from other boroughs and people passing by.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

Couple of better photos of the disabled lady Sofia who One Lambeth are helping to take Lambeth to court over LTNs. The lawyer spoke at the demo about how Lambeth had not consulted people properly over implementation of LTNs.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

Admire Sofia for standing up to Lambeth. Takes a lot to do this. One Lambeth are giving her a lot of support. Also fundraising as it costs a lot to stand up to Lambeth.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

Shaun Bailey turned up.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

UKIP candidate was there as well.

Farah London spoke well. Looked her up. She is economically centre right. On issues of women, race and gay rights socially liberal. She has done a lot of leg work visiting all areas affected by LTNs.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

Sounds like he was heckled:


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Bailey missed his spot - did Gammons get a turn?View attachment 264739





Gramsci said:


> UKIP candidate was there as well.
> 
> Farah London spoke well. Looked her up. She is economically centre right. On issues of women, race and gay rights socially liberal. She has done a lot of leg work visiting all areas affected by LTNs.



But still polling less than Binface and still wouldn’t have any power to change LTNs. And she’s saying that whilst standing next to banners that say the Lambeth Council put in the ltns - is she proposing taking over all councils?

Same applies to Bailey of course.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2021)

edcraw Gramsci - is it OK to use these pics on Buzz? (just 'like' this post, if so!)


----------



## teuchter (Apr 24, 2021)

I note Shaun Bailey says he'll scrap "unwanted" LTNs.

Unwanted by who?

Anyway, he'll not be mayor and as snowy_again says even if he was it wouldn't be in his power.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

The lady from One Lambeth who was introducing the speakers.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

editor said:


> edcraw Gramsci - is it OK to use these pics on Buzz? (just 'like' this post, if so!)



Yes. I emailed you about this as well.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 24, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Couple of better photos of the disabled lady Sofia who One Lambeth are helping to take Lambeth to court over LTNs. The lawyer spoke at the demo about how Lambeth had not consulted people properly over implementation of LTNs.View attachment 264750View attachment 264752



Wasn’t a great look not having a wheelchair accessible stage.


----------



## Winot (Apr 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Wasn’t a great look not having a wheelchair accessible stage.


----------



## ash (Apr 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Wasn’t a great look not having a wheelchair accessible stage.


Especially as she was their key speaker


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Wasn’t a great look not having a wheelchair accessible stage.



One Lambeth are helping to raise funds her case and from what I saw giving her a lot of moral support. She seemed pleased with their support.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 24, 2021)

What a shower of twats.


----------



## BillRiver (Apr 24, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> One Lambeth are helping to raise funds her case and from what I saw giving her a lot of moral support. She seemed pleased with their support.


Not saying she is (I don't know her) but as a broader point - vulnerable/lonely/isolated/excluded people often seem pleased with what they think is support even when actually what it is, is exploitation. 
Hope this is not the case here, that's all.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 24, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Not saying she is (I don't know her) but as a broader point - vulnerable/lonely/isolated/excluded people often seem pleased with what they think is support even when actually what it is, is exploitation.
> Hope this is not the case here, that's all.



Being disabled does not equal being vulnerable /lonely /isolated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 25, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> i once lived in Barnet.  Have a look at that train wreck. No sane person wants tories in charge.  There are barely any libraries left in Barnet.  I agree with you about the entitlement of the lambeth lot but i just see us (yes im  labour and was all in with corbyn) constantly killing ourselves with purity purges while the tories clean up with corrupt incompetents with great message discipline. Its depressing.  And the whole LTN debate seems like a well engineered trap to split the left, no matter how well intentioned some of the antis are. ‘Strategic communications’ at its finest. Khan will be getting my vote.



We here in Lambeth have their former Chief Exec, Andrew "Sleepy" Travers. The man who almost completely Capita-ised Barnet's services.


----------



## BillRiver (Apr 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Being disabled does not equal being vulnerable /lonely /isolated.


I am well aware of that fact, cheers.
It does not guarantee not being, though, does it.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> I am well aware of that fact, cheers.
> It does not guarantee not being, though, does it.



Are you saying One Lambeth are doing this?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2021)

My impression of the demo is that One Lambeth are composed of local people.

Cllr Briggs is doing his job as a Cllr to represent people's view. He said at demo that people not happy with LTNs might not support his Conservative politics.

There were a lot of locals standing up to say what they think. Small business and residents. Gentrification came up. For some this is another example of how Council is helping to gentrify area. That LTNs are middle class idea. For middle class lycra clad cyclists.

No one wants to compromise. They just want to get rid of all of it.

The judicial review is going to be about equally issue and lack of consultation. It was argued that the only serious consultation was done with a few groups. Lambeth Cyclists being one of them.

A lot of candidates for Mayor turned up. I left at three so only got Shaun Bailey and Farah London. Agree with snowy_again I don't see how if elected Mayor these candidates could get rid of LTNs. As it is for Councils to decide.


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2021)

For a group making so much noise online, they must be_ hugely_ disappointed with that paltry turn-out in Windrush Square.


----------



## BillRiver (Apr 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Are you saying One Lambeth are doing this?


I said quite clearly that I don't know if that's happening in this case. 
I think it is possible, is all.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> There were a lot of locals standing up to say what they think. Small business and residents. Gentrification came up. For some this is another example of how Council is helping to gentrify area.



Compare the turnout for this, with the 'reclaim Brixton' demos, which were to do with gentrification in general, about five years ago.



Obviously there may be a covid element which would put some people off attending, but you could also compare with the BLM protests last year.

The small turnout to yesterday's thing reassures me that it's actually a fairly small number of people who are really not happy with the LTNs.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 25, 2021)

editor said:


> For a group making so much noise online, they must be_ hugely_ disappointed with that paltry turn-out in Windrush Square.


It’s almost as if they’re in a desperate minority, funny that.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Compare the turnout for this, with the 'reclaim Brixton' demos, which were to do with gentrification in general, about five years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Given Covid restrictions it was a reasonable turnout. People were coming and going as I was there. 

The lady introducing speakers told people to move more apart from each other at one point.

This demo was official. Organised with permission of the authorities.

Police were in presence nearby.

BLM were different. Can't really compare the two.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 25, 2021)

For such a heavily publicised event, with a non stop torrent of social media messages, albeit from just a few accounts, the turnout was pitiful. Lovely sunshine, so weather not a factor. I’m assuming the mayoral candidates were disappointed that they’d bothered to attend an event with so few people.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> I said quite clearly that I don't know if that's happening in this case.
> I think it is possible, is all.



Your insinuating it based on no evidence. Its a serious allegation to make.


----------



## BillRiver (Apr 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Your insinuating it based on no evidence. Its a serious allegation to make.



Yes it is, I agree.

She is disabled, which in this fucked up society makes the odds of her being socially excluded and therefore vulnerable higher.

They asked her to be their headline speaker then failed to provide an accessible stage for her to speak from.

Also I've seen it before in not dissimilar scenarios which has perhaps made me a bit cynical.

As I said I may be wrong and indeed hope that I am.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Yes it is, I agree.
> 
> She is disabled, which in this fucked up society makes the odds of her being socially excluded and therefore vulnerable higher.
> 
> ...



I was actually at the demo. Rather than make assumptions about One Lambeth, of which their have been a lot here, I went to see what they said in person and who attended. 

I did not see evidence of them abusing this disabled lady.


----------



## BillRiver (Apr 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I was actually at the demo. Rather than make assumptions about One Lambeth, of which their have been a lot here, I went to see what they said in person and who attended.
> 
> I did not see evidence of them abusing this disabled lady.



Glad to hear that.

Obviously it's possible you would not see it, even if it were happening, but I genuinely hope it isn't. As I have said. Repeatedly.

Did you see her on an accessible stage?


----------



## pbsmooth (Apr 25, 2021)

The cheek of equating LTNs with bad air quality.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> My impression of the demo is that One Lambeth are composed of local people.



That’s because the PR team who set it up have fucked off, and now the locals are doing all of the hard work for free.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 25, 2021)

I do hope the lack of support feeds into the national reporting of this. Too often it’s about the conflict or controversy which is just ‘both siding it’.

Cars shouldn’t be the best option for getting around a city and we shouldn’t be prioritising these journeys. 

Does anyone one remember the outcry at Popes Rd car park going? Has Brixton suffered because of that?


Of course some need to use cars but the majority of the opposition doesn’t seem to be from those people. It does feel like the argument is being won and I look forward to the consultations.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I do hope the lack of support feeds into the national reporting of this. Too often it’s about the conflict or controversy which is just ‘both siding it’.
> 
> Cars shouldn’t be the best option for getting around a city and we shouldn’t be prioritising these journeys.
> 
> ...



Pope's Road car park is still a sore point.

I was resident in Central Brixton at the time. My local residents group supported the market traders/ friends of Brixton Market in opposing the demolition of the car park.

Also the car park was the disabled access to Brixton Rec.

It had lift to the walkway that led to entrance to Rec.

The ramp on Brixton Station Road level is not policy compliant as its to steep.

Council have never replaced this access for disabled people.

So for disabled people at least Brixton has suffered.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 25, 2021)

Have the market traders seen a loss of trade as a result of the car park going though?

I was wondering the other day how the traders along Atlantic Rd feel about the traffic being back. In the period without through traffic i didn't get the impression the street was devoid of activity or customers. Now it's back to being rammed with vehicles with pedestrians pushed to either side . As with everything, difficult to untangle from lockdown effects.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2021)

Pope's Road car park was demolished due to the Streatham development. Council had been working with Tescos to redevelop the old Ice Rink site. 

Idea was to build temporary Ice rink in Streatham. Tescos weren't having that. So Council decided Pope's Road car park was best site for temporary Ice rink.

As with Brixton Rec senior regeneration officers had been eyeing up this site as development opportunity.

So it solved two problems. Giving Tescos what they wanted and clearing that site for future development.

Tescos BTW have a car park on the new Streatham development.

At the time some of the New Labour Cllrs were saying it was green thing to do to get rid of the Pope's road car park. They weren't saying that to Tescos over the Streatham development.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 25, 2021)

As Pope's Road car park has been brought up another thing that Brixton suffered due to it was ending of regular monthly meetings with the Council appointed Town Centre Manager.

Local residents groups and local business reps met the Council Brixton Town Centre Manager on regular basis.

When all of us opposed the demolition of the Pope's Road car park meetings ceased.

This is pretty typical Lambeth Labour Council behaviour of how they consult community.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2021)

Having a car park for a supermarket in the south of Streatham is quite different than having one in Brixton that encourages more people to drive in an already congested area.

I’m sure you don’t like Pop Brixton but it’s obviously much more beneficial for the area than a multi-storey car park. I don’t know about the issues around disabled parking but I’m sure these can, and should be, addressed in other ways than a multi-storey car park.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Having a car park for a supermarket in the south of Streatham is quite different than having one in Brixton that encourages more people to drive in an already congested area.
> 
> I’m sure you don’t like Pop Brixton but it’s obviously much more beneficial for the area than a multi-storey car park. I don’t know about the issues around disabled parking but I’m sure these can, and should be, addressed in other ways than a multi-storey car park.



Pop had nothing to do with loss of the car park. That came much later.

The officers wanted to consolidate that site as a development opportunity. The Rec site was to be demolished and a new smaller Rec was to be built on car park site. Rec site was to be sold to developer. This was thwarted by public pressure against getting rid of Brixton Rec.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Having a car park for a supermarket in the south of Streatham is quite different than having one in Brixton that encourages more people to drive in an already congested area.
> 
> I’m sure you don’t like Pop Brixton but it’s obviously much more beneficial for the area than a multi-storey car park. I don’t know about the issues around disabled parking but I’m sure these can, and should be, addressed in other ways than a multi-storey car park.



I said disabled access. 

Its been years since the demolition and Council have not reprovisioned disabled access for the Rec.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Pop had nothing to do with loss of the car park. That came much later.



I know, but it’s what the space is now. The ice rink was great and helped the new leisure centre & housing to be built.

Do you still think it should be a car park?


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m sure you don’t like Pop Brixton but it’s obviously much more beneficial for the area than a multi-storey car park.


I'd say that's a debatable point unless you happen to fit the narrow, well-off demographic it's targeted at.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2021)

editor said:


> I'd say that's a debatable point unless you happen to fit the narrow, well-off demographic it's targeted at.



What about the jobs and the businesses that it's created. It also brings people to the market & the area. Have businesses suffered from the lack of a car park?


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What about the jobs and the businesses that it's created. It also brings people to the market & the area. Have businesses suffered from the lack of a car park?


You really don't know much about Pop Brixton or understand why so many locals go nowhere near the place, do you?
If it's such a soaraway success, how come the place hasn't barely paid a penny to the council despite being gifted the place_ rent free_ for five years?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2021)

editor said:


> You really don't know much about Pop Brixton or understand why so many locals go nowhere near the place, do you?
> If it's such a soaraway success, how come the place hasn't barely paid a penny to the council despite being gifted the place_ rent free_ for five years?


I do and I'm not saying it's a soaraway success but it's better than a car park which is a low bar imo.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I do and I'm not saying it's a soaraway success but it's better than a car park which is a low bar imo.


I'd rather have neither, but you certainly seemed keen to big up Pop Brixton with all your Lambeth Labour-style celebratory froth about 'jobs and businesses' being created and bringing 'people to the market & the area.' Even car parks manage the latter and they'd certainly cater to a wider demographic.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 26, 2021)

editor said:


> I'd say that's a debatable point unless you happen to fit the narrow, well-off demographic it's targeted at.


“Better than a car park” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for a place. Pretty much _anything_ is better than a car park


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2021)

editor said:


> I'd rather have neither, but you certainly seemed keen to big up Pop Brixton with all your Lambeth Labour-style celebratory froth about 'jobs and businesses' being created and bringing 'people to the market & the area.' Even car parks manage the latter and they'd certainly cater to a wider demographic.


I think you've got the wrong end of the stick about me - hardly Lambeth Labour. Canterbury arms going was a disgrace - Hondo tower & Sports Direct also - but I'm also realistic. Hopefully we can some some benefits to the area without taking out the market which seems to be working at the moment. Some of Granville arcade's a bit of a joke but better than having the vacant shops that were there before.


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think you've got the wrong end of the stick about me - hardly Lambeth Labour. Canterbury arms going was a disgrace - Hondo tower & Sports Direct also - but I'm also realistic. Hopefully we can some some benefits to the area without taking out the market which seems to be working at the moment. Some of Granville arcade's a bit of a joke but better than having the vacant shops that were there before.


What happed to Grow Brixton was a disgrace. Pop Brixton is a disgrace - they get the land rent free, pay themselves vast management fees to create an exclusive space which excludes much of the local community, and yet here you are trotting out the line that we should be thankful for all the 'jobs and businesses.'

And you know why there was vacant units in Granville Arcade in the past yes?


----------



## editor (Apr 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “Better than a car park” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for a place. Pretty much _anything_ is better than a car park


Again. it's close run thing when it comes to Pop Brixton. And whether you like it or not, car parks do sometimes have a use. I dare say you use them occasionally too.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 26, 2021)

Given that the Ealing equivalent march got 1000+ people (ironically closing roads so they could march, creating their own LTN and displacing traffic) if I was one lambeth I’d be wondering where any of my 2000 Facebook followers were, or the other Twitter posters who all claim to have lived in the borough for 30 years were on the day.

Favourite quote from the clips I’ve seen online: “I ride a bike, but I also drive. You can’t sell me a car today but use sanctions and use tax and then tomorrow tell me I can’t drive it down the street”. 

Bailey rocking up in a bus with an invalid MOT and blocking the road to get out sums it up.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2021)

editor said:


> And you know why there was vacant units in Granville Arcade in the past yes?


Tbf I don’t.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 26, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Given that the Ealing equivalent march got 1000+ people (ironically closing roads so they could march, creating their own LTN and displacing traffic) if I was one lambeth I’d be wondering where any of my 2000 Facebook followers were, or the other Twitter posters who all claim to have lived in the borough for 30 years were on the day.
> 
> Favourite quote from the clips I’ve seen online: “I ride a bike, but I also drive. You can’t sell me a car today but use sanctions and use tax and then tomorrow tell me I can’t drive it down the street”.
> 
> Bailey rocking up in a bus with an invalid MOT and blocking the road to get out sums it up.


One Lambeth have gone back to social media to try and drum up support again as they are 10 grand short for the judicial review.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Given that the Ealing equivalent march got 1000+ people (ironically closing roads so they could march, creating their own LTN and displacing traffic) if I was one lambeth I’d be wondering where any of my 2000 Facebook followers were, or the other Twitter posters who all claim to have lived in the borough for 30 years were on the day.




Lack of parking has been given as a reason for the low turnout.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 26, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> One Lambeth have gone back to social media to try and drum up support again as they are 10 grand short for the judicial review.


At least £13k - £10k of that go fund me has already been spent. Depends how amenable their lawyers I guess. 

I think that the Grant Shapps legislation over rules the ‘we weren’t consulted’ argument and potentially the equality one too. 

To address that, Lambeth can easily make a concession on blue badge holders and potentially other registered carers.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 26, 2021)

I still don’t understand who One Lambeth are - there’s two fb accounts two twitter accounts both pointing towards a gofundme page run by an unconnected individual.

They got a permit from the Met Police for the demo, but were also fundraising cash on the day (£400) to go to the gofundme account.

I’d be surprised if they got permission and a license from the Met Police to fundraise - they don’t give them out easily, esp not to unregistered organisations and Lambeth has cracked down on the frequency of them. 

Fundraising without a permit is illegal - jeopardising the donations they’ve already received.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 26, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I still don’t understand who One Lambeth are - there’s two fb accounts two twitter accounts both pointing towards a gofundme page run by an unconnected individual.
> 
> They got a permit from the Met Police for the demo, but were also fundraising cash on the day (£400) to go to the gofundme account.
> 
> ...


The gofundme page says 



> One Lambeth is organising this fundraising appeal on behalf of Charles Jenkins.



And also



> Why is this appeal "on behalf of Charles Jenkins"? Who is he?
> Charles acts as treasurer to pay the legal fees from money raised here.



As far as I can make out, this is him speaking on Saturday





			https://twitter.com/jenkins_charlie


----------



## Winot (Apr 26, 2021)

This is him:



			https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-jenkins-non-executive-director


----------



## Winot (Apr 26, 2021)

An investment banker supporting the aviation industry so clearly concerned about the environment.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 26, 2021)

And before that sounds like sour grapes - community fundraisers work hard to maintain public good will and adherence to the law. (Commercial street fundraising organisations having tarnished the reputation of street collections), and pitches for charities are hard to get, so when someone does it illegally it damages their legitimate activity too.

It also makes life a little complicated for the representing law firm. They won’t be able to confirm who is paying them for their time.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The gofundme page says
> 
> And also
> As far as I can make out, this is him speaking on Saturday
> ...



Yeah but neither of the one Lambeth groups are organisations that could have a treasurer - they’re just a web page. The One Lambeth that’s campaigning about Cressingham _and_ LTNS says on its website that it’s an unincorporated group of individuals, runs a conservative Facebook page but links to the gofundme page _and_ runs a different one Lambeth Twitter account to the One Lambeth Justice Twitter account (and the private FB group ). 

The actions of one seem to be the actions of both?


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 26, 2021)

Any way, if the Met gave them a fundraising license, good for them. 

Just not that clever to post videos of you breaking those street collection rules on twitter.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 26, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Yeah but neither of the one Lambeth groups are organisations that could have a treasurer - they’re just a web page. The One Lambeth that’s campaigning about Cressingham _and_ LTNS says on its website that it’s an unincorporated group of individuals, runs a conservative Facebook page but links to the gofundme page _and_ runs a different one Lambeth Twitter account to the One Lambeth Justice Twitter account (and the private FB group ).
> 
> The actions of one seem to be the actions of both?


I agree, it seems very vague exactly who "One Lambeth" are, and I'm a bit surprised so many people have donated money to something so ill defined.

The fact that this chap is described as a "treasurer" suggests there is some kind of formal entity somewhere - or doesn't it necessarily? I don't know much about this stuff.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 26, 2021)

I think it’s just legalese from a non UK based crowd funding platform. He’s the named entity that you are legally giving your gift to, the person you go to if you want your donation back or want to ask a question.


----------



## Shakesperian (Apr 26, 2021)

crojoe said:


> The cheek of equating LTNs with bad air quality.


I too can ride a bike, but as freedom of choice still remains, I also drive a car -
 Any reasonable person would understand that LTNs cause a build up in traffic and increased air pollution on other roads. Here in Lambeth it is also the crazy timing of road works near already congested areas affected e.g.. Loughborough Junction being one in particular, that is making it extremely difficult to manoeuvre around Brixton in a car or by bus. Inadequate signage of changes and countless roads with barriers is negatively impacting upon those with mobility issues, emergency services, and upon workers who just need to go and return to work on time! OPEN our roads !


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 26, 2021)

All the roads are open


----------



## BillRiver (Apr 26, 2021)

Shakesperian said:


> Any reasonable person would understand that LTNs cause a build up in traffic and increased air pollution on other roads.



The way I heard it (and something that rings true for me) is that if anything LTN's are _returning_ traffic back to the main roads where it used to be pre-sat navs, Google maps etc. which encouraged drivers to cut through side roads.

Whatever. Traffic is caused by people choosing to drive. Until that is reduced we'll (nearly) all continue to suffer.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 26, 2021)

Can anyone confirm exactly what OneLambeth is taking Lambeth Council to the High Court for? It's not clear (to me) from the crowd funder website if it's to remove the LTN's in Lambeth, just the one that the lady (Sofia) is affected by (Railton) or if it's about the lack of consultation. The only thing I can find with any detail is this which says they argue the council did not conduct an equalities evaluation ahead of introducing the Railton LTN in June 2020. If anyone here is involved with the campaign,/one lambeth can you clarify for me?








						Woman takes Lambeth Council to court over controversial LTNs
					

A Lambeth resident is taking the council to court over Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) for discriminating against people with disabilities.




					www.swlondoner.co.uk
				




ETA I did find this on the onelambeth.co.uk website, but I'm still no clearer as to what it would mean in practice "We have received back the legal advice from our appointed legal team and essentially, we have a strong case to challenge all the ETOs under a single court application. This must be done by Statutory Review which is the normal procedure for challenging Traffic Orders. Unlike Judicial Review this is NOT amenable to Legal Aid so we need to continue to raise funds"


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Apr 26, 2021)

Shakesperian said:


> I too can ride a bike, but as freedom of choice still remains, I also drive a car -
> Any reasonable person would understand that LTNs cause a build up in traffic and increased air pollution on other roads. Here in Lambeth it is also the crazy timing of road works near already congested areas affected e.g.. Loughborough Junction being one in particular, that is making it extremely difficult to manoeuvre around Brixton in a car or by bus. Inadequate signage of changes and countless roads with barriers is negatively impacting upon those with mobility issues, emergency services, and upon workers who just need to go and return to work on time! OPEN our roads !


Emergency services have confirmed they dont impact service. I have never driven a car but am able to get to work on time. My mum, who doesn't drive, was perfectly able to get 3 kids of different ages to school, childcare, and all manor of places (and that was before you could wheel a pushchair onto the bus and had to have it folded up before the bus arrived ready to board). It amazes me that people dont think these things are possible or happen daily.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Can anyone confirm exactly what OneLambeth is taking Lambeth Council to the High Court for? It's not clear (to me) from the crowd funder website if it's to remove the LTN's in Lambeth, just the one that the lady (Sofia) is affected by (Railton) or if it's about the lack of consultation. The only thing I can find with any detail is this which says they argue the council did not conduct an equalities evaluation ahead of introducing the Railton LTN in June 2020. If anyone here is involved with the campaign,/one lambeth can you clarify for me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From listening to the speaker at the demo the Sofia case is judicial review. Its that Lambeth brought these LTNs in without proper equality impact assessment. Or proper consultation with those of "protected characteristics"

Problem is that these LTNs were brought in during pandemic as emergency measures. Lambeth are likely to argue they had power to do this in pandemic.

Not something I'm happy with.

As other posters have pointed out Lambeth could alter scheme to allow disabled people free movement. This would undercut the One Lambeth campaign.

I'm afraid the Lambeth Council mentality is take opposition as personal slight and dig their heels in. Lambeth will go all the way to Judicial Review.

I think a Judicial review would be a good thing. Given that Lambeth have used pandemic to push this through.

These are permanent changes not temporary for duration of pandemic.

Judicial review is one way an ordinary citizen can question the State.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2021)

On Sofia the disabled lady taking Lambeth to court over Railton LTN. 

Just like to clarify no one here is criticising a disabled resident for seeking a Judicial Review of Council action they feel affects them adversely? Which they don't feel they were properly consulted about? 

That is leaving aside One Lambeth.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 26, 2021)

Today on Nextdoor, one Lambeth put the same tired old thread out and were inundated with counter arguments which clearly they didn’t like and deleted the thread. I see tonight it’s back again, minus any comments. I find them distasteful as a group, unwilling to debate (as we do here) and like others, I too feel they are using Sofia to their own ends without actually caring much about her. I hope I’m wrong.


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 26, 2021)

Shakesperian said:


> I too can ride a bike, but as freedom of choice still remains, I also drive a car -
> Any reasonable person would understand that LTNs cause a build up in traffic and increased air pollution on other roads.


LTNs don’t increase pollution. People driving cars do. You are being deliberately dim. There is always an alternative.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 26, 2021)

Part of the problem is that someone like Sofia has no where else to go.

As Lambeth has been run for years as a One Party State under New Labour no back bench Cllrs will touch this with a bargepole. They shit their pants at prospect of being called in to chat to Chief Whip.

Lambeth did have some very good LD Cllrs. Who I reckon would have tried to take issues around LTNs up. Sadly they went through no fault of their own.

The political vacuum is filled by the unsavory right.

This is fault of how the political system works.

Greens appear to be silent on issue. As they were in Coldharbour Ward over LJ Road closures. Neither supporting or opposing Labour Council on this.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2021)

Although the greens have been notably quiet through most of this, the flier that came through the door in the past few days states quite positive support for LTNs.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Can anyone confirm exactly what OneLambeth is taking Lambeth Council to the High Court for? It's not clear (to me) from the crowd funder website if it's to remove the LTN's in Lambeth, just the one that the lady (Sofia) is affected by (Railton) or if it's about the lack of consultation. The only thing I can find with any detail is this which says they argue the council did not conduct an equalities evaluation ahead of introducing the Railton LTN in June 2020. If anyone here is involved with the campaign,/one lambeth can you clarify for me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am very unclear too and get the feeling that exactly what the money is funding (and the amount required/requested) has changed over time, perhaps along with legal advice changing as they get further into the process. Maybe they are providing more detail to people who have actually donated and/or those in the membership-controlled Facebook group.

My guess is that their legal position has turned out not to be as strong as they thought (or were advised) it was in earlier stages.


----------



## Humberto (Apr 27, 2021)

curmudgeon


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Apr 27, 2021)

There was a consultation online around xmas 2019, I commented in detail on the website myself. Just because people didnt pay attention or get involved doesnt mean it dodn't happen.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 27, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> From listening to the speaker at the demo the Sofia case is judicial review. Its that Lambeth brought these LTNs in without proper equality impact assessment. Or proper consultation with those of "protected characteristics"
> 
> Problem is that these LTNs were brought in during pandemic as emergency measures. Lambeth are likely to argue they had power to do this in pandemic.
> 
> ...


Thanks Gramsci for the info. I still am not clear exactly what the JR is actually asking for though. The info I cut and pasted from the OneLambeth website above seems to indicate that they are going for a Statutory Review not a JR. Maybe there are two challenges? It's really unclear what they are fundraising for. I wonder if I can find out another way? Maybe a FOI to Lambeth although that will take at least a month.
And to answer your other point, I don't get the impression that anyone here is criticising Sofia for taking action. I can't see how anyone would disagree that we need legal instruments for the public to be able challenge decisions taken by government/those in power.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I am very unclear too and get the feeling that exactly what the money is funding (and the amount required/requested) has changed over time, perhaps along with legal advice changing as they get further into the process. Maybe they are providing more detail to people who have actually donated and/or those in the membership-controlled Facebook group.
> 
> My guess is that their legal position has turned out not to be as strong as they thought (or were advised) it was in earlier stages.


Yes, that's possible. I really don't want to donate to something I don't support just to find out though, just feels wrong on all levels


----------



## edcraw (Apr 27, 2021)

Some more details here - it's a judicial review and being heard in early June:









						OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge deadline 10th June: “LTNs should not remain Lambeth’s Tortured Neighbourhoods”
					

“Our approach is in direct contrast to the irrational, dogmatic, ideological fanaticism with which Lambeth dishonestly imposed LTNs” ****************************************************…




					newsfromcrystalpalace.wordpress.com
				




It could be pointed out in the above the focus is hardly on the individual bringing the case and much more around just wanting to get rid of LTNs.

And this is the law firm that's acting for them:


----------



## DietCokeGirl (Apr 27, 2021)

Hoping all this new found enthusiasm for accessible transport extends to campaigning to eradicate parking on pavements which blocks the path for wheelchair and mobility aid users, extending tactile surfaces and drop curbs, improving funding for disabled cycling and handcycles such as Wheels for Wellbeing, better accessibility at train and tube stations and consistent access to ramps to board/alight trains, and so on and so forth, otherwise it seems like a few angry car drivers are just picking and choosing to suit their own ends.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Some more details here - it's a judicial review and being heard in early June:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't see that that says it's a judicial review anywhere? The text is similar but not quite the same as what's on One Lambeth's own website https://onelambeth.co.uk/gofundme

which says 



> We have received back the legal advice from our appointed legal team and essentially, we have a strong case to challenge all the ETOs under a single court application. This must be done by Statutory Review which is the normal procedure for challenging Traffic Orders. Unlike Judicial Review this is NOT amenable to Legal Aid so we need to continue to raise funds:


----------



## Winot (Apr 27, 2021)

Legal cases need a claimant who is affected by the issue (locus standi). In the case of judicial review this has to be a natural person I think. Same likely to be true with Human Rights Act challenges. The individual is however a hook to hang a challenge on and it is normal for the challenge to deal with the broader issues.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't see that that says it's a judicial review anywhere? The text is similar but not quite the same as what's on One Lambeth's own website https://onelambeth.co.uk/gofundme
> 
> which says



Ah okay, do you know what's the difference?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah okay, do you know what's the difference?


No, I'm afraid not! Except for what they say about legal aid being available for one but not the other.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah okay, do you know what's the difference?


a judicial review will be applicable in other cases, it sets a precedent, whereas a statutory appeal only deals with a particular case


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ah okay, do you know what's the difference?


also the jr decides whether something is lawful or otherwise, whereas the statutory appeal is about whether the plan is right or wrong, not whether it contravenes the law.


----------



## Winot (Apr 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, I'm afraid not! Except for what they say about legal aid being available for one but not the other.



Oh yes that’s the other thing; legal aid is only available for individuals.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2021)

This is what the legal team say:






						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the Public Sector Equality Duty | Rook Irwin Sweeney - Public Law. Human Rights.
					






					rookirwinsweeney.co.uk
				




Looking them up and they specialise in human rights and public law. Sounds like they are doing good work in that area.

They aren't working for One Lambeth but are working for the disabled lady in Lambeth.

So its about rights of disabled.

Lambeth could just agree to give blue badge holders right to move freely around LTNs.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 27, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Lambeth could just agree to give blue badge holders right to move freely around LTNs.



They should do this


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> This is what the legal team say:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Formally they are working for the woman but effectively they are being paid by one Lambeth or at least a collection of donors brought together by one Lambeth.

I think it would be rather naive to think that all these people have donated money solely out of concern for the effects on one individual, or solely out of concern for effects on disabled people in general. I don't believe that most of those people would see a blue badge exemption being introduced as an outcome they would be satisfied with. It's certainly not what they seem to be calling for.

And I'm pretty sure the initial messaging to people was that donations were for a general legal challenge to the principle of the LTNs being introduced. I think they have fudged it somewhat since then and I wonder if some donors will end up feeling that their money has been used for something other than what they though it would be.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wonder if some donors will end up feeling that their money has been used for something other than what they though it would be.



Some are giving significant regular donations & the average donation is around £50.

Surely a disability charity would fund some if there was a good case (or the LTDA).


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Some are giving significant regular donations & the average donation is around £50.
> 
> Surely a disability charity would fund some if there was a good case (or the LTDA).


If have thought that if it's all about disabled people's mobility then the first step for an advocacy or campaign group organisation  would be to lobby Lambeth directly on the blue badge question rather than spending vast sums of money in court.

The report looking at LTNs from disabled people's point of view that was posted a few pages back looked very good to me and I'd hope that the relevant people at Lambeth have read it and are considering what adjustments could be made. That report certainly wasn't calling for everything to be abandoned and reversed.


----------



## paolo (Apr 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Surely a disability charity would fund some if there was a good case (or the LTDA).



It would be interesting to survey relevant residents with mobility challenges - find out if they would prefer blue badge exemption, vs LTN abandonment.

edit: have now found the report Teuchter mentioned. Participants self-selected, seemingly already knowing it was about LTNs. There is potential there for skewed results. There also seem to mistakes in the numbers. E.g car ownership yes/no totals 80% - leaving a 20% discrepancy. None of this necessarily invalidates the findings, but it doesn’t seem as robust as one might hope for, ideally.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 27, 2021)

Thanks everyone for responding and finding more info



Pickman's model said:


> also the jr decides whether something is lawful or otherwise, whereas the statutory appeal is about whether the plan is right or wrong, not whether it contravenes the law.


Thanks for this. I'm still no clearer if the JR or Statutory appeal is to take out the LTN's OR to prove that Lambeth didn't consult residents and so, they need to do this properly (and if this means the LTN's might come out during this process, or if they stay in place and then adjustments are made following the legal stuff).


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 27, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Lambeth could just agree to give blue badge holders right to move freely around LTNs.


100% agree - would save both sides a whole load of time, trouble and money. Seems like a no brainer to me.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 27, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> 100% agree - would save both sides a whole load of time, trouble and money. Seems like a no brainer to me.



There are issues with how this works with the cameras as the badge is for an individual & not a vehicle but I'm sure they could work this out somehow eg. you choose a vehicle or vehicles to be assigned.

It does seem a sensible thing to do but unlikely to win over any of the people who were there on Saturday.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't see that that says it's a judicial review anywhere? The text is similar but not quite the same as what's on One Lambeth's own website https://onelambeth.co.uk/gofundme
> 
> which says


Now removed. How curious. Replaced with:


> Unfortunately we are not involved with the Lambeth Low Traffic Neighbourhood Court case or campaign and hold no information.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 27, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Now removed. How curious. Replaced with:



TwoLambeths?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2021)

Someone had better update the gofundme page too then









						OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

In May 2020, Lambeth Council began closing residential roads to create “Low Traffic Neighb… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge



					uk.gofundme.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 27, 2021)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Hoping all this new found enthusiasm for accessible transport extends to campaigning to eradicate parking on pavements which blocks the path for wheelchair and mobility aid users, extending tactile surfaces and drop curbs, improving funding for disabled cycling and handcycles such as Wheels for Wellbeing, better accessibility at train and tube stations and consistent access to ramps to board/alight trains, and so on and so forth, otherwise it seems like a few angry car drivers are just picking and choosing to suit their own ends.


Surely not!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Someone had better update the fixing page too then
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well that specifically says One Lambeth is organising it. Curiouser and curiouser.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 27, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Now removed. How curious. Replaced with:


That's really weird! Was definitely there before. They still have pics of 'No to LTNs demos' on the website. 
What's the fundraiser for them???


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 27, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Someone had better update the fixing page too then
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And their newsletters which still cite their involvement and thanks donors:

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/c05b35f6-d6cf-49f5-81a9-360385ff86a4/OO_Feb_Mar.v3 (1).pdf

Is still up on their FB page and covers their LTN campaign in the Feb / March 2021 edition 2.

And they told Trickyskills they were involved in the fundraiser: One Lambeth launches with the aim of holding Lambeth Council to account over LTNs, housing , parks and libraries

“Ben adds:



> “We’ve just launched a new membership scheme and donation page, and we’re grateful for subscribers or contributions. We are still raising funds for a court case in June and, again, support for that is really welcome.





> We want to know what issues matter to people so are running a survey to hear direct from residents about what matters to them. And sharing our messages or offers of volunteer support is also helpful, as are offers of help from volunteers.”


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 27, 2021)

[


sparkybird said:


> 100% agree - would save both sides a whole load of time, trouble and money. Seems like a no brainer to me.



I agree but this is New Labour Lambeth. They have been enjoying experience of pandemic as officers can just get on with job without having to deal with residents.

I predict Lambeth will not seek compromise but will go to court against this disabled lady. I hope her experienced legal team will give her the support she needs. As Lambeth get nasty in court.

When it comes to this kind of legal action Lambeth don't mind spending a lot of money.

I wish Sofia well and hope she copes with it.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 27, 2021)

It’s been a bit busy on their fb page today


----------



## teuchter (Apr 27, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> It’s been a bit busy on their fb page today


Please give us a summary!


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 28, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> It’s been a bit busy on their fb page today



For those of us who have been blocked by our favourite local democracy supporters it would be good to hear a summary


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 28, 2021)

Apparently there's been a split between those who want to pursue the legal route and those who want to use other means (not sure what they are). I have no idea why.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 28, 2021)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 28, 2021)

Who is the us above?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 28, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Who is the us above?


The guy mentioned on the fundraising page.


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 28, 2021)

It's interesting to see the ex-people's audit, 'more local democracy' wing of OneLambeth distancing itself from the rightwing fundraising wing who were happy to associate themselves with UKIP & Jody Graber


----------



## edcraw (Apr 28, 2021)

Jesterburger said:


> It's interesting to see the ex-people's audit, 'more local democracy' wing of OneLambeth distancing itself from the rightwing fundraising wing who were happy to associate themselves with UKIP & Jody Graber


That's probably the reason as so soon after the demo. They need to clear up their fundraising page though.


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 28, 2021)

The person in those texts is also lying - the OneLambeth page isn't dormant, they've just switched focus to the petition campaigning for a switch to a cabinet system; they've also removed links to the fundraiser from their site so it's clear that they don't just no longer want to be involved in the court case but they don't even appear to support it anymore.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 28, 2021)

It looks a bit like they have made changes to exactly who is in control of the money without asking their members/donors.

If they had carried out proper consultation before doing so, perhaps things could have been done without dividing the community.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That's probably the reason as so soon after the demo. They need to clear up their fundraising page though.


Don't they, and make it clear they have nothing to do with the legal action, unlike this:


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 28, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Don't they, and make it clear they have nothing to do with the legal action, unlike this:
> 
> View attachment 265382


Isn't it now the legal action wing (The People's Front of OneLambeth?) that ran the demo and have now taken control of the fundraiser? 
The committees-petition wing (the OneLambeth People's Front) weren't at the demo, the website says they no longer support the legal action, and have deleted links to the fundraiser from their website. 
They just still share exactly the same name.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Apr 28, 2021)

Just curious, Are they still throwing around abuse at children and cyclists on their closed-to-anyone-who-disagrees-with-them facebook page? Or have they pretty much turned on each other instead? Nice folks im sure.


----------



## Ol Nick (Apr 28, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Apparently there's been a split between those who want to pursue the legal route and those who want to use other means (not sure what they are). I have no idea why.


The OneLambeth People’s Front!!


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 29, 2021)

One Lambeth People’s Front now comparing Shakespeare Road to Soviet East Berlin


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> One Lambeth People’s Front now comparing Shakespeare Road to Soviet East Berlin


Link?


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 29, 2021)

I wouldn’t promote their page impressions!

The People’s Front of Lambeth has changed their web page again though - directing ‘queries to the relevant team’ which implies they’re still involved?


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 29, 2021)

Sshh don’t tell them but it will be possible to cross the Berlin Wall aka Shakespeare road barriers on 8/9 May between 2200 and 0500 without penalty due to overnight roadworks taking place. Endless possibilities, late night trip to the hammy for milk for instance.

I noticed on the letter I got dated 26th April that they also did it last weekend, just didn’t tell anyone


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I wouldn’t promote their page impressions!
> 
> The People’s Front of Lambeth has changed their web page again though - directing ‘queries to the relevant team’ which implies they’re still involved?


Maybe this will help. Possibly 









						What’s happening with the anti-LTN OneLambeth? Have they split into two groups?
					

There seems to be some suggestion that the OneLambeth anti-LTN group has split into two camps,  with one side keen to pursue the legal route and the other looking to broaden the scope of the campai…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 29, 2021)

editor said:


> Maybe this will help. Possibly
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for trying to find out! Still as clear as mud to me!


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 29, 2021)

They’re now sharing posts that say “Say NO to hidden Green Communist agenda”


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> They’re now sharing posts that say “Say NO to hidden Green Communist agenda”


Screengrab'n'share please!


----------



## spitfire (Apr 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> They’re now sharing posts that say “Say NO to hidden Green Communist agenda”



It's not very well hidden...


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Apr 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> They’re now sharing posts that say “Say NO to hidden Green Communist agenda”



The funny part is that they are like a parody. 

the sad part is that opposing blairight absolutism is something more people could get behind if it didn’t come along with Bailey and the right cringe fringe. 

They are both the sad clown and the scary clown.  

Simple fact is we need less pollution and congestion full stop.  Care to speculate where SomeLambeth would come down on extending the congestion zone down to the south circular? Where are their constructive ideas hmmm?


----------



## editor (Apr 29, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Thanks for trying to find out! Still as clear as mud to me!


Despite the article providing a free and totally uncensored platform for the anti-LTN to say whatever he liked for as long as he liked, one reader insists that it was just part of a 'smear' campaign: 



			
				reader comment said:
			
		

> Ho hum. I detect more smearing and stirring from the pro-LTN/LCZ minority alliance.
> May I take this opportunity to make a polite suggestion: your operatives need to indulge in more pedalling, and less trolling.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Apr 29, 2021)

editor said:


> Despite the article providing a free and totally uncensored platform for the anti-LTN to say whatever he liked for as long as he liked, one reader insists that it was just part of a 'smear' campaign:


No good deed goes unpunished, my ma always said.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 29, 2021)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 265569


They’re just utterly mental.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 29, 2021)

This is a good one


----------



## ash (Apr 29, 2021)

I’m not sure what a high dependency ambulance looks like but this looks like a patient transport ambulance to me. No blue lights so I’m sure it’s not an emergency.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 29, 2021)

I heard Shaun Bailey was out in Ferndale ward a couple of days back with an anti LTN lorry advert.
Not that it will make any difference to his defeat - but I was wondering where the Ferndale anti LTN people are on this thread.
Mostly people talk about Railton LTN or the legal case, or other boroughs.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 29, 2021)

editor said:


> Despite the article providing a free and totally uncensored platform for the anti-LTN to say whatever he liked for as long as he liked, one reader insists that it was just part of a 'smear' campaign:


You couldn't make it up could you?!?!


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 29, 2021)

Read the Brixton Buzz article.

Looked up Ben Rymer and he is part of People's Audit and One Lambeth. Given opposition to imposition of LTNs has had to spring up quickly its going to look chaotic. Unlike Council neither Peoples Audit or One Lambeth have the resources of a local Council.

Seems to me that Ben Rymer is not the stereotype of right wing racist petrol head that is put forward regularly on this thread as the typical One Lambeth supporter. 

I wasn't happy to see UKIP mayor candidate at the demo last Saturday.

There is likely to be different approaches in a hastily organised campaign. With differences of opinion.

The cross over between People's Audit / One Lambeth and push to remove Cabinet run Council makes sense to me.



> Ben Rymer, lead organiser of the petition and a member of the OneLambeth and People’s Audit networks said: “So far, Lambeth – the “co-operative council” – have given every impression of being desperate to avoid a referendum on changing to a more open way of working.











						Lambeth residents face resistance from council in hopes to trigger restructuring referendum
					

Lambeth residents and campaign groups have met resistance from in their efforts to change how the council is run. Lambeth council is currently run with a cabinet system, where most powers are given…




					londonnewsonline.co.uk
				




That wing of One Lambeth are trying to get referendum on getting rid of Cabinet system.

Something I support. Lambeth have been making this as difficult as possible.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 29, 2021)

I don’t know what you think Gramsci but it feels to me that whilst one Lambeth was something that was cross party, ie both left and right, it’s now splitting down party political lines with one wing trying to change the political cabinet system in Lambeth, anti gentrification etc which I see as left wing and the other wing as very purely anti LTN and more right wing, what do you think?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 29, 2021)

In his reply Ben Rymer mentions thousands have signed the petition yet only 244 showing on the online one. Maybe they’ve gathered more but thousands is surely a stretch.

These seem like very separate campaigns, neither with much support. I admit I don’t know much about the cabinet system but not sure how a campaign against LTNs, which OneLambeth is, fits into this. Sounds like Ben is trying to usurp the LTN campaign because he has the URL and Twitter account.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I don’t know what you think Gramsci but it feels to me that whilst one Lambeth was something that was cross party, ie both left and right, it’s now splitting down party political lines with one wing trying to change the political cabinet system in Lambeth, anti gentrification etc which I see as left wing and the other wing as very purely anti LTN and more right wing, what do you think?



I'm not in it so can only guess and read between the lines of what is said in public.

But yes I would say there are two wings. I did see people at the demo last Saturday giving out the newsletter. So it should not be overstated. The lady introducing the speakers was complaining of how this Council was run. So I would say both wings have common ground.

I think arguing for a change in how the Council is run in response to how LTNs have been imposed plus other top down actions like estate regeneration is right.

However its a difficult argument to get across. Its not as snappy as a wannabe Mayor getting on a podium as saying if elected they will get rid of LTNs.

Lambeth can host petitions on its website. For some reason they are refusing to host this petition.

The "left" wing of One Lambeth are correct to see the Cabinet system as part of the problem. Particularly the way its developed in Lambeth.

In a normal state of affairs Cllrs should be able to have leeway to bring up residents concerns. Under the Cabinet system a few Cllrs and senior officers decide what is going to happen. Most Cllrs expected to go along with this.

Ex Cllr Rachel Heywood took up residents concerns over the Council imposed road closures in LJ. Look what they did to her. The Cabinet system is undemocratic.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2021)

How many people do you need to have a wing?


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2021)

Ranty Buzz comment from Angela Mcfarlane:



> To all you commenters who have jumped on the bandwagon to try your best to give OneLambeth a bad name,put this in your pipes and Smoke it!!.
> If a group has two branches is there something wrong with that,one is focusing on the unfair and undemocratic way Lambeth is being led and the other branch is focused on taking those toxic leaders to court for undemocratic and unfair behaviour. I organised The Protest on Saturday 24th April,and I invited all speakers except That UKIP Man who kept begging me to take my platform…Well he begged until he had to leave…UKIP and REFORM,who i haven’t a clue about came to my protest because obviously it was very popular.We had a good turnout,no trouble,fantastic speakers. What you people need to focus on is what is happening to the air where all the cars have been displaced too,What is happening to the lungs of those children and adults. Has anyone thought about That?….Oh No!, just the fact that” our road is now lovely and quiet” You selfish set of people.
> One Lambeth community will be fighting to get a referendum to change the way politics work in Lambeth.No more tribal voting,Holland,Hopkins and Normal must Go.


----------



## harpo (Apr 30, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I heard Shaun Bailey was out in Ferndale ward a couple of days back with an anti LTN lorry advert.
> Not that it will make any difference to his defeat - but I was wondering where the Ferndale anti LTN people are on this thread.
> Mostly people talk about Railton LTN or the legal case, or other boroughs.


Yes he's been trying that in Walthamstow.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2021)

Angela Mcfarlane claiming OneLambeth cares about pollution - they don’t. They’re campaigning for the status quo which is already illegal levels of pollution. We have to reduce car journeys and that’s the stated aim of LTNs.

If they really cared they’d campaign for it - expanded ULEZ, road pricing, Greater London congestion charge etc. They’re a pro-motoring lobby group.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 30, 2021)

So Angela is running the gofundme now with Charlie?


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 30, 2021)

Yes if they cared about pollution they'd fully support the ULEZ extension - but the politicians they invited all oppose the ULEZ extension - Shaun Bailey & Tim Briggs want to scrap it, Farah London wants to exempt all but brand new cars which defeats the object.

The existing ULEZ has made an enormous difference to air quality in central London - huge declines in pollution - so if they really cared about that they would be right behind its extension.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 30, 2021)

And Tim Briggs wants an exception for an LTN in his own ward in Clapham, which he says shouldn't be scrapped because the residents want it. For some reason the 'displaced pollution' worry doesn't apply in that case.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 30, 2021)

Gramsci - are you still on Facebook? If so have a look at the entrance questions to the group and see if they will let you join.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2021)

Great to see a bit of dissent breaking out in the Buzz comments over UKIP:



> ‘That UKIP man’ is the only candidate who has fought against LTNs and for poorer communities especially defending families who are being discriminated against because they can’t afford electric cars, unlike some you invited to speak whose parties have financed the LTNs. He has been the only candidate to re-tweet OneLambath tweets and to speak out for the community throughout his campaign. He has spoken out in his Party Political Broadcasts and campaign literature for this cause. So, it was sad when he came out to support he was treated rudely because of the misconception he is ‘far right.’ As a member of the Afro-Caribbean community I know him well and know he is not. Meanwhile you let Bailey barge to the stage, speak and leave after the Tories have spent £250 million on LTNs and bike lanes. You should be grateful for the mayoral candidates who support you not use it to just promote those of our own party. If you had had the decency to tell him ‘you are UKIP so we don’t want you’ instead of wasting his time telling him to wait until the end he would have been happy just to come out in support and gone to the next rally he was invited to attend.





> UKIP are far right racist filth and have no place in Lambeth. OneLambeth should be ashamed of themselves for giving a platform to such an odious party.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Gramsci - are you still on Facebook? If so have a look at the entrance questions to the group and see if they will let you join.


I tried twice in the past and I'm done with their shitty fucking FB group.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 30, 2021)

editor said:


> I tried twice in the past and I'm done with their shitty fucking FB group.


Not a fan then?


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Not a fan then?


Any group that claims to represent the community but then that arbitrarily bans anyone who doesn't 100% agree with every word of their message can do one.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 30, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Can anyone confirm exactly what OneLambeth is taking Lambeth Council to the High Court for? It's not clear (to me) from the crowd funder website if it's to remove the LTN's in Lambeth, just the one that the lady (Sofia) is affected by (Railton) or if it's about the lack of consultation. The only thing I can find with any detail is this which says they argue the council did not conduct an equalities evaluation ahead of introducing the Railton LTN in June 2020. If anyone here is involved with the campaign,/one lambeth can you clarify for me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



the unpopular peoples front of One Lambeth seem to be putting a lot of faith in their court case. Judical/Statutory reviews seem to be a bit of a weird thing -

the summary here Judicial review process | Richard Buxton Solicitors seems to be a summary of this Governtment guide https://assets.publishing.service.g...attachment_data/file/746170/JOYS-OCT-2018.pdf

_Judicial review (JR) is the process of challenging the lawfulness of decisions of public authorities, usually local or central government.  The court has a "supervisory" role - making sure the decision maker acts lawfully.  It is important to understand that a JR is not a re-run on the merits of the decision but a challenge to the lawfulness of the decision that was made. Note - there is a very similar procedure known as "statutory appeal" which applies to certain types of decision,_

It sounds like you challenge the process, not the underlying decision - did someone 'tick all the right boxes', not whether the actual decision/outcome was wrong.

_If a JR claim is successful the usual result is that the decision is "quashed" or nullified.  In turn this usually means that the decision has to be taken again.  In planning cases, this means that the application will be reconsidered having rectified any defects found eg. with EIA or other required information.  This can result in exactly the same decision being taken - so victories in JR can be pyrrhic._

That SWLondoner news piece above says
_OneLambeth leads the fundraising effort for the legal case, which will be heard on 10th and 11th June. They argue the council did not conduct an equalities evaluation ahead of introducing the Railton LTN in June 2020. An assessment published in August established further data needed to be collected to ensure the policy did not overlook the needs of disabled residents._

So even if they win the council just has to make the decision again.  Even the 'Transport for All' report that gets mentioned, and had a load of positive quotes from disabled people in Lambeth, didn't say the LTNs should be removed, just that some parts could be improved. Maybe they end up with a 'blue badge' exemption or maybe just for specific residents with particular needs. My uncle's just got a blue badge because he has lung cancer so can't walk far right now but actually being in a car and driving some distance isn't a problem for him.

And maybe OneLambeth could have got some tweaks for those disabled residents who have specific needs by putting in a reasonable submission to the consultation which will happen at the end of the trial and got the same result as the (best possible) outcome of their legal case.   As usual it seems the only people likely to do well out of legal action are the lawyers.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 30, 2021)

Even if they win it sounds like a lot of ppl who've contributed to their appeal are going to be disappointed.  Reading right down the fundraiser it says
_What do you want to happen?
OneLambeth is campaigning towards having all LTNs declared illegal and a full suspension. 
Then we will we actively engage with the Council on measures to identify the real problems with transport in Lambeth and explore joined-up solutions that are rooted in science, data, community consultation, inclusivity, non-discrimination, democracy and strategic planning - as it always should have been done._

but that's not what the legal case would do.  There was lots of cheering about the judicial review that was 'won' against TfL but that didn't result in anything changing at all that I can see. I don't think anything was removed or "suspended" as a result. Is that because they are appealing it?


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 30, 2021)

thebackrow TfL won the right to appeal the high court decision on Streetspace* something the judge (and supporters) said wouldn’t happen. 

*Streetspace isn’t the same as LTNs


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Even if they win it sounds like a lot of ppl who've contributed to their appeal are going to be disappointed.  Reading right down the fundraiser it says
> _What do you want to happen?
> OneLambeth is campaigning towards having all LTNs declared illegal and a full suspension.
> Then we will we actively engage with the Council on measures to identify the real problems with transport in Lambeth and explore joined-up solutions that are rooted in science, data, community consultation, inclusivity, non-discrimination, democracy and strategic planning - as it always should have been done._
> ...


How can OneLambeth claim to be about 'community consultation' when they have a long record for throwing anyone in that community off their FB group if they don't parrot the party line.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Apr 30, 2021)

Looks like councillor hypocrisy isn't restricted to London when it comes to LTN's...


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I don't think anything was removed or "suspended" as a result. Is that because they are appealing it?



Yeah, I think that's because they're appealing. But it seems that if they let black cabs use the bus lanes then that would then comply.

Great summary btw, really helpful.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 30, 2021)

I’ve been looking at who is contributing to their go fund appeal and apart from a few anonymous donors, it looks like most of of the rest are regular contributions from a fairly small list, some of whom I recognise the names. £30k is a lot of money to lose even if you “win” and like others have said, it might just be symbolic or have limited impact.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 30, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I’ve been looking at who is contributing to their go fund appeal and apart from a few anonymous donors, it looks like most of of the rest are regular contributions from a fairly small list, some of whom I recognise the names. £30k is a lot of money to lose even if you “win” and like others have said, it might just be symbolic or have limited impact.


I'd have expected if they win they would get their costs paid and if they lose I think I saw they are only liable for 5k of the councils costs.


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 30, 2021)

Shaun Bailey cares so much about pollution... that he's been driving around central London in a non-ULEZ compliant bus









						Revealed: Shaun Bailey’s battle bus breaches London’s toxic air rules
					

Conservatives pay £300 a day toxic air levy to drive 20-year-old double decker in London




					www.standard.co.uk
				




Well done Mums for Lungs for spotting


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 30, 2021)

I love the fact his office first tried to claim it was powered by biofuel - figurative bullshit.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 30, 2021)

Jesterburger said:


> Shaun Bailey cares so much about pollution... that he's been driving around central London in a non-ULEZ compliant bus
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It’s not that it’s not just ULEZ compliant, it’s not even LEZ compliant.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 30, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> the unpopular peoples front of One Lambeth seem to be putting a lot of faith in their court case. Judical/Statutory reviews seem to be a bit of a weird thing -
> 
> the summary here Judicial review process | Richard Buxton Solicitors seems to be a summary of this Governtment guide https://assets.publishing.service.g...attachment_data/file/746170/JOYS-OCT-2018.pdf
> 
> ...


Thanks, that's really helpful and makes sense to me.


----------



## Tulster218 (Apr 30, 2021)

editor said:


> How can OneLambeth claim to be about 'community consultation' when they have a long record for throwing anyone in that community off their FB group if they don't parrot the party line.


Oh the irony.


----------



## editor (Apr 30, 2021)

Tulster218 said:


> Oh the irony.


What do you mean?


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Gramsci - are you still on Facebook? If so have a look at the entrance questions to the group and see if they will let you join.



I was on the what's app group for the Lambeth Climate change people's assembly. I left as it got taken over with people posting up all day about how terrible LTNs are. It was winding me up.

As much as I have sympathy with some issues around LTNs I don't want a lot of stuff about it on my FB about it. Already get a bit of it for some reason.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2021)

Oops, accidental repost


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I was on the what's app group for the Lambeth Climate change people's assembly. I left as it got taken over with people posting up all day about how terrible LTNs are. It was winding me up.


Yep, I was in there but it was terrible because of anti LTN people. God knows why they need to argue their case in there.


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep, I was in there but it was terrible because of anti LTN people. God knows why they need to argue their case in there.



I said that the discussion of LTNs should go on elsewhere. That didn't go down well so I left. Got told it was freedom of speech issue. It was getting unpleasant.

Plus I don't have time to wade through lots of what's app posts that are off subject


----------



## Gramsci (Apr 30, 2021)

I'm waiting for Lambeth to put in exemption for Blue Badge holders. Until they do legal action is the only way to push Lambeth to think seriously about doing it. 

Judicial reviews are part of the democratic process. They aren't just about making money for lawyers.


----------



## BusLanes (May 1, 2021)

Yeah I've been in a couple of local WhatsApp groups where I've either has to leave or things have got nasty over it till someone's managed to shut it down.


----------



## nagapie (May 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm waiting for Lambeth to put in exemption for Blue Badge holders. Until they do legal action is the only way to push Lambeth to think seriously about doing it.
> 
> Judicial reviews are part of the democratic process. They aren't just about making money for lawyers.


I still don't understand why they haven't done this.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 1, 2021)

What would a blue badge exception actually be? Afaik not one single road is closed, there is nowhere a car can’t go that it couldn’t before.


----------



## nagapie (May 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What would a blue badge exception actually be? Afaik not one single road is closed, there is nowhere a car can’t go that it couldn’t before.


Heh?  It would allow blue badge holders to go through the barriers without being fined.


----------



## sparkybird (May 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Heh?  It would allow blue badge holders to go through the barriers without being fined.


I would support this, and OneLambeth would then have no case - would save everyone involved a huge amount of time, effort, stress and money


----------



## nagapie (May 1, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> I would support this, and OneLambeth would then have no case - would save everyone involved a huge amount of time, effort, stress and money


Who wouldn't support this?  So wtf is Lambeth up to?


----------



## teuchter (May 1, 2021)

I wonder if it's a cost/resources thing.

It's the sort of thing that might actually be worth writing to councillors about. Say you are supportive generally but think this exemption would be a good idea.


----------



## CH1 (May 1, 2021)

editor said:


> Here's a wonderfully balanced post about LTNs in Brixton
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oops - editor  that link has been removed.
I wanted to post an alarming BBC show anout Black Lives Matter - as was referenced in your quote.








						BBC News - Global Questions, What Has BLM Achieved?
					

The fight for racial equality continues, but will there be lasting change?




					www.bbc.co.uk
				




This programme - Global Questions - is similar to Question Time, but actally more interesting for the most part due to the lack of tired old hacks from the UK Parliament.

What shocked me though about this show, very well chaired by Zainab Bedawi - was the appearance of Duwayne Brooks OBE.
I wonder whether Duwayne has been having personal struggles.
Duwayne himself had the traumatic experience of being with Stephen \Lawrence when they were attacked and Stephen was killed, Duwayne has ploughed a right-ward path, eventually getting into local politics becoming a Lib Dem councillor in Lewisham, but then defecting to the Tories.
If you saw this programme you would wonder why Duwayne has now come out in great cycnicism of Black Lives Matter - he says they are making money out of the issue but not improving people's lives.
Zainab, not to leave a stone unturned, asked Duwayne whether he thoutgh the police and judicial system in the UK was institutionally racism.
Duwayne replied - yes the Met has been found to be institutionally racism, but I don't beleieve the British courts have the same problem like America.
What would Shaun Bailey have said?


----------



## thebackrow (May 1, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> I would support this, and OneLambeth would then have no case - would save everyone involved a huge amount of time, effort, stress and money



Is it really that simple?  I don't think the OneLambeth JR would be so narrow - has anyone read it in detail?  Also, given their clearly stated aims are for full removal (sorry, "suspension") of the LTNs it's not like the tiny noisy minority is going to go away if the council gives an exemption for blue badge holders.  In Wandsworth the One group, immediately the LTNs were removed, switched to attacking the A24 cycleway upgrades (which is mostly bollards alongside a cycle lane that was already there and shouldn't have been driven or parked in anyway) 

That Transport for All report is fairly clear there are a lot of benefits for people with some disabilities from LTNs. So allowing one group through in their cars and so increasing traffic levels could dis-benefit another group. Talking about "The Disabled" as if they are a uniform group who all have a mobility disability that requires them to drive everywhere by the shortest route is far too simplistic.


----------



## snowy_again (May 1, 2021)

I wonder what both People’s Fronts think of the campaign slogan “All Streets Matter” that’s being used by the anti ltn Dulwich Alliance?


----------



## nagapie (May 1, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> That Transport for All report is fairly clear there are a lot of benefits for people with some disabilities from LTNs. So allowing one group through in their cars and so increasing traffic levels could dis-benefit another group. Talking about "The Disabled" as if they are a uniform group who all have a mobility disability that requires them to drive everywhere by the shortest route is far too simplistic.



Not it wouldn't. It would allow a tiny minority who can't walk or cycle to get around more easily while everyone else still has very quiet streets.


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2021)

Some Councils do it.





__





						Blue badge holder reside in low traffic neighbourhood exemption | Blue badge holder reside in low traffic neighbourhood exemption | Ealing Council
					

Information about the process of applying for a blue badge holder exemption for low traffic neighbourhoods.




					www.ealing.gov.uk
				




Its limited to one vehicle. 

I don't see the problem with doing it.


----------



## BillRiver (May 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Some Councils do it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problem is it being linked to one vehicle.

Many/most disabled people in London don't have a car, and many with blue badges use a variety of vehicles (carer's cars, taxis, nhs transport, etc.).


----------



## Gramsci (May 1, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> The problem is it being linked to one vehicle.
> 
> Many/most disabled people in London don't have a car, and many with blue badges use a variety of vehicles (carer's cars, taxis, nhs transport, etc.).



I agree that's a problem. Been hearing people who need to use taxis to get around are paying more as it takes longer to get in and out of LTNs.


----------



## DietCokeGirl (May 2, 2021)

Blue badges are issued to a person, not a car, so it's open to people begging/bribing/pressuing people with a blue badge to accompany them as a passenger in the car on the school run or to the shops or whatever to use their badge. Happens already, but could make it more prevalent. Ealings solution of limiting it to one vehicle could work but I wonder how expensive that would be to manage/administrate and what scrutiny there would be around who the vehicle belongs to. 
But that would also put Taxicard users at a disadvantage, so assume an equal dispensation would be needed for them.

thebackrow makes a very valid points about accessibility not being a one size fits all issue. Accessible transport doesn't have to mean a car. Lots of people on these boards recently crowdfunded for an electric bike for a much loved local whose mobility had changed.


----------



## Gramsci (May 2, 2021)

Thing about the disability issue is that both hard-line factions use it.

It would have helped if Council hadn't imposed LTNs without proper thought or consideration.

Yes the term disability covers a wide range. Sofia feels herself to put at a disadvantage by LTN. In which case she is entitled to take legal route of Judicial Review.

Imo some kind of working towards dealing with locals concerns with LTNs is needed.


----------



## nagapie (May 2, 2021)

DietCokeGirl said:


> Blue badges are issued to a person, not a car, so it's open to people begging/bribing/pressuing people with a blue badge to accompany them as a passenger in the car on the school run or to the shops or whatever to use their badge. Happens already, but could make it more prevalent. Ealings solution of limiting it to one vehicle could work but I wonder how expensive that would be to manage/administrate and what scrutiny there would be around who the vehicle belongs to.
> But that would also put Taxicard users at a disadvantage, so assume an equal dispensation would be needed for them.
> 
> thebackrow makes a very valid points about accessibility not being a one size fits all issue. Accessible transport doesn't have to mean a car. Lots of people on these boards recently crowdfunded for an electric bike for a much loved local whose mobility had changed.


So blue badge holders shouldn't get access because a minority of people abuse the system. That's like saying people shouldn't get benefits because some people lie to get them.
I think you will find that most blue badge holders have mobility or behavioural or sensory issues that mean vehicle transport is the only way they can go out from an existence that is already pretty isolating. Just because you have a friend who is disabled who can use bike is not representative of the majority of blue badge holders.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> most blue badge holders have mobility or behavioural or sensory issues that mean vehicle transport is the only way they can go out


Even if this is true - and I don’t think it is (can you find some figures to back it up?) - the reason is because our cities are dominated by cars. Build better infrastructure and reduce car use by those who don’t need them and the problem goes away.


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Even if this is true - and I don’t think it is (can you find some figures to back it up?) - the reason is because our cities are dominated by cars. Build better infrastructure and reduce car use by those who don’t need them and the problem goes away.


I'm sorry but you clearly know nothing about what life is like for a disabled person. How hard it is to get a blue badge? How little accessibility actually exists in public transport. How poor the equipment is available to get around. How hard it is for carers to push a person around. How impossible it is for children/people with sensory and behavioural issues to be out in public.
I live this life and I work in this life and quite frankly your bullshit with authority is uninformed and offensive ableist rubbish.
Are you now going to tell me you have a disabled friend so you know better.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 3, 2021)

You’ve literally just described our failure of having suitable infrastructure 

Our cities are built around cars. The vast inaccessibility issues so many face is a direct consequence of this. It needs to change. There will always be some for whom a car is the best/only solution. But there are many who can be given more options. Change is not going to be easy, cheap, or quick. Some will fight it every step of the way. But it’s both essential and ultimately inevitable.

(and fwiw I grew up having a blind family member, have volunteered with the Guide Dogs and RNIB, and have recently volunteered with a group providing adapted bikes and hand cycles for those both young and old with various physical disabilities. I’m not _entirely_ ignorant of the issues here...)


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

You sound ignorant. Right now blue badge holders get a tiny little bit of access that you and others want to restrict further.
Do you know that many people with cognitive disabilities have blue badges because it's hard to keep them safe out and about. So you'd like to put that pressure on to families and carers.
Many carry large amounts of essential equipment like O2, catheters, feeding tubes, pumps etc.
Many people with disabilities live in pain that is exacerbated by traveling and need quick, easy journeys.
Many have multiple trips to hospitals and other appointments weekly.
Many people with disabilities have to use their cars to be changed in or just not go out as there are only a few fully accessible changing places in the country.
Blue badges travel with the person not the car or going out for these groups would be further restricted by availability of one person.
And so much more. But mostly most severely disabled people and their families are disproportionately affected by isolation and exclusion because of the multitude of difficulties there are in going out and you want to deny one tiny bit of access because the world's a shit place where there are too many cars. By all means go after cars, but don't make vulnerable, disenfranchised groups pay the price for your ideal.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Right now blue badge holders get a tiny little bit of access that you and others want to restrict further.....you want to deny one tiny bit of access because the world's a shit place where there are too many cars.



I honestly don't believe anyone here wants that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> You sound ignorant. Right now blue badge holders get a tiny little bit of access that you and others want to restrict further.
> Do you know that many people with cognitive disabilities have blue badges because it's hard to keep them safe out and about. So you'd like to put that pressure on to families and carers.
> Many carry large amounts of essential equipment like O2, catheters, feeding tubes, pumps etc.
> Many people with disabilities live in pain that is exacerbated by traveling and need quick, easy journeys.
> ...


I don't think you're reading what I'm actually writing here.


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> I honestly don't believe anyone here wants that.


I'm sorry but firstly someone posted a reply in favour of restricting blue badges and then someone else wrote a post suggesting vehicles are not necessary for people with disabilities if we change our mindset.
The only right response here is that people with blue badges should be allowed full access to the LTNs.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> The only right response here is that people with blue badges should be allowed full access to the LTNs.



This I agree with.

I also think that disabled Londoner's should have free access to modified/accessible bikes & trikes where appropriate/wanted, as well as free access to training and active assistance to enable use where appropriate/wanted.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> someone else wrote a post suggesting vehicles are not necessary for people with disabilities if we change our mindset.


No-one has written anything like that.


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No-one has written anything like that.


Bees has. The problem is that we have a culture of using cars. No acknowledgement of the relentless physical challenges carers face daily and now they must all push wheelchairs around instead of using a benefit that gives them access to a vehicle.
It's no wonder that women in Lambeth has had to hitch herself to One Lambeth, you can imagine the council having these exact same conversations so they don't have to implement blue badge access.


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> This I agree with.
> 
> I also think that disabled Londoner's should have free access to modified/accessible bikes & trikes where appropriate/wanted, as well as free access to training and active assistance to enable use where appropriate/wanted.


Absolutely. But there are a huge amount who will not be able to access those methods as an actual means of transport for various reasons.
We need more accessibility, not less. Adapted, free bikes/trikes and motibility and blue badges.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Absolutely. But there are a huge amount who will not be able to access those methods as an actual means of transport for various reasons.
> We need more accessibility, not less. Adapted, free bikes/trikes and motibility and blue badges.



Exactly.

And we can/could have all of that, plus LTN's, if enough of us agreed and made it happen.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Bees has.



Don't think so -



beesonthewhatnow said:


> *There will always be some for whom a car is the best/only solution.* But there are many who can be given more options.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Bees has.


That's funny, because I don't recall writing anything like that.

Again, go back and try reading what I actually said.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No-one has written anything like that.



You did say in reply to nagapie some time ago this in post 1468



> I think it can make perfect sense to decide, for example, that money is better spent on things like making public transport fully accessible to all, than it is for* minimising inconvenience to that portion of disabled people who have the privilege of private car access.*



I've read nearly most of this thread. Nagapie has at points on this thread raised issues of disability and has had to be persistent to get it taken seriously.

Posters and not just you have tried to chip away at Nagapie take on it throughout this thread. Whilst saying they are concerned about disability. 

I agree with Nagapie the kind of posts seen here will be what Lambeth are rehearsing for the upcoming JR with Sofia.

I really hope Sofia will cope with it.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> You did say in reply to nagapie some time ago this in post 1468


That is in no way a post saying that I think vehicles are unecessary for disabled people, is it?

Neither have I been arguing against an exemption for blue badge holders.

The full text of my post that you selectively quote is here.


----------



## alex_ (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> So blue badge holders shouldn't get access because a minority of people abuse the system.


Only she didn’t say that


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That is in no way a post saying that I think vehicles are unecessary for disabled people, is it?
> 
> Neither have I been arguing against an exemption for blue badge holders.
> 
> The full text of my post that you selectively quote is here.



The reply I expected. I don't want to get into series of posts about this. 

I used it as example of kind of language that has been used here. A disabled person who needs a car is referred to as privileged.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Only she didn’t say that



As good as said it. First part of post was saying it will lead to possibly more abuse of the system in that posters opinion.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> The reply I expected. I don't want to get into series of posts about this.
> 
> I used it as example of kind of language that has been used here. A disabled person who needs a car is referred to as privileged.



Many disabled people need cars and yet don't have one. So in that sense those who need one _and have one _are privileged over those disabled people who need but don't have.

It doesn't mean both groups of disabled people aren't massively oppressed in myriad ways.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> A disabled person who needs a car is referred to as privileged.



I was saying that a private car is a privilege which not everyone has. That applies regardless of disability.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2021)

It's like when someone raises the fact that their elderly neighbour's drive to the supermarket now takes 10 minutes longer, and they ignore their other elderly neighbour who has no car and goes to the local shop with a trolley and has to negotiate multiple road crossings to get there.


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I was saying that a private car is a privilege which not everyone has. That applies regardless of disability.


Except that there is motability, a benefit, which allows you to get a car if you have severe physical or cognitive disabilities.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Except that there is motability, a benefit, which allows you to get a car if you have severe physical or cognitive disabilities.


But that's not free. Has to be paid for from qualifying allowance. 
And as per all "benefits" many who should get, don't, in reality.


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> But that's not free. Has to be paid for from qualifying allowance.
> And as per all "benefits" many who should get, don't, in reality.


Doesn't mean you disparage those who do. You want more people to get it not a race to the bottom.
Most families I know could not manage without motability.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Doesn't mean you disparage those who do. You want more people to get it not a race to the bottom.
> Most families I know could not manage without motability.



I don't disparage, I simply acknowledge another layer of inequality in our society.

Just as I acknowledge my privilege in still receiving  benefits such as ESA and PIP, and my never having had to go to tribunal or appeal a decision on those due to the length of time I have been (and severity of impact on me of) living with the disabilities I live with, as compared to people currently navigating Universal Credit applications while disabled. I had a lot of help from a brilliant key worker in 2013, after years of living on Incapacity Benefits (£45ish a week) I have been comfortably off ever since. Not all disabled people are in my current position.


----------



## alex_ (May 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> As good as said it. First part of post was saying it will lead to possibly more abuse of the system in that posters opinion.



So in your view making blue badges more desirable won’t increase occurrences of blue badge fraud ?

Alex

Which incidentally is rare but does happen 
Lambeth Council staff guilty of disabled badge fraud 
700 prosecutions in 15 years in Lambeth - Tackling Blue Badge Fraud - a good practice guide | London Councils


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

alex_ said:


> So in your view making blue badges more desirable won’t increase occurrences of blue badge fraud ?
> 
> Alex
> 
> ...


Red herring. You could find similar stats on any benefit. Doesn't mean you restrict when needed.


----------



## teuchter (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Except that there is motability, a benefit, which allows you to get a car if you have severe physical or cognitive disabilities.


And if your disabilities mean you aren't able or allowed to drive?


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> I don't disparage, I simply acknowledge another layer of inequality in our society.
> 
> Just as I acknowledge my privilege in still receiving  benefits such as ESA and PIP, and my never having had to go to tribunal or appeal a decision on those due to the length of time I have been (and severity of impact on me of) living with the disabilities I live with, as compared to people currently navigating Universal Credit applications while disabled. I had a lot of help from a brilliant key worker in 2013, after years of living on Incapacity Benefits (£45ish a week) I have been comfortably off ever since. Not all disabled people are in my current position.


But I don't think it's relevant to this conversation. Everyone should have access to what you have or more. It's not the same as say bankers Vs nurses.


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> And if your disabilities mean you aren't able or allowed to drive?


You rely on carers or transport that drive or face isolation.
Also a non point as giving blue badge access will not significantly impact on the business of the LTNs.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I was saying that a private car is a privilege which not everyone has. That applies regardless of disability.



No you didn't. You said:

*disabled people who have the privilege of private car access.*


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Many disabled people need cars and yet don't have one. So in that sense those who need one _and have one _are privileged over those disabled people who need but don't have.
> 
> It doesn't mean both groups of disabled people aren't massively oppressed in myriad ways.



Its this that nagapie has been up against.

Using the word "privilege" in context of discussing rights of disabled people is just taken as OK.

I'm not having a particular go at Teuchter here. Its just an example of how its been posted about here. The general tone on this thread.


----------



## Gramsci (May 3, 2021)

alex_ said:


> So in your view making blue badges more desirable won’t increase occurrences of blue badge fraud ?
> 
> Alex
> 
> ...



I'm sometimes thinking on here am I on Urban75? 

Sounds like the kind of benefits bashing one gets from Tories and sections of Labour Party. 

Its the kind of outlook that has led to restriction of benefits and harder tests to get them. 

Basically my view is that this is very unequal society. "Benefits" are way to even it up very slightly.


----------



## alex_ (May 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Red herring. You could find similar stats on any benefit. Doesn't mean you restrict when needed.



ive not advocated this - and in post 4,271
I said Lambeth should exempt blue badge holders from LTZs

Alex


----------



## nagapie (May 3, 2021)

alex_ said:


> ive not advocated this - and in post 4,271
> I said Lambeth should exempt blue badge holders from LTZs
> 
> Alex


Then why bother to wade in when someone suggests limiting blue badge access, like Ealing, and putting forward a tiny amount of fraud as a reason not to.


----------



## alex_ (May 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Then why bother to wade in when someone suggests limiting blue badge access, like Ealing, and putting forward a tiny amount of fraud as a reason not to.



I’m saying they should be used, but Acknowledging that fraud does occur doesn’t say you shouldn’t extend its usage.

pretending systems are perfect means you don’t improve them, which makes them easier to abolish.

Alex


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2021)

A sort-of interesting comment from a builder this afternoon, saying that the current "traffic situation" has made them decide that they are going to start focusing on doing jobs that are local (Brixton/Streatham) rather than all over London.

It's not that uncommon for small builders to have jobs on the go in various parts of London, which means a lot of shuttling around in vans, and/or lengthy journeys at the beginning and end of each day.

If the current arrangements mean that people increasingly look for more local work then I can't see that this is a bad thing. It doesn't really make sense for someone based in Enfield to be doing a loft conversion in Lambeth... and vice versa. It means a load of unnecessary vehicle journeys and wasted time. It's these kinds of changes in habit that allow the "traffic evaporation" that some refuse to believe in, happen. It doesn't happen instantly which is why you have to give things time.


----------



## alex_ (May 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> A sort-of interesting comment from a builder this afternoon, saying that the current "traffic situation" has made them decide that they are going to start focusing on doing jobs that are local (Brixton/Streatham) rather than all over London.
> 
> It's not that uncommon for small builders to have jobs on the go in various parts of London, which means a lot of shuttling around in vans, and/or lengthy journeys at the beginning and end of each day.
> 
> If the current arrangements mean that people increasingly look for more local work then I can't see that this is a bad thing. It doesn't really make sense for someone based in Enfield to be doing a loft conversion in Lambeth... and vice versa. It means a load of unnecessary vehicle journeys and wasted time. It's these kinds of changes in habit that allow the "traffic evaporation" that some refuse to believe in, happen. It doesn't happen instantly which is why you have to give things time.



another example of this would be couriers adjusting their delivery routes to make then more compact - how many times have you seen 3 different Amazon guys on the same street at the same time ?


----------



## teuchter (May 4, 2021)

alex_ said:


> another example of this would be couriers adjusting their delivery routes to make then more compact - how many times have you seen 3 different Amazon guys on the same street at the same time ?


Yup.
Can't remember where I read it now, but recently saw something by someone who used to work in logistics saying that it was actually quite shocking how cheap it is to transport stuff by road in the UK, meaning that loads of things would shuttle around in lorries/vans all over the place to solve problems that could be solved more intelligently if there was the incentive to do so.


----------



## snowy_again (May 4, 2021)

Pedal Me - the e-assist courier company launched a crowdcube funding drive with a target of £150k. Yesterday they were at £600k of supporters. Much less polluting and less congestion.


----------



## sparkybird (May 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> A sort-of interesting comment from a builder this afternoon, saying that the current "traffic situation" has made them decide that they are going to start focusing on doing jobs that are local (Brixton/Streatham) rather than all over London.
> 
> It's not that uncommon for small builders to have jobs on the go in various parts of London, which means a lot of shuttling around in vans, and/or lengthy journeys at the beginning and end of each day.
> 
> If the current arrangements mean that people increasingly look for more local work then I can't see that this is a bad thing. It doesn't really make sense for someone based in Enfield to be doing a loft conversion in Lambeth... and vice versa. It means a load of unnecessary vehicle journeys and wasted time. It's these kinds of changes in habit that allow the "traffic evaporation" that some refuse to believe in, happen. It doesn't happen instantly which is why you have to give things time.


That's the approach I took when I had my electrician business - I ONLY worked locally - if I travelled 5 miles it was rare. Just made much more sense, since I hated driving and there was more than enough work. It meant I could provide a much better after service to clients as well - no problem to pop back to make small adjustments etc.


----------



## alex_ (May 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yup.
> Can't remember where I read it now, but recently saw something by someone who used to work in logistics saying that it was actually quite shocking how cheap it is to transport stuff by road in the UK, meaning that loads of things would shuttle around in lorries/vans all over the place to solve problems that could be solved more intelligently if there was the incentive to do so.



Yes the Amazon vans will be coming from different Amazon depots, if you road charge the city couriers - Amazon will consolidate at the warehouses where transport is free and do more drops per van mile.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

Council officers have been talking about improving logistics for some time. Perhaps this could have been done before implementing LTNs.

As a point of information "couriers" can't just adjust their routes. The companies they work for give them the parcels and they are expected to just get on with it.

They are however the ones who have to deal with alterations to roads.

The Councils/ central Government need to take up logistics with the bosses of these delivery companies. Not just expect the poor courier to deal with it.

Secondly if people are expected to use cars less they are going to rely more on having things delivered. Especially as Lockdown has introduced a lot of people to online shopping.

There is already system of logistics in place. A lot of people get parcels delivered to local shops. Some shops have deals with delivery companies to keep stuff for customers. So one van can deliver to the shop parcels for that area.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

Officers I remember did talk about smart cities. One thing is last mile deliveries. Set up depots to store parcels. Use electric vehicles/ cargo bikes for last mile.

This is separate issue to LTNs.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

Also on logistics it always surprises me how some fairly big companies don't think more before ordering couriers. They would save themselves money if they did.


----------



## alex_ (May 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> As a point of information "couriers" can't just adjust their routes. The companies they work for give them the parcels and they are expected to just get on with it.



yes, the bloke in the van in the van does what dpd, Amazon etc tell them to do.

courier firms will re route couriers - they don’t want to pay more per parcel


----------



## alex_ (May 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Officers I remember did talk about smart cities. One thing is last mile deliveries. Set up depots to store parcels. Use electric vehicles/ cargo bikes for last mile.
> 
> This is separate issue to LTNs.



this could even just be an empty depot for transshipment.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Pedal Me - the e-assist courier company launched a crowdcube funding drive with a target of £150k. Yesterday they were at £600k of supporters. Much less polluting and less congestion.



I've heard from people who work for them that they're a good company to work for. They pay properly.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

alex_ said:


> yes, the bloke in the van in the van does what dpd, Amazon etc tell them to do.
> 
> courier firms will re route couriers - they don’t want to pay more per parcel



Not sure what you mean.

Except for Pedal Me most courier companies pay per drop. If you as courier take more time to drop you don't get paid more.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Pedal Me - the e-assist courier company launched a crowdcube funding drive with a target of £150k. Yesterday they were at £600k of supporters. Much less polluting and less congestion.



Pedal me did start out as a bike taxi service. That hasn't taken off.

Most courier companies are now acquiring Cargo bikes. Which they rent to the couriers. Think they have realised its a paying option as they can recoup costs by getting couriers to pay for using them.

Most courier firms will adopt green transport if they can still make money out of the couriers by doing it.

One company rebranded themselves as Green Couriers some time back. 

From what I know Pedal Me don't use the usual courier business model.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

If LTNs make courier business move to more green transport options you can be sure this won't be done at expense or risk to the owners. Small owner van drivers may lose out. This won't cost the business owners anything. In courier industry the default model is to off load risk downwards onto the ordinary courier.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

snowy_again is this the right crowd funder?









						Pedal Me
					

Pedal Me use unique e-cargo bikes in combination with trained employees to provide a fast, clean on-demand service to help move both people and goods around London. Heading out of Covid, the future looks bright and they're raising to enable to scale and find efficiencies to continue their growth.




					www.crowdcube.com
				




From what I've been told by riders its courier firm that treats its workforce well. Decent regular money and job security plus training. Unlike a lot of the industry.


----------



## Gramsci (May 4, 2021)

I did think a major argument in Lambeth by Council was that a lot of car traffic is just going through Brixton. Coming from wealthy areas in South London and using poorer working class areas central Brixton and Loughborough junction as convenient transit points to central London. They were not visiting /working in/delivering in Lambeth.

In particular Railton LTN was justified in thus way. Council did same with the failed Loughborough junction road closures. 

So I don't understand recent posts on trades people delivery people being made to rethink work practices due to new LTNs. As if this is part of reason for LTNs

Previous post of mine quoted Sadiq who said LTNs would reduce unnecessary traffic leaving roads free for those who need them for work reasons across London.

So LTNs in theory are supposed to make it easier for those who use roads for work to get around. Not make them be forced to change how they work.


----------



## sparkybird (May 5, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So I don't understand recent posts on trades people delivery people being made to rethink work practices due to new LTNs. As if this is part of reason for LTNs


Teutcher's builder didn't say that his decision was a result of LTN's, though. He said 'the traffic situation'. That could be due to LTN's, but given the relatively small area that are covered by LTN's, it's also likely to be due to roadworks and the general increase in traffic due to the pandemic.

In my personal case, I made the decision to work locally 15 years ago, when LTN's didn't exist. To me it made economic sense not to waste my valuable time and petrol money stuck in traffic making journeys that I didn't need to do. This is what LTN's have been brought in to encourage as I understand it. On the plus side it was also great for my mental health (less stress) and customer relations. Quite often I worked in my own parking permit zone, and clients were delighted they didn't have to give me a permit!


----------



## sparkybird (May 5, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> There is already system of logistics in place. A lot of people get parcels delivered to local shops. Some shops have deals with delivery companies to keep stuff for customers. So one van can deliver to the shop parcels for that area.



I use this system and I think it should be the default, with an option for home delivery if you are in, but you have to actively chose it. I also see safe boxes at some locations (for Amazon, BooHoo) and these to me make perfect sense. Especially as less people are at home now. Much more convenient to go to one of these (or a shop) when you are out and about to collect your small parcel at a time to suit you. And leave home deliveries for larger items only.  And presumably this system is better for the drivers?


----------



## teuchter (May 5, 2021)

Changing routes/strategies for delivery vehicles might not be specifically named as an aim of Lambeth's LTNs but at a city wide level, introduction of LTNs along with other things is part of a general policy to reduce overall capacity on the road network. If it didn't reduce overall capacity then no-one could make the argument that in the longer term, it reduces the overall amount of traffic, including on main roads. That's traffic evaporation and without it, then of course the main roads would simply become loads busier with displaced traffic. Some people deny that this happens, but the arguments have been gone over a million times already on this thread.

If you change the overall capacity and also change with roads are through roads, then of course delivery companies will have to make some changes to the way they do things.

While I can see that this may well cause some short-medium term pain for delivery drivers while the system re-organises itself, I don't think it's true to say that the burden is simply shifted to the drivers in the longer term. The delivery companies already pay drivers (I'd assume) pretty much the lowest they can get away with. That means that if the amount a driver can make in a day reduces much further, the companies will start to find that drivers no longer want to work for them. The incentive will be for the delivery companies to adjust things so that on average drivers can make a similar sort of amount of money per day. How they do that exactly I don't know but I'd imagine it would be a mixture of changing what areas are allocated to what drivers, and maybe increasing the pay per drop if they have to. Perhaps changing the mix of vehicles they use to include some that can go through LTN gates. 

If anyone ends up taking on the consequences of these changes it'll be the end customer. Delivery/collection charges might go up a little. Perhaps pricing will be changed to encourage more picking up at local hubs like local shops. That's all fine with me; I would say that delivery charges are probably too low as it is, making it too easy for people (including me) to order loads of stuff to their door which has consequences for the amount of traffic on the roads generally.

Yes, all this amounts to quite a bit of disruption and the transition won't necessarily be easy for delivery drivers. Some jobs might disappear and new ones might appear. The Pedal Me thing has already been mentioned. I would say that in any case, without any LTNs being involved, the pandemic by itself would have caused all sorts of changes in the delivery industry. Many things are in flux just now and we'll not know exactly how things are going to shake out until some time has passed.

I talk to one of my regular Hermes drivers when she delivers stuff. A few months ago she told me she was thinking of giving up, because of the amount of workload they were pushing on her. When I last saw her, last week, she was still doing it and was telling me that Hermes have been bought out, and she was waiting to see if this was going to result in changes in working conditions. It seemed like she was hopeful it might make things better; I've no idea if that's realistic. In any case, lots of things are changing right now. For example I've been following the story of a company that is going to start transporting parcels by rail, with trains being loaded/unloaded at stations and forwarded on by small vehicles. This has the potential to allow delivery companies to get things moved in bulk into city-centre locations without putting lorries on the roads - rather than relying on distribution centres located on the periphery and then multiple road vehicles driving into the city. In fact this (if successful) is in some way a return to how things were delivered before we shifted nearly all of our goods transportation to road-based systems. Approaches such as this one are encouraged by making it less convenient for delivery companies to do everything by lorry and van. I would see it as a reversal of changes that were made in the mid 20th century that turned so much of our urban areas into traffic dominated disasters, with all the consequent things like air pollution.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 5, 2021)

Being a bit of a rail nerd (not trainspotting I hasten to add), there’s a big move towards electric freight as a primary way to decarbonise. It’s not easy as you have to invest in the infrastructure up front but costs should fall, the more you do. It’s happening in the EU now (probably means we’ll do the opposite) so I will see what happens here


----------



## teuchter (May 5, 2021)

Yes, although conventional rail freight in this country tends only to work economically for bulk transport of things like aggregate, or for intermodal (shipping container) traffic between docks and distribution hubs. It's certainly a good idea to increase electrification (in many cases the difference is made by electrifying short sections at each end of a run... much traffic runs hauled by diesel but under electric wires for 90% of its journey).

What's interesting about this new service for parcel type traffic is that it's an entirely different segment of the market, one that used to be carried by rail but which has almost entirely transferred to road transport during the past few decades. Some info about one of them here.


----------



## editor (May 5, 2021)

Err, right, OK.


----------



## Crispy (May 5, 2021)

Voting for whom? No council seats are up for election, and the LTNs have nothing to do with the Mayor or the GLA (who only control trunk routes)


----------



## teuchter (May 5, 2021)

I think they are saying, remember not to drive to the polling station tomorrow, because you'll be causing a traffic jam.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 5, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Voting for whom? No council seats are up for election, and the LTNs have nothing to do with the Mayor or the GLA (who only control trunk routes)


But why else would they be against the brown, Muslim, left wing* Mayor?


*not by the standards of uk p&p.


----------



## edcraw (May 5, 2021)

OneLambeth now asking for £5k more.

Not sure how Lambeth are moving the goal posts. Experimental Traffic Orders allow for tweaks as I understand it.


----------



## Gramsci (May 5, 2021)

Crispy said:


> Voting for whom? No council seats are up for election, and the LTNs have nothing to do with the Mayor or the GLA (who only control trunk routes)



Not directly. Khan however has made clear he supports Councils putting in these LTNs now without the usual consultation.

Some of the TFL funding for the now defunct Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood has been used for LTN in Brixton area. In that way Khan could be said to be involved.

I think there are various reasons not to vote for Khan. I've still not decided yet whether to vote for him.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (May 6, 2021)

Happily heading out to vote for Khan now! Screw the tories who created this whole mess, and most all the other ones.  I feel bullish; I even have Tory colleagues who say they can’t vote for Bailey.


----------



## edcraw (May 7, 2021)

Anti-LTN independent and OneLambeth favourite Jody Graber came last in yesterday's councillor by-election in Islington:


----------



## edcraw (May 7, 2021)

Hackney anti-LTN candidate also did poorly:


----------



## edcraw (May 7, 2021)

Obviously single issue independents are never going to poll highly but I think this puts to bed the argument that there’s tons of opposition to LTNs.

I hope the media coverage starts to reflect this and we can look at the monitoring and consultations and then judge these properly.

Also councillors in inner London probably shouldn’t be too worried about trying these.


----------



## thebackrow (May 8, 2021)

I always admire people who can find the positive in anything but this is  quite a take on coming last with 318 votes - Leaving anti-LTN independent Jody Graber free to concentrate on his upcoming trial on intimidation, cocaine and ABH charges


----------



## snowy_again (May 8, 2021)

I admired this but of hyperbole (posted in response to the polling results Twitter link above).


----------



## thebackrow (May 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Anti-LTN independent and OneLambeth favourite Jody Graber came last in yesterday's councillor by-election in Islington:




and Farah London -the mayoral candidate they were promoting, and who spoke at their protest - polled about a third of the votes of Count Binface in Lambeth (if you add first and second preference votes)


----------



## alex_ (May 8, 2021)

I didn’t realise that Revenue from ltns anpr cameras was more than a million quid in 6 months. 









						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in Lambeth tot up £1m of fines in six months
					

Since Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) were introduced in certain parts of south west London last summer, £1,090,066 worth of Penalty Charge Notices have been issued by Lambeth Council.




					www.swlondoner.co.uk
				




Does anyone have any updates numbers?


----------



## sparkybird (May 8, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I didn’t realise that Revenue from ltns anpr cameras was more than a million quid in 6 months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You could do an FOI but it takes about 28 days for Lambeth to respond. If you do it would also be worth asking Lambeth what they spend the money on - is it all used for the costs of cameras/monitoring/admin or is there spare?

I do chuckle when people complain that the LTN's are just a money making exercise by Lambeth - there was a long amnesty period, the signs are clear and if you've not heard about LTNs, planters and cameras by now, you must have just arrived from Mars. One easy way to avoid the fines - obey the law and don't drive through


----------



## Gramsci (May 8, 2021)

I did vote Labour for Mayor. Because I didn't want the Tories running London. 

That was the reason. 

LTNs are put in place by London Councils. Not the Mayor. Khan didn't mention LTNs in the manifesto.


----------



## thebackrow (May 8, 2021)

https://sadiq.london/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Sadiq-for-London-Manifesto-.pdf
		

_TRANSPORT - Continuing to invest in public transport to ensure it is safe, affordable and reliable, keeping fares as low as possible, working to put TfL on a sound, sustainable financial footing after the pandemic, and supporting a revolution in walking and cycling._
...
_Record investment in greener travel, including my recent Streetspace plan, has led to the biggest increase in cycling on record. ... I declared a climate emergency in London, setting out my ambition to be zero-carbon by 2030, and we became one of the world’s first cities to set out a clear plan to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement.
...
Cleaner, greener public transport means fewer polluting vehicles, and I will work to ensure 80% of all journeys by2041 are walked, cycled or by public transport_
...
_Last year, TfL and the London boroughs rapidly rolled out measures to make our streets safer for walking, cycling, and social distancing, such as low-traffic neighbourhoods. Most of these schemes are temporary
and implemented under emergency Government guidance. I will work with London boroughs to ensure communities and stakeholder groups are properly consulted on these schemes, refining them where necessary, and making them permanent where they are successful._
....
_I will continue the rapid expansion of London’s cycle network — connecting communities and town centres with protected cycleways on main roads and low-traffic routes on local streets — so it reaches a third of Londoners by 2025. I will improve on-street signage and digital mapping and wayfinding to make it easy for people to choose this greener transport option._
...
_I will continue to support the innovative use of timed changes to streets across the capital through ‘School Streets’, ‘Summer Streeteries’ and ‘Lunchtime Streets’_


----------



## Gramsci (May 8, 2021)

Interesting he says these are temporary. I wonder how he will ensure Local Councils consult properly. I didn't think that was in his power. In the end LTNs come under local Council decision.


----------



## edcraw (May 8, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Interesting he says these are temporary. I wonder how he will ensure Local Councils consult properly. I didn't think that was in his power. In the end LTNs come under local Council decision.


They’ve always been temporary and have to be consulted on before becoming permanent, and presumably that means properly. I guess he’s just making that point.


----------



## Gramsci (May 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> They’ve always been temporary and have to be consulted on before becoming permanent, and presumably that means properly. I guess he’s just making that point.



He says he will ensure Councils consult properly.

Im wondering how he will ensure Councils do this properly. As he says it in his manifesto.

For example as Mayor he brought in votes for Council estates to see if they wanted their estate regenerated.

With the Good Growth Fund (which the Council have got for the Brixton Rec/Brixton Station Road area) independent ongoing evaluation is required as part of the grant. The evaluation criteria to see if the project is meeting community needs are developed with the local community/stakeholders and Council. Ongoing consultation /evaluation reports are produced independently of Council.

Good Growth Fund is Mayor funds to support community development.

With the now defunct Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme the TFL funding likewise required proper consultation. Council was going to need to prove to TFL that local communitues wanted LTNs. Prior to getting more funds. Prior to putting them in place. 

This was all bypassed by pandemic.

So we are where we are. As Khan has put ensuring proper consultation in his manifesto as part of how he will work with local authorities I'm wondering what actual mechanisms he will use and what actual powers he has over local authorities.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 10, 2021)

Green roads ‘may interfere in human rights’ of residents, council admits as it vows to continue scheme 

Only just seen this article about Lambeth.


----------



## sparkybird (May 10, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Green roads ‘may interfere in human rights’ of residents, council admits as it vows to continue scheme
> 
> Only just seen this article about Lambeth.


Can't read the article, only the headline, but I think this is about One Lambeth's legal challenge?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 10, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Can't read the article, only the headline, but I think this is about One Lambeth's legal challenge?



I have screenshots, let me see if I can get the actual text


----------



## BusLanes (May 10, 2021)

I think the traffic/LTN/ULEZ/congestion issue did hurt Khan but not enough that it made any difference given the sound and light.  Probably the wrong election for it. If there were 3 or 4 wards with anti LTN types running, whilst the Tories, Greens and LDs fight elsewhere, then that might be different. Even if the LTN types still lose badly. If just because harder for Labour to focus all its resources that it normally would be. In 2018 it seemed they were able to just about focus resources on the battle grounds.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 10, 2021)

I


sparkybird said:


> Can't read the article, only the headline, but I think this is about One Lambeth's legal challenge?


 Green roads ‘may interfere in human rights’ of residents, council admits as it vows to continue scheme

Green roads ‘may interfere in human rights’ of residents, council admits as it vows to continue scheme
Lambeth Council has received a total of £2.64 million as part of Sadiq Khan’s Streetspace scheme to fund 'active travel'


The low-traffic neighbourhood at Shakespeare Road, one of five such schemes introduced by Lambeth Council.
The low-traffic neighbourhood at Shakespeare Road, one of five such schemes introduced by Lambeth Council. CREDIT: GEOFF PUGH
Dominic Penna
25 APRIL 2021 • 6:00 AM
Green roads "may interfere in the human rights" of residents, a council has admitted, but has vowed to plough on with a controversial scheme.

Lambeth Council received a total of £2.64 million as part of Sadiq Khan's Streetspace scheme to fund active travel – more than any other local authority in London.


The Ferndale low-traffic neighbourhood, which takes in five different roads, was established in June 2020, and further restrictions on vehicle access have now been approved after a report concluded the initial trial period was successful.

“The implementation of the scheme may result in the interference with the human rights of individuals,” the report reads.

“Officers consider that such interference is necessary and proportionate means of achieving the wider public benefit of making the borough’s transport networks safe, efficient, inclusive, sustainable and healthy.”

Two sections of the European Convention on Human Rights apply to the Ferndale scheme, the council says.

These are Article 1, which protects an individual’s right to possessions, and Article 8, which protects their right to respect for private and family life, their home and their correspondence.

Both of the articles in question are subject to exemptions which allow a state to “enforce such laws as it deems necessary” to ensure public safety and “the general interest”.

Low-traffic neighbourhoods have been implemented across London boroughs with Government grants
Low-traffic neighbourhoods have been implemented across London boroughs with Government grants CREDIT: HEATHCLIFF O'MALLEY
More than 4,000 residents have signed a petition on the council website that calls for the immediate removal and cessation of all five of Lambeth’s low-traffic neighbourhoods.

Tim Briggs, a Conservative councillor in Lambeth, accused the Labour leadership of “complacency” amid objections from residents, hundreds of whom attended a protest against the plans at Windrush Square on Saturday.

“The reality of people’s lives in Lambeth at the moment is they cannot get from A to B,” he said. “They’re extremely angry, extremely hurt and they’ve lost faith in the council.

“The proposed outcome of lower pollution is not going to happen, because it relies on this idea the traffic is all going to evaporate when in reality it is just displaced.

“There is a fundamental issue of whether the council should be able to infringe on people’s freedoms like this without anyone having been properly consulted.”

Paul Brennan, the chairman of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, is among those to have contacted policymakers to express his concerns about the Ferndale low-traffic neighbourhood.

The scheme risks undermining the “essential service” provided by black cabs in the borough, Mr Brennan wrote, “particularly [for] disabled people and those with accessibility needs.”

Other low-traffic neighbourhoods introduced by Lambeth Council include the Railton Road scheme, which has seen eight different access points reduced to two as part of a one-way system designed to enable social distancing.

It comes ahead of legal action by Sofia Sheakh which is set to be heard from June 10. Ms Sheakh has asked a judge to rule that Lambeth Council has illegally introduced its LTNs by not taking into account the needs and rights of disabled people.


Sofia Sheakh, who is taking Lambeth Council to talk over the low-traffic neighbourhood closure of her road
Sofia Sheakh, who is taking Lambeth Council to talk over the low-traffic neighbourhood closure of her road CREDIT: GEOFF PUGH
"My whole life now is rerouted because of these low-traffic neighbourhoods that were not done with any consultation, and they were not done with all the residents in mind,” she said.

“My protected characteristic as a vulnerable person with lung disease has been completely disregarded, and I’m being discriminated against. This is why I am bringing my challenge against the council.”

On Thursday night, Harrow Council became the first in the country to vote to remove all Streetspace schemes, low-traffic neighbourhoods and cycle lanes implemented in response to the pandemic.

It came after overwhelming opposition from residents, with as many as 91 per cent not wanting the borough’s low-traffic neighbourhood schemes to continue beyond a statutory six-month trial period.

Lambeth Council was contacted for comment.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2021)

So, nothing new in the Telegraph article then.


----------



## CH1 (May 10, 2021)

Is it the case that Lambeth have devised a scheme limited mainly to a select bunch of residential roads but including such popular cut throughs/rat runs as Railton Road and Ferndale Road to spend £2.64 million of a Streetspace grant on "active travel"?

I assume "active travel" means either walking or cycling.

Full marks to Lambeth for puritan activism. After all who would have imagined smoke-free pubs twenty years ago?
But can someone please tell me why the 322 bus goes round the Moorland Estate as a non-stopping detour since the Lambeth Transport Ayatollahs took control and shut Atlantic Road north-bound to buses  - and how are those high discharge pure diesel Dennis Dart buses improving our air quality?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 10, 2021)

The telegraph cares about the European Convention of Human Rights now?. That’s hilarious.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 10, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Is it the case that Lambeth have devised a scheme limited mainly to a select bunch of residential roads but including such popular cut throughs/rat runs as Railton Road and Ferndale Road to spend £2.64 million of a Streetspace grant on "active travel"?
> 
> I assume "active travel" means either walking or cycling.
> 
> ...



Full marks to them indeed. They’re showing some backbone where other councils aren’t.

What has that diversion got to do with the LTN?.Maybe because it’s a struggle to get a bus down that road?.


----------



## sparkybird (May 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So, nothing new in the Telegraph article then.


Well the article is from late April.....


----------



## liquidindian (May 10, 2021)

The word "may" in the headline is of that Telegraph article is doing a lot of work. The report goes on to say that "The Council, as a public body, is under a duty to consider whether the exercise of its powers interacts with rights protected by the European Convention, set out in the Human Rights Act 1998." The council is just... doing what it's supposed to be doing.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 10, 2021)

One Lambeth justice et al have been seriously triggered by the re-election of Khan and the complete rejection of all the anti-LTN politicians. It’s June 9th or bust now, still someways short of £35k needed although Pimlico plumbers gave £500 recently.


----------



## Winot (May 10, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> One Lambeth justice et al have been seriously triggered by the re-election of Khan and the complete rejection of all the anti-LTN politicians. It’s June 9th or bust now, still someways short of £35k needed although Pimlico plumbers gave £500 recently.



drip drip …


----------



## madolesance (May 10, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I
> 
> Green roads ‘may interfere in human rights’ of residents, council admits as it vows to continue scheme
> 
> ...


Really?


----------



## Gramsci (May 10, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I
> 
> Green roads ‘may interfere in human rights’ of residents, council admits as it vows to continue scheme
> 
> ...



The argument by Lambeth is that it can over ride an individuals rights as laid out in European convention on human rights. 

Sofia legal team will argue that she has protected characteristics and Lambeth actions have affected her human rights.

That is how I read the article.

It is imo a serious issue and I await the result.

The state and local state have a lot of power and it is important to help defend the individuals rights.

I find it disappointing how its been dismissed on this thread.


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

It's not a serious issue just because the Telegraph tries to say it is. Even that article says _both of the articles in question are subject to exemptions which allow a state to “enforce such laws as it deems necessary” to ensure public safety and “the general interest”. _The report says_ officers consider that such interference is necessary and proportionate means of achieving the wider public benefit of making the boroughs transport networks safe, efficient, inclusive, sustainable and healthy. _

Having a duty to consider something and then considering it and deciding that exemptions apply is not really the same as "overriding human rights".


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

I'm reminded of any time there's a study into active travel these days there are a bunch of Usual Suspects who leap on it, go to the methodology where the study's strengths and weaknesses are laid out and then say "Hey! This study has WeAknEsSes!"


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2021)

Which lambeth report are they quoting anyway?

It doesn't seem to be this one -



			https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/LAM-TS-EIA-RLTN-2%20_0.pdf


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Which lambeth report are they quoting anyway?
> 
> It doesn't seem to be this one -
> 
> ...


https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s126485/Ferndale LTN ODDR.pdf I think?


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> It's not a serious issue just because the Telegraph tries to say it is. Even that article says _both of the articles in question are subject to exemptions which allow a state to “enforce such laws as it deems necessary” to ensure public safety and “the general interest”. _The report says_ officers consider that such interference is necessary and proportionate means of achieving the wider public benefit of making the boroughs transport networks safe, efficient, inclusive, sustainable and healthy. _
> 
> Having a duty to consider something and then considering it and deciding that exemptions apply is not really the same as "overriding human rights".



Your are new here. This has come up before.  

I'm not saying it because its in a Telegraph article.


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

Okay good to know you've had to deny this before.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 11, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Which lambeth report are they quoting anyway?
> 
> It doesn't seem to be this one -
> 
> ...


If they have done an impact assessment, what are they going to court over??


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> If they have done an impact assessment, what are they going to court over??


I assume that One Lambeth's lawyers will argue that the assessment was not done properly and failed to recognise the impact it would have on the case "client" and/or mitigate that impact.


----------



## BigTom (May 11, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I assume "active travel" means either walking or cycling.



Essentially yes, but it includes any form of travel that involves physical activity so it also includes jogging, running (yes, there have been attempts to encourage people to jog/run on their commute rather than drive) and other non-bicycle human powered vehicles like manual scooters, skateboards/longboards/etc. Also anything else that some fool chooses to use to travel in a physically active fashion, but you're not going to get councils trying to get people onto pogo sticks or anything like that. Would count though.
In reality it's walking & cycling because the other forms are so vanishingly small it's not really relevant.


----------



## snowy_again (May 11, 2021)

It’s a public health England phrase from years ago - not new or puritanical just what I remember we used to do before the advent of ‘car over everything’ culture. Eg 2016 PHE guidance paper: 



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523460/Working_Together_to_Promote_Active_Travel_A_briefing_for_local_authorities.pdf
		


Which sits under a wider sustainable development and environmental management plan. None of this is new.









						Sustainability and public health: a guide to good practice
					

Guidance and advice on sustainable development and environmental management for the benefit of public health.




					www.gov.uk
				




And has been a priority of national, regional and local govt for a long time. National funding bodies recognised the health and environmental impact of it too: Active travel | Sport England

And started working out the long term health benefits of reducing car trip dependency on the NHS etc.

“
Increasing levels of physical activity is central to improving the nation’s health and wellbeing, and active travel - which is the everyday journeys we make to get from place to place, like cycling to work - is widely viewed as having the potential to play a major part in that mission.

The evidence base on the link between active travel and physical activity is extensive, wide-ranging in terms of the interventions reviewed, exhibits variable degrees of rigour, and can be interpreted in different ways. In particular, the volume of available material has grown considerably in recent years and are expected to continue to grow in coming years. “


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2021)

"Active travel" forms at least a part of most Londoners' normal journeys to work and elsewhere already. Whether they cycle all the way, or walk to the tube station. It's the way most people in the Brixton area get around when they are not on a tube, train, or bus. It's not reserved for a select group of athletes or people wearing certain types of clothing [insert tired cyclist cliches here].


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Okay good to know you've had to deny this before.



Deny what?


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Deny what?


That you would only say something because it's in the Telegraph.


----------



## Gramsci (May 11, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> That you would only say something because it's in the Telegraph.



Think you need to have a read of this thread before you start having a go.


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

I read your posts deliberately misunderstanding what someone meant by "privilege". I'm not sure I need to go back further tbh.


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

I'm not sure what's controversial. The council has a duty to consider human rights, so you could write an article on pretty much every council decision ever made: _XXX may interfere in human rights’ of residents, council admits. _Stevie Bird from the Telegraph has picked this decision, for some reason.

Edit: Not Bird, I just assumed. I guess he only gets to republish his article on LTNs every Sunday.


----------



## colacubes (May 11, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I read your posts deliberately misunderstanding what someone meant by "privilege". I'm not sure I need to go back further tbh.



I mean come on. This sort of bad faith nonsense doesn't do anyone any favours. Actually if you read this forum you'd find that Gramsci is an intelligent thoughtful poster who has been massively involved in the local politics of Brixton in a hugely positive way. I'd do him the favour of reading his posts and not rocking up as a new poster and just being an argumentative arsehole for the sake of it. 

As it happens I'm massively pro LTNs and disagree with him on this (although not about Lambeth's incompetence re consultation which has been woeful for years). But this kind of bad faith, adversarial argumentativeness is just unnecessary. You should always bear in mind the pub analogy online - you wouldn't just walk into a pub and start having a row with one of the regulars because even if the other regulars thought they were an arsehole, they'd probably still more likely side with them. This isn't twitter. Maybe just be a little more open to listening and arguing your points in good faith.


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

I'll take your word that I joined at an unfortunate moment.


----------



## editor (May 11, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'll take your word that I joined at an unfortunate moment.


It's not your timing that's the problem. It's your needlessly adversarial attitude.


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

No it isn't.

(I guess a haughty "you're new here" when I point out a Telegraph article is based on nothing much is not adversarial)


----------



## colacubes (May 11, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> (I guess a haughty "you're new here" when I point out a Telegraph article is based on nothing much is not adversarial)



Actually:

1. It isn’t cos you are actually new.
2. Your initial post and reaction showed you hadn’t read the thread up to that point. Including Gramsci’s posting style.

What you fail to understand is that this is not Twitter. This is not a One Lambeth Facebook group. This is a genuine community forum trying to argue out the issues. Many people here know each other and are friends in real life. We sometimes disagree. We argue in a robust way, but in the sense of a familiarity and solidarity that is there from years of interaction. You don’t get to rock up and argue in bad faith here. And I find it disingenuous and unpleasant when people do it on either side of the argument.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> No it isn't.
> 
> (I guess a haughty "you're new here" when I point out a Telegraph article is based on nothing much is not adversarial)


Your mis-step was, I think, only to imply that Gramsci was basing his opinions on what's written in the telegraph. I'm fairly confident that's not true and so would be anyone who's posted here for a while.

I can see why you might think Gramsci was deliberately misinterpreting what I meant when using the word privilege earlier in the thread; I wasn't too keen on that myself.

I'd say take a small step back and then carry on with a little more caution until you've got the measure of things.


----------



## liquidindian (May 11, 2021)

Fair, I'll do that. Apologies to Gramsci. I don't think they were fair on me but I was maybe less fair on them, and leapt to conclusions.

(And I think you'll find I've failed to understand that here isn't Facebook, actually, not Twitter)


----------



## Ol Nick (May 12, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Fair, I'll do that. Apologies to Gramsci. I don't think they were fair on me but I was maybe less fair on them, and leapt to conclusions.
> 
> (And I think you'll find I've failed to understand that here isn't Facebook, actually, not Twitter)


Honestly getting into a fight with Gramsci or Teuchter (ideally both) is practically a rite of passage and in no way discouraged. The key is giving each other the benefit of the doubt if what we say sounds a bit off. 

And remember our true enemy. The People’s Front of OneLambath 

(Sometimes I miss the chilled-out days of IntoStella and Anna Key)


----------



## edcraw (May 13, 2021)

George Galloway’s not a fan of LTNs.


----------



## teuchter (May 13, 2021)

It's notable how many of these arguments against the LTN concept seem to simply state as fact that they result in an increase in pollution - yet as far as I know, there's basically no direct evidence of that at all. The closest there is, is some evidence that congestion or number of vehicles on some perimeter routes is raised by quite a small amount on what may or may not be a short term basis. And from there you have to infer that air pollution goes up in proportion.


----------



## edcraw (May 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's notable how many of these arguments against the LTN concept seem to simply state as fact that they result in an increase in pollution - yet as far as I know, there's basically no direct evidence of that at all. The closest there is, is some evidence that congestion or number of vehicles on some perimeter routes is raised by quite a small amount on what may or may not be a short term basis. And from there you have to infer that air pollution goes up in proportion.



There’s also no evidence that Streatham residents are overwhelmingly against the schemes.


----------



## alex_ (May 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> George Galloway’s not a fan of LTNs.




amazing that they never suggest what the replacement policies should be.


----------



## BusLanes (May 13, 2021)

George used to be a local, or so I've been told.


----------



## edcraw (May 13, 2021)

This graph is shocking. I remember London in the mid 80s being relatively traffic free. Unless people are coming up with genuinely workable measures to bring this down it seems very disingenuous to blame LTNs for increasing pollution.


----------



## teuchter (May 13, 2021)

London actually has followed a rather different path than the rest of the UK - peaked around 2000 and has been moderately successful in gradually reducing it since then. Although this graph only goes to 2011 - I think things have changed somewhat since then.





			http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-02-what-are-the-main-trends-and-patterns-for-road-traffic-in-london.pdf


----------



## editor (May 14, 2021)

Ol Nick said:


> (Sometimes I miss the chilled-out days of IntoStella and Anna Key)


I certainly miss their left wing politics at times, although I'm not sure if I'd describe them as chilled out


----------



## nick (May 14, 2021)

Attach files


editor said:


> I certainly miss their left wing politics at times, although I'm not sure if I'd describe them as chilled out


ditto Hatboy


----------



## editor (May 14, 2021)

nick said:


> Attach files
> 
> ditto Hatboy


Definitely. The Brixton forum's shift to the right has been a thoroughly depressing thing to witness.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 14, 2021)

Paris has the right idea:









						Paris Will Ban Through Traffic in City Center
					

Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s latest effort to rein in car use and fight pollution would prevent non-residents from driving across the French capital's historic heart in 2022.




					www.bloomberg.com


----------



## felonius monk (May 14, 2021)

An update on London traffic is here (published around October last year). I can't crop tables but the summary on vehicle use is on page 10ff. Broadly vehicle use in km is  down 0.8% in 2010-18 across London with cars +1.0%. Trends are that van use is up (deliveries), HGVs a little and a 100% increase in private hire vehicles on the road (Uber etc). 

Travel in London Report 13 (tfl.gov.uk)


----------



## Not a Vet (May 14, 2021)

editor said:


> Definitely. The Brixton forum's shift to the right has been a thoroughly depressing thing to witness.


Oh has it? I hadn’t noticed but then maybe it’s because I’ve always just assumed that urban was pretty left wing.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 15, 2021)

Isn't traffic pricing the only way to go, then there will be no argument about who is affected. It could also be intelligent i.e 7am in central ldn on a sunday could be 1p a mile?


----------



## alex_ (May 15, 2021)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Isn't traffic pricing the only way to go, then there will be no argument about who is affected. It could also be intelligent i.e 7am in central ldn on a sunday could be 1p a mile?



yes, would also make the c charge loads more intelligent.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 15, 2021)

Traffic pricing is a regressive tax though, rich people won’t be bothered as much.


----------



## alex_ (May 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Traffic pricing is a regressive tax though, rich people won’t be bothered as much.



congestion charge and ulez are hardly progressive though.


----------



## alex_ (May 15, 2021)

alex_ said:


> congestion charge and ulez are hardly progressive though.



and more expensive cars - eg Tesla’s are already c charge exempt.


----------



## Tulster218 (May 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Traffic pricing is a regressive tax though, rich people won’t be bothered as much.


60% of Lambeth residents don't have a car.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 15, 2021)

alex_ said:


> congestion charge and ulez are hardly progressive though.


No, but stuff like LTNs would impact drivers the same, unless they are so rich they’re not bothered about the fines.


----------



## alex_ (May 15, 2021)

Tulster218 said:


> 60% of Lambeth residents don't have a car.



and car ownership strongly correlates to income


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 15, 2021)

alex_ said:


> and car ownership strongly correlates to income


So, add traffic pricing in and it becomes even more the preserve of the wealthy?


----------



## alex_ (May 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> So, add traffic pricing in and it becomes even more the preserve of the wealthy?



is traffic pricing fairer than the c charge and ulez ?


----------



## teuchter (May 15, 2021)

I'd be all for replacing the C charge with a reduction in roadspace capacity in central london - give it over to bus lanes, cycle lanes and more pedestrian space.

Roadspace capacity reductions (which in effect is what LTNs are a type of) is fairest because you can't really bypass it by paying your way out of it.

But of course we know why anything like this is so hard to get implemented.


----------



## teuchter (May 16, 2021)

Here is what they are up against in one of the outer London boroughs (a reply to a resident from a councillor) -


----------



## sparkybird (May 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here is what they are up against in one of the outer London boroughs (a reply to a resident from a councillor) -
> 
> View attachment 268605


Wow, that's awful, I do think that those who support changes to make walking, cycling, car use reduction are less vocal. We need to not be. I was told by one of my Cllrs to write to them all and my MP as they use their inboxes to gauge public opinion and if all they are hearing is complaints then they assume that's what the majority of their constituents think. I'm off to pen some more in support right now


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Here is what they are up against in one of the outer London boroughs (a reply to a resident from a councillor) -
> 
> View attachment 268605


If their engineers aren’t aware of ways to make a roundabout more cyclist friendly they should be sacked, as all they need to do is Google “Dutch roundabout design”.

As for the rest - this is why the views of private motorists shouldn’t be taken into account until everyone else has been catered for. They need to be at the very bottom of the pile.


----------



## teuchter (May 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, I feel pretty clear about the reason.
> 
> A very large portion of the openly presented argument against the LTN principle is the idea that it displaces traffic and pollution. On this specific point, there is agreement that things improve (pollution-wise) for those inside the LTN.
> 
> ...



I see the Guardian have picked up a story along these lines









						Critics of UK low-traffic schemes told that 25,000 filters already existed
					

Researchers find road blocks that we’d already accepted before introduction of divisive low-traffic neighbourhoods




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (May 22, 2021)

Vandalism of planters on Jelf Rd. Not sure if it’s connected to the LTN but terrible that anyone would do this.

Here’s how it was before


----------



## pbsmooth (May 22, 2021)

People vandalising community garden projects like that has to be one of the more soul destroying things around.


----------



## edcraw (May 22, 2021)

crojoe said:


> People vandalising community garden projects like that has to be one of the more soul destroying things around.


Indeed - like I say don’t know if it’s to do with the LTN but it really does seem that people in favour of them want to improve our areas and lots of those against just want to be able to drive on all roads everywhere.

People opposed say a lot about other ways to cut air pollution but really don’t see them campaigning for anything else.

we need to deal with genuine issues LTNs may cause but I think we can agree the main principle is sound which is to reduce tthrough traffic on minor roads.


----------



## alex_ (May 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> People opposed say a lot about other ways to cut air pollution but really don’t see them campaigning for anything else.



that’s because most of them are disingenuous charlatans and/or fools


----------



## sparkybird (May 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Vandalism of planters on Jelf Rd. Not sure if it’s connected to the LTN but terrible that anyone would do this.View attachment 269715
> 
> Here’s how it was before
> 
> View attachment 269716


I understand they are being rebuilt today at 11 am - if anyone want to help/show support. I find it so depressing that people think it's OK to vandalise thing like this. What is wrong with them??? How on earth can that be negatively impacting on anyone??


----------



## edcraw (May 23, 2021)

Looks like OneLambeth were behind it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Looks like OneLambeth were behind it.



What a shower of cunts.


----------



## editor (May 24, 2021)

I got sent some videos


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 24, 2021)

editor said:


> I got sent some videos



All I’m seeing there is a residential street with too many people driving on it. Perhaps it should be made an LTN too...


----------



## edcraw (May 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> All I’m seeing there is a residential street with too many people driving on it. Perhaps it should be made an LTN too...



They've added a filter by the bridge art the Brixton end but the description of the first video mentions that the signs have been vandalised and says that's what's causing the issues. The council need to fix these as soon as they can and try and catch who's doing it.

But, yeah - the videos show that this sort of road isn't suitable for lots of traffic. You either need to reduce the traffic or remove some of the parking.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But, yeah - the videos show that this sort of road isn't suitable for lots of traffic. You either need to reduce the traffic or remove some of the parking.


Or both...


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

The video description - 


> While our lucky neighbours on Sandmere Road enjoy the benefits of going low traffic, the Ferndale LTN scheme continues to deliver misery and pain to the residents of Ferndale Road… because we now have all their traffic driving down our street! As nearly all of the Ferndale filters have now been vandalised and removed, except for the one at the end of Sandmere Road, all the local traffic is now being funnelled on to Ferndale Road. On weekdays, from 4pm to 8pm, a jam and the inevitable horn beeping can occur every 15 minutes. On Saturdays, the jams start earlier, and go on for longer. This video was shot at 9.20pm on Saturday night 22/05/21. Lambeth Council are now saying they cannot assess the scheme properly while the filters are being vandalised, but the residents of Ferndale Road are happy to do your job for you. As you can see, the scheme is clearly not working. Motorbikes did not drive on the pavement before. While some streets may be quieter, traffic has just been pushed on to other streets. At busy times Bedford Road is jammed solid from Acre Lane to Clapham North, and drivers try to escape down our street, so Ferndale Road has more traffic than it can handle. We don’t want to be a main road. We don’t want you to remove parking spaces on our street to facilitate the increased traffic. We don’t want cars idling outside our windows, and beeping their horns to let other cars know they should wait… or go… or wait. We had a quiet neighbourhood before. We want it back. Remove the Ferndale LTN!



It's a bit strange to say the scheme is not working at the same time as attributing the problems to the filters that have been vandalised. They could demand that Lambeth sort out the vandalised filters, rather than that Lambeth remove the LTN. You might be tempted to think they wouldn't like the LTN regardless of what's happening on their street.

On an earlier video they say



> The Ferndale LTN has been a disaster from the start. Please remove it. Do not try to fix one bad idea with another. Do not make Ferndale Road one way or remove our parking spaces to accommodate the increased traffic we do not want on our residential street. Traffic and pollution on each road will reduce if vehicles are allowed to spread out across the whole road network. Remove the LTNs.



So they obviously sign up to the thinking that congestion and pollution can be solved by increasing the capacity of the road network. They go along with the idea that traffic will "spread out" rather than just filling up whatever capacity is given to it. 

What they are observing from their window is traffic filling up capacity that is provided to it. In this particular case, capacity which has been provided by those who have vandalised the filters.

I'm not quite sure why Lambeth can't get on top of the issue of signs etc being vandalised. You'd think it would not be so complicated to set up CCTV in these locations funded by what they are receiving in fines from the ANPR locations.


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> All I’m seeing there is a residential street with too many people driving on it. Perhaps it should be made an LTN too...


Erm, Ferndale Road is at the centre (if not the heart) of the Ferndale LTN.


----------



## editor (May 24, 2021)

Some pointless destruction 









						Heartless wreckers destroy community attempt to beautify fly-tipping black spot in Brixton
					

A joyful attempt to brighten up a street corner in Brixton often blighted by fly-tipping was trashed within an hour of completion by cruel vandals. Locals were sick of rubbish being dumped on the c…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The video description -
> 
> 
> It's a bit strange to say the scheme is not working at the same time as attributing the problems to the filters that have been vandalised. They could demand that Lambeth sort out the vandalised filters, rather than that Lambeth remove the LTN. You might be tempted to think they wouldn't like the LTN regardless of what's happening on their street.
> ...


In this particular case, Lambeth has removed all the surrounding ”capacity” and left Ferndale Road as the only place for motorised vehicles to go. In other words they’ve shifted the rat runs that existed in the area on to Ferndale Road, which is also the Lambeth Healthy Route and the road that nearly all the pedestrians and cyclists use to get from Brixton to Clapham. We have worked with the council to put in a filter on Ferndale Road. They sited it poorly and aren’t very interested in maintaining it following vandalism. They have just told us that HGVs will be able to pass through it too in order to protect other roads that used to be rat runs. Ferndale Road west used to be a quiet road. The LTN has ruined it. If it could be returned to its condition pre LTN nearly all residents would accept it. We’re not coming at it from a motoring point of view, other than the motors that the LTN has put on our road at all hours.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Erm, Ferndale Road is at the centre (if not the heart) of the Ferndale LTN.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> In this particular case, Lambeth has removed all the surrounding ”capacity” and left Ferndale Road as the only place for motorised vehicles to go. In other words they’ve shifted the rat runs that existed in the area on to Ferndale Road, which is also the Lambeth Healthy Route and the road that nearly all the pedestrians and cyclists use to get from Brixton to Clapham. We have worked with the council to put in a filter on Ferndale Road. They sited it poorly and aren’t very interested in maintaining it following vandalism. They have just told us that HGVs will be able to pass through it too in order to protect other roads that used to be rat runs. Ferndale Road west used to be a quiet road. The LTN has ruined it. If it could be returned to its condition pre LTN nearly all residents would accept it. We’re not coming at it from a motoring point of view, other than the motors that the LTN has put on our road at all hours.


If the filter were effective  then would things be ok on the street? Would it be fair to say that the majority of the cars in the video have driven through or are going to drive through the filter location?


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If the filter were effective  then would things be ok on the street? Would it be fair to say that the majority of the cars in the video have driven through or are going to drive through the filter location?


The LTN has cut the ward into large sections. The Ferndale Road West section extends from Bedford Road to the railway bridge and encompasses side streets, a couple of estates and that very long stretch of Ferndale Road, which is densely populated. Ferndale Road is the only way in or out. Lots of Ubers etc service the pub (Duke of Edinburgh). Ubers have started transiting Ferndale to pick up Sandmere and other residents on the other side of filters. The council has signed off on letting the biggest HGVs go through the filter — lorries that didn’t use Ferndale before the LTN. So it seems unlikely that an operational filter will solve the problem. They’ve created a very large cul-de-sac with lots of residents’ cars, deliveries etc, all now forced to use the so-called healthy route.


----------



## Winot (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> The LTN has cut the ward into large sections. The Ferndale Road West section extends from Bedford Road to the railway bridge and encompasses side streets, a couple of estates and that very long stretch of Ferndale Road, which is densely populated. Ferndale Road is the only way in or out. Lots of Ubers etc service the pub (Duke of Edinburgh). Ubers have started transiting Ferndale to pick up Sandmere and other residents on the other side of filters. The council has signed off on letting the biggest HGVs go through the filter — lorries that didn’t use Ferndale before the LTN. So it seems unlikely that an operational filter will solve the problem. They’ve created a very large cul-de-sac with lots of residents’ cars, deliveries etc, all now forced to use the so-called healthy route.


Allowing HGVs down there sounds like a terrible decision. I can’t see why it’s necessary either - there are other ways to get from the A3 to the A23 eg via the south circular.

Ferndale Rd _should_ be in the LTN and Lambeth needs to properly enforce it. The answer isn’t to remove the rest of the LTN.


----------



## Winot (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Lots of Ubers etc service the pub (Duke of Edinburgh).


And frankly drinkers at the DoE can walk 10 mins to Brixton Rd and pick up a cab there.


----------



## paolo (May 24, 2021)

38 Ton articulated trucks going down Ferndale? Really? Does anyone have link for that info?


----------



## Winot (May 24, 2021)

paolo said:


> 38 Ton articulated trucks going down Ferndale? Really? Does anyone have link for that info?


If they are going down it then it’s either new or they were going down before, because I cycle down Sandmere regularly and have never seen HGVs on there. So yes, I’m sceptical.


----------



## paolo (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> The LTN has cut the ward into large sections. The Ferndale Road West section extends from Bedford Road to the railway bridge and encompasses side streets, a couple of estates and that very long stretch of Ferndale Road, which is densely populated. Ferndale Road is the only way in or out. Lots of Ubers etc service the pub (Duke of Edinburgh). Ubers have started transiting Ferndale to pick up Sandmere and other residents on the other side of filters. The council has signed off on letting the biggest HGVs go through the filter — lorries that didn’t use Ferndale before the LTN. So it seems unlikely that an operational filter will solve the problem. They’ve created a very large cul-de-sac with lots of residents’ cars, deliveries etc, all now forced to use the so-called healthy route.


Can you share the communication from Lambeth regarding the HGV use of Ferndale?


----------



## edcraw (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> The council has signed off on letting the biggest HGVs go through the filter — lorries that didn’t use Ferndale before the LTN.



Really not sure that's true - the signs (when they're not vandalised) are the same as elsewhere and are no motor vehicles so definitely include HGVs. 

Really encourage people with concerns to contact their councilors as they are genuinely listening.









						Your Councillors - Ferndale Labour Party
					

News from your Ferndale Labour Councillors and Activists




					www.ferndale-labour.org.uk


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

Under "changes already made to date" here it mentions "Junction of Bellefield's Road with Pulross Road layout changes to allow larger goods vehicles to turn into Bellefield's Road from Pulross Road and exit the LTN area via the quickest route possible"

Under "upcoming changes" here it mentions various options for filters on Ferndale Road but doesn't say anything about HGV exemptions (how would that be administrated anyway)?


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> The LTN has cut the ward into large sections. The Ferndale Road West section extends from Bedford Road to the railway bridge and encompasses side streets, a couple of estates and that very long stretch of Ferndale Road, which is densely populated. Ferndale Road is the only way in or out. Lots of Ubers etc service the pub (Duke of Edinburgh). Ubers have started transiting Ferndale to pick up Sandmere and other residents on the other side of filters. The council has signed off on letting the biggest HGVs go through the filter — lorries that didn’t use Ferndale before the LTN. So it seems unlikely that an operational filter will solve the problem. They’ve created a very large cul-de-sac with lots of residents’ cars, deliveries etc, all now forced to use the so-called healthy route.



You seem to be saying that if there was an operational filter, there would still be excessive traffic generated purely by vehicles entering/exiting what are shown as "green" streets in this diagram



Have I understood you correctly?


----------



## BusLanes (May 24, 2021)

Having walked past some of the Ferndale LTN signs/equipment, they do look like they've been in the wars far more than Tulse Hill. Or even Railton


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

Th


beesonthewhatnow said:


> View attachment 269967





Winot said:


> Allowing HGVs down there sounds like a terrible decision. I can’t see why it’s necessary either - there are other ways to get from the A3 to the A23 eg via the south circular.
> 
> Ferndale Rd _should_ be in the LTN and Lambeth needs to properly enforce it. The answer isn’t to remove the rest of the LT
> 
> ...


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Th


Essentially yes, but you need to extend the green line going east towards Brixton so that it includes the Edmundsbury estate. The only way in or out of that area is Ferndale Road west. In addition, taxis have started using Tintern Road by one of the Sandmere Road filters as a place to pick up fares.


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

paolo said:


> Can you share the communication from Lambeth regarding the HGV use of Ferndale?


This is from an email from someone in the Lambeth planning department:

*“Goods vehicles using Ferndale Road*

The junction into Bellefield’s Road has been tweaked and additional double yellow lines introduced on the north side to enable larger vehicles to make the turn into Bellefield’s Road. Engagement with businesses is ongoing to ensure they do not use Ferndale Road and use this alternative. In some exceptional circumstances, where the largest goods vehicles cannot make the turn into Bellefield’s Road they will be permitted, on a temporary basis, to use the Ferndale Road modal filter. There was a 141% increase in light goods vehicles on Ferndale Road west during the stage 1 monitoring versus a 31% decrease in HGVs so the Bellefield’s route will be used by the vast majority of goods vehicles”.

A few years ago we started getting one or two M&S articulated lorries a day and we weren‘t very happy about it. It or they only went west from Brixton to Bedford Road. They now also go from Bedford Road east to Brixton and have been joined by the Superdrug lorries. Many other lorries both small and large are joining them. Other than M&S, the other lorries used Pulross Road to get out. It’s now one way. We’re disputing the figures given in this quote. We know that more HGVs are using the road. How can you not notice them? And why should the number of HGVs decreased when every other type of vehicle has increased, as we’re the now the main route through? Lambeth’s data is based on two week-long snapshots taken last year and a few years ago and it doesn’t entirely reflect reality. We’ve asked how temporary this exemption is and what will change to make it no longer necessary. We’re waiting for an answer. I can’t imagine what they’ll do. And at the moment no one is paying any attention to it anyway. As for the workability of allowing just some HGVs to go through the filter, I agree that it’s not really and we’ve asked for a list of who is going to be exempt. As far as I know no HGVs ever used Sandmere. That was a rat run for regular cars. We now get the lorries from Pulross and the cars from Sandmere.


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Really not sure that's true - the signs (when they're not vandalised) are the same as elsewhere and are no motor vehicles so definitely include HGVs.
> 
> Really encourage people with concerns to contact their councilors as they are genuinely listening.
> 
> ...


We haven’t heard a peep from our local councillors. They might be listening but they’re not talking to us. A couple of weeks ago one of my neighbours spoke to Irfan, who was accompanying Florence Eshalomi for some canvassing, and he said to write to him directly. I’ll ask my neighbour if he got a response. The photo below is from the weekend. We’re getting lots of vehicles this size now. I don’t know if this will be covered by the exemption.


----------



## Winot (May 24, 2021)

It sounds like HGVs are interpreting what was intended to be a narrow exemption to take the piss and use it as a cut through. That should be fairly easy to deal with I would’ve thought by fining every vehicle that goes through.

There’s certainly no need to use it as an excuse to get rid of the LTN generally.


----------



## paolo (May 24, 2021)

I can understand that articulated lorries using Ferndale through to Bedford would be an issue for residents. As well as disturbance, the road - single lane - seems entirely unsuitable for that size of vehicle.

But this doesn’t seem to be caused by the LTN - Collateral Dama you mention this happening a few years ago.

Assuming it’s legally possible, I would have thought the answer is to have total restriction, and so M&S et al have to deliver using vehicles suitable for the access to these specific stores, I.e. can make the turn into Bellefields.

Maybe that’s something to push for?


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

Winot said:


> That should be fairly easy to deal with I would’ve thought by fining every vehicle that goes through.



Less easy if people keep vandalising the signs/cameras though, of course.

Seems to me that residents of Frerndale Rd could hassle their councillors to deal properly with the ongoing sabotage of the various filters, as an alternative to calling for the LTN to be abandoned.


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

paolo said:


> I can understand that articulated lorries using Ferndale through to Bedford would be an issue for residents. As well as disturbance, the road - single lane - seems entirely unsuitable for that size of vehicle.
> 
> But this doesn’t seem to be caused by the LTN - Collateral Dama you mention this happening a few years ago.
> 
> ...


Your suggestion about smaller lorries is interesting and I’ll suggest it to the Lambeth planners and hope they take it up and that it’s something that the shops will consider. I must say it seems unlikely though, as much as I would like a total restriction. The M&S articulated lorry started using Ferndale Road a few years ago. One or two lorries a day would go west from Brixton to Bedford Road. That was it for articulated and even big lorries. Now the M&S lorries and the Superdrug lorries are going in both directions daily and they’re joined by other lorries of various sizes. That is entirely to do with the LTN. M&S and Superdrug no longer have their means of access and egress at the Brixton end of the road and the other lorries are using it as a cut through. I don’t know where the other lorries came from or what streets they used before — possibly Pulross - but they didn’t use Ferndale Road prior to the LTN. We simply want the council to return the road to its state pre LTN. I don’t think any of the councillors would have put up on their own streets with what’s happened to Ferndale Road.


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Less easy if people keep vandalising the signs/cameras though, of course.
> 
> Seems to me that residents of Frerndale Rd could hassle their councillors to deal properly with the ongoing sabotage of the various filters, as an alternative to calling for the LTN to be abandoned.


Believe me, we’re hassling our MP, the Lambeth planners and Claire Holland. Our MP and the planners will get back to us. Claire does very occasionally. We’ve given up on our local councillors. (I checked with my neighbour and Irfan didn’t reply following the canvassing visit). The council’s approach to enforcement has been desultory. They did put some spikes around one of the camera poles but it doesn’t stop the camera being sabotaged again within a matter of hours. They didn’t even bother to put spikes on the pole for the camera covering the new filter on Ferndale Road. Although that camera and those signs did manage to survive overnight. The cameras are repaired and the signs replaced every few weeks or months. They’re supposed to be developing a plan to deal with the sabotage but there’s been no evidence of it yet and the LTN has been in place for nearly a year. As I said earlier, the majority of people on Ferndale Road would accept the LTN if the traffic levels were returned to pre LTN levels. Our road has been ruined and we’ve been made to bear the brunt of this LTN. They took the Lambeth healthy route — the route the pedestrians and cyclists use — and made it the car and lorry route. If you’ve seen any of the videos of Ferndale Road you’ll see it’s used by a lot of cyclists and pedestrians, unlike neighbouring streets. You’ll also frequently see people driving their motorbikes on the pavements to get around traffic jams. For what it’s worth, Lambeth does seem to be mindful that Ferndale Road is a Lambeth healthy route. That means that we should not have more than 200 motor vehicles per hour at peak. That’s a lot more than we had pre LTN (so thanks for that), and at present we’re not even meeting the healthy route standard. And now there’s this exemption for more HGVs.


----------



## Jesterburger (May 24, 2021)

I've emailed my councillors, MP & assembly member to ask them to ask the police why they aren't doing anything about the constant vandalism which is wrecking some of the schemes. I know not everyone likes them but there will be a consultation which is the democratic way to deal with this. By allowing the vandals to get away with it, the police are allowing a small group of antis to bully their way to victory and that's not OK.


----------



## edcraw (May 24, 2021)

Video of someone sabotaging the cameras in Streatham Hill. I believe the council and the police have been informed.


----------



## teuchter (May 24, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Believe me, we’re hassling our MP, the Lambeth planners and Claire Holland. Our MP and the planners will get back to us. Claire does very occasionally. We’ve given up on our local councillors. (I checked with my neighbour and Irfan didn’t reply following the canvassing visit). The council’s approach to enforcement has been desultory. They did put some spikes around one of the camera poles but it doesn’t stop the camera being sabotaged again within a matter of hours. They didn’t even bother to put spikes on the pole for the camera covering the new filter on Ferndale Road. Although that camera and those signs did manage to survive overnight. The cameras are repaired and the signs replaced every few weeks or months. They’re supposed to be developing a plan to deal with the sabotage but there’s been no evidence of it yet and the LTN has been in place for nearly a year. As I said earlier, the majority of people on Ferndale Road would accept the LTN if the traffic levels were returned to pre LTN levels. Our road has been ruined and we’ve been made to bear the brunt of this LTN. They took the Lambeth healthy route — the route the pedestrians and cyclists use — and made it the car and lorry route. If you’ve seen any of the videos of Ferndale Road you’ll see it’s used by a lot of cyclists and pedestrians, unlike neighbouring streets. You’ll also frequently see people driving their motorbikes on the pavements to get around traffic jams. For what it’s worth, Lambeth does seem to be mindful that Ferndale Road is a Lambeth healthy route. That means that we should not have more than 200 motor vehicles per hour at peak. That’s a lot more than we had pre LTN (so thanks for that), and at present we’re not even meeting the healthy route standard. And now there’s this exemption for more HGVs.



Fair enough, it seems a legitimate problem and you have my sympathy if you are unambiguously not in favour of the scheme being sabotaged.

The thing is, when videos are posted on youtube accompanied by comments demanding that the LTN is ripped out in response to problems largely caused by sabotage of the filters, they don't get much sympathy from me because I start to wonder if they are posted by someone who doesn't want the LTNs anyway, and who is maybe quite happy for the sabotage to go on so that they can post videos of traffic chaos on their street.

If the videos were posted alongside comments complaining about Lambeth and the police failing to enforce the filters and demanding something's done about that, then they'd get a completely different response from me (and presumably others). I'd then be likely to share them, maybe even email an MP or something like that. They'd probably get a lot of support from those who want the LTNs to work.


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

Jesterburger said:


> I've emailed my councillors, MP & assembly member to ask them to ask the police why they aren't doing anything about the constant vandalism which is wrecking some of the schemes. I know not everyone likes them but there will be a consultation which is the democratic way to deal with this. By allowing the vandals to get away with it, the police are allowing a small group of antis to bully their way to victory and that's not OK.


Do you know how the public consultation preceding the decision on whether to make the LTNs permanent will work? It’s one of the questions I’ve posed to the Lambeth planners. The decision following stage 1 was made by Claire Holland, and Claire (or her replacement) will be the decision maker following consideration of any objections received during stage 2. Will Claire (or her replacement) also be the decision maker in the public consultation on making the schemes permanent?


----------



## Collateral Dama (May 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Fair enough, it seems a legitimate problem and you have my sympathy if you are unambiguously not in favour of the scheme being sabotaged.
> 
> The thing is, when videos are posted on youtube accompanied by comments demanding that the LTN is ripped out in response to problems largely caused by sabotage of the filters, they don't get much sympathy from me because I start to wonder if they are posted by someone who doesn't want the LTNs anyway, and who is maybe quite happy for the sabotage to go on so that they can post videos of traffic chaos on their street.
> 
> If the videos were posted alongside comments complaining about Lambeth and the police failing to enforce the filters and demanding something's done about that, then they'd get a completely different response from me (and presumably others). I'd then be likely to share them, maybe even email an MP or something like that. They'd probably get a lot of support from those who want the LTNs to work.


I didn’t make the videos posted above or write the associated text. I know that the person who did is opposed to the LTN because of its effect on Ferndale Road and on roads surrounding the LTN, particularly Bedford and Landor Roads, but also Clapham high street, Acre Lane and others. A lot of the people who live on those roads are unhappy about what’s happened but, unlike us, they’re not within the LTN or a “healthy route”. Others, including me, are willing to give the LTN a chance as long as the council fixes the damage that they’ve done to the road where we live. Your statement that the videos are showing problems largely caused by sabotage of the filters is (almost) entirely incorrect. The videos could not have been made if the LTN had not been created. Nothing like this ever occurred before the LTN. And all of the videos that I made (all over six months ago) were done before the Ferndale Road filter was installed. It took nearly a year for the council to put that filter in, and now that they have they’re not very committed to seeing it work by stopping the sabotage or stopping the HGVs from driving through it. Nearly all the videos of Ferndale Road were made when almost all the cars and trucks were acting entirely lawfully, using the new through route between Clapham and Brixton. You’re engaging in a sort of victim blaming here. You’re suggesting that I or someone else on Ferndale Road might want the filters to be damaged so that all the cars and lorries will continue to use the road, and so that all the motorbikes will continue to drive on the pavement, so that we can continue to make videos to show how horrible LTNs are? Why would any sane person want to do that? (I’m not a taxi driver, if you’re wondering, and I don’t know any taxi drivers). I’d never heard of an LTN before this one landed on me and I wish that I never had. I know that my neighbours feel the same. The last year of our lives have been blighted by this one. Hence the negative tone. The approach you suggest for future videos, saying that all this is due to the vandalism, would just not be correct. Until very recently, nearly all of it was due to the LTN. Now it’s a combination. But there would be no problem without, and there was no problem before, the LTN.


----------



## teuchter (May 25, 2021)

By the same logic there was no problem before private cars became affordable, or maybe before satnavs became common, or before cities existed. The sabotage is a response to the LTN and the LTNs are a response to increasing traffic on residential roads, air pollution and excessive car use. So you can decide to trace the 'cause' of your problem back to the introduction of the LTN, I can choose to trace it back to the things that (in my opinion) make things like LTNs necessary. Either way, I think we can agree that your problem could probably be solved by Lambeth sorting out enforcement of the filters and other details of the scheme. 

It seems that they are partially doing that but in the typically slow and ill-communicated way that Lambeth specialise in. You do have my sympathy and I understand why you're fed up. I live next to a fairly busy road with beeping, shouting and frequent collisions myself but I knew that to some extent when I decided to live here. Of course of all this has started on a previously peaceful road you'll not be happy. I hope things can get resolved for you without the whole LTN being thrown out with the bathwater.


----------



## ash (May 27, 2021)

I live on Ferndale and all the accounts and occasional videos don’t ring true to me.


----------



## ash (May 27, 2021)

I live on Ferndale and all the accounts and occasional videos don’t ring true to me. There is the odd beeping and disagreement but this is a street that is not designed for 2 way traffic and always has been.  IMO it has been quieter since the LTN has been introduced.  5:10 this evening:


----------



## chowce5382 (May 30, 2021)

Evening All, 

I'm new here but thought I'd get involved. I've seen a number of comments about the legal case and the reasoning/rationale behind it including the type of people who are against LTNs. It's been an interesting read as I'm the person listed as the beneficiary on the Gofundme link and that has obviously caused some confusion and, on some areas of social media, has resulted in some interesting conspiracy theories. I wanted to introduce myself and say that I'm very open to answer any questions that you may have about why we are doing this (as long as they don't prejudice our case) and explain who we are as a group. From what I've seen, this seems like a place where the vast majority of people are keen to discuss, possibly disagree but generally treat each other with decency. From the start, I'll be completely open, honest and tell you the truth about what we're doing and why. All I'd ask is that we keep it polite as, frankly, most social media seems to be a hell hole at the moment. Having that this, this seems to be pretty respectful and decent.

Thanks

Charlie


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

The first thing I'd want to ask is whether you recognise the issues that LTNs and other measures are trying to deal with as real ones - or do you not accept the premise that significant change is needed. And if you do, and if your court action succeeded in getting LTNs removed, then would you have any proposals as to how those problems should be dealt with in a different way, or do you see that as someone else's problem.


----------



## snowy_again (May 30, 2021)

How does your representing law firm feel about accepting fees generated from illegally collected donations?


----------



## Gramsci (May 30, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Evening All,
> 
> I'm new here but thought I'd get involved. I've seen a number of comments about the legal case and the reasoning/rationale behind it including the type of people who are against LTNs. It's been an interesting read as I'm the person listed as the beneficiary on the Gofundme link and that has obviously caused some confusion and, on some areas of social media, has resulted in some interesting conspiracy theories. I wanted to introduce myself and say that I'm very open to answer any questions that you may have about why we are doing this (as long as they don't prejudice our case) and explain who we are as a group. From what I've seen, this seems like a place where the vast majority of people are keen to discuss, possibly disagree but generally treat each other with decency. From the start, I'll be completely open, honest and tell you the truth about what we're doing and why. All I'd ask is that we keep it polite as, frankly, most social media seems to be a hell hole at the moment. Having that this, this seems to be pretty respectful and decent.
> 
> ...



Not having a go. To clarify this is the case of the disabled lady in the Railton LTN going for judicial review? 

Which BTW I support.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The first thing I'd want to ask is whether you recognise the issues that LTNs and other measures are trying to deal with as real ones - or do you not accept the premise that significant change is needed. And if you do, and if your court action succeeded in getting LTNs removed, then would you have any proposals as to how those problems should be dealt with in a different way, or do you see that as someone else's problem.


LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone. That is the legislation that the council is using to implement LTNS. Yes, Covid is very real and very horrible. I've got a close family member who is extremely ill as a result. If you are referring to the issue of pollution then that is not the purpose of LTNs and it is definitely not related to the legislation that they are using. We seriously need to deal with pollution (86% of all CO2 emissions relating to transport come from Cars and Shipping). However, it is vital to ensure that the measures taken have the end result of decreasing pollution. To do this you need to have full consultation, impact assessments and rely on independent academic studies. 

As for proposals, OneLambethJustice isn't a political group with the ability to put together properly funded proposals backed up by well-researched academic studies. That is very much the job of political groups. We are asking the council to abide by pre-existing legislation that was put in place to protect those with protected characteristics under the Equilities Act.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> How does your representing law firm feel about accepting fees generated from illegally collected donations?


You're going to have to help me out here. Can you explain why you think they are illegal and give evidence/factual basis for this assertion?


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone.


Well, no they haven't. That's nonsense. Look at the start date of this thread.


----------



## thebackrow (May 30, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone.











						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: what, why and where? - Made by TfL
					

Discover everything you need to know about London's Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.




					madeby.tfl.gov.uk
				





That’s really not a good start.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Well, no they haven't. That's nonsense. Look at the start date of this thread.


It's not. The delegated decision which Lambeth has used to implement LTNs was passed as a result of covid. That's the legislation they have used to implement them and the legislation they have quoted as being the basis for their implementation. LTNs were being talked about before Covid, I happy to concede that but the council are relying on or covid based legislation to give them the legislative power to implement then and have consistently pointed to covid as being the reason for their implementation


----------



## chowce5382 (May 30, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> https://madeby.tfl.gov.uk/2020/12/15/low-traffic-neighbourhoods/[/UR


http://


thebackrow said:


> Low Traffic Neighbourhoods: what, why and where? - Made by TfL
> 
> 
> Discover everything you need to know about London's Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.
> ...


I should clarify, the legislation being used to implement these was introduced as a result of covid. The council has relied solely on this legislation to implement the LTNs. I'll mainly be focussing my replies on the legal rather than the ideological basis for LTNs and their implementation


----------



## Gramsci (May 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Well, no they haven't. That's nonsense. Look at the start date of this thread.



That was when the Council started to consult on the TFL funded Liveable neighbourhood.

Pandemic changed that.

Present LTNs were brought in without the promised consultation.

They were also mixed in with other temporary pavement widening schemes that have been quietly dropped recently. Such as in Loughborough junction.

Schemes that the Council wanted to be permanent were mixed in with genuinely temporary measures to aid social distancing.


----------



## teuchter (May 30, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It's not. The delegated decision which Lambeth has used to implement LTNs was passed as a result of covid.


That's not the same thing as "LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone." The reason for the timing of the implementation is one thing, the intended outcome of the policy is another.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That's not the same thing as "LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone." The reason for the timing of the implementation is one thing, the intended outcome of the policy is another.



Quite. 

Council used pandemic to push through scheme without the usual consultation.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> That was when the Council started to consult on the TFL funded Liveable neighbourhood.
> 
> Pandemic changed that.
> 
> ...


We can have endless tedious arguments about the technicalities of the implementation of legislation. But my initial question was to see if our new poster accepted any of the problems which LTNs and other measures, in a general sense, are aimed at reducing, as real ones.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Quite.
> 
> Council used pandemic to push through scheme without the usual consultation.


Right - so is this court case strictly limited to attacking this specific point - lack of consultation - or is it being pursued by people who wouldn't want any form of LTN or similar measures even if all the consultation was done in the way they wanted? I wonder if we'll get a straight answer to that.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We can have endless tedious arguments about the technicalities of the implementation of legislation. But my initial question was to see if our new poster accepted any of the problems which LTNs and other measures, in a general sense, are aimed at reducing, as real ones.



Its not me being tedious. 

If I'm right and the new poster is talking about the disabled lady case. The judicial review. Then there is a case to answer. It would not have gone this far in the legal process otherwise.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That's not the same thing as "LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone." The reason for the timing of the implementation is one thing, the intended outcome of the policy is another.


Understood. That's why consultation and impact equality assessments are vital. 

However, it is very important what legislation is used to pass policies. If you're using one piece of legislation to pass something but your intended outcome is different and unrelated to that piece of legislation then you're not coming to the court of equity with clean hands. Very much like to prorogation of parilament. They said it was for one reason but, as it turns out, that wasn't the case.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Right - so is this court case strictly limited to attacking this specific point - lack of consultation - or is it being pursued by people who wouldn't want any form of LTN or similar measures even if all the consultation was done in the way they wanted? I wonder if we'll get a straight answer to that.



You know it would have helped if Lambeth had consulted people prior to implementation.

Take the way the new poster from Ferndale was treated here. That poster got a grilling here.

It is like you have to show you as an ordinary Joe have an alternative.

Its imo the Council who should consult, listen and present choices to people. Not the other way round.

It is after all the Council that have the resources.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We can have endless tedious arguments about the technicalities of the implementation of legislation. But my initial question was to see if our new poster accepted any of the problems which LTNs and other measures, in a general sense, are aimed at reducing, as real ones.


I accept that there are problems there. Pollution and the environment is the fundamental issue of our time. 

I wouldn't call arguments about legislation tedious. It's the framework in which we as a society hare to live and act and therefore should be respected by those in power and adhered to


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Its not me being tedious.
> 
> If I'm right and the new poster is talking about the disabled lady case. The judicial review. Then there is a case to answer. It would not have gone this far in the legal process otherwise.


That's the case i'm talking about


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Right - so is this court case strictly limited to attacking this specific point - lack of consultation - or is it being pursued by people who wouldn't want any form of LTN or similar measures even if all the consultation was done in the way they wanted? I wonder if we'll get a straight answer to that.


Yes, lack of consultation and the correct procedures and impact assessments. The people in our group didn't know each other before this. A change was made that when changes of this magnitude are made you must consult and undertake the correct assessments. These aren't a bunch of pr-car people. |Many of them, like me, don't have a car. We're going to court to ask the council to follow legislation which was put in place to protect the rights of those who aren't as able to protect themselves. Whatever the court decides, I'll accept it. This isn't anti-LTN for the sake of it.


----------



## edcraw (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> LTNs are and have been put in place to deal with Covid and that alone. That is the legislation that the council is using to implement LTNS. Yes, Covid is very real and very horrible. I've got a close family member who is extremely ill as a result. If you are referring to the issue of pollution then that is not the purpose of LTNs and it is definitely not related to the legislation that they are using. We seriously need to deal with pollution (86% of all CO2 emissions relating to transport come from Cars and Shipping). However, it is vital to ensure that the measures taken have the end result of decreasing pollution. To do this you need to have full consultation, impact assessments and rely on independent academic studies.
> 
> As for proposals, OneLambethJustice isn't a political group with the ability to put together properly funded proposals backed up by well-researched academic studies. That is very much the job of political groups. We are asking the council to abide by pre-existing legislation that was put in place to protect those with protected characteristics under the Equilities Act.


Two questions:

How are you managing the expectations of the people donating to the court case? Most donating expect LTNs to be removed if you win but this seems unlikely. I’m seeing people donating hundreds who probably struggle to afford this.

Also, I’ve seen people refer to you as a lawyer, are you one and if not why do people think you are?


----------



## edcraw (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Understood. That's why consultation and impact equality assessments are vital.
> 
> However, it is very important what legislation is used to pass policies. If you're using one piece of legislation to pass something but your intended outcome is different and unrelated to that piece of legislation then you're not coming to the court of equity with clean hands. Very much like to prorogation of parilament. They said it was for one reason but, as it turns out, that wasn't the case.


The legislation the council is using or have used are Experimental Traffic Orders & Temporary Traffic Orders, nothing to do with COVID.

COVID is the reason they were fast tracked.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Two questions:
> 
> How are you managing the expectations of the people donating to the court case? Most donating expect LTNs to be removed if you win but this seems unlikely. I’m seeing people donating hundreds who probably struggle to afford this.
> 
> Also, I’ve seen people refer to you as a lawyer, are you one and if not why do people think you are?


We have told people that, by going to court, we are asking for the correct procedures to be followed when implementing these changes. We have been very open with everyone that the judge will make a decision and that we can’t control or predict what that decision could be as regards removal on the LTNs.

I was a lawyer for about 10 years but am not now. That is probably why some people still think I am I expect.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The legislation the council is using or have used are Experimental Traffic Orders & Temporary Traffic Orders, nothing to do with COVID.
> 
> COVID is the reason they were fast tracked.


I mean the legislation which gave the funding to the councils and therefore the pecuniary ability to implement them. The ETO and TTOs are not covid specific you’re right but they piggyback off other legislation


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We have told people that, by going to court, we are asking for the correct procedures to be followed when implementing these changes. We have been very open with everyone that the judge will make a decision and that we can’t control or predict what that decision could be as regards removal on the LTNs.
> 
> I was a lawyer for about 10 years but am not now. That is probably why some people still think I am I expect.


To follow this up, it is worth noting that a deputation was sent to the council some time back with a number of different suggestions as regards exemptions which would help disabled people (amongst other protected groups). The council said that exemptions were not possible, neither were impact assessments or consultation prior to implementation. This is why people are donating. My view is that you should never really have to take a political body to court to ask them just to abide by legislation, if you are in that position then it’s very much a last resort as a result of being ignored.


----------



## edcraw (May 31, 2021)

I’m not a lawyer but the legislation that gave the funding doesn’t seem to be legally relevant to their implementation and not what the court case is challenging.


----------



## thebackrow (May 31, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> You know it would have helped if Lambeth had consulted people prior to implementation.
> 
> ..
> 
> ...


I still don’t get this. If you can’t describe what you would change how would you respond to a consultation? What “choices” are you hoping for, because presumably the councils “experts” have used the resources they have to come up with the schemes in place.

Of course 1/2L want to reduce traffic, but just not in a way that inconveniences them in any way personally.  If you’ve found where the unicorns are stabled please let us all know.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I still don’t get this. If you can’t describe what you would change how would you respond to a consultation? What “choices” are you hoping for, because presumably the councils “experts” have used the resources they have to come up with the schemes in place.
> 
> Of course 1/2L want to reduce traffic, but just not in a way that inconveniences them in any way personally.  If you’ve found where the unicorns are stabled please let us all know.


It’s the fact that full consultation and assessments hasn’t been undertaken. An example would be lack of dropped curbs where there is a cycle lane on the inside. A lane like that means that someone in a wheelchair has to cross a busy cycle Lane to get to the road and hail a taxi. Full consultation would highlight issues such as these. Without that process you end up in a position where these vulnerable people are no longer protected. This is just one small example but the fact that it exists shows the lack of work undertaken to evaluate the impact of the changes.


----------



## edcraw (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s the fact that full consultation and assessments hasn’t been undertaken. An example would be lack of dropped curbs where there is a cycle lane on the inside. A lane like that means that someone in a wheelchair has to cross a busy cycle Lane to get to the road and hail a taxi. Full consultation would highlight issues such as these. Without that process you end up in a position where these vulnerable people are no longer protected. This is just one small example but the fact that it exists shows the lack of work undertaken to evaluate the impact of the changes.


So is the court case arguing about the legal basis of ETOs & TTOs?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So is the court case arguing about the legal basis of ETOs & TTOs?


Amongst other things and other pieces of legislation, yes.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s the fact that full consultation and assessments hasn’t been undertaken. An example would be lack of dropped curbs where there is a cycle lane on the inside. A lane like that means that someone in a wheelchair has to cross a busy cycle Lane to get to the road and hail a taxi. Full consultation would highlight issues such as these. Without that process you end up in a position where these vulnerable people are no longer protected. This is just one small example but the fact that it exists shows the lack of work undertaken to evaluate the impact of the changes.


I would completely agree that changes shouldn't be made to street design that create further obstacles for wheelchair users.

Whereabouts in the LTNs has the situation you describe (lack of dropped kerbs) arisen?


----------



## snowy_again (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I would completely agree that changes shouldn't be made to street design that create further obstacles for wheelchair users.
> 
> Whereabouts in the LTNs has the situation you describe (lack of dropped kerbs) arisen?


According to the OL Facebook group there aren’t any busy cycle lanes.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

I’m a bit confused (doesn’t take much tbf). I can only comment on the Railton/Shakespeare LTN, but the only physical changes I can see are planters on the road backed by signs/cameras to enforce. Nothing on the pavements so any obstacles much pre-date the LTN, surely?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I would completely agree that changes shouldn't be made to street design that create further obstacles for wheelchair users.
> 
> Whereabouts in the LTNs has the situation you describe (lack of dropped kerbs) arisen?


There is a good example in Ealing where the cycle path has been put in using “wands”. Nowhere for wheelchair users to cross as a result of the cycle Lane and then no dropped curbs.
There are other examples which act as impediments to disabled people having proper access we’ve  been shown by disabled people which will form part of the case


snowy_again said:


> According to the OL Facebook group there aren’t any busy cycle lanes.


but the idea is that they will be busy


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I’m a bit confused (doesn’t take much tbf). I can only comment on the Railton/Shakespeare LTN, but the only physical changes I can see are planters on the road backed by signs/cameras to enforce. Nothing on the pavements so any obstacles much pre-date the LTN, surely?


Every area is different and there have been different changes so it’s difficult it take one area and then assume that everywhere that implementation has occurred has been equally affected.


----------



## edcraw (May 31, 2021)

Not sure what’s this got to do with LTNs in Lambeth but can’t see how wands stop wheelchair users.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> There is a good example in Ealing where the cycle path has been put in using “wands”. Nowhere for wheelchair users to cross as a result of the cycle Lane and then no dropped curbs.
> There are other examples which act as impediments to disabled people having proper access we’ve  been shown by disabled people which will form part of the case
> 
> but the idea is that they will be busy


Your case is about the Lambeth LTNs isn't it? So what are the examples in Lambeth?


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what’s this got to do with LTNs in Lambeth but can’t see how wands stop wheelchair users.


I thought the wands were all part of TfL schemes anyway, not LTNs.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I was going to ask that but I guess he’s just using it as an example.
> 
> it would be great to see OneLambeth actually campaign for improvements for wheelchair users as it really seems the court case is trying to get rid of
> 
> Not sure what’s this got to do with LTNs in Lambeth but can’t see how wands stop wheelchair users.


If you’re in a wheelchair, normally a taxi would indicate and stop y the side of the road. Where there are wands and a cycle Lane then a wheelchair user would need to cross the cycle Lane and then hail a taxi whilst sitting in between the cycle lane and the road. This is obviously not great of them and is a consequence in the cycle Lane. It’s an example of the kind of impact that the lack of consultation and impact assessment can have. I can’t go through every example of difficulties in Lambeth for obvious reasons which I hope you’ll understand


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what’s this got to do with LTNs in Lambeth but can’t see how wands stop wheelchair users.


Yup, it’s an example. You suggest that we campaign for improvements. We’ve asked the council repeatedly to undertake full
Impact assessments and consult. They haven’t done this which is why we’re having the ask the courts to make them undertake the assessments which would lead to the improvements you suggest. It is as simple as that, we’re doing this to ensure that, whatever is implemented by the council, is done in such a way that protects vulnerable people


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I thought the wands were all part of TfL schemes anyway, not LTNs.


They are part of the streetspace scheme which is linked to the funding given for LTNs.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

The fundamental question here though and if you browse through the 154 pages here, you will see, it’s been widely debated is what is the alternative? I’m pro LTN but didn’t start off that way. However I’m still happy to discuss how they can work better but the alternative view still seems to offer nothing apart from scrap the lot and return to status quo.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> The fundamental question here though and if you browse through the 154 pages here, you will see, it’s been widely debated is what is the alternative? I’m pro LTN but didn’t start off that way. However I’m still happy to discuss how they can work better but the alternative view still seems to offer nothing apart from scrap the lot and return to status quo.


The alternative has to be focussed on a reduction in pollution. The issue is that outside LTNs congestion has gone up and congestion leads to higher pollution levels which seems like the wrong response. We were also told that by this point (6 months or more in) that the process of traffic evaporation would be almost complete. In any event, anything that is implemented must protect the rights of the most vulnerable in society. I’m not against the lowering of traffic, I live in an LTN and don’t have a car but when we start to implement measures and don’t take account of how they impact those that need te protection of society that can’t be right. We’re having to go to court to protect those rights. As we aren’t a political group we just don’t have the funding to scope out a costed alternative but any alternative that is put forward must ensure that the vulnerable are protected as a group.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

So that’s a no then. We must get rid of them (on a technicality) but it’s for others to decide what to replace them with.


----------



## Winot (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The alternative has to be focussed on a reduction in pollution. The issue is that outside LTNs congestion has gone up and congestion leads to higher pollution levels which seems like the wrong response. We were also told that by this point (6 months or more in) that the process of traffic evaporation would be almost complete. In any event, anything that is implemented must protect the rights of the most vulnerable in society. I’m not against the lowering of traffic, I live in an LTN and don’t have a car but when we start to implement measures and don’t take account of how they impact those that need te protection of society that can’t be right. We’re having to go to court to protect those rights. As we aren’t a political group we just don’t have the funding to scope out a costed alternative but any alternative that is put forward must ensure that the vulnerable are protected as a group.


If you win then presumably Lambeth can ‘cure’ the problem with a full impact assessment and consultation. If the result of that is that the LTNs stay (possibly in modified form) will you support them?


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The issue is that outside LTNs congestion has gone up and congestion leads to higher pollution levels which seems like the wrong response.



You state this as a given, but I don't believe there is any evidence that pollution (I assume you are talking baout air pollution?) has been raised as a result of the LTNs. Is there some evidence that I'm not aware of?

I'm aware that just because there's no evidence, that doesn't mean there's no effect, but I keep seeing this stated as a known fact.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> They are part of the streetspace scheme which is linked to the funding given for LTNs.


Ok, so is your court case also challenging the implementation of TfL's streetspace schemes?

Not sure I understand why you're not able to give examples of bad street design within Lambeth LTNs - if there are physical obstructions to wheelchair users on public streets then it's not private information, and presumably you have already raised them with Lambeth.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Winot said:


> If you win then presumably Lambeth can ‘cure’ the problem with a full impact assessment and consultation. If the result of that is that the LTNs stay (possibly in modified form) will you support them?


I’ll support whatever the court suggests, if Lambeth follows what the courts suggest to the letter then yes but they have to follow legislation. That’s my red line, those in power can’t pick and choose what legislation they do and don’t want to follow


teuchter said:


> You state this as a given, but I don't believe there is any evidence that pollution (I assume you are talking baout air pollution?) has been raised as a result of the LTNs. Is there some evidence that I'm not aware of?
> 
> I'm aware that just because there's no evidence, that doesn't mean there's no effect, but I keep seeing this stated as a known fact.


we know that congestion is worse since LTNs as all of the scoot data shows this. We also know that cars emit 3 times as much CO2 when idling, this reduces the faster the car is going. We have raised this numerous times but they won’t 
look at the underlying data. It’s incredibly frustrating as you just get told you’re a petrol head or part of the car lobby.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

One question that might be able to be answered? You’ve raised almost £30k but you still need £5000 more by 7th June. What happens if you don’t make the target?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Ok, so is your court case also challenging the implementation of TfL's streetspace schemes?
> 
> Not sure I understand why you're not able to give examples of bad street design within Lambeth LTNs - if there are physical obstructions to wheelchair users on public streets then it's not private information, and presumably you have already raised them with Lambeth.


I just don’t want to do anything which will prejudice our case, especially discussing in detail something we may rely on in court.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> One question that might be able to be answered? You’ve raised almost £30k but you still need £5000 more by 7th June. What happens if you don’t make the target?


The case will still go ahead as we are now committed. If we don’t raise the £5000 then we would need to cut our cloth accordingly and reduce the number of changeable hours being spent on by the lawyers which could impact the case.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

Seems to me that there is a fatal flaw in your court case if it’s just based upon protecting the disabled. If Lambeth say, ok then, blue badge holders are exempted from the scheme, then the LTNs will stay in place which is a win for the vulnerable but I suspect most of your backers will see it as a loss


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Seems to me that there is a fatal flaw in your court case if it’s just based upon protecting the disabled. If Lambeth say, ok then, blue badge holders are exempted from the scheme, then the LTNs will stay in place which is a win for the vulnerable but I suspect most of your backers will see it as a loss


It not just the disabled, it’s anyone who is protected under the equalities act, to do that we need to have a case study to put infront of the court which is what we’re doing. Have have already asked for blue bar she holders to be exempt, the council said that it was too difficult to manage as rejected it as unworkable


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

I don’t think anyone on these boards would disagree about protecting vulnerable people, I just can’t see how this is linked into vehicle usage. People just need to drive less. There are different ways to discourage car use of which the current schemes are one way. I mean you could start removing parking spaces, make all the roads double yellow or red. Improve traffic flow from a-b and reduce vehicle ownership to those who can park off street for instance.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’ll support whatever the court suggests, if Lambeth follows what the courts suggest to the letter then yes but they have to follow legislation. That’s my red line, those in power can’t pick and choose what legislation they do and don’t want to follow
> 
> we know that congestion is worse since LTNs as all of the scoot data shows this. We also know that cars emit 3 times as much CO2 when idling, this reduces the faster the car is going. We have raised this numerous times but they won’t
> look at the underlying data. It’s incredibly frustrating as you just get told you’re a petrol head or part of the car lobby.


I've not seen a coherent analysis of the scoot data.

Regarding the link between congestion and air pollution:

Firstly, CO2 is a greenhouse gas; this is a separate issue from local air pollution
3 times as much CO2 than what?
as far as I am aware, the connection between congestion and CO2 emissions, and between congestion and air pollutants, is poorly understood, whereas the connection between number of miles travelled and these things is quite well understood: the more miles people do in motor vehicles, the more CO2 emissions and the more air pollution we see. Congestion tends to occur regardless of the overall capacity of the road network; in other words increasing the space for motor vehicles doesn't solve congestion problems, but it does increase the number of miles travelled and hence the amount of pollution. It's nothing like as simple as you try and make it sound - your solution to congestion is to make it easier for people to drive more. If you want to show that LTNs have significantly increased air pollution then you need to actually measure air pollutants, not make speculative assumptions based on a lack of data. In my ideal world we'd be continuously measuring air pollution in lots of locations so we could try and look at effects pre and post LTNs, measured against meaningful benchmarks but unfortunately that is not available to us.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've not seen a coherent analysis of the scoot data.
> 
> Regarding the link between congestion and air pollution:
> 
> ...


This is the exact kind of that needs to be done but that isn’t being done. The miles travelled point is very easy to understand and it a simple calculation. The scoot data shows large spikes in rises in congestion compared to previous years since the  LTNs have gone in. Whatever happens and is implemented I’m keen that we do all the right research to ensure that the best possible option is implemented. We quite new to this so can’t go on gut feeling but data. People stated getting milk delivered in bottles rather than from the supermarket. Reason being that plastic is bad for the environment. However, research soon showed that bottled  milk has a considerably higher footprint than supermarket bought milk. I’m really don’t want us to fall into thaose kind of traps as a result of not having done the research properly.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I don’t think anyone on these boards would disagree about protecting vulnerable people, I just can’t see how this is linked into vehicle usage. People just need to drive less. There are different ways to discourage car use of which the current schemes are one way. I mean you could start removing parking spaces, make all the roads double yellow or red. Improve traffic flow from a-b and reduce vehicle ownership to those who can park off street for instance.


That’s good to hear, it’s why I thought that I’d join here having gone through about 100 pages of your posts on here.
LTNs have increased vehicle times and journey lengths for a number of vilnerable people. Turning a 15 minute journey into a 40-45 minute journey means that some people just can’t get to appointments because they can’t spent that much time in a car. I have personal experience of this. We should all be walking more or buying less polluting vehicles if we really need to drive. The ULEZ seems to work in terms of mileage driven


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

So if Lambeth reverse their blue badge decision or provide an alternative then the LTN’s can stay with the vulnerable protected. I’m still not sure most of the one Lambeth backers would see that as a win but maybe I’m being too cynical


----------



## thebackrow (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, it’s an example. You suggest that we campaign for improvements. We’ve asked the council repeatedly to undertake full
> Impact assessments and consult. They haven’t done this which is why we’re having the ask the courts to make them undertake the assessments which would lead to the improvements you suggest. It is as simple as that, we’re doing this to ensure that, whatever is implemented by the council, is done in such a way that protects vulnerable people



The crowdfunder says 1L are opposed to them in principle ("oppose these undemocratic, unhealthy and discriminatory LTNs" and that you reject the justification for them.  And the petition linked from the 1L site calls for "immediate cessation and removal of LTNs"

According to the council LTNs have been put in "to reduce road danger and provide safe and accessible routes for walking, cycling, scooting and wheeling as part of the Mayor of London’s Streetspace for London plan". Love Lambeth - you reject that?

and you're saying the court case is to force Lambeth to undertake impact assessments and consult BUT they're already monitoring the impacts, taking feedback and have said there will be further consultation before anything is made permanent


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Whatever happens and is implemented I’m keen that we do all the right research to ensure that the best possible option is implemented.



Based on the current evidence base, LTN-like interventions are among the best possible options. They aren't without some issues, but we know that the status quo doesn't work. This is why people keep asking what your alternatives are. You don't have any, so by default your alternative is the status quo. 

What about existing LTNs, ones that have been put in over the past few decades all over London. Do you advocate for their removal? You have the opportunity to be the first person advocating against the current implementations that I've seen answer this question.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> The crowdfunder says 1L are opposed to them in principle ("oppose these undemocratic, unhealthy and discriminatory LTNs" and that you reject the justification for them.  And the petition linked from the 1L site calls for "immediate cessation and removal of LTNs"
> 
> According to the council LTNs have been put in "to reduce road danger and provide safe and accessible routes for walking, cycling, scooting and wheeling as part of the Mayor of London’s Streetspace for London plan". Love Lambeth - you reject that?
> 
> and you're saying the court case is to force Lambeth to undertake impact assessments and consult BUT they're already monitoring the impacts, taking feedback and have said there will be further consultation before anything is made permanent


The legislation says that impact assessments must be done before implementation. If you're doing them during or afterwards then you have already made the decision to implement something but are open to the possibility that vulnerable people will suffer in the meantime and you (the council) are happy to accept that. This can't be the correct way to carry out changes and legilslation says that it isn't. The council have used commonplace to run a consultation, however, this digitally excludes people (mainly older who are another protected group) from taking part and we've have had numerous examples of older people sying this. Commonplace is also not a recognised consultative tool for this kind of undertaking. Ironically the council looked at commonplace, found that the comments on ten LTNS were overwhelmingly negative and have now said that they won't use that consultation but try another one. 

The council said that the LTNs were put in place as a response to covid. Given that the plans were already being talked about before covid existed I'm surprised that LTNs just happened to be the perfect response to stop to spread of covid. That is serendipitous indeed. 

One thing I really take issue with is the idea of implementing something, not working out the impact of that implementation and then saying that you'll work out who is affected in the meantime. The reason we have the equalities act is to ensure this doesn't happen, the council know this but decided that they wouldn't go through the appropriate steps. I don't think this is right.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> So if Lambeth reverse their blue badge decision or provide an alternative then the LTN’s can stay with the vulnerable protected. I’m still not sure most of the one Lambeth backers would see that as a win but maybe I’m being too cynical


This would only help disabled people with a blue badge, not their carers (who have had to start decreasing the number of people they see due to journey times) and also none of the other groups of people with protected characteristics under the Act. It has to cover all vulnerable people. In any event, Lambeth told us at the beginning of this that a blue badge exemption was impossible.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Based on the current evidence base, LTN-like interventions are among the best possible options. They aren't without some issues, but we know that the status quo doesn't work. This is why people keep asking what your alternatives are. You don't have any, so by default your alternative is the status quo.
> 
> What about existing LTNs, ones that have been put in over the past few decades all over London. Do you advocate for their removal? You have the opportunity to be the first person advocating against the current implementations that I've seen answer this question.


I'm arguing against the manner in which they have been implemented. once all the assessments have been undertaken and the law followed then whatever will be implemented will be implemented but it will ensure that vulnerable people are protected. Implementation of any road changes must always be done in accordance with the law.

I know that this does not provide a solution to the issue but i just don't have the means to come up with something that is costed and with the data to back it up. Over the last 3 months I've been accused of being a member of UKIP, a climate change denier, a motoring enthusiast. I'm none of these but wanted to come on here to outline the reason why I'm doing this. I completely understand the general frustration that people don't have the answer or an alternative. My primary concern is the protection of vulnerable groups. Whatever is implemented, my objectives remain the same, namely to ensure that vulnerable people are properly protected and the council carries out its duty of care towards these groups. It's a personal issue for me and one which I feel, to an extent, defines the kind of democracy in which we wish to live.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

The problem with changes like these is that they take time to bed in, people won't alter their transportation overnight, so actually implementing them for a trial period is the best way - people can see what the change is.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The problem with changes like these is that they take time to bed in, people won't alter their transportation overnight, so actually implementing them for a trial period is the best way - people can see what the change is.


I understand your point but even before to have the trial period the law says you must undertake certain steps to protect vulnerable people.


----------



## thebackrow (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The council said that the LTNs were put in place as a response to covid. Given that the plans were already being talked about before covid existed I'm surprised that LTNs just happened to be the perfect response to stop to spread of covid. That is serendipitous indeed.


 I'm pretty certain no-one except those trying to get them removed has ever tried to claim LTNs have anything to do with "stopping the spread of COVID".  Lambeth's justification was in my post (none of which you've actually responded to in your reply).


----------



## thebackrow (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> d. once all the assessments have been undertaken and the law followed then whatever will be implemented will be implemented but it will ensure that vulnerable people are protected.











						Equalities impact assessment
					

In August 2020, we published an Equalities Impact Assessment. This assessed the impact of the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood on different demographic groups including the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity...




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk
				




But there seems to have been an Equalities Impact Assessment in place since August - not long after the first changes went in and long before the Railton scheme was being enforced.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I'm arguing against the manner in which they have been implemented. once all the assessments have been undertaken and the law followed then whatever will be implemented will be implemented but it will ensure that vulnerable people are protected. Implementation of any road changes must always be done in accordance with the law.


Are you open to the people who are donating that even if you do win, it won't lead to the LTNs being taken out?.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

I’m sorry I just don’t buy the “we are protecting the vulnerable” argument as what you are about. Shame that wasn’t done by say providing a wheelchair accessible stage at your last rally for your main speaker.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Equalities impact assessment
> 
> 
> In August 2020, we published an Equalities Impact Assessment. This assessed the impact of the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood on different demographic groups including the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity...
> ...


This is not a full impact assessment by any means. You have to go into a considerable amount of detail, back it up with studies and data. None of that is here I'm afraid. I've been involved in a number of these previously and this doesn't meet the requirements of the Act.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I’m sorry I just don’t buy the “we are protecting the vulnerable” argument as what you are about. Shame that wasn’t done by say providing a wheelchair accessible stage at your last rally for your main speaker.


Ok, that's fine. I know my motivation to do this and it is exactly that. My father suffered from a hugely debilitating disease for a number of years when i was younger. I saw exactly how these protections are vital to protecting vulnerable people and what happens when they aren't protected. As regards the stage, that's a cheap shot but we asked Sofia what she wanted and she said a stage was fine. Remember, we aren't the council so there is a different level of what can be expected.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are you open to the people who are donating that even if you do win, it won't lead to the LTNs being taken out?.


If a judge declares them as unlawful they could be taken out with an onus on the council to run a full implementation study and follow all the requirements of the act before anything is reimplemented. It depends what the judge orders.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 31, 2021)

Hmm, courts deciding political decisions. Now where have we seen that before.


----------



## teuchter (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I'm arguing against the manner in which they have been implemented. once all the assessments have been undertaken and the law followed then whatever will be implemented will be implemented but it will ensure that vulnerable people are protected. Implementation of any road changes must always be done in accordance with the law.
> 
> I know that this does not provide a solution to the issue but i just don't have the means to come up with something that is costed and with the data to back it up. Over the last 3 months I've been accused of being a member of UKIP, a climate change denier, a motoring enthusiast. I'm none of these but wanted to come on here to outline the reason why I'm doing this. I completely understand the general frustration that people don't have the answer or an alternative. My primary concern is the protection of vulnerable groups. Whatever is implemented, my objectives remain the same, namely to ensure that vulnerable people are properly protected and the council carries out its duty of care towards these groups. It's a personal issue for me and one which I feel, to an extent, defines the kind of democracy in which we wish to live.



I certainly don't see a problem with that in principle - yes, if changes are implemented then the needs of the vulnerable should be protected. If you think that Lambeth have not followed their obligations in that regard then I can't object to you trying to hold them to account. Although I want to see the schemes succeed, I'm no stranger to the frustrations of dealing with Lambeth as an institution, and if you pursuing them in this court case forces them (or has already forced them) to pay more attention to stuff that they have neglected, or would otherwise have neglected, then that can't be a bad thing. For me, if the result of them not having proper procedure were that the whole thing had to get called off, then I wouldn't see that as a positive result because I believe the benefits overall to be big enough that they can outweigh the disbenefits. After all, I believe there are a considrable number of vulnerable people who are disadvantaged by the status quo. That's of course an opinion that anyone can be free to disagree with. 

I would like to take your word that you are essentially only involved in the court action because you want to see proper process followed, not because you are fundamentally against the aims of the policy. I know that it is easy for people to decide that those on the "other side" have sinister or undisclosed interests, especially in the online/social media environment. It's always easy to suspect the worst about others' motivations. And fair play to you for coming on here as your "real" self rather than being at least partly anonymous as many of us here choose to do.

I also understand that in any of these kinds of things, you will end up acting alongside others who you might not fully agree with. They might say things that get attributed to a campaign or cause that you would not have said yourself. Maybe that includes some of the stuff written in the blurb for the gofundme page; I don't know. There are some things you've said that don't entirely help though; for example in your speech in Windrush square, where you say that Lambeth have "pushed through ideological change that basically benefits a few lycra-clad white middle class men". Because that kind of loaded statement doesn't give the impression that it's only the process of implementation that you have a problem with, it gives the impression that you consider the essence of the changes problematic. Of course, you'd be free to be of that opinion. But because it shares some of the rhetoric often used by, say, the motorist lobby, maybe that's why people would associate you with those interests.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> If a judge declares them as unlawful they could be taken out with an onus on the council to run a full implementation study and follow all the requirements of the act before anything is reimplemented. It depends what the judge orders.


But your court case is against the equalities impact assessment, not the LTNs. They can always just do another assessment.

Also, is that what you want, them to be fully removed?


----------



## alex_ (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> There is a good example in Ealing where the cycle path has been put in using “wands”. Nowhere for wheelchair users to cross as a result of the cycle Lane and then no dropped curbs.
> There are other examples which act as impediments to disabled people having proper access we’ve  been shown by disabled people which will form part of the case
> 
> but the idea is that they will be busy



Presumably they’ve removed all of the dropped kerbs which were there before ?

Alex


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Presumably they’ve removed all of the dropped kerbs which were there before ?
> 
> Alex



Wouldn't have needed dropped kerbs before, as the ramp from the taxi goes onto the pavement. With the cycle lane in the way, that can no longer happen. Whilst existing drop kerbs might be sufficient, there may well be places where the gaps between dropped kerbs are quite long or are not at a suitable place for taxis to stop (like at junctions where you'd expect to have dropped kerbs).


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Wouldn't have needed dropped kerbs before, as the ramp from the taxi goes onto the pavement. With the cycle lane in the way, that can no longer happen. Whilst existing drop kerbs might be sufficient, there may well be places where the gaps between dropped kerbs are quite long or are not at a suitable place for taxis to stop (like at junctions where you'd expect to have dropped kerbs).


The same would go for anywhere with parked cars. A wheelchair might not be able to get through them at all.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I still don’t get this. If you can’t describe what you would change how would you respond to a consultation? What “choices” are you hoping for, because presumably the councils “experts” have used the resources they have to come up with the schemes in place.
> 
> Of course 1/2L want to reduce traffic, but just not in a way that inconveniences them in any way personally.  If you’ve found where the unicorns are stabled please let us all know.



What I'm saying, and have said more than once, is that the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme was going to have full consultation. 

This after all was originally what this thread was about. 

This Council decided to use the pandemic to push it through without consultation. 

Hence the situation now with Judicial review pending. 

Which I think is justified.


----------



## Gramsci (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> To follow this up, it is worth noting that a deputation was sent to the council some time back with a number of different suggestions as regards exemptions which would help disabled people (amongst other protected groups). The council said that exemptions were not possible, neither were impact assessments or consultation prior to implementation. This is why people are donating. My view is that you should never really have to take a political body to court to ask them just to abide by legislation, if you are in that position then it’s very much a last resort as a result of being ignored.



So to be clear the Council is unwilling to consider any compromise? That is what has forced your group to go down the legal route?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 31, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I'm pretty certain no-one except those trying to get them removed has ever tried to claim LTNs have anything to do with "stopping the spread of COVID".  Lambeth's justification was in my post (none of which you've actually responded to in your reply).



Isn't that exactly what the council said? All of this was brought up under the guise of stopping the spread of COVID.

When you go to the commonplace site to add feedback on the LTNs all it talked about was the COVID action plan, stopping the spread of COVID. Those who did get a letter telling them what was going on - COVID COVID COVID. Sure, the narrative has shifted as more and more people called it out but it was 100% all down to COVID.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> But your court case is against the equalities impact assessment, not the LTNs. They can always just do another assessment.
> 
> Also, is that what you want, them to be fully removed?



From the Taxi court case a few months back i'm sure the papers said the judges only consider data that was available at the time. I.e they cant half ass it and make good after, it's not how the system works.

Given I recall the orignal impact assessments only listed info about people with learning disabilities in the disabled section that's not a good start.

What I want to know is if it's so easy that they can just make changes after why is the taxi case going to appeal? Why not just say 'fair enough' and make changes? What happens here in Lambeth if the council lose? Is appealing  a process to save face? to waste time? The 'what next' stage is where i'm lost.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Isn't that exactly what the council said? All of this was brought up under the guise of stopping the spread of COVID.
> 
> When you go to the commonplace site to add feedback on the LTNs all it talked about was the COVID action plan, stopping the spread of COVID. Those who did get a letter telling them what was going on - COVID COVID COVID. Sure, the narrative has shifted as more and more people called it out but it was 100% all down to COVID.


I think LTNs, reducing car use etc are a good enough thing by themselves, but COVID has made them needed even more, as we come out of lockdown people will be reluctant to use public transport and there isn’t enough space for those people to all drive. And there’s the pollution thing too - which was an issue before ltns.

They’re not trying to shift the narrative at all, COVID has given just another reason for them.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So to be clear the Council is unwilling to consider any compromise? That is what has forced your group to go down the legal route?


We asked the council in an official deputation. The answer was that our request was unworkable and impossible


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> From the Taxi court case a few months back i'm sure the papers said the judges only consider data that was available at the time. I.e they cant half ass it and make good after, it's not how the system works.
> 
> Given I recall the orignal impact assessments only listed info about people with learning disabilities in the disabled section that's not a good start.
> 
> What I want to know is if it's so easy that they can just make changes after why is the taxi case going to appeal? Why not just say 'fair enough' and make changes? What happens here in Lambeth if the council lose? Is appealing  a process to save face? to waste time? The 'what next' stage is where i'm lost.


As far as I know, the court case is just against the way the decision was made, not the actual decision itself.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Presumably they’ve removed all of the dropped kerbs which were there before ?
> 
> Alex


The roads have changed and the generally structure in terms of what is using then. They haven’t put dropped kerbs in and, possibly more importantly, haven’t put in zebra crossing for wheelchair users in the appropriate places. They haven’t even thought of doing this 


sleaterkinney said:


> But your court case is against the equalities impact assessment, not the LTNs. They can always just do another assessment.
> 
> Also, is that what you want, them to be fully removed?


the LTNs have not been implemented with the benefit of proper impact assessments. I am against the implementation of something that doesn’t take into account vulnerable people. 
they haven’t done assessments that are required under the Act. What I don’t understand is why the council won’t just follow the law and undertake full assessments. It doesn’t make sense. If you have the courage of you convictions you follow everything to the letter of the law and then implement your idea to the full extent allowed bu the law, you don’t ignore your obligations and just try to push things through


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think LTNs, reducing car use etc are a good enough thing by themselves, but COVID has made them needed even more, as we come out of lockdown people will be reluctant to use public transport and there isn’t enough space for those people to all drive. And there’s the pollution thing too - which was an issue before ltns.
> 
> They’re not trying to shift the narrative at all, COVID has given just another reason for them.



The point someone else made was that stopping the spread of COVID was never the ppint of LTNs but it's all we heard when they were being put in. Now the narrative moves when such resistance is seen. That alone is the cause of much rage...the sheer cheek of it.

I agree with all the other points but what are we - coming up to a year in and still waiting for good results. How can it get better if it's this bad now and we are not even back to normal.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 31, 2021)

Sorry but i'm having one of my rare days where I actually caught up on this thread and now can't stop









						Three quarters of people consulted do not want low-traffic schemes
					

More that 25,000 residents have been surveyed by councils




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




Three quarters of people consulted do not want low-traffic schemes
More that 25,000 residents have been surveyed by councils
By
Dominic Penna
29 May 2021 • 7:00pm
An estimated 5,000 residents took to the streets of Ealing last month in protest against the increasing number of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
Nearly three quarters of people who have been consulted over low-traffic neighbourhoods and cycle lanes are against their rollout, analysis by The Telegraph shows.

More than 25,000 residents and visitors have been surveyed as part of the 10 consultations published by councils to date. Dozens more reviews are expected to follow in the coming weeks.

In the consultations made public so far, 18,314 people have expressed a negative view of the active travel schemes, vastly outnumbering the 7,020 residents who expressed their support.

In Harrow, 6,073 survey participants (82 per cent) disapproved of the council’s schemes, which later became the first in the country to be completely removed after a six-month consultation.

In Windsor and Maidenhead, 1,998 of 2,221 residents (89 per cent) rejected plans to extend trial schemes in an overwhelming verdict that has prompted the council to promise a “big conversation” with residents about its active travel agenda.

Advertisement

Two consultations came as an exception to the general rule, with 64 per cent of feedback in Bromley and 64.7 per cent in North Yorkshire in favour of the schemes.

Further analysis by this newspaper found that more than one in three councils have axed, modified or reduced their active travel schemes since Grant Shapps allocated a total of £2 billion across 110 local authorities last spring.

The 42 councils that have altered or scrapped their schemes were given a total of £119.6 million across two tranches of funding in May and November 2020.

Craig Mackinlay, the chairman of the all-parliamentary group for Fair Fuel, “At a time of national financial stress, spending so much on these ludicrous projects does not seem to me to be a good use of money,” he told The Telegraph.

“An ageing population is not likely in any way, shape or form to start taking to the bicycle to do their shopping. To restrict tight, existing road networks in order to accommodate cycle lanes is madness.”

Tony Devenish, a Conservative London Assembly member, who last year successfully campaigned for the removal of the Kensington High Street cycle lane, said: “My Government is at fault to some extent, because they gave councils the power not to publicly consult for up to 18 months.

Advertisement

“You can’t just do these things to people. There has been absolute outcry from the Great British public - and that’s why so many councils have had to U-turn.”

The Department for Transport did not comment on the Telegraph’s findings.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The roads have changed and the generally structure in terms of what is using then. They haven’t put dropped kerbs in and, possibly more importantly, haven’t put in zebra crossing for wheelchair users in the appropriate places. They haven’t even thought of doing this
> 
> the LTNs have not been implemented with the benefit of proper impact assessments. I am against the implementation of something that doesn’t take into account vulnerable people.
> they haven’t done assessments that are required under the Act. What I don’t understand is why the council won’t just follow the law and undertake full assessments. It doesn’t make sense. If you have the courage of you convictions you follow everything to the letter of the law and then implement your idea to the full extent allowed bu the law, you don’t ignore your obligations and just try to push things through



So in your last sentence....what happens if it was decided things were pushed through? It is seen as unlawful? WHat then?

Or is it a case of wait and see what the judge says? DO they have an opinion of the schemes or just the process?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> The point someone else made was that stopping the spread of COVID was never the ppint of LTNs but it's all we heard when they were being put in. Now the narrative moves when such resistance is seen. That alone is the cause of much rage...the sheer cheek of it.
> 
> I agree with all the other points but what are we - coming up to a year in and still waiting for good results. How can it get better if it's this bad now and we are not even back to normal.


The narrative has not changed. LTNs have been around since the 70s ffs. COVID is another reason why they’re needed but it never was the only reason.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Hmm, courts deciding political decisions. Now where have we seen that before.


No. Courts deciding whether the decision making process of politicians is lawful or not. There is a big difference


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> So in your last sentence....what happens if it was decided things were pushed through? It is seen as unlawful? WHat then?
> 
> Or is it a case of wait and see what the judge says? DO they have an opinion of the schemes or just the process?


This is why we are going to court, these are very technical questions but with overriding humans rights issues. I know what it think but ultimately we decided to put ourselves in the hands of a judge so that we could see what is lawful or not. To me this seemed like the best outcome. We ask the experts whether the process is legal or not.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The narrative has not changed. LTNs have been around since the 70s ffs. COVID is another reason why they’re needed but it never was the only reason.



I think you can understand when the average person was fed the line that LTNs were needed to help stop the spread of COVID. That was 100% my understanding as thats what they said.

Now we see they have been planned for a long time, don't actually help stop the spread of COVID, did not factor in many groups, have made life misery for many and approaching a year in are seeing misery while being fed 'thumbs up' reports about how much better life is when it isn't for those of us near main roads.

Why of why are people upset when they have been lied to and had their life turned into hell. It's a mystery i'm sure.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The narrative has not changed. LTNs have been around since the 70s ffs. COVID is another reason why they’re needed but it never was the only reason.


I think thatg point is that if you are using Covdi and the resultant funding to push through something quickly and without the correct procedures and you have to ask why corners are being cut and vulnerable people are not being supported and their interests not looked after by the council.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> As far as I know, the court case is just against the way the decision was made, not the actual decision itself.


The decision and the ability to make it is a political one. The courts are not able to judge to political ideology. However, they can look at whether it was done lawfully. We live in a society where decisions made by the executive should be done lawfully. That is what the courts will be looking at. I think that we would all want to know whether a decision is lawful or not.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I think LTNs, reducing car use etc are a good enough thing by themselves, but COVID has made them needed even more, as we come out of lockdown people will be reluctant to use public transport and there isn’t enough space for those people to all drive. And there’s the pollution thing too - which was an issue before ltns.
> 
> They’re not trying to shift the narrative at all, COVID has given just another reason for them.


this is an interesting point. 
1. as a result of covid and lockdown, people will be reluctant to use public transport. 
2. there isn't enough space for those people deciding not to use public transport to drive.

council decides to reduce the number of cars on the road, therefore, pushing people towards public transport (where covid transmission could be more prevalent). These two ideas logically conflict in terms of the outcome wanted.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I think thatg point is that if you are using Covdi and the resultant funding to push through something quickly and without the correct procedures and you have to ask why corners are being cut and vulnerable people are not being supported and their interests not looked after by the council.


....and my thoughts are if they have done as you suggest......what else is missed? Just how much of a post-it note job has been dropped on us.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> ....and my thoughts are if they have done as you suggest......what else is missed? Just how much of a post-it note job has been dropped on us.


I'm really like to publish the extent of the post-it notes now but can't. I hope everyone here will accept that coming on here and taking the time to try and answer questions as well as I can shows that I'm not trying the hide anything and that I'm doing this because I think that the law matters and that those in power must always adhere to it. I understand that people will say that they don't buy it. To those of you who feel that way, I'm happy to meet up in a pub and actually sit and debate this. I feel that it is intrinsic to my moral code and am more than happy to discuss it.


----------



## alex_ (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The roads have changed and the generally structure in terms of what is using then. They haven’t put dropped kerbs in and, possibly more importantly, haven’t put in zebra crossing for wheelchair users in the appropriate places. They haven’t even thought of doing this



and in the places concerned there was un-impeded access to the road, no parked cars or suchlike.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The decision and the ability to make it is a political one. The courts are not able to judge to political ideology. However, they can look at whether it was done lawfully. We live in a society where decisions made by the executive should be done lawfully. That is what the courts will be looking at. I think that we would all want to know whether a decision is lawful or not.


That’s fine, but do you make it clear to the people donating that you could win your case and the LTNs could still remain as they are?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> That’s fine, but do you make it clear to the people donating that you could win your case and the LTNs could still remain as they are?


We have made that clear. We have let people know that it is within the gift of a judge


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> this is an interesting point.
> 1. as a result of covid and lockdown, people will be reluctant to use public transport.
> 2. there isn't enough space for those people deciding not to use public transport to drive.
> 
> council decides to reduce the number of cars on the road, therefore, pushing people towards public transport (where covid transmission could be more prevalent). These two ideas logically conflict in terms of the outcome wanted.


Not at all. The council has made it easier for other, more efficient forms of transport.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

alex_ said:


> and in the places concerned there was un-impeded access to the road, no parked cars or suchlike.


you're focussing on one tiny part of how LTNs impact the vulnerable, whilst i understand why, it doesn't impact whether the work was done at the beginning to understand their impact. That is more of a de facto point. A council an't point to whether something just happens to be ok now and then say that they did to DD beforehand, that is just a lucky result of their actions.


----------



## edcraw (May 31, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We have made that clear. We have let people know that it is within the gift of a judge


Do you mean it’s in the gift of the judge to remove LTNs? I’m not sure it is.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Do you mean it’s in the gift of the judge to remove LTNs? I’m not sure it is.


A judge could say that, as a result of not following the correct legal procedure to implement them, then their implementation has no legal basis and has been unlawful and then direct the council to undertake a number actions (assessment etc.) before they are allowed to implement them again.


----------



## thebackrow (May 31, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> The point someone else made was that stopping the spread of COVID was never the ppint of LTNs but it's all we heard when they were being put in. Now the narrative moves when such resistance is seen. That alone is the cause of much rage...the sheer cheek of it.
> 
> I agree with all the other points but what are we - coming up to a year in and still waiting for good res


If you go back and read Lambeth's original announcements there are two separate things that were announced at the same time.  They are both a response to COVID but they're not both about preventing spread (although I suppose providing people with a healthy alternative to using public transport would help limit spread as well) 


Footway widening for social distancing
LTNs for to remove rat-running traffic and boost walking and cycling


----------



## chowce5382 (May 31, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> If you go back and read Lambeth's original announcements there are two separate things that were announced at the same time.  They are both a response to COVID but they're not both about preventing spread (although I suppose providing people with a healthy alternative to using public transport would help limit spread as well)
> 
> 
> Footway widening for social distancing
> LTNs for to remove rat-running traffic and boost walking and cycling


Where did the funding come from and as a result of what?


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 1, 2021)

chowce5382 Thank you for coming on here and doing this.

 I heartily hope you lose your case. We have a local congestion and pollution problem and a global climate emergency. I can’t help but think your time and your £35,000 would be better spent holding the national government to account as it destroys the lives and livelihoods of millions, but of course your priorities are your own.

 But I appreciate what you are doing here, the calm and polite way you’re answering these questions.

Since you seem like a reasonable person, it must be painful for you to hang out with the unpleasant denizens of the OneLambeth Facebook group, as evidenced by their posts that have been duplicated further above in the thread. I can’t imagine many of them get out of bed in the morning worried about equalities.

I do have one question… Could you give us a feeling for how much of the funds raised to date come from donors outside of the affected area, as opposed to lambeth residents?  It does seem to be a significant amount based on the comments. I’m assuming these are the non-local commuters that the ltns are designed to target, as well as pressure groups like ltda prosecuting their war on cyclists. I can see why they would want to attack these measures.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 1, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> chowce5382 Thank you for coming on here and doing this.
> 
> I heartily hope you lose your case. We have a local congestion and pollution problem and a global climate emergency. I can’t help but think your time and your £35,000 would be better spent holding the national government to account as it destroys the lives and livelihoods of millions, but of course your priorities are your own.
> 
> ...


Hi

my feeling is that most of the funds raised are local. It’s difficult to tell but we have seen significant funds coming through directly after different parts of the borough have been provided with leaflets and a QR code. As such it feels like there is a direct correlation between the two.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We have made that clear. We have let people know that it is within the gift of a judge


Could you show me where you say this?. I don't see it on the go fund me page.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2021)

There’s a distinct whiff of the stuff that comes out a cows backside here


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Could you show me where you say this?. I don't see it on the go fund me page.


I’ve said it on a number of calls we’ve had to which people can join if they want to understand the legal process further


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There’s a distinct whiff of the stuff that comes out a cows backside here


In what respect?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’ve said it on a number of calls we’ve had to which people can join if they want to understand the legal process further


Why don't you tell people before you take their money?


----------



## nagapie (Jun 1, 2021)

How can people be opposed to a call for proper assessment of the implications of such a far reaching system? Anything else without proper consultation would be lambasted straight away as unacceptable. That's why there always has to be opposition, whether you find the opposition odious or not it is the system of looking at things from all sides that keeps things fair.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 1, 2021)

And as for Lambeth saying a blue badge exemption is unworkable, people should be disgusted in that. It's not unworkable, other boroughs have done it, it's a won't not can't situation because Lambeth have no interest in spending money on accessibility. As ableist as it gets.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 1, 2021)

I think that anyone living inside an LTN who wants it to succeed should probably write to their councillors on the blue badge issue.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Why don't you tell people before you take their money?


Well, we have made it clear that we are going to court. We have a court date. A judge will sit and judge the case. The judge will then write up his conclusion. This judgement written by the judge will be communicated to the parties. I’m not sure how it isn’t entirely obvious that what the judge says will be the judgement. As such it’s in his gift. I’m not sure that I follow that this isn’t clear.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think that anyone living inside an LTN who wants it to succeed should probably write to their councillors on the blue badge issue.


I am broadly in favour of LTNs but have been turned against them because of this issue. I think the blue badge issue is well known to the council yet still they're putting cost first.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think that anyone living inside an LTN who wants it to succeed should probably write to their councillors on the blue badge issue.


That’s already been done too. I’ve written to my MP too as have a number of others. However, we must remember that disabled are just one sub-set on vulnerable people under the Act.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 1, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> chowce5382 Thank you for coming on here and doing this.
> 
> I heartily hope you lose your case. We have a local congestion and pollution problem and a global climate emergency. I can’t help but think your time and your £35,000 would be better spent holding the national government to account as it destroys the lives and livelihoods of millions, but of course your priorities are your own.
> 
> ...



There are unpleasant people on both sides. As has been also posted on this thread.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 1, 2021)

It’s strange that after a number of years of discrimination against disabled people (PIP assessments, the fifteen minute care debacle, being abandoned by the government on covid etc) you appear to have done absolutely nothing.

Yet some minor adjustments to road user hierarchy that disfavours private cars - a tiny bit - and here you come running.
What do you think of people with disability who like LTNs?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 1, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> It’s strange that after a number of years of discrimination against disabled people (PIP assessments, the fifteen minute care debacle, being abandoned by the government on covid etc) you appear to have done absolutely nothing.
> 
> Yet some minor adjustments to road user hierarchy that disfavours private cars - a tiny bit - and here you come running.
> What do you think of people with disability who like LTNs?


So by that logic, if I don’t stand up the very first time I see discrimination then I’m excluded from ever doing it. I’m afraid that this argument doesn’t stack up. Also, I’m pretty sure that you don’t really know anything about what I’ve done previously. It seems a little unfair to criticise me for fighting this cause. Of course the argument can be turned around by saying that, because you appear to be pro-LTN you now don’t like it when someone has a coherent argument which is based on vulnerable people. As mentioned at the previously, I’m doing this for very personal reasons and COVID has been an utter nightmare for me and close loved ones so please don’t judge my reasons without having a clue as to who I am or my moral code. It doesn’t seem in keeping with the respectful nature of this group. 

I have spoken to disabled people who like LTNs, a couple said that it meant that they could cycle more often. However, most of those people are on the more able bodied end of the disabled spectrum. Just because they like them doesn’t mean that LTNs don’t cause damage to other vulnerable people. It only seems fair to me that changes such as this should fully cater for that group. It’s a shame that we can’t agree on that point.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 1, 2021)

£100m of new Government directed funding for TfL announced today for more street space work as part of the wider £1bn package.

The £100m has to be spent on Healthy Streets / LTN activity.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 1, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> £100m of new Government directed funding for TfL announced today for more street space work as part of the wider £1bn package.
> 
> The £100m has to be spent on Healthy Streets / LTN activity.


It's probably not for this, but I've been wondering if bus lanes will actually be improved now that all traffic has moved onto the main lanes. I know that at rush hour my journey takes longer as my bus cannot move for sections of the journey. This is not a reason for me to not back LTNs but it seems a very necessary area of improvment for them to work.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 1, 2021)

Seems TFL and HMG have now upset the RMT.
How resilient is the LTN network to tube and train strikes?








						Transport for London secures £1.08bn emergency funding deal
					

Transport for London has secured a £1.08bn emergency funding deal with the government to provide financial support during ongoing Covid-19 restrictions.




					www.cityam.com


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> It's probably not for this, but I've been wondering if bus lanes will actually be improved now that all traffic has moved onto the main lanes. I know that at rush hour my journey takes longer as my bus cannot move for sections of the journey. This is not a reason for me to not back LTNs but it seems a very necessary area of improvment for them to work.


Its going to get worse, we just don't have the capacity on the roads and the only answer to this and people who really need the car to get around is to have less traffic. I hope this extra money will be well spent, LTNs are only part of a solution.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Its going to get worse, we just don't have the capacity on the roads and the only answer to this and people who really need the car to get around is to have less traffic. I hope this extra money will be well spent, LTNs are only part of a solution.


Absolutely, that's my point. So if all necessary drivers are on the main road - cabs, workmen, delivery, carers, etc - then bus lanes need improving. We're not going to eradicate driving completely as there's still a need for it but public transport needs to be made as efficient and accessible as possible.
And speaking of only part of the solution, there are so many things off the road that need looking at. For example flexible working. One of my main problems with public transport in rush hour is that I cannot get to work on time if even a small amount of time is added to my journey. Yet my employer is only obliged to consider flexible working, which means it's a no from him and a struggle for me.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Absolutely, that's my point. So if all necessary drivers are on the main road - cabs, workmen, delivery, carers, etc - then bus lanes need improving. We're not going to eradicate driving completely as there's still a need for it but public transport needs to be made as efficient and accessible as possible.
> And speaking of only part of the solution, there are so many things off the road that need looking at. For example flexible working. One of my main problems with public transport in rush hour is that I cannot get to work on time if even a small amount of time is added to my journey. Yet my employer is only obliged to consider flexible working, which means it's a no from him and a struggle for me.


It's not just the necessary drivers that are on the road though. A third of car journeys are less than 2k, half are less than 3k, how much of those journeys are walkable?.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not just the necessary drivers that are on the road though. A third of car journeys are less than 2k, half are less than 3k, how much of those journeys are walkable?.


It's not only distance that makes a drive necessary. However I am sure there are still many drivers on the roads who could be on public transport. All the more reason to improve bus routes, flexible working, accessibility, etc.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 1, 2021)

The fucking school run. It's half term right now and the difference on the roads is night and day.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> There are unpleasant people on both sides. As has been also posted on this thread.


This is accurate, however there is a small matter of degree. For example: smashing up street furniture that was put in by local families to make their corner nicer. Celebrating death threats sent to a councillor.  Inviting out-of-area rightwing figures who have actively worked against vulnerable people in the past to speak in our community. I just dont see the equivalence you do Gramsci.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 1, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> £100m of new Government directed funding for TfL announced today for more street space work as part of the wider £1bn package.
> 
> The £100m has to be spent on Healthy Streets / LTN activity.


Is this the treasury trolling ?


----------



## alex_ (Jun 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I am broadly in favour of LTNs but have been turned against them because of this issue. I think the blue badge issue is well known to the council yet still they're putting cost first.



If disabled badges aren’t in anpr - and they aren’t because they are for people not cars the cost could be huge.

i mean does anyone thing a Lambeth commissioned it system would be a good idea ?

Alex


----------



## nagapie (Jun 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> If disabled badges aren’t in anpr - and they aren’t because they are for people not cars the cost could be huge.
> 
> i mean does anyone thing a Lambeth commissioned it system would be a good idea ?





alex_ said:


> If disabled badges aren’t in anpr - and they aren’t because they are for people not cars the cost could be huge.
> 
> i mean does anyone thing a Lambeth commissioned it system would be a good idea ?
> 
> Alex


Cost before people. If that's your view, our conversation ends here.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> And as for Lambeth saying a blue badge exemption is unworkable, people should be disgusted in that. It's not unworkable, other boroughs have done it, it's a won't not can't situation because Lambeth have no interest in spending money on accessibility. As ableist as it gets.


Have they actually said this? I’ve seen that they would consider exemptions and mention that a blue badge is for a person not a car so it would be difficult but haven’t seen them say unworkable.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jun 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Have they actually said this? I’ve seen that they would consider exemptions and mention that a blue badge is for a person not a car so it would be difficult but haven’t seen them say unworkable.


Lambeth choose not to add them to the exemptions list they already have, mainly their own vehicles. I doubt it's cost and since other areas have added a nominated car per blue badge holder, I doubt it's unworkable. It's a choice.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 1, 2021)

They


nagapie said:


> It's probably not for this, but I've been wondering if bus lanes will actually be improved now that all traffic has moved onto the main lanes. I know that at rush hour my journey takes longer as my bus cannot move for sections of the journey. This is not a reason for me to not back LTNs but it seems a very necessary area of improvment for them to work.


They’ve just improved the A23 between Elephant & Castle to make the bus lanes pretty much continuous and wider in places. They also widened Brixton Hill a while back to help the bus lane and have made most 24hrs.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Have they actually said this? I’ve seen that they would consider exemptions and mention that a blue badge is for a person not a car so it would be difficult but haven’t seen them say unworkable.


Central London manage to exempt blue badge holders from the congetsion charge. Southwark have managed to make a blue badge exemption. This is one of the points on which they are being taken to court.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 1, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Lambeth choose not to add them to the exemptions list they already have, mainly their own vehicles. I doubt it's cost and since other areas have added a nominated car per blue badge holder, I doubt it's unworkable. It's a choice.


Ive raised this with my ward councillors and they've been sympathetic but noncommittal.   They should be pressed on this.  Would be so much better if the deeply concerned were organising to push things like this, as opposed to ‘bin it’ ism.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Is this the treasury trolling ?


It’s Gilligan getting the budget he asked for to deliver a govt strategy that has cross party support. 

I wonder what it means - expanding the areas covered? The press release is vague.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 2, 2021)

But I had almost completely forgotten about the existence of One Lambeth friend Shaun Bailey - so yes, I guess after the conservative mayoral candidate runs on a platform of ULEZ and LTN removal and loses, his party putting in an additional £100m for more London LTNs must vex Shaun.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 2, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Ive raised this with my ward councillors and they've been sympathetic but noncommittal.   They should be pressed on this.  Would be so much better if the deeply concerned were organising to push things like this, as opposed to ‘bin it’ ism.


We tried this but there is also an issue about being timed out and therefore precluded from taking any legal action. All the council needs to do is say that they’ll think about it and then time you out so you can’t compel them through the court system then they can just do nothing and you’ve lost any legal right to compel. Our council didn’t even get to the point of saying they would think about it. Given this is also only one very small part of their obligations under the Act there was very little choice apart from court action. The only other way through would be to wait on the council remedying all of the issues related to vulnerable people when they had already said on numerous occasions that they either couldn’t or wouldn’t.


----------



## Winot (Jun 2, 2021)

‘But what does seem quite clear is that in a bad year for Labour, cycle schemes saved or won votes for us, not lost them. And that if there was any “controversy”, it worked largely in our favour.’









						The evidence is in: low-traffic neighbourhoods are popular
					

The London election proves that measures to make streets safer are a vote-winner, says a former Labour leader of Ealing council




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> ‘But what does seem quite clear is that in a bad year for Labour, cycle schemes saved or won votes for us, not lost them. And that if there was any “controversy”, it worked largely in our favour.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unfortunately though, the Labour run Ealing council already took out one of their LTNs and seem to be planning to do the same for the rest as well.


----------



## Winot (Jun 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Unfortunately though, the Labour run Ealing council already took out one of their LTNs and seem to be planning to do the same for the rest as well.


Yes that’s referred to in the article, which I guess is partly why the author has written it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> ‘But what does seem quite clear is that in a bad year for Labour, cycle schemes saved or won votes for us, not lost them. And that if there was any “controversy”, it worked largely in our favour.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's probably why One Lambeth are trying to diversify into more areas than just the LTN, it's not a vote winner.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> Yes that’s referred to in the article, which I guess is partly why the author has written it.


Yes - it just seems a bad example to use, because yes the labour vote did ok there, but that's in the context of a labour council that seems willing to dump the LTNs, which seems to undermine his point. 

Of course it's still true to say that the Mayoral vote did fine, with a Mayor committed to continuing LTNs etc, that several councils that are sticking with their LTNs also did fine, and that no specifically anti-LTN candidates got a significant number of votes.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 2, 2021)

“says a former Labour leader of Ealing council”. 
I don’t know the politics there but this sounds like the former leader doesn’t think they should have been removed and is making the point to his populist successors that their removal approach is likely to backfire at the ballot box


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jun 2, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> “says a former Labour leader of Ealing council”.
> I don’t know the politics there but this sounds like the former leader doesn’t think they should have been removed and is making the point to his populist successors that their removal approach is likely to backfire at the ballot box











						Ealing Labour leader Julian Bell has been replaced after Labour vote
					

He's been leader of Ealing Council for 10 years




					www.mylondon.news


----------



## alex_ (Jun 2, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Ealing Labour leader Julian Bell has been replaced after Labour vote
> 
> 
> He's been leader of Ealing Council for 10 years
> ...



a majority of Londoners support LTNs









						Steady Support for for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London
					

The latest research by Redfield & Wilton Strategies finds that 47% of Londoners support the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods…




					redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 2, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Ealing Labour leader Julian Bell has been replaced after Labour vote
> 
> 
> He's been leader of Ealing Council for 10 years
> ...



From that  - 
_He narrowly survived a vote of no confidence in September last year amid concerns over his handling of the introduction of new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) during the coronavirus pandemic.

Cllr Mason was previously Ealing’s cabinet member for housing, planning and transformation, but had resigned from the cabinet after the no-confidence vote following huge opposition to the LTNs.
_
and from the Guardian today 
_Now, we’ve had the biggest imaginable consultation on these LTNs: we’ve had an election. At the London mayoral election last month, the cycle schemes were by far the biggest issue in the five main wards of Ealing they covered – Acton Central, Ealing Common, Elthorne, Northfield and Walpole. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats blitzed the area, telling people that a vote for them would stop the LTNs.
...
But it turns out they’re not “unpopular” at all. Not even really all that “controversial”, and certainly not the vote magnet our opponents hoped. In Ealing as a whole, the Tory vote did go up compared with the previous election, by 0.64 percentage points. But in the five Ealing LTN wards as a whole, the Tories went down. The Lib Dems fell, too._


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 2, 2021)

alex_ said:


> a majority of Londoners support LTNs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty sure the majority of londoners have no idea what an LTN is and stats are easily games with non-specific questions which a positive answer is assumed 'oh yes they must be for LTNs'

What happens when you look at stats of people who are consulted? Ppl who live in or around an LTN area and know what they are??:









						Three quarters of people consulted do not want low-traffic schemes
					

More that 25,000 residents have been surveyed by councils




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




Dominic Penna
29 May 2021 • 7:00pm
An estimated 5,000 residents took to the streets of Ealing last month in protest against the increasing number of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
Nearly three quarters of people who have been consulted over low-traffic neighbourhoods and cycle lanes are against their rollout, analysis by The Telegraph shows.

More than 25,000 residents and visitors have been surveyed as part of the 10 consultations published by councils to date. Dozens more reviews are expected to follow in the coming weeks.

In the consultations made public so far, 18,314 people have expressed a negative view of the active travel schemes, vastly outnumbering the 7,020 residents who expressed their support.

In Harrow, 6,073 survey participants (82 per cent) disapproved of the council’s schemes, which later became the first in the country to be completely removed after a six-month consultation.

In Windsor and Maidenhead, 1,998 of 2,221 residents (89 per cent) rejected plans to extend trial schemes in an overwhelming verdict that has prompted the council to promise a “big conversation” with residents about its active travel agenda.

Advertisement

Two consultations came as an exception to the general rule, with 64 per cent of feedback in Bromley and 64.7 per cent in North Yorkshire in favour of the schemes.

Further analysis by this newspaper found that more than one in three councils have axed, modified or reduced their active travel schemes since Grant Shapps allocated a total of £2 billion across 110 local authorities last spring.

The 42 councils that have altered or scrapped their schemes were given a total of £119.6 million across two tranches of funding in May and November 2020.

Craig Mackinlay, the chairman of the all-parliamentary group for Fair Fuel, “At a time of national financial stress, spending so much on these ludicrous projects does not seem to me to be a good use of money,” he told The Telegraph.

“An ageing population is not likely in any way, shape or form to start taking to the bicycle to do their shopping. To restrict tight, existing road networks in order to accommodate cycle lanes is madness.”

Tony Devenish, a Conservative London Assembly member, who last year successfully campaigned for the removal of the Kensington High Street cycle lane, said: “My Government is at fault to some extent, because they gave councils the power not to publicly consult for up to 18 months.

Advertisement

“You can’t just do these things to people. There has been absolute outcry from the Great British public - and that’s why so many councils have had to U-turn.”

The Department for Transport did not comment on the Telegraph’s findings.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 2, 2021)

OneChiswick blaming foxes for destroying traffic counters....


----------



## alex_ (Jun 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Pretty sure the majority of londoners have no idea what an LTN is and stats are easily games with non-specific questions which a positive answer is assumed 'oh yes they must be for LTNs'
> 
> What happens when you look at stats of people who are consulted? Ppl who live in or around an LTN area and know what they are??:
> 
> ...



Great - a telegraph article, can you perhaps supply the links to the underlying research ?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 2, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Great - a telegraph article, can you perhaps supply the links to the underlying research ?



Research? They went to the councils who had consulted their residents in their areas and worked out for vs against. 

Compare that to your study which appears to have just canvassed a few thousand eligible london voters.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Research? They went to the councils who had consulted their residents in their areas and worked out for vs against.





Jeanette Moo said:


> Compare that to your study which appears to have just canvassed a few thousand eligible london voters.



Something I’m not clear on - when you say

“stats are easily games with non-specific questions which a positive answer is assumed 'oh yes they must be for LTNs'”

are surveys of opinion good or bad ?

Alex


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 2, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Something I’m not clear on - when you say
> 
> “stats are easily games with non-specific questions which a positive answer is assumed 'oh yes they must be for LTNs'”
> 
> ...



Lets look at the case in point.

Lots of people may be asked if they support LTNs and they may have no idea what they are...but it sounds good right? Low traffic. The negatives are never mentioned so people will say yeah that sounds great. Do you think active travel should be supported? Yes? GREAT THEN YOU SUPPORT LTNs. Would you like to see less pollution? Yes? GREAT THEN YOU SUPPORT LTNs.

Now look at the telegraph article. That's looking at true surveys of opinion via consultation. People in or around LTNs who know waht an LTN is, who know their impact and are feeding back to their councils.

The one TFL did in ferndale showed the same, large majority outside against and even inside it was not that great if i remember.

It just shows that the little 2000 person london polls are not worth the time when the real stats, from residents, via councils or bodies like TFL are not showing the reality.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 3, 2021)

Paul Wheeler: Last rites for the Covid LTNs - OnLondon
					

The first action of the newly-elected Labour leader of Ealing last month was significant. Peter Mason announced the immediate ending of the West Ealing LTN (Low Traffic Neighbourhood) and a guarantee that any future LTN would be subject to popular consultation and support. Part of the reason was...




					www.onlondon.co.uk
				




An interesting article written regarding LTNs, congestion and pollution in general. Some good points made here esp about investment in Hydrogen. It’s an area I’ve done some work on, it’s probably the best option across a number of areas (cars, aircraft, heating, busses). IMHO the government should be piling investment into this to fast forward it as soon as possible.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 3, 2021)

Why Are We Still Talking About Hydrogen?
					

Hydrogen is still being pitched as the miracle fuel to solve all our environmental issues with transport. But it has a major flaw that must mean it will never be the ideal choice over batteries for personal vehicles.




					www.forbes.com
				


_Hydrogen’s Inherent Flaw_​_The problem is that this convenience hides a significant flaw in the technology that has somehow failed to be included in the marketing propaganda of hydrogen evangelists. It doesn’t appear to be widely understood by those who have been listening to these messages either. The flaw is basically caused by the laws of physics. For hydrogen to be completely green, it must be produced by electrolyzing water, which splits this into the H2 and O that it is made of. You can produce H2 from fossil fuels (usually methane), but this creates either “grey” hydrogen (which still produces lots of CO2) or “blue” hydrogen (which captures 90% of the CO2 and stores it, merely delaying the problem). Only electrolyzing hydrogen from water using electricity generated from renewable sources makes the fuel entirely green_.









						Hydrogen cars won't overtake electric vehicles because they're hampered by the laws of science
					

Everyone loves the idea of H2 cars, but they come with a huge disadvantage.




					theconversation.com
				



_The reason why hydrogen is inefficient is because the energy must move from wire to gas to wire in order to power a car._
_Put together__, only 38% of the original electricity – 38 watts out of 100 – __are used_

So it’s unlikely to be a “green” source of power and has massive losses in use (before you get into the issues of storing and transferring pressurised gas)


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

Nothing new in that article. Just a rehash of all the familiar arguments.

I note it calls for increased focus on cycle quietways and also the removal of all LTNs. Part of the point of LTNs is to facilitate those quietways.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 3, 2021)

I wouldn't mind removing all parking from one side of all residential streets, to be replaced with a segregated 2-way cycle lane. The remaining single traffic lane can be one-way only or two-way with a few designated passing spots. That might be a fair trade.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 3, 2021)

Crispy said:


> I wouldn't mind removing all parking from one side of all residential streets, to be replaced with a segregated 2-way cycle lane. The remaining single traffic lane can be one-way only or two-way with a few designated passing spots. That might be a fair trade.


Can you imagine the howls of protest though


----------



## sparkybird (Jun 3, 2021)

Crispy said:


> I wouldn't mind removing all parking from one side of all residential streets, to be replaced with a segregated 2-way cycle lane. The remaining single traffic lane can be one-way only or two-way with a few designated passing spots. That might be a fair trade.


Nice idea but in practice difficult. One way streets work best if there's a grid system and single lane roads with passing spaces just cause more congestion when selfish drivers don't let cars through and you get log jams. Drivers also race through the gaps to try and beat the oncoming vehicle. ☹️


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

Look at this nonsense.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 3, 2021)




----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> This is accurate, however there is a small matter of degree. For example: smashing up street furniture that was put in by local families to make their corner nicer. Celebrating death threats sent to a councillor.  Inviting out-of-area rightwing figures who have actively worked against vulnerable people in the past to speak in our community. I just dont see the equivalence you do Gramsci.



The equivalence is imo that this push to put fast forward these measures comes from central government. The right wing Boris government.

It could be argued that these measures are good for society.

They are being funded by a government that on other issues is right wing. More right wing than recent previous Tory governments.

Part of reason why say UKIP did so poorly is that in effect this Tory party under Boris has gone to the right. Why vote UKIP when you can vote for Tory Party led by Boris?

Much has been made that anti LTN are right wing on this thread. Its different sections of the hard right that are supporting the idea or opposing it.

Opposition to LTNs is a mixed bunch as is supporters.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> The equivalence is imo that this push to put fast forward these measures comes from central government. The right wing Boris government.
> 
> It could be argued that these measures are good for society.
> 
> ...


Support is fairly cross-party and most of the mainstream parties are in favor in principle, and I think they'd largely agree on what the benefits are.

A lot of the opposition (certainly not all) is from relatively marginal groups arguing from a jumble of different positions. That was rather clear in the Mayoral elections.

All this arguing about whether or not it's a "right wing" policy based on what factions do or don't like it seems a bit pointless - why not just judge it on its own merits.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Support is fairly cross-party and most of the mainstream parties are in favor in principle, and I think they'd largely agree on what the benefits are.
> 
> A lot of the opposition (certainly not all) is from relatively marginal groups arguing from a jumble of different positions. That was rather clear in the Mayoral elections.
> 
> All this arguing about whether or not it's a "right wing" policy based on what factions do or don't like it seems a bit pointless - why not just judge it on its own merits.



Yet it keeps coming up here.

The fact is the funding is coming from a hard right government.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2021)

Winot said:


> ‘But what does seem quite clear is that in a bad year for Labour, cycle schemes saved or won votes for us, not lost them. And that if there was any “controversy”, it worked largely in our favour.’
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I vote Labour not because of LTNs.

I don't want Tories running London. Voting Labour is only realistic option to keep them out.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 3, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Ive raised this with my ward councillors and they've been sympathetic but noncommittal.   They should be pressed on this.  Would be so much better if the deeply concerned were organising to push things like this, as opposed to ‘bin it’ ism.



They are "non committal" as if they did take this issue up they would be called to have a chat with chief Whip or leader.

As my popular ex Cllr Rachel was on regular basis when she took up her constituents concerns.

Ward Cllrs on topics like this are told to be non committal if they want to stay in Labour group.

Tbf its almost pointless emailing ones local ward Cllr about this.

In the Cabinet run system they are glove puppets of the leadership.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

What bothers me is the narrative that somehow this is an even sided argument, two equal but opposing camps. It’s not, the anti brigade are an overly vocal minority.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 4, 2021)

The government introduced the furlough scheme, and that was hardly right wing.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 4, 2021)

I'm not sure left vs right helps the discussion any more than working class vs whatever.

The UK Conservative party generally argues that 'marketisation' is the way to ensure that resources are used efficiently and productively. They privatised the railways, utilities and are by stealth seemingly doing the same to health and education (with academies and 'free schools). However, they've typically not been consistent when it comes to motoring  - against parking charges, congestion charge, speeding fines etc etc or drug policy (where they revert to authoritarianism).   

Likewise 'working class' - what does that mean any more?  Marxist definition as 'individuals who sell their labour power for wages and do not own the means of production' doesn't really cover taxi driver, or (mostly self employed) plumbers and electricians.  Train drivers? Base salary for a tube driver is supposedly £55k plus benefits.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What bothers me is the narrative that somehow this is an even sided argument, two equal but opposing camps. It’s not, the anti brigade are an overly vocal minority.


I’m not sure that is fair. Equally you could just say that the pro-camp just happen to have all the power and can implement whatever they want without a care for anyone who isn’t of their opinion.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 4, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The government introduced the furlough scheme, and that was hardly right wing.


I saw the Pope described as a Peronist the other day.
Preaches progressive stuff when the audience wants to hear it, and reactionary stuff when that audience wants it.
I reckon that is the secret of Boris Johnson too.

The furlough scheme is a populist solution to a shot-term crisis.
But like the Pope, when the shit hits the fan Boris will leave the explanations to his minions - and will no doubt leave them with the difficult decisions.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’m not sure that is fair. Equally you could just say that the pro-camp just happen to have all the power and can implement whatever they want without a care for anyone who isn’t of their opinion.


If you look at the wider picture in terms of spending on roads, the space given up to cars, the lack of measures on pollution it's absurd to say the pro camp have all the power. These LTNS are a tiny step away from all that. Tiny.


----------



## Winot (Jun 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’m not sure that is fair. Equally you could just say that the pro-camp just happen to have all the power and can implement whatever they want without a care for anyone who isn’t of their opinion.


Indeed - this is why the UK is dominated by cycle lanes with little provision for cars.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’m not sure that is fair. Equally you could just say that the pro-camp just happen to have all the power and can implement whatever they want without a care for anyone who isn’t of their opinion.


_looks at The Netherlands_

_looks at the UK_

_laughs at you_


----------



## alex_ (Jun 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Yet it keeps coming up here.
> 
> The fact is the funding is coming from a hard right government.



so you are against all Tory central government spending and would be in favour of all labour central gov spending ?


----------



## John Schofield (Jun 4, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What bothers me is the narrative that somehow this is an even sided argument, two equal but opposing camps. It’s not, the anti brigade are an overly vocal minority.


I'm not sure it is helpful to argue this issue on the basis of which side is in the majority.

Cyclists may outnumber disabled residents but the impact on the latter might outweigh the benefits to the former.

It is at least conceivable that an LTN might lower pollution from an already relatively low level for a majority of people while increasing it to a dangerous level for a minority in surrounding streets. A significant detriment to the minority and a negligible benefit for the majority. 

Now for all I know a majority of disabled residents may favour the LTN, and my pollution scenario is purely hypothetical. But I'm not clear how we establish any of this without open scrutiny, debate and evaluation and I'm not sure I trust Lambeth Council to participate in that with good faith. Apart from anything else, I believe they have made a fair bit of money from LTN's.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2021)

John Schofield said:


> Cyclists may outnumber disabled residents but the impact on the latter might outweigh the benefits to the former.


Motorists may outnumber disabled residents but the impacts of the status quo on the latter might outweigh the benefits to the former.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 4, 2021)

John Schofield said:


> I'm not sure it is helpful to argue this issue on the basis of which side is in the majority.
> 
> Cyclists may outnumber disabled residents but the impact on the latter might outweigh the benefits to the former.
> 
> ...


The thing is that these measures, modal filters etc have been around for decades and they existed in Brixton previously. It’s not hypothetical or a matter of debate whether they work or not, it’s just that they’ve been introduced on a number of new locations.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Jun 5, 2021)

ash said:


> I live on Ferndale and all the accounts and occasional videos don’t ring true to me. There is the odd beeping and disagreement but this is a street that is not designed for 2 way traffic and always has been.  IMO it has been quieter since the LTN has been introduced.  5:10 this evening:



Where do you live on Ferndale Road? You’ve taken a photo on the western end, which is where I live. The eastern/Brixton end of the road was part of a rat run prior to the LTN, as were Concanon and Sandmere Roads. The rat runs have been moved to Ferndale Road West, as it’s come to be called. The eastern end of the road (which is much wider) might be the same as before or better. I don’t know. But it would be disingenuous as a resident of the eastern part of the road to try to speak for the residents of the western end. And if Ferndale Road generally
is quieter following the introduction of the LTN, why did the council then introduce a new filter on Ferndale Road some eight or nine months after the LTN was introduced? This is what Lambeth Council gave as the reason (as you’ll know as a resident of Ferndale Road, having received one of these flyers):



The data referred to comes from the monitoring report:






So it’s your comment that doesn’t ring true. I can’t comprehend how anyone who lives on the western part of Ferndale Road can honestly say such a thing. Nothing like what has happened since this LTN was introduced happened before it, at least not in the 24 years that I’ve lived here.


----------



## Winot (Jun 5, 2021)

Collateral Dama how are vehicles getting onto Ferndale West? Could you describe their route please as I’m a bit confused.

Ta


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

Winot said:


> Collateral Dama how are vehicles getting onto Ferndale West? Could you describe their route please as I’m a bit confused.
> 
> Ta


As far as I understand it's the green portion of this map.



So all the traffic for the west portion of Ferndale Rd plus a few other streets off it, accesses it from that one point at its west (Clapham) end.

That's in theory though assuming all the filters are working.

Collateral Dama 's view I think is that this setup generates too much excess traffic even with the filters working. That seems surprising to me and I am inclined to think that if all the filters were working properly you would not be seeing a problem.

The graphs posted above are from before the filter halfway along Ferndale was introduced, I think. If I've got it right, prior to that the 'blue' and 'green' areas were not separated.


----------



## Winot (Jun 5, 2021)

OK so you can get into it from the west end of Ferndale Rd but you will be fined (if the filters are working) if you leave it by any route other than back the way you came, is that right?

I too cannot see where the problem arises. Please could you explain what you mean by “rat run” Collateral Dama - where are the vehicle going.

There has been talk of Ferndale Rd becoming a cut through for HGVs but that cannot happen if the Ferndale East filter is properly enforced.

Nothing I have read yet persuades me that the LTN is fundamentally flawed. Instead it needs proper enforcement and fixing of the vandalism.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> As far as I understand it's the green portion of this map.
> 
> View attachment 271932
> 
> ...



You’re right on all counts except the above map is incorrect in that the green area above, which comprises the cul-de-sac that has been created, should extend further west as the filter has been placed nearly at the railway bridge. So it includes the Edmundsbury estate, another smaller estate and the Duke of Edinburgh pub. Including the side streets, that covers a lot of houses, flats, cars and deliveries. On top of which is the exemption being given to the largest lorries (M&S, Superdrug and possibly others) to drive through the Ferndale Road filter.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Jun 5, 2021)

Winot said:


> OK so you can get into it from the west end of Ferndale Rd but you will be fined (if the filters are working) if you leave it by any route other than back the way you came, is that right?
> 
> I too cannot see where the problem arises. Please could you explain what you mean by “rat run” Collateral Dama - where are the vehicle going.
> 
> ...


If the filters were working then I agree that there would no longer be a ”rat run”. But as Teuchter said, I still believe that there would be far more traffic on the western end of Ferndale Road as a result of the LTN as currently configured. It would be a huge cul-de-sac with one way in and one way out. Whether the vehicles passing by were “rat running” or not, there would be too many of them, including HGVs that are granted an exemption to pass through the filter.


----------



## Winot (Jun 5, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> If the filters were working then I agree that there would no longer be a ”rat run”. But as Teuchter said, I still believe that there would be far more traffic on the western end of Ferndale Road as a result of the LTN as currently configured. It would be a huge cul-de-sac with one way in and one way out. Whether the vehicles passing by were “rat running” or not, there would be too many of them, including HGVs that are granted an exemption to pass through the filter.


I fully support the removal of the exemption for HGVs. The email you reproduced in post #4,547 set out a very narrow exemption for HGVs unable to turn into Bellefields Rd. If HGVs are abusing this exemption to use Ferndale as an east-west cut-through then it needs to be enforced properly. I would be interested however to see data for HGV use. I cycle past the western end of Ferndale Rd multiple times a week and have not noticed any HGVs exiting Ferndale onto Bedford.

Similarly I cannot see that the creation of the LTN should increase the number of vehicles coming into the cul-de-sac (as you describe it) and then exiting. Why would they do this?

What I suspect _is_ happening is that some vehicles are ignoring the filters on Ferndale East/Colcannon Rd and still using the LTN as a cut-through (I have seen this multiple times). However the total number of vehicles passing through will be much lower than pre-LTN.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

There are a bunch of streets that now are forced to use the west end of Ferndale rd, sure, but then there are a bunch of streets, that could previously use it and now can't at all. It ought to roughly balance out. It seems much more plausible that the problems are caused by unenforced filters.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jun 5, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> If the filters were working then I agree that there would no longer be a ”rat run”. But as Teuchter said, I still believe that there would be far more traffic on the western end of Ferndale Road as a result of the LTN as currently configured. It would be a huge cul-de-sac with one way in and one way out. Whether the vehicles passing by were “rat running” or not, there would be too many of them, including HGVs that are granted an exemption to pass through the filter.


We have a similar problem here in the north bit of Shakespeare Rd. Now a long cul-de-sac with 3 businesses (Network Rail, Veolia and Norris) using us as the sole access road for all their HGVs.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Jun 5, 2021)

Winot said:


> I fully support the removal of the exemption for HGVs. The email you reproduced in post #4,547 set out a very narrow exemption for HGVs unable to turn into Bellefields Rd. If HGVs are abusing this exemption to use Ferndale as an east-west cut-through then it needs to be enforced properly. I would be interested however to see data for HGV use. I cycle past the western end of Ferndale Rd multiple times a week and have not noticed any HGVs exiting Ferndale onto Bedford.
> 
> Similarly I cannot see that the creation of the LTN should increase the number of vehicles coming into the cul-de-sac (as you describe it) and then exiting. Why would they do this?
> 
> What I suspect _is_ happening is that some vehicles are ignoring the filters on Ferndale East/Colcannon Rd and still using the LTN as a cut-through (I have seen this multiple times). However the total number of vehicles passing through will be much lower than pre-LTN.


Pre-LTN there were various routes to get to Tintern Road, for example, or Ducie Road, but now the only way to reach them is via the western end of Ferndale Road, which is the narrowest part of the road. Once (if) the filters are truly operational, every vehicle wanting to access or leave any of the properties in the map shown above will have to pass through the western part of Ferndale Road. This includes a couple of estates, a very busy pub (with many taxis at closing time), all the deliveries that people get now — and I’m becoming acutely aware of how many that is — including a corner shop that serves as an Amazon deliver/pick-up point. Additionally, Ubers have started to use Tintern Road as a place to pick up fares from Sandmere Road and other roads that are now difficult to access. Those taxis need to go in and out via Ferndale Road. Before the LTN those vehicles could have come in from the Brixton end of Ferndale or on any of the roads leading from Acre Lane or via Sandmere. Now there is only one route: Ferndale Road West. Regarding the exemption for HGVs, we don’t know how big or small it is but we’re trying to find out.  As you may know, a hotel is being planned on the Superdrug site. How big will the lorries associated with the building be and will they be exempt? Regarding the HGVs, I’m not saying that they’re always present but they are certainly a daily occurrence. I took this photo this morning:


----------



## Winot (Jun 5, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Pre-LTN there were various routes to get to Tintern Road, for example, or Ducie Road, but now the only way to reach them is via the western end of Ferndale Road, which is the narrowest part of the road. Once (if) the filters are truly operational, every vehicle wanting to access or leave any of the properties in the map shown above will have to pass through the western part of Ferndale Road. This includes a couple of estates, a very busy pub (with many taxis at closing time), all the deliveries that people get now — and I’m becoming acutely aware of how many that is — including a corner shop that serves as an Amazon deliver/pick-up point. Additionally, Ubers have started to use Tintern Road as a place to pick up fares from Sandmere Road and other roads that are now difficult to access. Those taxis need to go in and out via Ferndale Road. Before the LTN those vehicles could have come in from the Brixton end of Ferndale or on any of the roads leading from Acre Lane or via Sandmere. Now there is only one route: Ferndale Road West. Regarding the exemption for HGVs, we don’t know how big or small it is but we’re trying to find out.  As you may know, a hotel is being planned on the Superdrug site. How big will the lorries associated with the building be and will they be exempt? Regarding the HGVs, I’m not saying that they’re always present but they are certainly a daily occurrence. I took this photo this morning:
> 
> View attachment 271953


I wish you all the best getting rid of the HGVs.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Jun 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There are a bunch of streets that now are forced to use the west end of Ferndale rd, sure, but then there are a bunch of streets, that could previously use it and now can't at all. It ought to roughly balance out. It seems much more plausible that the problems are caused by unenforced filters.


You might think so but the western end of Ferndale Road was not the busy road in this area, it was Sandmere, Concanon and the eastern end of Ferndale Road. Now the western end of Ferndale Road is by far the busiest. The other roads have been made better or very much better and we’ve been made much worse. It isn’t fair. For much of the day the traffic has become incessant. People who have lived here for a long time, including me, want to leave. I hope you’re right that it will eventually balance out if the filters can be made to work but I’m doubtful, as I’ve said, as are a lot of my neighbours.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jun 5, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> We have a similar problem here in the north bit of Shakespeare Rd. Now a long cul-de-sac with 3 businesses (Network Rail, Veolia and Norris) using us as the sole access road for all their HGVs.


A correction. Veolias bin lorries have an exemption and are allowed through. 
So, the claims that exemptions are too costly or difficult to be given to the disabled or hospital patient transfers or anyone else somehow evaporate when it's Veolia or M&S or Lambeths own vehicles.


----------



## ash (Jun 5, 2021)

I can only comment on my experience and I have been here 15 years.  I live between Tintern and Bedford and one of the main complainers on one Lambeth posts videos of the Bedford end. 
I cannot say that I have seen any more HGV’s but agree they should not use Ferndale. We don’t have double glazing at the front and I can honestly say I only hear beeping or alcetrations once or twice a month (no different from before the LTN)  despite what I’m hearing about on one Lambeth.


----------



## ash (Jun 5, 2021)

And it’s ridiculous to say that bin lorries should not be exempt 🙄🤣
Let’s just leave our rubbish on the street 🤣🤣


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2021)

I know some people will find this with some justification a very irritating comment but in all this I've wondered whether there is an effect at play where people that didn't really pay much attention to traffic before are now paying a lot of attention because it's become an issue. If you are unhappy about the LTNs in general then you might start becoming hyperaware of traffic on your street and get the impression it's got loads worse when nothing much has actually changed. There's plenty of precedent for this kind of effect in other contexts. Of course, if this is plausible then so is the reverse...if you want LTNs to work you might be in denial of an increase. But maybe it can explain why people living on the same street can report totally different experiences.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 5, 2021)

I see One Lambeth have written open letter to the new leader asking for ending of Cabinet system and replacing it with the Committee system. 









						One Lambeth asks new Council Leader to ditch Cabinet system and replace it with democratic committees at the Town Hall
					

One Lambeth has written to new Lambeth Leader Cllr Claire Holland asking her to scrap the Cabinet system of local government.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




I agree with this letter


----------



## Southlondon (Jun 5, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I see One Lambeth have written open letter to the new leader asking for ending of Cabinet system and replacing it with the Committee system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the committee system to work effectively it really needs a larger opposition than the non-labour party candidates  seem to be able to manage between them. Committee make up should represent the proportions of the opposition parties so you’d have like 1 opposition member on each committee maybe. I think possibly for Lambeth the cabinet system with effective scrutiny might still  be the best system. If it was the committee system the Labour block would still totally dominate the committees and their will would be done.


----------



## John Schofield (Jun 5, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The thing is that these measures, modal filters etc have been around for decades and they existed in Brixton previously. It’s not hypothetical or a matter of debate whether they work or not, it’s just that they’ve been introduced on a number of new locations.


Prompted by your comment I did a google search. You're quite right that there is a lot of evidence although the biggest study appears to be 20 years old. I don't see any studies saying that LTN's are a bad thing (and I don't hold that view myself) but they do note potential adverse impacts. In relation to my previous post these include the adverse effect on surrounding roads and on the disabled. Transport For All are not entirely happy with the current policy - Pave The Way - 4 months on » Transport for All - and have lobbied/are lobbying for changes to LTN's such as blue badge exemption and greater engagement with people who have protected charactersistics. There are also options for manging the additional traffic on neighbouring roads. More generally, as Transport For All point out, the devil is in the detail - a proposed scheme needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not just a broad principle. I don't think Lambeth have done enough in terms of consultation and evaluation in this case.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jun 5, 2021)

ash said:


> And it’s ridiculous to say that bin lorries should not be exempt 🙄🤣
> Let’s just leave our rubbish on the street 🤣🤣


Quite right... it would be an absurd thing for anyone to say. Did anyone say it?


----------



## ash (Jun 5, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> Quite right... it would be an absurd thing for anyone to say. Did anyone say it?


You insinuated that other people should have exemptions as the bin men do.  There is no reason why IMO. If you are disabled it may take a bit longer but you can still get to where you need to be in the comfort of your car if you choose that means of transport.  I live with a disabled person who cannot drive due to his disability and I don’t  either.  The LTN has improved the quality of our experience walking around Ferndale.  I really don’t believe that all these anti LTN people  give a toss about most people with disabilities.  I also find it fascinating that everyone who is anti LTN has a disability or has to visit several frail or disabled people every day.
One of the main campaigners against Ferndale LTN lives on Tintern and is furious as it takes longer to drive to her business on Acre Lane others are annoyed as it takes longer to get to Tesco - it’s laughable.   So many angry people (drivers) if it wasn’t LTN’s it would be something else.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 5, 2021)

ash said:


> One of the main campaigners against Ferndale LTN lives on Tintern and is furious as it takes longer to drive to her business on Acre Lane.



Presumably her commute is all within a single CPZ zone ?

And bearing in mind not having to park cycling would be 2x faster than driving.

Alex


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 5, 2021)

John Schofield said:


> Prompted by your comment I did a google search. You're quite right that there is a lot of evidence although the biggest study appears to be 20 years old. I don't see any studies saying that LTN's are a bad thing (and I don't hold that view myself) but they do note potential adverse impacts. In relation to my previous post these include the adverse effect on surrounding roads and on the disabled. Transport For All are not entirely happy with the current policy - Pave The Way - 4 months on » Transport for All - and have lobbied/are lobbying for changes to LTN's such as blue badge exemption and greater engagement with people who have protected charactersistics. There are also options for manging the additional traffic on neighbouring roads. More generally, as Transport For All point out, the devil is in the detail - a proposed scheme needs to be evaluated on its own merits, not just a broad principle. I don't think Lambeth have done enough in terms of consultation and evaluation in this case.


If anything the problem has gotten worse in the past 20 years, from 2008 on traffic has *doubled* on residential roads, driven by satnav.









						'Rat-running' increases on residential UK streets as experts blame satnav apps
					

Motoring on minor roads doubled between 2009 and 2019, regional figures reveal




					www.theguardian.com
				




Surely less traffic would benefit everyone?


----------



## nagapie (Jun 5, 2021)

ash said:


> You insinuated that other people should have exemptions as the bin men do.  There is no reason why IMO. If you are disabled it may take a bit longer but you can still get to where you need to be in the comfort of your car if you choose that means of transport.  I live with a disabled person who cannot drive due to his disability and I don’t  either.  The LTN has improved the quality of our experience walking around Ferndale.  I really don’t believe that all these anti LTN people  give a toss about most people with disabilities.  I also find it fascinating that everyone who is anti LTN has a disability or has to visit several frail or disabled people every day.
> One of the main campaigners against Ferndale LTN lives on Tintern and is furious as it takes longer to drive to her business on Acre Lane others are annoyed as it takes longer to get to Tesco - it’s laughable.   So many angry people (drivers) if it wasn’t LTN’s it would be something else.


Please don't speak for all disabled people. I also live with one and it makes life just that much easier than that much harder to have access to the LTNs. Those sorts of concessions are about finding ways to make things easier because everything else in life is so much harder.


----------



## ash (Jun 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Please don't speak for all disabled people. I also live with one and it makes life just that much easier than that much harder to have access to the LTNs. Those sorts of concessions are about finding ways to make things easier because everything else in life is so much harder.


I’m not doing so but the anti-LTN’s tend to hence the use of a disabled woman as their figurehead.  At the ‘protest’ at Windrush they hadn’t even considered the fact the she couldn’t access the stage in her wheelchair 🙄.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 5, 2021)

ash said:


> I’m not doing so but the anti-LTN’s tend to hence the use of a disabled woman as their figurehead.  At the ‘protest’ at Windrush they hadn’t even considered the fact the she couldn’t access the stage in her wheelchair 🙄.


But you did say that you live with a disabled person and they're fine, the implication is then that it's fine for all. Also that it just takes longer to get somewhere. Apart from just making things that much easier to make life fairer, there are people with complex medical condtions who have seizures, stop breathing, etc who need journeys to be short, people with complex health and mobility needs for whom travel is uncomfortable, people for whom the sensory aspect of travelling can lead to violent and distressing behaviour. That's just some examples, there are many reasons to have a shorter journey for people with disabliites but as hard as those reasons are, making life fairer is enough. 
You don't go against what is fair just because you hate One Lambeth.


----------



## ash (Jun 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> But you did say that you live with a disabled person and they're fine, the implication is then that it's fine for all. Also that it just takes longer to get somewhere. Apart from just making things that much easier to make life fairer, there are people with complex medical condtions who have seizures, stop breathing, etc who need journeys to be short, people with complex health and mobility needs for whom travel is uncomfortable, people for whom the sensory aspect of travelling can lead to violent and distressing behaviour. That's just some examples, there are many reasons to have a shorter journey for people with disabliites but as hard as those reasons are, making life fairer is enough.
> You don't go against what is fair just because you hate One Lambeth.


Fair enough maybe there is justification for blue badge holders to have exemptions.  I just can’t stand the vitriole behind One Lambeth. I certainly don’t want to be equally vitriolic.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

ash said:


> I’m not doing so but the anti-LTN’s tend to hence the use of a disabled woman as their figurehead.  At the ‘protest’ at Windrush they hadn’t even considered the fact the she couldn’t access the stage in her wheelchair 🙄.



So you are saying Sophia the disabled lady taking Lambeth to court is just a "figurehead" being used cynically by One Lambeth. That she has no agency of her own? 

I was at the Windrush Square demo. Were you? 

I saw Sophia speak. She imo was very happy with the support One Lambeth were giving her. 

Do you think any of the pro LTN groups would have given her support to take Lambeth on?


----------



## John Schofield (Jun 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> If anything the problem has gotten worse in the past 20 years, from 2008 on traffic has *doubled* on residential roads, driven by satnav.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe but per my original post any particular scheme may have negligible benefit for the majority and a significant detriment for a minority. I don't know if that is so in this case but proper and transparent evaluation would tell us if it is optimal or whether adjustments are needed to make it so.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

ash said:


> You insinuated that other people should have exemptions as the bin men do.  There is no reason why IMO. If you are disabled it may take a bit longer but you can still get to where you need to be in the comfort of your car if you choose that means of transport.  I live with a disabled person who cannot drive due to his disability and I don’t  either.  The LTN has improved the quality of our experience walking around Ferndale.  I really don’t believe that all these anti LTN people  give a toss about most people with disabilities.  I also find it fascinating that everyone who is anti LTN has a disability or has to visit several frail or disabled people every day.
> One of the main campaigners against Ferndale LTN lives on Tintern and is furious as it takes longer to drive to her business on Acre Lane others are annoyed as it takes longer to get to Tesco - it’s laughable.   So many angry people (drivers) if it wasn’t LTN’s it would be something else.











						Pave The Way - 4 months on » Transport for All
					

Pave The Way : 4 months on Our Pave The Way report remains the only in-depth and independent piece of research into the impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on disabled people, and has proven to be an invaluable resource to so many. We had several goals when we embarked on this campaign. We...




					www.transportforall.org.uk
				




Transport for All posted up by John Schofield are lobbying for Blue Badge dispensation.

chowce5382 said One Lambeth deputation to the Council had asked for this and it was turned down.

If this Progress Council had wanted to listen and comprimise it was no brainer to do this. Tactically would have undermined One Lambeth.

But that's not the way Progress led Lambeth operates.

Its what Brian Taylor meant. Lambeth can do this. Its technically feasible if they are doing it for their rubbish collection vehicles. Must be able to be extended to blue badge holders. So why won't Lambeth do it?

From Transport for All website. 



> Several infrastructure changes have been made to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on a local level. Ealing now allows dispensation for Blue Badge holders driving through the LTN. Boroughs including Sutton and Croydon will be introducing ANPR cameras in existing LTNS, and in other areas such as Harrow and Hammersmith consultations are open on future planned LTNs that will use ANPRs from the offset.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

Brian Taylor said:


> A correction. Veolias bin lorries have an exemption and are allowed through.
> So, the claims that exemptions are too costly or difficult to be given to the disabled or hospital patient transfers or anyone else somehow evaporate when it's Veolia or M&S or Lambeths own vehicles.



I wonder how Veolia got an exemption? They are private company with a contract with Council. If a private company can get exemption why not others?

If the pro LTN argument is that LTNs cause in reality little inconvenience to business why do Veolia get exemption?

Surely Council should not give them exemption. Say that domestic rubbish collection is perfectly feasible within LTNs.

This would set an example.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Jun 6, 2021)

ash said:


> I can only comment on my experience and I have been here 15 years.  I live between Tintern and Bedford and one of the main complainers on one Lambeth posts videos of the Bedford end.
> I cannot say that I have seen any more HGV’s but agree they should not use Ferndale. We don’t have double glazing at the front and I can honestly say I only hear beeping or alcetrations once or twice a month (no different from before the LTN)  despite what I’m hearing about on one Lambeth.


How many motorbikes did you see driving on the pavement on Ferndale Road before the LTN was introduced?


----------



## Collateral Dama (Jun 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I know some people will find this with some justification a very irritating comment but in all this I've wondered whether there is an effect at play where people that didn't really pay much attention to traffic before are now paying a lot of attention because it's become an issue. If you are unhappy about the LTNs in general then you might start becoming hyperaware of traffic on your street and get the impression it's got loads worse when nothing much has actually changed. There's plenty of precedent for this kind of effect in other contexts. Of course, if this is plausible then so is the reverse...if you want LTNs to work you might be in denial of an increase. But maybe it can explain why people living on the same street can report totally different experiences.


Videos and data such as that provided by Lambeth can help as a reality check.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 6, 2021)

John Schofield said:


> Maybe but per my original post any particular scheme may have negligible benefit for the majority and a significant detriment for a minority. I don't know if that is so in this case but proper and transparent evaluation would tell us if it is optimal or whether adjustments are needed to make it so.


I thought Lambeth were evaluating them?. Are you a traffic expert?.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

ash said:


> I’m not doing so but the anti-LTN’s tend to hence the use of a disabled woman as their figurehead.  At the ‘protest’ at Windrush they hadn’t even considered the fact the she couldn’t access the stage in her wheelchair 🙄.


We had considered that and asked Sofia what she would like. We consulted with her if you will. She said that she was more than happy to have the stage as I was and not to use it. Given that I was the person who spoke to her about it I’d be grateful if you wouldn’t just make things up/lie


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So you are saying Sophia the disabled lady taking Lambeth to court is just a "figurehead" being used cynically by One Lambeth. That she has no agency of her own?
> 
> I was at the Windrush Square demo. Were you?
> 
> ...


Just to give a bit more context to this, OneLambethJustice started up as a result of meeting Sofia. Three of us started talking, one of who is a close friend and lives very near Sofia, and started to discuss the impact on her life.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Pave The Way - 4 months on » Transport for All
> 
> 
> Pave The Way : 4 months on Our Pave The Way report remains the only in-depth and independent piece of research into the impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on disabled people, and has proven to be an invaluable resource to so many. We had several goals when we embarked on this campaign. We...
> ...


We must remember that blue badge exemption won’t help carers (some of whom have now had to stop visiting due to the amount of time
Journeys are taking) and also doesn’t look at the other vulnerable groups. That’s why you always need to undertake a full consultation and EQIA


----------



## ash (Jun 6, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> How many motorbikes did you see driving on the pavement on Ferndale Road before the LTN was introduced?


None before and none after


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Just to give a bit more context to this, OneLambethJustice started up as a result of meeting Sofia. Three of us started talking, one of who is a close friend and lives very near Sofia, and started to discuss the impact on her life.


So you only looked at legal action after meeting Sofia?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I thought





edcraw said:


> So you only looked at legal action after meeting Sofia?


Yes, for my part. Very little point in progressing with legal action if there is no client or example of the point for which concerned


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes, for my part. Very little point in progressing with legal action if there is no client or example of the point for which concerned


This was pretty widely shared at the time & you were against these schemes from the off.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This was pretty widely shared at the time.
> 
> View attachment 272166


Yup, look at the very bottom of this…”Each LTN” there are a number of LTNs in Lambeth alone. We were going to try and get a different client for each different LTN but the cost was going to be so prohibitive that we were never you to be able to raise  money to support that many clients. Lambeth know this so we decided that, after speaking to Sofía if she was comfortable with being the only client, we would stay with her as the only client. I hope that helps to clear things up


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This was pretty widely shared at the time & you were against these schemes from the off.
> 
> View attachment 272166



So what are you saying?

Is your argument that One Lambeth are using disability in improper way? That the legal action they are supporting has ulterior motives?

So what do you want? That the law to be tightened up to make it more difficult for cases like this to proceed?

This case would not be proceeding if their was not a case to answer. That had to be proven first to avoid time wasting. Are you saying that hurdle should be made higher?

We do live in a democracy, however flawed it is, the Sophia case is under present law legitimate case to bring.

The main problem is cost. Lambeth has the funds the ordinary citizen does not.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

Picked up flier in my local off license. Court day is June 9th.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So what are you saying?
> 
> Is your argument that One Lambeth are using disability in improper way? That the legal action they are supporting has ulterior motives?
> 
> ...


As people have said before I think most donating aren’t doing so to help people with disabilities but as a way of getting rid of LTNs. You just have to look at the comments on the fundraising page.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, look at the very bottom of this…”Each LTN” there are a number of LTNs in Lambeth alone. We were going to try and get a different client for each different LTN but the cost was going to be so prohibitive that we were never you to be able to raise  money to support that many clients. Lambeth know this so we decided that, after speaking to Sofía if she was comfortable with being the only client, we would stay with her as the only client. I hope that helps to clear things up


So your legal action is only against one LTN?.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> As people have said before I think most donating aren’t doing so to help people with disabilities but as a way of getting rid of LTNs. You just have to look at the comments on the fundraising page.



So are you saying that the law should be tightened up to make it more difficult to take this kind of action?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> As people have said before I think most donating aren’t doing so to help people with disabilities but as a way of getting rid of LTNs. You just have to look at the comments on the fundraising page.


Ed, I think you were trying to say that we were just raising money to get rid of them and then only stumbled across Sofia later on. Thats what you were asserting or at least seemed to be. I’ve set you right in that one and why we were asking for other clients. You can obviously still read into why people are giving money but the fact is that they are and I’m pretty sure that you don’t know their motives for giving.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So are you saying that the law should be tightened up to make it more difficult to take this kind of action?


 No - and struggle to see where you got that from.


chowce5382 said:


> Ed, I think you were trying to say that we were just raising money to get rid of them and then only stumbled across Sofia later on. Thats what you were asserting or at least seemed to be. I’ve set you right in that one and why we were asking for other clients. You can obviously still read into why people are giving money but the fact is that they are and I’m pretty sure that you don’t know their motives for giving.


I’ve read many of the large number of comments on your fundraising and struggle to see any mention of people with disabilities.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> So your legal action is only against one LTN?.


No, it’s against a number of different LTNs within Lambether which were implemented in a number different ways and so we have challenged them because Lambeth did not implement every LTN in the say way and so we have chosen a cross representative section. We decided on having one “client” for a couple of reasons. One of those was cost but the other one was that Sofia’s situation amply seemed to lay out why LTNs are discriminatory against disabled people and that she is an example of other disabled people in Lambeth in a similar situation


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No - and struggle to see where you got that from.
> 
> I’ve read many of the large number of comments on your fundraising and struggle to see any mention of people with disabilities.


Ok. I know exactly why we’re going to court


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok. I know exactly why we’re going to court


But it seems your donors don’t.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But it seems your donors don’t.


That’s your read of it. We have said again and again why we are doing it.

It seems your issue is focused on the motivation for people donating rather than the reason why a disabled woman is having to take the executive to court for discriminating against her. Just seems a strange focus given that a judge has allowed the case to go ahead. I would have thought you’d be more worried about a council possibly acting unlawfully


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No - and struggle to see where you got that from.
> 
> I’ve read many of the large number of comments on your fundraising and struggle to see any mention of people with disabilities.



It is a clear question to you. 

As you obviously feel this legal action has ulterior motives are you in favour of tighter restrictions in how cases like this can proceed? Restrictions that look more closely at "ulterior" motives. Then judge that a case is not being brought in good faith.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> It is a clear question to you.
> 
> As you obviously feel this legal action has ulterior motives are you in favour of tighter restrictions in how cases like this can proceed? Restrictions that look more closely at "ulterior" motives. Then judge that a case is not being brought in good faith.


I said no, I’m not - and struggle to see why you think I would be.

I am concerned that £35k needs to be raised for this and legal aid isn’t available but I don’t really kn the legal process, but obv legal aid has been heavily restricted.

Also concerned that the money is being raised from people who could be very disappointed even if they win.

There should be better ways to find out if councils are acting illegally.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I said no, I’m not - and struggle to see why you think I would be.
> 
> I am concerned that £35k needs to be raised for this and legal aid isn’t available but I don’t really kn the legal process, but obv legal aid has been heavily restricted.
> 
> ...


We have some support from the legal aid authority. However, it just so happens that the way Lambeth implemented these and the legal process they used ensured that legal aid was not available to us for the majority of the LTNs implemented.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I said no, I’m not - and struggle to see why you think I would be.
> 
> I am concerned that £35k needs to be raised for this and legal aid isn’t available but I don’t really kn the legal process, but obv legal aid has been heavily restricted.
> 
> ...



At beginning of post you so no.

At end of post you say the opposite.

Your not answering a straight forward question.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That’s your read of it. We have said again and again why we are doing it.
> 
> It seems your issue is focused on the motivation for people donating rather than the reason why a disabled woman is having to take the executive to court for discriminating against her. Just seems a strange focus given that a judge has allowed the case to go ahead. I would have thought you’d be more worried about a council possibly acting unlawfully


Let’s be clear here Lambeth can create LTNs perfectly lawfully, what the court case is doing is alleging that they didn’t tick a box in the correct way - therefore the whole thing should be thrown out.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I said no, I’m not - and struggle to see why you think I would be.
> 
> I am concerned that £35k needs to be raised for this and legal aid isn’t available but I don’t really kn the legal process, but obv legal aid has been heavily restricted.
> 
> ...



So why are you posting up links to One Lambeth FB posts?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> At beginning of post you so no.
> 
> At end of post you say the opposite.
> 
> Your not answering a straight forward question.


? I haven’t said I’m in favour of tighter restrictions on these cases anywhere and I’m not. If anything I think they should be open to legal aid.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> ? I haven’t said I’m in favour of tighter restrictions on these cases anywhere and I’m not. If anything I think they should be open to legal aid.



So what is the problem? 

In that case One Lambeth should be applauded for helping raise funds for Sophia case.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So what is the problem?
> 
> In that case One Lambeth should be applauded for helping raise funds for Sophia case.


I am questioning the motives of the donors.Have you read the comments on the fundraiser?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Let’s be clear here Lambeth can create LTNs perfectly lawfully, what the court case is doing is alleging that they didn’t tick a box in the correct way - therefore the whole thing


Ok. So my equivalent of “didn’t tick a box in the correct way” is that they failed to comply with legislation designed specifically to protect vulnerable people. I always find it interesting when people use the “didn’t tick a box correctly” argument as it shows they know almost nothing about the law, legal process and the obligations on governmental institutions to obey the law. They also tend to be the same people that shout the loudest when that “box they didn’t tick” happens to have an adverse impact on their lives. Do try to remember that, whilst this is a forum, it is the lives of people we are talking about and, due to a disability, their lives are hard enough already without the state acting unlawfully


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I am questioning the motives of the donors.Have you read the comments on the fundraiser?



I keep saying to you if you think there is a problem with motives for this case then the answer is to tighten up restrictions in allowing cases like this to proceed. 

So we are back to the beginning. If you think the motives are to be questioned are you in favour of raising the hurdle before a case like this can proceed?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I keep saying to you if you think there is a problem with motives for this case then the answer is to tighten up restrictions in allowing cases like this to proceed.
> 
> So we are back to the beginning. If you think the motives are to be questioned are you in favour of raising the hurdle before a case like this can proceed?


Questioning their motives doesn’t mean I think it should be made illegal.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Let’s be clear here Lambeth can create LTNs perfectly lawfully, what the court case is doing is alleging that they didn’t tick a box in the correct way - therefore the whole thing should be thrown out.


What a load of bullshit.  Are you saying that making sure systems that are implemented meet the needs of a vulnerable society is a tick box exercise?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I keep saying to you if you think there is a problem with motives for this case then the answer is to tighten up restrictions in allowing cases like this to proceed.
> 
> So we are back to the beginning. If you think the motives are to be questioned are you in favour of raising the hurdle before a case like this can proceed?


Whilst I understand Ed is going on about motives, I think that they should be separated from whether there is a legal case to answer on behalf of the claimant


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Questioning their motives doesn’t mean I think it should be made illegal.



I'm not talking about this being made illegal. 

If you are questioning motives then logically a way to deal with this is to raise the hurdle over which a case like this needs to jump before proceeding. 

Your unwilling to say this. 

You want it both ways. To criticise this case and its funding but when asked say the opposite. 

Its either a legitimate case to bring against the Council or not. You want to sit on the fence.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm not talking about this being made illegal.
> 
> If you are questioning motives then logically a way to deal with this is to raise the hurdle over which a case like this needs to jump before proceeding.
> 
> ...


No - they’re separate things. Whether there’s a case & how it’s funded. I don’t think there should be restrictions on whether people what to help fund such cases.

Can you answer my question please - have you read the comments on the fundraising page?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No - they’re separate things. Whether there’s a case & how it’s funded. I don’t think there should be restrictions on whether people what to help fund such cases.
> 
> Can you answer my question please - have you read the comments on the fundraising page?



So why are you bringing up the funding? 

You keep bringing it up so in your mind they aren't separate.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 6, 2021)

Isn’t a piece of legislation in the new parliamentary term focussed on watering down the grounds for judicial reviews? Stems from the whole prorogation debacle. Cards on the table, I hope you lose but I do think that councils, govt or whatever holding power should do things legally, it protects us all.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No - they’re separate things. Whether there’s a case & how it’s funded. I don’t think there should be restrictions on whether people what to help fund such cases.
> 
> Can you answer my question please - have you read the comments on the fundraising page?



Your questioning the legitimacy of a disabled woman bringing a case against Lambeth. I find it a bit off tbf.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Isn’t a piece of legislation in the new parliamentary term focussed on watering down the grounds for judicial reviews? Stems from the whole prorogation debacle. Cards on the table, I hope you lose but I do think that councils, govt or whatever holding power should do things legally, it protects us all.



 I know. Given edcraw concerns keep asking if that is what they want.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I keep saying to you if you think there is a problem with motives for this case then the answer is to tighten up restrictions in allowing cases like this to proceed.
> 
> So we are back to the beginning. If you think the motives are to be questioned are you in favour of raising the hurdle before a case like this can proceed?


Whilst I understand Ed is going on about motives, I think that they should be separated from whether there is a legal case to answer on behalf of the claimant


edcraw said:


> No - they’re separate things. Whether there’s a case & how it’s funded. I don’t think there should be restrictions on whether people what to help fund such cases.
> 
> Can you answer my question please - have you read the comments on the fundraising page?


Ed, is your concern solely about the motives of the people donating? If so, can I ask why it matters. Once this goes to court it becomes a matter of law as to whether he council behaved lawfully or not. At that point motives no longer matter and we get the legal outcome that the court decides. In the end, it’s the legal
outcome which should be the most important thing not whether you can see the exact motives of every individual who donated.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Your questioning the legitimacy of a disabled woman bringing a case against Lambeth. I find it a bit off tbf.


I’m really not.

Have you read the comments on the fundraising page? What do you think of the motives of the donors?


----------



## nagapie (Jun 6, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Isn’t a piece of legislation in the new parliamentary term focussed on watering down the grounds for judicial reviews? Stems from the whole prorogation debacle. Cards on the table, I hope you lose but I do think that councils, govt or whatever holding power should do things legally, it protects us all.


But isn't the legal action only asking for the LTNRs to be assessed according to accessiblity and equality for all. Therefore why would you want it to lose. It's about implementing them fairly and not necessarily about taking them away.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m really not.
> 
> Have you read the comments on the fundraising page? What do you think of the motives of the donors?



You are still trying to undermine the case brought by a disabled lady. You are starting to really annoy me.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 6, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Isn’t a piece of legislation in the new parliamentary term focussed on watering down the grounds for judicial reviews? Stems from the whole prorogation debacle. Cards on the table, I hope you lose but I do think that councils, govt or whatever holding power should do things legally, it protects us all.


This is being looked at. Completely understand your position but I’d say that no of us should hope that one side loses or wins. All we should want (and this goes to you last point) is that the legal process is fair and that the judge make a decision based on the law. The outcome is then the right legal decision


----------



## nagapie (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m really not.
> 
> Have you read the comments on the fundraising page? What do you think of the motives of the donors?


Sometimes opposition comes from distasteful sides. In this case it's hard to reconcile the fairness of what is being asked with some of the group that are asking it. So policies shouldn't be brought in with the proper care and considerations for all because you don't like the person that said so?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m really not.
> 
> Have you read the comments on the fundraising page? What do you think of the motives of the donors?



Tell you what. If you think this is a legitimate case but are concerned about the motives of some of the people donating why don't you donate and encourage other LTN supporters to do so.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed, is your concern solely about the motives of the people donating? If so, can I ask why it matters.


As I mentioned before I think many could be left very disappointed even if you win. I know of people that have donated hundreds who I suspect would struggle to afford this.

Some people against these schemes seem to be whipping themselves and others up into a frenzy - the planter vandalism the other weekend, vandalism to cameras & signs, people genuinely calling the council fascists and OneLambeth Justice calling Claire Holland a dictator on twitter.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 6, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Tell you what. If you think this is a legitimate case but are concerned about the motives of some of the people donating why don't you donate and encourage other LTN supporters to do so.


Have you read the comments on the fundraising page?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok. So my equivalent of “didn’t tick a box in the correct way” is that they failed to comply with legislation designed specifically to protect vulnerable people. I always find it interesting when people use the “didn’t tick a box correctly” argument as it shows they know almost nothing about the law, legal process and the obligations on governmental institutions to obey the law. They also tend to be the same people that shout the loudest when that “box they didn’t tick” happens to have an adverse impact on their lives. Do try to remember that, whilst this is a forum, it is the lives of people we are talking about and, due to a disability, their lives are hard enough already without the state acting unlawfully


Ok. We'll see what the judge says. I did think Lambeth had already done an assessment,  if you want them to do a better one then fine but I don't think that's clear from your funding page.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Its either a legitimate case to bring against the Council or not. You want to sit on the fence.


How are we actually supposed to form an opinion as to whether it's legitimate? We don't know the full details of the case that's being brought against Lambeth and we don't know what Lambeth's defence is. At least speaking for myself, I don't know all the technicalities of what the process Lambeth was or is supposed to follow is nor do I know what standards their actions are assessed against.

I think I'll reserve an opinion until after the case has been heard.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Have you read the comments on the fundraising page?



I take it that is a no.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How are we actually supposed to form an opinion as to whether it's legitimate? We don't know the full details of the case that's being brought against Lambeth and we don't know what Lambeth's defence is. At least speaking for myself, I don't know all the technicalities of what the process Lambeth was or is supposed to follow is nor do I know what standards their actions are assessed against.
> 
> I think I'll reserve an opinion until after the case has been heard.



Legitimate is the sense that the case passed the hurdle to go forward.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2021)

Gramsci - struggling to see why I should answer your questions when you don’t answer mine.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Gramsci - struggling to see why I should answer your questions when you don’t answer mine.



I'm asking a specific question related to you keeping going on about the funding of this case.

Its clear you want it both ways.

You want to undermine this disabled person case by saying you don't like where the funding is coming from.

Yet you don't want to see curb on cases like this.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm asking a specific question related to you keeping going on about the funding of this case.
> 
> Its clear you want it both ways.
> 
> ...


I answered that question then you asked if I would donate.

Have you read the comments on the fundraising page?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I answered that question then you asked if I would donate.
> 
> Have you read the comments on the fundraising page?



Why are these equivalent questions?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 7, 2021)

I suspect you have but don’t want to comment as people clearly aren’t donating for the reason you’d like to believe.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 7, 2021)

nagapie said:


> What a load of bullshit.  Are you saying that making sure systems that are implemented meet the needs of a vulnerable society is a tick box exercise?


It’s not. Apologies. The point I was making came out the wrong way.


----------



## lblres (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Whilst I understand Ed is going on about motives, I think that they should be separated from whether there is a legal case to answer on behalf of the claimant
> 
> Ed, is your concern solely about the motives of the people donating? If so, can I ask why it matters. Once this goes to court it becomes a matter of law as to whether he council behaved lawfully or not. At that point motives no longer matter and we get the legal outcome that the court decides. In the end, it’s the legal
> outcome which should be the most important thing not whether you can see the exact motives of every individual who donated.


I think his concern is that you have misled those donating by letting them believe if this legal case is won they will see an instant removal of the LTN's which isn't the case, even if you win the LTN's will remain in place regardless and will have wasted 35+ grand of pensioners money.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ok. We'll see what the judge says. I did think Lambeth had already done an assessment,  if you want them to do a better one then fine but I don't think that's clear from your funding page.





lblres said:


> I think his concern is that you have misled those donating by letting them believe if this legal case is won they will see an instant removal of the LTN's which isn't the case, even if you win the LTN's will remain in place regardless and will have wasted 35+ grand of pensioners money.


As I’ve said before, a judge could find them unlawful on the basis that they discriminate against the vulnerable. The judge could then ask for their removal, for the council to undertake the proper assessments and then implement something this isn’t unlawful


----------



## lblres (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> As I’ve said before, a judge could find them unlawful on the basis that they discriminate against the vulnerable. The judge could then ask for their removal, for the council to undertake the proper assessments and then implement something this isn’t unlawful


Still dodging the issue, it has been repeatedly stated by your group if Sofia wins they will all be gone.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> Still dodging the issue, it has been repeatedly stated by your group if Sofia wins they will all be gone.


That is the logical progression. If Sofia wins it means that a judge will have found that that LTNs are unlawful, discriminatory and as is the implementation of them. If that is the case, why would a judge not ask for their removal whilst the council undertakes the correct steps?


----------



## Winot (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That is the logical progression. If Sofia wins it means that a judge will have found that that LTNs are unlawful, discriminatory and as is the implementation of them. If that is the case, why would a judge not ask for their removal whilst the council undertakes the correct steps?


Did that happen with the Bishopsgate case?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That is the logical progression. If Sofia wins it means that a judge will have found that that LTNs are unlawful, discriminatory and as is the implementation of them. If that is the case, why would a judge not ask for their removal whilst the council undertakes the correct steps?


Surely the judge might consider that the disbenefits of removing them would outweigh the benefits of keeping them, and that adjustments to the existing scheme would be the most appropriate way to resolve things.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

Winot said:


> Did that happen with the Bishopsgate case?


It’s on appeal at the moment so no enforceable decision has been made as yet. Whilst on appeal the original decision is put on hold whilst the appeal goes through.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Surely the judge might consider that the disbenefits of removing them would outweigh the benefits of keeping them, and that adjustments to the existing scheme would be the most appropriate way to resolve things.


I don’t see that as happening due to the nature of the Act. It is there to protect vulnerable people as a group. If it is found that vulnerable people aren’t protected then a judge could tell the council to turn off all cameras and allow for LTNs to be opened up whilst the lengthy consultation process is undertaken. I suspect that they council would ask not to have to remove them on the basis of prohibitive cost. Having said that, they are supposed to be experimental so the council will have put aside money in case the experiment doesn’t work, and asking for this would cut through the argument that they are experimental.

The equivalent argument would be a judge finding that detainment of a certain group is unlawful and the a government has behaved unlawfully. A judge is hardly likely to be comfortable keeping those people detained whilst the government comes up with another method of detaining those people as the judge would be violating their human rights. Whilst this is not as drastic, it is still a human rights issue under the Act.


----------



## lblres (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That is the logical progression. If Sofia wins it means that a judge will have found that that LTNs are unlawful, discriminatory and as is the implementation of them. If that is the case, why would a judge not ask for their removal whilst the council undertakes the correct steps?


Not logical at all, they pause the mentioned in your legal case, follow procedure and you are back where you started. Only having scammed donors out of 35K.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> Not logical at all, they pause the mentioned in your legal case, follow procedure and you are back where you started. Only having scammed donors out of 35K.


Isnt not just procedure. If they consult and have to carry out proper EQIAs then the LTNs would need to be adapted and considerably in some and they could sell find out that they are not viable in others. The end result is that whatever is put in place will have to protect the vulnerable. This is why I’m doing this. I can see that you’re not going to agree and you keep on using words like scamming and suggesting it all pensioners donating. That shows how little you understand about this as pensioners are also a protected group under the Act and so any changes would also need to look after their rights. If it is all pensioners as you say then they are obviously donating as they feel that they are being discriminated against. In any event, it’s important to take this to court and get a ruling so that those people are protected.


----------



## lblres (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Isnt not just procedure. If they consult and have to carry out proper EQIAs then the LTNs would need to be adapted and considerably in some and they could sell find out that they are not viable in others. The end result is that whatever is put in place will have to protect the vulnerable. This is why I’m doing this. I can see that you’re not going to agree and you keep on using words like scamming and suggesting it all pensioners donating. That shows how little you understand about this as pensioners are also a protected group under the Act and so any changes would also need to look after their rights. If it is all pensioners as you say then they are obviously donating as they feel that they are being discriminated against. In any event, it’s important to take this to court and get a ruling so that those people are protected.


.....still not removing the LTN's. ok.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> .....still not removing the LTN's. ok.


The whole point is that a judge can demand their removal due to them being unlawful on the basis of discrimination against vulnerable groups. If you don’t want to agree that a judge has this power then maybe start reading up on the power of the courts. We do say on the page

“OneLambeth is campaigning towards having all LTNs declared illegal and a full suspension. 
Then we will we actively engage with the Council on measures to identify the real problems with transport in Lambeth and explore joined-up solutions that are rooted in science, data, community consultation, inclusivity, non-discrimination, democracy and strategic planning - as it always should have been done.”

From the very beginning we have been about suspension and consultation. The only reasons we are where we are is that the council refused to even consider the most basic beneficial adaptations for disabled people.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> OneLambeth is campaigning towards having all LTNs declared illegal



All? No matter how old? Just... every cul-de-sac that can be opened up, will be?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> All? No matter how old? Just... every cul-de-sac that can be opened up, will be?


The ones implemented as a result of Covid legislation


----------



## lblres (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The whole point is that a judge can demand their removal due to them being unlawful on the basis of discrimination against vulnerable groups. If you don’t want to agree that a judge has this power then maybe start reading up on the power of the courts. We do say on the page
> 
> “OneLambeth is campaigning towards having all LTNs declared illegal and a full suspension.
> Then we will we actively engage with the Council on measures to identify the real problems with transport in Lambeth and explore joined-up solutions that are rooted in science, data, community consultation, inclusivity, non-discrimination, democracy and strategic planning - as it always should have been done.”
> ...


You are going to have some very disappointed donors

.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> You are going to have some very disappointed donors
> 
> View attachment 272276.
> View attachment 272279
> ...


You’ll recognise that these are creating issues for people. Consultation and te other steps the council have to go through should alleviate these to ensure that they are lawful.
All donors have been told to read to FAQs on the gofundme and, if the donate, they are doing so with full knowledge on everything on the page. We could argue this all day but I don’t think it will change anything on your side or mine so might as well leave it there.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> pensioners are also a protected group under the Act


This might seem minor but I think it's important: it's not that pensioners are a protected group, but that age is a protected characteristic. So for example as filtering traffic means a greater number of young people can travel independently that would be part of any equality analysis.


----------



## lblres (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> You’ll recognise that these are creating issues for people. Consultation and te other steps the council have to go through should alleviate these to ensure that they are lawful.
> All donors have been told to read to FAQs on the gofundme and, if the donate, they are doing so with full knowledge on everything on the page. We could argue this all day but I don’t think it will change anything on your side or mine so might as well leave it there.


You are still dodging the bullet, they can declare them unlawful. The council changes procedure and you are back where you are started having not only wasted your doners money but their council tax as well for a scheme which will remain.
That is on your conscience, the truth is you have failed to inform your donors what they are donating to and what they are donating for, you seem to be as bad as the council which you are abusing "Read the FAQ's" is crap and you know that.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> You are still dodging the bullet, they can declare them unlawful. The council changes procedure and you are back where you are started having not only wasted your doners money but their council tax as well for a scheme which will remain.
> That is on your conscience, the truth is you have failed to inform your donors what they are donating to and what they are donating for, you seem to be as bad as the council which you are abusing "Read the FAQ's" is crap and you know that.


I’m not dodging the question. You are failing to take into account that part of the procedure would include a full consultation and EQIA. At the end of that process what the council then puts in place would have to ensure that it protects those groups with protected characteristics under the act as well as some others. This is not about just re-ticking boxes, there is a considerable amount of work to be done which we assert was not undertaken.

As for you saying that I abusing the council, I’m not. I am asking them to have due regard to people with protected characteristics which I believe that they have failed to do. The judge and the legal aid authority also believe that there is a case to answer. That is hardly abuse. As for your point about the FAQs it’s all there and sets out very clearly why we are raising money. The reason we put it in there was to ensure that there was a sets of questions and answers at the very source where people are donating.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 7, 2021)

I think the last 10 pages have been the most interesting in this topic.

I never before looked at the court case in that it's not just about LTNs but could set precedent on how the council behaves in the future (emergency powers or not) with other subjects. 20 years from now when some of us are in care homes it coudl shape the way decisions and policies are enacted on subjects we have not even thouhgt about.


----------



## lblres (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’m not dodging the question. You are failing to take into account that part of the procedure would include a full consultation and EQIA. At the end of that process what the council then puts in place would have to ensure that it protects those groups with protected characteristics under the act as well as some others. This is not about just re-ticking boxes, there is a considerable amount of work to be done which we assert was not undertaken.
> 
> As for you saying that I abusing the council, I’m not. I am asking them to have due regard to people with protected characteristics which I believe that they have failed to do. The judge and the legal aid authority also believe that there is a case to answer. That is hardly abuse. As for your point about the FAQs it’s all there and sets out very clearly why we are raising money. The reason we put it in there was to ensure that there was a sets of questions and answers at the very source where people are donating.


Did you make it clear that the LTN's would not be fully removed to your donors? 
It's a simple question. Nowhere on your social media or your abusive OneLambethJustice Twitter _*where you abuse the council*_, posts for donations or on your Facebook group which regularly calls for vandalism and posts homophobic content have you mentioned that.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> Did you make it clear that the LTN's would not be fully removed to your donors?
> It's a simple question. Nowhere on your social media or your abusive OneLambethJustice Twitter _*where you abuse the council*_, posts for donations or on your Facebook group which regularly calls for vandalism and posts homophobic content have you mentioned that.


We said that we were asking for their suspension followed by full consultation, again in the gofundme page. We were very clear about this. I am not in control of any of the social media side of this as it was deemed that the treasurer should have a separate job and not be involved. I am also not responsible for what people post on Facebook.

I have tried to stress from the very beginning that this is a legal argument for me and goes to the root of how the executive behaves when given power. The first thing Lambeth did was decide to override their legal obligations to give due regard to those with protected characteristics, to me that is not an acceptable way to behave but a group of people who are in power and their first duty must be one of care.

I’m afraid that your posts are becoming increasingly erratic and I’ve put up with a considerable amount of abuse from people for standing up for the rule of law. As I’ve said previously, let’s just leave it there.


----------



## Winot (Jun 7, 2021)

Seems like there are the following distinct issues:

1. Did Lambeth properly carry out an equalities assessment? I am very pro LTN but I can see that there are implications for people with disabilities and it must be correct to take this into account. I have no idea (like most of us) what Lambeth did and whether it was enough and I am happy for the court to look at this and Lambeth will of course have to abide by the decision. This is the system working and those of us that are pro LTN shouldn't stand in the way of that.

2. Similarly wrt consultation let's see what the court says. I suspect that if Lambeth took shortcuts then this is fixable and I wouldn't expect an adverse finding to result in the 'tearing out' of LTNs.

3. The motivation of the funders and the information that has been provided to them. First, the fact that I disagree with some of them politically is kind of irrelevant. They have a right to fund a court case and it might be the right thing to do. Secondly, I suspect there are many of them that think that success means no more LTNs. They are going to be sadly disappointed here is my guess. Also, fuck them - I don't care if they lose money and are sad about that.

Ultimately I am not too worried about the court case - it's not a bad thing to question Lambeth and if they have got things wrong then they need to fix that. I doubt it rings the death knell for LTNs and in fact could strengthen the mandate for them by ironing out any issues in the process.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We said that we were asking for their suspension followed by full consultation, again in the gofundme page. We were very clear about this. I am not in control of any of the social media side of this as it was deemed that the treasurer should have a separate job and not be involved. I am also not responsible for what people post on Facebook.
> 
> I have tried to stress from the very beginning that this is a legal argument for me and goes to the root of how the executive behaves when given power. The first thing Lambeth did was decide to override their legal obligations to give due regard to those with protected characteristics, to me that is not an acceptable way to behave but a group of people who are in power and their first duty must be one of care.
> 
> I’m afraid that your posts are becoming increasingly erratic and I’ve put up with a considerable amount of abuse from people for standing up for the rule of law. As I’ve said previously, let’s just leave it there.





lblres said:


> Did you make it clear that the LTN's would not be fully removed to your donors?
> It's a simple question. Nowhere on your social media or your abusive OneLambethJustice Twitter _*where you abuse the council*_, posts for donations or on your Facebook group which regularly calls for vandalism and posts homophobic content have you mentioned that.


Just so you are aware. This is judgement related to a case which deals with exactly the issues for which we petitioning the court. You will notice the language in the last paragraph. It refers to “not the type of case in which to deny the claimant the normal order”. It goes on to say “the decisions (of the council) must be quashed and the matter remitted to the defendant (the council) for reconsideration.

they had to reconsider an entire tender process where contaracts had already been seated because they did not consider the equalities impact. The judge quashes their decisions, and demands that the process be undertaken again in a lawful manner. Thai is an example of a judge invalidating a decision and telling the council to go all the way back to square one.

I hope this helps as an example of a couple of the other posters who have questioned whether a judge has this power. You will see that it is “normal” for a judge to do this is these situations.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> I think his concern is that you have misled those donating by letting them believe if this legal case is won they will see an instant removal of the LTN's which isn't the case, even if you win the LTN's will remain in place regardless and will have wasted 35+ grand of pensioners money.



I am just one person who has donated once and I was not lead to believe this nor others in my circle. Is it reasonable to assume that theer are ppl who will think that? I'd say so...but then i'd say those ppl didn't read what was written, have not been following closely.

As for pensioners donating - apart from some letters (which most did not receive) they are not online, on streetspace, twitter or anything. Surgeries are still closed I believe (I am out of the country so not sure). If anything pensioners, in my opinion, are not represented as they have no idea what the hell is going on but they see the same traffic I do.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Just so you are aware. This is judgement related to a case which deals with exactly the issues for which we petitioning the court. You will notice the language in the last paragraph. It refers to “not the type of case in which to deny the claimant the normal order”. It goes on to say “the decisions (of the council) must be quashed and the matter remitted to the defendant (the council) for reconsideration.
> 
> they had to reconsider an entire tender process where contaracts had already been seated because they did not consider the equalities impact. The judge quashes their decisions, and demands that the process be undertaken again in a lawful manner. Thai is an example of a judge invalidating a decision and telling the council to go all the way back to square one.
> 
> I hope this helps as an example of a couple of the other posters who have questioned whether a judge has this power. You will see that it is “normal” for a judge to do this is these situations.


----------



## colacubes (Jun 7, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I am just one person who has donated once and I was not lead to believe this nor others in my circle. Is it reasonable to assume that theer are ppl who will think that? I'd say so...but then i'd say those ppl didn't read what was written, have not been following closely.
> 
> As for pensioners donating - apart from some letters (which most did not receive) they are not online, on streetspace, twitter or anything. Surgeries are still closed I believe (I am out of the country so not sure). If anything pensioners, in my opinion, are not represented as they have no idea what the hell is going on but they see the same traffic I do.


Pensioners aren't online?! I know plenty of pensioners who are online - on twitter, Facebook and on here frankly!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> Did you make it clear that the LTN's would not be fully removed to your donors?
> It's a simple question. Nowhere on your social media or your abusive OneLambethJustice Twitter _*where you abuse the council*_, posts for donations or on your Facebook group which regularly calls for vandalism and posts homophobic content have you mentioned that.



I think what many struggle to understand and what it took me 6 months to understand is that despite the name there is no Onelambeth. There are separate groups for each area (Oval, Railton, streatham, etc). The legal action is separate, the people who want to change the way Lambeth works as a council are separate, the people who run twitter stuff are separate, the people who set up the facebook group are separate and made it just for a 'meeting hall', the people who do flyers are separate, the people (like me) who are not in any LTN but feel the impact are separate and there are many not part of any group who are doing their own thing, or with their street or nighbours.

It's not one group with leaders. It's a load of different groups and every so often I find out more and more are popping up. Over the weekend i found out Landor road - and surrounding roads - have their own group against the LTNs.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 7, 2021)

colacubes said:


> Pensioners aren't online?! I know plenty of pensioners who are online - on twitter, Facebook and on here frankly!



Yes I forgot about Editor.

_evil grin_


----------



## lblres (Jun 7, 2021)

colacubes said:


> Pensioners aren't online?! I know plenty of pensioners who are online - on twitter, Facebook and on here frankly!


I know plenty of pensioners online also who are quite competent in working the internet!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 7, 2021)

lblres said:


> I know plenty of pensioners online also who are quite competent in working the internet!



Well let's just say the older you are the less likely you are to be active on the internet. Not be on email, not be able to work out a site such as streetspace and so on.

A generalisation but one which you could make without being too unfair


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 7, 2021)

Winot said:


> Seems like there are the following distinct issues:
> 
> 1. Did Lambeth properly carry out an equalities assessment? I am very pro LTN but I can see that there are implications for people with disabilities and it must be correct to take this into account. I have no idea (like most of us) what Lambeth did and whether it was enough and I am happy for the court to look at this and Lambeth will of course have to abide by the decision. This is the system working and those of us that are pro LTN shouldn't stand in the way of that.
> 
> ...


I agree with this in its entirety.  Especially (but not only) with the ‘fuck them’ part.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> This is judgement related to a case which deals with exactly the issues for which we petitioning the court. You will notice the language in the last paragraph. It refers to “not the type of case in which to deny the claimant the normal order”. It goes on to say “the decisions (of the council) must be quashed and the matter remitted to the defendant (the council) for reconsideration.


Was a different decision made, do you know?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Was a different decision made, do you know?


The result of this was that the judge quashed the decision on the council. The council had to go back to square one and go through the process all over again but this time legally. During the time they were doing this things went back to how they were before the council made the relevant decision. As the judge states, this is “normal” where a judge rules against a council in situations such as these


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The result of this was that the judge quashed the decision on the council. The council had to go back to square one and go through the process all over again but this time legally. During the time they were doing this things went back to how they were before the council made the relevant decision. As the judge states, this is “normal” where a judge rules against a council in situations such as these


Sorry, just got want you were pointing at. Yes, a different decision was made because, on reflection by the council, that decision did not meet the requirements of the act and so one that did meet those requirements was made. The result was that vulnerable people were protected


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s on appeal at the moment so no enforceable decision has been made as yet. Whilst on appeal the original decision is put on hold whilst the appeal goes through.


I thought I read the judge denied appeal but now the are appealing? Whats that about?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I thought I read the judge denied appeal but now the are appealing? Whats that about?


The judge said she thoughts there were no matters of law on which to appeal and her interpretation had been based on legal precedent. From what I can gather, the court of appeal allowed the appeal given the number of different parts of London the case could impact


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We said that we were asking for their suspension followed by full consultation, again in the gofundme page. We were very clear about this. I am not in control of any of the social media side of this as it was deemed that the treasurer should have a separate job and not be involved. I am also not responsible for what people post on Facebook.
> 
> I have tried to stress from the very beginning that this is a legal argument for me and goes to the root of how the executive behaves when given power. The first thing Lambeth did was decide to override their legal obligations to give due regard to those with protected characteristics, to me that is not an acceptable way to behave but a group of people who are in power and their first duty must be one of care.
> 
> I’m afraid that your posts are becoming increasingly erratic and I’ve put up with a considerable amount of abuse from people for standing up for the rule of law. As I’ve said previously, let’s just leave it there.



Considering the harsh posts that have been been directed towards you here I think you have managed to stay civil and polite towards other posters. This is to your credit particularly as you are new poster here.

I'm not against LTNs. I'm against the way that Lambeth has implemented them.

What you are doing imo is exercising your democratic right to question the Executive (Lambeth Council) decision making. By supporting Sophia.

This is not "scamming", misleading donors or wasting money. Including as has been alleged Council tax payers money.

We live in a democracy. Its not a cheap option. The cheap option would be for the Executive to be able to push through what it wants without checks and balances /scrutiny.

You are late on This thread but early on some posters were quite happy with this being pushed through by executive using powers it had during pandemic. Quite happy to have LTNs rail roaded through so to speak.

So whilst I'm not a One Lambeth supporter I commend what I see as your genuine efforts to hold Lambeth to account.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 7, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Considering the harsh posts that have been been directed towards you here I think you have managed to stay civil and polite towards other posters. This is to your credit particularly as you are new poster here.
> 
> I'm not against LTNs. I'm against the way that Lambeth has implemented them.
> 
> ...


Thanks, that’s much appreciated. Whilst I understand that, whatever I say, a number of people here will refuse to believe that I’m doing this for the reasons I, and now you, have stated,  it really is as simple as that; holding the executive to account.

When I started going through some of the documentation provided (or lack of it), my overwhelming feeling was that we deserve better than this from our elected officials. Unfortunately sometimes we have to go to court to keep them honest so they remember that they work for their communities and shops feel accountable for their actions.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Thanks, that’s much appreciated. Whilst I understand that, whatever I say, a number of people here will refuse to believe that I’m doing this for the reasons I, and now you, have stated, it really is as simple as that; holding the executive to account.


I know you say that you're nothing to do with the social media, but maybe you need to have a word, because your message here and the message on your Twitter feed are very very different. If OneLambethJustice chooses to make its public face all about the very worst in anti-cycling bollocks and conspiracymongering then it's not a huge leap to think that's what it is. And maybe you're not responsible for moderating the facebook group, but surely _someone _is.


----------



## editor (Jun 8, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I know you say that you're nothing to do with the social media, but maybe you need to have a word, because your message here and the message on your Twitter feed are very very different. If OneLambethJustice chooses to make its public face all about the very worst in anti-cycling bollocks and conspiracymongering then it's not a huge leap to think that's what it is. And maybe you're not responsible for moderating the facebook group, but surely _someone _is.


Whoever admins the FB page is a fucking arrogant, power-mad, ban-crazy twat. Or an expert in 'how to lose the support of the local media.'

The fact that you had to fill in a form declaring yourself to be totally against LTNs to be allowed to join the group speak volumes of the kind of community debate they're looking for.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Thanks, that’s much appreciated. Whilst I understand that, whatever I say, a number of people here will refuse to believe that I’m doing this for the reasons I, and now you, have stated,  it really is as simple as that; holding the executive to account.


This just doesn't entirely tally with your statement to the protest gathering that Lambeth are pushing through an ideologically driven scheme that only benefits white middle class male cyclists.

That kind of statement sets up an idea that LTNs are against the interests of fairly specific groups of people. That goes beyond "simply" ensuring that the needs of disabled people are considered.

It seems the message you chose for your audience there is different to the message you choose for your audience here.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

Hasn’t Charlie also publicly said LTNs only benefit white male cyclists, which isn’t what disabled peoples organisations say...


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I know you say that you're nothing to do with the social media, but maybe you need to have a word, because your message here and the message on your Twitter feed are very very different. If OneLambethJustice chooses to make its public face all about the very worst in anti-cycling bollocks and conspiracymongering then it's not a huge leap to think that's what it is. And maybe you're not responsible for moderating the facebook group, but surely _someone _is.


Indeed - here are the last 4 tweets from the OneLambeth Justice account. It’s bloody weird and think fair to question Charlie’s motives when this is the public face of his campaign.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Hasn’t Charlie also publicly said LTNs only benefit white male cyclists, which isn’t what disabled peoples organisations say...


“Lycra clad, white, middle class men” 🙄


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

Maybe chowce5382 can clarify why they chose to use 'lycra-clad'. Usually it's code for confident, well off leisure or commuter cyclists who'd be much more likely to cycle on the main roads than take the quieter back routes that LTNs try to provide, and who are not doing short local journeys.

It wouldn't encompass, for example, parents who want to try out doing the school run by bike rather than car. The kind of journeys which, if you could encourage them, could take significant amounts of traffic off the roads.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Maybe chowce5382 can clarify why they chose to use 'lycra-clad'. Usually it's code for confident, well off leisure or commuter cyclists who'd be much more likely to cycle on the main roads than take the quieter back routes that LTNs try to provide, and who are not doing short local journeys.
> 
> It wouldn't encompass, for example, parents who want to try out doing the school run by bike rather than car. The kind of journeys which, if you could encourage them, could take significant amounts of traffic off the roads.


Part of LTNs are about encouraging people that don’t feel safe enough to cycle at the moment to do so. At the moment we’re geared to fast cycling on main roads and so that’s the type of cyclist we end up with - but we’ve already started to see this change.

It sounds like dog whistle politics to me and not sure that with this, and his campaign’s Twitter feed, he should be that surprised if people think he has politics in common with UKIP. He’s presenting a very different face on here but that video suggests he tailors his message to his audience.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 8, 2021)

Also the word "ideological" used as a negative, because coherent sets of ideas are bad.


----------



## Southlondon (Jun 8, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Well let's just say the older you are the less likely you are to be active on the internet. Not be on email, not be able to work out a site such as streetspace and so on.
> 
> A generalisation but one which you could make without being too unfair


And let’s not forget internet poverty - lots of people have either very restricted access via PAYG, or no access at all. When I was a Labour Party ward secretary albeit  around 8-9 years ago, I think it was about 15% of members had no email address and had effectively been excluded from party updates because previous secretaries had simply decided to go paperless without providing for those members that were not on line in any way. And I have to say they were the more elderly members. There should always be alternative methods to online methods easily available in the interest of equality


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Maybe chowce5382 can clarify why they chose to use 'lycra-clad'. Usually it's code for confident, well off leisure or commuter cyclists who'd be much more likely to cycle on the main roads than take the quieter back routes that LTNs try to provide, and who are not doing short local journeys.
> 
> It wouldn't encompass, for example, parents who want to try out doing the school run by bike rather than car. The kind of journeys which, if you could encourage them, could take significant amounts of traffic off the roads.


Dear Teuchter, Ed & Liquidindian

To address your points in turn.

My use of Lycra-Clad and Ideological:

This comes from a vast number of FOIs and close scrutiny on some of the work done pre-covid towards the LTNs. Lambeth did a fair amount of work on LTNs before covid arrived on the world stage and also produced an impact assessment on people with protected characteristics. The LTN I live in, in Tulse hill is based entirely on the work done around LTNs before we knew about covid. The LTN that was imposed (without proper consultation) was a replica of that work. So, the first question I asked myself was how is it that an LTN based around work done before a global pandemic can happen to be the perfect response to that pandemic which was unforeseeable at the time. It seemed illogical to me one would fit perfectly for the other. As a result, I decided to dig into some of the work done around this LTN. Whilst Lambeth did consult some groups, I noticed that there was a complete lack of consultation with local disabled charities/groups. Most of the group consulted were groups that represented physically able-bodied charities. I looked at the feedback from each and one that stuck out was from Lambeth Cycling (a local offshoot of LCC) which said that they were delighted with the proposal as it implemented everything that had asked for apart from one thing, that there should be many more LTNs. I then looked further to find that, of all the groups who had representation on Lambeth council during the actual decision making process, it was someone who was a senior member of LCC (now no longer working with them due to some racist tweets which were found by a journalist). Again, it seemed strange to me that, of all the groups they asked to advise on the decision making process, it was LCC. Not a single disabled charity local to Brixton was asked  to advise on the decision making process regarding the formulation of the transport policy around LTNs. At best I thought that the council had just just just forgotten they represented one of the poorest areas with one of the highest number of vulnerable people in London. So, I stayed judgment on the decision-making process.

I then decided to look at the EQIA they had undertaken and signed-off on in November 2019 (with the work having been done over the previous c.18 months). This EQIA stated that the impact for all disabled people in Lambeth would be positive. This statement was linked to some underlying research to back up this assertion so I got hold of this research. Having read it through I saw that the research was undertaken about 15 years ago and encompassed 24 disabled people based up in the North-East of England. This group of people did not live in or anywhere near to an LTN so I thought it was strange that this was the only piece of research that backed-up up this assertion. When I read through it further I found that the subjects used for this study were people who suffered from "mild to moderate learning difficulties". This is an important sub-set of disabled people, however, the thing that jumped out was that the council had formulated a policy, signed off a vital document that categorically stated that an LTN would be beneficial for all disabled people, and then linked it to an underlying piece of research which deliberately excluded anyone who was physically disabled in relation to a policy which promotes physical transport and then stated it would be positive for those people. I've had to review a number of these EQIAs in previous work, and the council has to do these on a regular basis so know exactly how to use underlying studies to get the answer they want.

The result was that I tried to work our whether:

1. The council was so utterly incompetent that they hadn't realised this and had just added a footnote which just happened to back up their assertion whilst, at the same time, being completely unaware of the fact that they had done this. I discounted this for the reason that the council undertakes these EQIAs on a regular basis and doesn't generally make mistakes such as this (unless they want to).

2. That the council just doesn't care in any way in carrying out their functions and are acting in just their self-interest in every way and at all times. I also discounted this due to the fact that I generally don't believe (and also don't want to believe) that politicians go into politics for self-interest and just purely promoting that self-interest (Boris Johnson possibly being the exception to this as someone who seems only to be interested in the furtherance of his own position).

3. That the council had an idea that they wanted transport change to be focused around cycling, that they had an end-game or answer that they wanted,  and would try to ensure that the work they did pointed to that answer. This seemed the most likely to me, given that they had given someone from LCC access over and above any disabled group to be their consultant, that they had cut out one of the main groups for whom the current LTNs would prove to be negative from one of the most important documents that could protect that group and had, when asked, said any change to their current plans was unworkable and not possible. Regarding the position between LCC and the consultant, this was not paid for by the council directly, however, the LCC representative was given acces as an advisor to the decision making process around how to implement LTNs which other groups were not. As such I can be defined as a payment in kind

On the balance of facts, this seemed like an ideological position to me. I'm happy to stand by that as the evidence, to my eye, backs it up.

When I looked at more research in favor of LTNs, (provided by the council)  I found that research wasn't peer-reviewed and, in a number of places, referenced its own research which isn't acceptable academic practice and that those researchers had either been trustees of LCC, had written some of the research when with LCC or been paid by LCC when undertaking their research.

Lycra-clad comment:

Given the above advisory capacity of LCC involved in the decision making and the above issues whereby vulnerable groups have been deliberately excluded, it seemed that LCC as a group (who has a membership which is the equivalent of 0.001% of London) seemed that they might be the main lobby group. I looked on the website and the board and saw that it was overwhelmingly white and middle-class. They also happened to be in lycra. 

Ed - your point above LTNs and promoting cycling for people off main roads. I agree with this and think it's a good idea. In general, most people I know around here walk to where they need to go as it's not that far. Furthermore, whilst it is supposed to increase cycling an FOI actually shows that it has little difference. Whilst cycling and walking might be up by 60% when you asked every council to split out the data between the two you see that walking is up by 58% and cycling up by 2% (and this tracks across all councils, sometimes it is as much as 3% or goes down to 1% or less). This is why it's not reported separately. For the money being spent (£1500 on average for each extra cyclist on the road), I think that full consultation, EQIAs (properly undertaken), and a proper review would ensure that money spent gives the highest ROC/ROE (especially given our current fiscal situation, this is very important). By the way, I would want and hope that this came up with a vast majority of non-car options given that I don't have a car and walk everywhere or take public transport.

Again I go back to the fact that there wasn't consultation etc means that what has been implemented might benefit those who are more able people (after all, given the above it was designed to do so) but it hasn't taken into account other parts of our society and before we make these changes we have to work how these changes will impact them. I don't think it's right that we should make vulnerable groups live with the changes for 12-18 months as that is deeply inequitable.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 8, 2021)

I think the communication from the council has been bad on that point. There are a few existing LTNs in Brixton and lots of the estates have been designed without through roads, it's an accepted part of urban planning and shouldn't have been presented like a funky new idea when it isn't at all.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

I'm not a member of the LCC, nor do I want to try to speak for them or even position myself as defending them. However I have just now gone to look at what their Constitution says, and it says their objectives are:

3. Objects of the Company 
3.1 The objects for which the Company is established are:- 
to promote cycling for the public benefit in the United Kingdom as a means of  
furthering the following charitable purposes: 
3.1.1 the promotion of public health,  
3.1.2 the promotion of healthy recreation in the interests of social welfare, 
3.1.3 the promotion of public safety, particularly on the highways, 
3.1.4 the relief of the needs of people with mental and physical disabilities, 
3.1.5 the promotion of the conservation and protection of the environment and 
3.1.6 the advancement of education 
by whatever means the Board think fit, including the provision of cycling facilities,  
services, training, educational activities, and lobbying and campaigning in matters  
relating to cycling and other forms of transport.


On the other hand you seem to be saying you've gone to their website, looked at some pictures on it, decided that what people in the pictures are wearing is of significance, and maybe looked at the gender and ethnicity of some of the people involved. Having gathered this information about who is visibly involved, you have made a judgement about their motives and interests (and that they are contrary to their Constitution). 

Then you've further extrapolated that because they were involved as consultants to Lambeth, Lambeth has implemented LTNs that further the interests of this one campaign group.

Is that about right?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 . You mention a vast number of FOIs, were you the person who asked the council about the use of bike couriers (pedalme) to deliver food parcels?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> chowce5382 . You mention a vast number of FOIs, were you the person who asked the council about the use of bike couriers (pedalme) to deliver food parcels?


Afraid not, I didn't issue that one.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

Any comments on your campaign’s Twitter feed?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm not a member of the LCC, nor do I want to try to speak for them or even position myself as defending them. However I have just now gone to look at what their Constitution says, and it says their objectives are:
> 
> 3. Objects of the Company
> 3.1 The objects for which the Company is established are:-
> ...


Yup, I looked at their board and made that deduction. There was also an FOI on the make-up of their membership that stated the same which is why I made that statement. 

I also looked at what you said above but, given their political lobbying, it was difficult to see how they could square that with the rules that they are not allowed to promote anything which could harm others under their foundation as a charity.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Lycra-clad comment:
> 
> Given the above preponderance of LCC involved in the decision making and being paid for by the council and the above issues whereby vulnerable groups have been deliberately excluded, it seemed that LCC as a group (who has a membership which is the equivalent of 0.001% of London) seemed that they might be the main lobby group. I looked on the website and the board and saw that it was overwhelmingly white and middle-class. They also happened to be in lycra.





I've had a look around LCC's website and I can't find a single picutre featuring anyone with lycra.
This is their board of trustees:

Chair/HR Committee Co Chair: Terry Patterson

Vice Chair: Eilidh Murray

Treasurer: Simon Clark

HR Committee Chair: Christian Wolmar

Chair Business Committee/HR Committee Co-Chair: James Heath

Co-Chair Policy Forum: Pearl Ahrens

Co-Chair Policy Forum: Sylvia Gauthereau

Co-Chair CAMS: Aidan Chisholm

HR Committee Co-Chair, C&AM Co-Chair: Kris Sangani

Trustee: Stuart Kightley

Trustee: Sarah Strong

11 trustees, 3 or 4 women from the names. Please can you tell us how you judge people's class from the names on the website?



This is their team - again I have no idea how you judge class from looking at this. By name, I'd say mostly men but a reasonable number of women (6/19 is my guess from names) and their CEO isn't white.

I'm not in London* but LCC are one of Cycling UKs groups and they are really about campaigning for ordinary cycling, not sports cycling. If they are anything like the Birmingham Cycling campaign group in their focus it's all about decent safe infrastructure that allows people other than fit young men to ride feeling safe, and broadening cycling out beyond that lycra-clad stereotype.
I'm genuinely curious how you looked at their website and come to the conclusion you have. 

*I live in Kings Heath in Birmingham where an LTN has been put in place using the same legislation and with the same arguments, hence I watch this thread out of interest.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 8, 2021)

The irony about the Lycra clad comment is that’s exactly what LTNs are trying to change - make active travel more accessible to all.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 8, 2021)

I've got nothing to do with LCC, but find the conspiracies around them hilarious. Did you know that someone with an academic interest in active travel also has a more general interest in active travel? Spooky, man.

Also, nice mention of the whole racist tweets thing, it's good to know you do think that an entire campaign group should be judged and damned on the worst of its social media.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, I looked at their board and made that deduction. There was also an FOI on the make-up of their membership that stated the same which is why I made that statement.
> 
> I also looked at what you said above but, given their political lobbying, it was difficult to see how they could square that with the rules that they are not allowed to promote anything which could harm others under their foundation as a charity.



Have you got a link to that FoI answer? FoI is only really applicable to public bodies and I can't find such an FoI request from google or whatdotheyknow.com and I'm curious. Birmingham cycling campaign doesn't ask any demographic information when joining and I wonder why LCC does.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, I looked at their board and made that deduction. There was also an FOI on the make-up of their membership that stated the same which is why I made that statement.
> 
> I also looked at what you said above but, given their political lobbying, it was difficult to see how they could square that with the rules that they are not allowed to promote anything which could harm others under their foundation as a charity.


Did you FOI a cycling charity?. How many FOIs have you done in relation to this?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

Which bits of their political lobbying are problematic?


chowce5382 said:


> Yup, I looked at their board and made that deduction. There was also an FOI on the make-up of their membership that stated the same which is why I made that statement.
> 
> I also looked at what you said above but, given their political lobbying, it was difficult to see how they could square that with the rules that they are not allowed to promote anything which could harm others under their foundation as a charity


----------



## Winot (Jun 8, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The irony about the Lycra clad comment is that’s exactly what LTNs are trying to change - make active travel more accessible to all.


YES THIS FFS


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

In any case, even if arguments can be made that certain groups are biased or over represented, surely you also have to be able to give some kind of plausible explanation as to how the specific thing actually implemented has such selective benefits.

How does it benefit male cyclists but not female cyclists?
How does it benefit white cyclists but not cyclists of any other ethnicity?
How does it benefit cyclists wearing lycra but not cyclists who aren't wearing lycra?
How does it benefit middle class cyclists but not middle class pedestrians or indeed any pedestrians or anyone using any other form of transport?


These are all questions that go well outside the scope of simply seeking to protect the needs of disabled people (which no-one here is going to have a problem with).


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Which bits of their political lobbying are problematic?


The part of their political lobbying I take issue with is that policies they espouse have an adverse impact on vulnerable people. I have less on an issue with LCC than I do with the fact that Lambeth have overwhelmingly based their finding on LCC information without paying attention to or asking, other groups. 

I completely accept that the lycra-clad comment was throwaway and referred to a group who have already admitted that this was an issue with their current membership so was frankly a bit pointless and added nothing of value.

Does anyone have anything to say about the main section where the council deliberately mislead in their original EQIA? Whilst i completely get that there is a pro and anti-element on here and we will view this though that prism, I a bit surprised that since putting up that long post, all the questions are about lycra and LCC rather than about what looks like gross mismanagement by our council or, at worse, unlawful behavior. Or is there a blind-spot for as regards this?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Dear Teuchter, Ed & Liquidindian
> 
> To address your points in turn.
> 
> ...



This seemed an odd claim so I searched the FOIs on “What do they know”.

This one seems to be the query from OneLambeths Kelly Shockley and it doesn’t support what you are saying. 







__





						Response.pdf
					






					www.whatdotheyknow.com


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In any case, even if arguments can be made that certain groups are biased or over represented, surely you also have to be able to give some kind of plausible explanation as to how the specific thing actually implemented has such selective benefits.
> 
> How does it benefit male cyclists but not female cyclists?
> How does it benefit white cyclists but not cyclists of any other ethnicity?
> ...


Part fo this goes towards


thebackrow said:


> This seemed an odd claim so I searched the FOIs on “What do they know”.
> 
> This one seems to be the query from OneLambeths Kelly Shockley and it doesn’t support what you are saying.
> 
> ...


I haven't said that they gave them money. I said that, of all the groups, they were the only group to have paid representation on their transport committee which made the decision around LTN and that they therefore did not give the same access to other groups when implementing their policy.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In any case, even if arguments can be made that certain groups are biased or over represented, surely you also have to be able to give some kind of plausible explanation as to how the specific thing actually implemented has such selective benefits.
> 
> How does it benefit male cyclists but not female cyclists?
> How does it benefit white cyclists but not cyclists of any other ethnicity?
> ...


But everyone seems to be focused on the lycra comment but has nothing to say about how our council made that decision and published documents to back up the position and exclude those vulnerable people. I've just said above the lyrca comment added nothing and I agree was misplaced


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The part of their political lobbying I take issue with is that policies they espouse have an adverse impact on vulnerable people. I have less on an issue with LCC than I do with the fact that Lambeth have overwhelmingly based their finding on LCC information without paying attention to or asking, other groups.
> 
> I completely accept that the lycra-clad comment was throwaway and referred to a group who have already admitted that this was an issue with their current membership so was frankly a bit pointless and added nothing of value.
> 
> Does anyone have anything to say about the main section where the council deliberately mislead in their original EQIA? Whilst i completely get that there is a pro and anti-element on here and we will view this though that prism, I a bit surprised that since putting up that long post, all the questions are about lycra and LCC rather than about what looks like gross mismanagement by our council or, at worse, unlawful behavior. Or is there a blind-spot for as regards this?


There's already quite a few posts from those of us on the 'pro' side of the prism saying that if the court case reveals significant negligence by Lambeth in that regard, then it's right that it should be brought up and it's right that appropriate modifications to the schemes are made, if needed. I already said I'd reserve my opinion for now, because you can only tell us your interpretation of the story and we're about to have a court case where all this is examined.

Your long post was in response to ones that were asking specifically about the reasoning behind your comments at the protest gathering because they seemed to go beyond the narrow focus you say you are interested in.

Regarding what you say about LCC lobbying - looks rather like a circular argument to me. You have a problem with that group being involved with lobbying for a certain type of intervention, because you already have a problem with that certain type of intervention.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> But everyone seems to be focused on the lycra comment but has nothing to say about how our council made that decision and published documents to back up the position and exclude those vulnerable people. I've just said above the lyrca comment added nothing and I agree was misplaced


It’s not some throwaway comment. It gives an insight into where you’re coming from.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

It's not just the lycra comment. It's the comment that the LTNs only benefit white middle class male cyclists.

You are saying that the schemes are inherently racist, sexist and class-descriminatory. These are fairly serious things to suggest.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Indeed - here are the last 4 tweets from the OneLambeth Justice account. It’s bloody weird and think fair to question Charlie’s motives when this is the public face of his campaign.
> 
> View attachment 272450View attachment 272451
> View attachment 272452View attachment 272453



Where’s the justice in those tweets, chowce5382 ?

I fully support your right to bring the case but wish you had chosen one of the many other issues that you could have challenged the council on regarding proper consultation and equalities; cressingham and hondo come to mind…and also that you’d not chosen whats on display above as your fellow travellers.  Have you no shame?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I completely accept that the lycra-clad comment was throwaway and referred to a group who have already admitted that this was an issue with their current membership so was frankly a bit pointless and added nothing of value.



I'm pretty sure you know what value it was adding - very much along the same line's as your campaign's Twitter feed which you seem to want to ignore.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There's already quite a few posts from those of us on the 'pro' side of the prism saying that if the court case reveals significant negligence by Lambeth in that regard, then it's right that it should be brought up and it's right that appropriate modifications to the schemes are made, if needed. I already said I'd reserve my opinion for now, because you can only tell us your interpretation of the story and we're about to have a court case where all this is examined.
> 
> Your long post was in response to ones that were asking specifically about the reasoning behind your comments at the protest gathering because they seemed to go beyond the narrow focus you say you are interested in.
> 
> Regarding what you say about LCC lobbying - looks rather like a circular argument to me. You have a problem with that group being involved with lobbying for a certain type of intervention, because you already have a problem with that certain type of intervention.


Nope, I didn't ever have a probelm with LTNs. The issue arose as a result of the way in which they were implemented and the excessive influence of one group in formulating the policy over any other groups, I didn't think this was right. As I've said, I live in the middle of an LTN and don't have a car. It's nice in here


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 8, 2021)

Some grade A deflection going on. The council incompetence was interesting.

Gives detailed info on council equality impacts and groups they spoke to......but.....

*BUT THEY SAID MEAN THINGS*
*ANSWER FOR IT*


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Where’s the justice in those tweets, chowce5382 ?
> 
> I fully support your right to bring the case but wish you had chosen one of the many other issues that you could have challenged the council on regarding proper consultation and equalities; cressingham and hondo come to mind…and also that you’d not chosen whats on display above as your fellow travellers.  Have you no shame?


So many people are supporting the Hondo and Cressingham cases and fighting for those tooth and nail. I support them wholeheartedly and hope the council backs down but they don't need another person coming along especially when they have people who are fulfilling a similar function.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Nope, I didn't ever have a probelm with LTNs.


Ok, you are saying you don't have a problem with LTNs, only the way Lambeth has implemented them. But you also said you have problems with policies the LCC espouse. So what are they, those policies they espouse? Do the LCC espouse improperly implemented LTNs?


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So many people are supporting the Hondo and Cressingham cases and fighting for those tooth and nail. I support them wholeheartedly and hope the council backs down but they don't need another person coming along especially when they have people who are fulfilling a similar function.


Thanks, thats a very clear answer to the one question posed.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> This EQIA stated that the impact for all disabled people in Lambeth would be positive. This statement was linked to some underlying research to back up this assertion so I got hold of this research. Having read it through I saw that the research was undertaken about 15 years ago and encompassed 24 disabled people based up in the North-East of England. This group of people did not live in or anywhere near to an LTN so I thought it was strange that this was the only piece of research that backed-up up this assertion. When I read through it further I found that the subjects used for this study were people who suffered from "mild to moderate learning difficulties". This is an important sub-set of disabled people, however, the thing that jumped out was that the council had formulated a policy, signed off a vital document that categorically stated that an LTN would be beneficial for all disabled people, and then linked it to an underlying piece of research which deliberately excluded anyone who was physically disabled in relation to a policy which promotes physical transport and then stated it would be positive for those people.


This refers to a citation to back up the statement _disabled people may suffer from higher mortality rates than the general population, potentially reflecting exclusion from active travel / lifestyles_, not what's being claimed here. The research is titled _Primary and secondary barriers to physically active healthy lifestyles for adults with learning disabilities_. It's nothing to do with living near an LTN because that's not the point. You're right that it focuses on a subset of disability but I don't think it's controversial to suggest that people with a physical disability would face more barriers to active travel than those people without a physical disability. Seems pretty self-evident. That people with learning disabilities would face barriers is less obvious.

I honestly don't know what a good EQIA looks like, but the claim that the whole thing is underpinned by this piece of research isn't true.

Also it looks like Lambeth consulted Wheels for Wellbeing, a charity based in Brixton (I think) and there's mention of a "stakeholder meeting" with disabled residents and the feedback received.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Part fo this goes towards
> 
> I haven't said that they gave them money.


I don’t know if, to use your own phraseology, you’re incompetent or don’t care (about accuracy) but that’s exactly what you said. Twice. Which doesn’t bode well for the accuracy of your other claims and you should probably edit your post to be truthful.

you said:
“Again, it seemed strange to me that, of all the groups [Lambeth] arsked for input and were indeed willing to pay for that input, it was LCC”
“This seemed the most likely to me, given that [Lambeth] had paid someone from LCC to be their consultant”


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Ok, you are saying you don't have a problem with LTNs, only the way Lambeth has implemented them. But you also said you have problems with policies the LCC espouse. So what are they, those policies they espouse? Do the LCC espouse improperly implemented LTNs?


Yes because they were part of the implementation process and were being paid by the council whilst the decisions were being made. By having that role they went from being another interested group to be one which was able to influence travel policy over and above what a normal charity would. With that influence comes increased responsibility to ensure that you are giving the full picture. In that respect, my issue is more with the council than LCC although I would say that, once people were paid to help formulate policy, a conflict of interest arose. This isn't a singular issue with Lambeth as it has been replicated across other councils.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> This refers to a citation to back up the statement _disabled people may suffer from higher mortality rates than the general population, potentially reflecting exclusion from active travel / lifestyles_, not what's being claimed here. The research is titled _Primary and secondary barriers to physically active healthy lifestyles for adults with learning disabilities_. It's nothing to do with living near an LTN because that's not the point. You're right that it focuses on a subset of disability but I don't think it's controversial to suggest that people with a physical disability would face more barriers to active travel than those people without a physical disability. Seems pretty self-evident. That people with learning disabilities would face barriers is less obvious.
> 
> I honestly don't know what a good EQIA looks like, but the claim that the whole thing is underpinned by this piece of research isn't true.
> 
> Also it looks like Lambeth consulted Wheels for Wellbeing, a charity based in Brixton (I think) and there's mention of a "stakeholder meeting" with disabled residents and the feedback received.


Firstly an EQIA should be related to the thing it is referencing. If the EQIA is about LTNS then the research should be on LTNs. Speaking in generalities isn't enough and referencing something which is very general doesn't meet the high bar required. 

Secondly, my issue is not with the research or with the findings that "people with a physical disability would face more barriers to active travel". thats is understandable. Its that the finding were that LTNs would be positive for all disabled people and that was the verdict without showing how they managed to get there or the studies on which they based that finding. You'd expect to see granular detail about how they got there, sub-sets etc.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

Calling Claire Holland a dictator again - has she just become one since being elected council leader or was she one before?


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Firstly an EQIA should be related to the thing it is referencing. If the EQIA is about LTNS then the research should be on LTNs. Speaking in generalities isn't enough and referencing something which is very general doesn't meet the high bar required.


Is that so you can dismiss LTN-specific research as being led by a "cycling zealot"? I see your game.

The citation is nothing to do with LTNs because the statement is nothing to do with LTNs. The statement about barriers to active travel. The research is about barriers to active travel. If there's one constant throughout all of this it's the cry of "we need data" followed quickly by "no not that data".


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes because they were part of the implementation process and *were being paid by the council* whilst the decisions were being made. By having that role they went from being another interested group to be one which was able to influence travel policy over and above what a normal charity would. With that influence comes increased responsibility to ensure that you are giving the full picture. In that respect, my issue is more with the council than LCC although I would say that, once people were paid to help formulate policy, a conflict of interest arose. This isn't a singular issue with Lambeth as it has been replicated across other councils.


Are multiple people posting on this account? You said they LCC were being paid by the council (based on an FOI) but when I posted a link to the OneLambeth FOI that had Lambeth council stating they’d not paid LCC you denied that what what you’d said.


Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists


Now you’ve repeated what appears to be a blatant lie.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Is that so you can dismiss LTN-specific research as being led by a "cycling zealot"? I see your game.
> 
> The citation is nothing to do with LTNs because the statement is nothing to do with LTNs. The statement about barriers to active travel. The research is about barriers to active travel. If there's one constant throughout all of this it's the cry of "we need data" followed quickly by "no not that data".


The statement might not have anything to do with LTNs but the EQIA does, it is only about a specific LTN. I completely agree with the research about active travel, that;'s fine. what I'm talking about is the fact that the conclusion is that LTNs are positive for all disabled people without. The EQIA does not mention anything about various different subsets, how they have come to teh opinion for each different one which, when making a decision which impacts people in such a way, you would expect to see. 

I get that this is a detailed area and a bit specialist esp if you haven't seen how these are normally formulated but you would expect to see much more detail about how they came to that positive decision because they could have said "positive and negative" but they didn't.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Are multiple people posting on this account? You said they LCC were being paid by the council (based on an FOI) but when I posted a link to the OneLambeth FOI that had Lambeth council stating they’d not paid LCC you denied that what what you’d said.
> Now you’ve repeated what appears to be a blatant lie.


Sorry, I should have said payment in kind. My fault. LCC weren't paid directly but they gave their advice for free. That advice got them in the room to formulate policy whilst no other group had similar access so its a payment of kind. Other groups asked for access but they didn't get it, specifically local disabled groups. Sorry, my fault and I just checked that with the person who did the FOI originally. Again, sorry for that error. I'm trying to keep up with all the posts and wrote the long one whilst I was in between meetings. I hold up my hands.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Sorry, I should have said payment in kind. My fault. LCC weren't paid directly but they gave their advice for free. That advice got them in the room to formulate policy whilst no other group had similar access so its a payment of kind. Other groups asked for access but they didn't get it, specifically local disabled groups. Sorry, my fault and I just checked that with the person who did the FOI originally. Again, sorry for that error. I'm trying to keep up with all the posts and wrote the long one whilst I was in between meetings. I hold up my hands.


I can’t make any sense of that at all. You’ve said LCC were paid, we’re not paid, were paid and now that LCC were “paid in kind”.

you should probably correct the false statements (given they were the first and presumably this most significant) point you made.

I thought you said other groups were “in the room” as well (  Most of the group consulted were groups that represented physically able-bodied charities” )  but LCC were the only ones being paid (except they weren’t - as your FOI established) do is any engagement payment in kind?

it looks like the whole first paragraph here is nonsense as it all seems to be based around the idea that LCC had special access because they were paid.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Other groups asked for access but they didn't get it, specifically local disabled groups.



Again, a claim made without evidence. Which local disabled groups were historically denied access, and from what. Surely any of them could have sent in something to the consultation?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

I do find it a bit rich that you come here wanting people to take what you say are you motivations at face value whilst ignoring what your donors say and what your own campaign says publicly.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

Also wondering if your campaign has worked with any disability campaigns or charities and whether than have given you any funding?

I haven’t seen any mention of this but maybe that could have been a better approach.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I can’t make any sense of that at all. You’ve said LCC were paid, we’re not paid, were paid and now that LCC were “paid in kind”.
> 
> you should probably correct the false statements (given they were the first and presumably this most significant) point you made.
> 
> ...


To answer in turn:

I have said sorry and that I was incorrect.

Other groups were asked in general what they thought, they "represented physically able-bodied charities". The representative from LCC was actually in the room, i.e a consultant working with the smaller Lambeth transport team when deciding and finalising details of the LTNs which have been put in place including their location, form, area, and deciding whom they impacted. No other gorups had this position. As such, LCC agev this person for free but the payment in kind is that they were the only group actually part of the decision-making process, it was a barter for services between the two as explained in the definition provided above.

In the end, this goes back to my point about ideology. Why were they the only group allowed in the decision-making process when what was being put in place was going to impact a huge range of people and, given that, why were those people not part of the decision-making process?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Again, a claim made without evidence. Which local disabled groups were historically denied access, and from what. Surely any of them could have sent in something to the consultation?


Please read below about the difference between being asked and being part of the decision-making process. There is a considerable difference between the two


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I do find it a bit rich that you come here wanting people to take what you say are you motivations at face value whilst ignoring what your donors say and what your own campaign says publicly.


Fine Ed, I know what my motivations are and, as I have said, all the information is on the site where people donate. We clearly state suspension and the full consultation. We all have other jobs etc to manage whilst trying to do this and so the place where everyone donates seemed like the best place to have the information.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Also wondering if your campaign has worked with any disability campaigns or charities and whether than have given you any funding?
> 
> I haven’t seen any mention of this but maybe that could have been a better approach.


We have spoken to a number of them and collated a lot of data and feedback from them which has been supportive. Charities have found covid very difficult and a number of them have barely been able to keep themselves going. Charities generally don't give money to third-party cases as they become a through payment processor for such payments which can be very difficult when their foundation is focussed on a specific cause. They were very supportive and told us they would suggest others donate. I understand your point and maybe if covid wasn't happening we could but it was hard enough just to contact them initially as all offices were closed and those who would have been working in them were out trying to look after those in need.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Fine Ed, I know what my motivations are and, as I have said, all the information is on the site where people donate. We clearly state suspension and the full consultation. We all have other jobs etc to manage whilst trying to do this and so the place where everyone donates seemed like the best place to have the information.


Are you happy that your campaign’s Twitter feed is accusing the council of “ethnic cleansing”?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> To answer in turn:
> 
> I have said sorry and that I was incorrect.
> 
> ...



I'm not having a go here. Just been reading recent posts. 

What I gather is you are saying that a leading light in Lambeth Cyclists was employed as consultant by Lambeth to work on its transport policy. 

Was that person hired independently of being in the LC (being paid as consultant) or officially given post as consultatant because they represented Lambeth Cyclists?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm not having a go here. Just been reading recent posts.
> 
> What I gather is you are saying that a leading light in Lambeth Cyclists was employed as consultant by Lambeth to work on its transport policy.
> 
> Was that person hired independently of being in the LC (being paid as consultant) or officially given post as consultatant because they represented Lambeth Cyclists?


The latter, they were there as Lambeth Cyclists person in the room. There were also a senior member of LCC at the time formulating LCCs cycling infra policy


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are you happy that your campaign’s Twitter feed is accusing the council of “ethnic cleansing”?


Ed, every time we go through this. I do t control the Twitter feed or post. However, on Railton and a couple of other areas people from the BAME community have said that they feel uncomfortable with where the planters are given that they divide a street and one part gets the traffic whilst the other doesn’t. I can’t comment further than that anecdotal piece of info.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed, every time we go through this. I do t control the Twitter feed or post. However, on Railton and a couple of other areas people from the BAME community have said that they feel uncomfortable with where the planters are given that they divide a street and one part gets the traffic whilst the other doesn’t. I can’t comment further than that anecdotal piece of info.


I didn’t ask if you controlled it - I asked if you were happy that your campaign is using such language. Are you?

“Ethnic cleansing” is very inflammatory language. 

You keep saying “we” by the way but then distance yourself from any other part of your campaign.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> To answer in turn:
> 
> I have said sorry and that I was incorrect.
> 
> ...


I still don’t understand. You’ve said you were wrong in saying that they were paid (but haven’t edited or deleted the incorrect statements). Now you’re doubling  down on some weird claim  about payment in kind but again without any evidence.

you seem to be making some very  specific claims - that LCC were involved in a unique way and that they were “officially given post as consultatant because they represented Lambeth Cyclists” - but I can’t see what you’re basing that on. And given you were claiming that they were being paid but now you’ve checked with someone else you’ve found that’s not true obviously there’s a worry this might be mistaken as well. Since it’s so core to your bitterness about LCC and your claim that this is all for the white middle class Lycra clad cyclists (though they’re not wearing Lycra, nor all white, nor do you have any way of assessing their class) it feels important


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

This is a car crash


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Dear Teuchter, Ed & Liquidindian
> 
> To address your points in turn.
> 
> ...



Thanks for this from a lycra clad cyclist.


chowce5382 said:


> The latter, they were there as Lambeth Cyclists person in the room. There were also a senior member of LCC at the time formulating LCCs cycling infra policy



If that is true I'm a bit gobsmacked.

I'm in a couple of local groups. Whilst the Council consult us the groups I'm in don't have seat at the table for making policy. There is as you say a difference.

I was just looking back at your long post. I'm a lycra clad cyclist BTW. I also have sense of humour. Did hear you in Windrush Square.

I assume the Sophia case will concentrate on disability and equal opps.

Im wondering how much the judge will look at consultation.

As this thread is about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood I was at local Neighbourhood forum meeting pre Covid where officer told us that there would be extensive consultation on BLN. That TFL expected this.

It would not go ahead without community support. That the BLN would be designed in conjunction with residents.

What you apoear to be saying is that the Council had already decided what it was going to do with a poor EQIA and having a consultant from LC to help them develop this policy.

It would be helpful if judge could look at time line of who decided what and when.

Certainly when I first heard of Brixton Liveable neighbourhood it was not a finished policy. The officer was making clear they would do consultation with hard to reach groups. That BLN would be Co designed with local community.

It would not go ahead otherwise.

I think it would be helpful if the judge could be encouraged to look at the consultation process.

Due to way that Council implemented the LTNs both sides are having a go at each other.

I would like an independent person to produce a timeline to be written into their judgement. 

Imo most of this unpleasantness could have been avoided if the Council had done the consultation it promised pre pandemic.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I still don’t understand. You’ve said you were wrong in saying that they were paid (but haven’t edited or deleted the incorrect statements). Now you’re foundling down on some weird claim  shout payment in kind but again without any evidence.
> 
> you seem to be making some very  specific claims - that LCC were involved in a unique way - but I can’t see what you’re basing that on. And given you were claiming that they were being paid but now you’ve checked with someone else you’ve found that’s not true obviously there’s a worry this might be mistaken as well. Since it’s so core to your bitterness about LCC it feels important.


I do t know how to change posts, happy to change it if you show me how and I’ll put payment in kind instead and update the post.

As per above, they were the only non council group on a transport committee making decisions which impacted everyone in the borough. Im not bitter towards them I just don’t think that is right especially when what was being decided impacted more than cyclists, that decision was one of the council Lambeth stopped using this person on the committee once LCC decided that they could
no longer work/with employ him. 

I explained the concept of why it’s payment I kind using a definition you gave me. They were the only people in the room other than the council, no other charitable group got that access. LCC gave and service through the provision of that person and the council gained a service through the provision of that service. LCC gained the benefit of direct access to the decision making process.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I do t know how to change posts, happy to change it if you show me how and I’ll put payment in kind instead and update the post.
> 
> As per above, they were the only non council group on a transport committee making decisions which impacted everyone in the borough. Im not bitter towards them I just don’t think that is right especially when what was being decided impacted more than cyclists, that decision was one of the council Lambeth stopped using this person on the committee once LCC decided that they could
> no longer work/with employ him.
> ...


The payment in kind line is, frankly, bollocks. Have some dignity and just accept you were wrong and there was no payment - if an org or individual gave time for free that is simply time they’ve given for free. 
But that doesn’t  establish it happened anyway. 

 I assume (since you’re so sure about it) that you can back up this claim that  “they were the only non council group on a transport committee making decisions” - presumably there are meeting minutes you’ve FOI -d? Or some documentation about the decision making process?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We have spoken to a number of them and collated a lot of data and feedback from them which has been supportive. Charities have found covid very difficult and a number of them have barely been able to keep themselves going. *Charities generally don't give money to third-party cases as they become a through payment processor for such payments which can be very difficult when their foundation is focussed on a specific cause.* They were very supportive and told us they would suggest others donate. I understand your point and maybe if covid wasn't happening we could but it was hard enough just to contact them initially as all offices were closed and those who would have been working in them were out trying to look after those in need.


I've been a member of the OL Facebook group since it started. Not once has a DPO or other charity posted support on it, nor have i seen them ask their clients or supporters to do so. The bit in bold is them telling you politely to go away.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Thanks for this from a lycra clad cyclist.
> 
> 
> If that is true I'm a bit gobsmacked.
> ...


Thanks for this, nice to hear you were there, my maiden speech 😂😂😂👍 I was a cyclist a while ago when I lived in Oval and worked near London Bridge. Got knocked off my bike by a car clipping my front wheel once and then again in a huddle of cyclists. My other half stopped me from cycling after that.

I’m yet to know exactly where the case will focus as the judge will decide that once listening to the arguments.

As regards the point on whether it goes ahead or not, the main concern of most peope
I’ve spoken to is that they haven’t been asked anything and that thi has been imposed. I suspect that people wouldn’t be as upset if they had been asked. When you mention the hard to reach groups, those groups have either not been asked or, if they have, haven’t seen any of their suggestions taken on board which is why I said it feels idelogical and now weight and access has been given to a certain group. 

I hope that helps clear it up a bit. It would so much easier to do this face to face


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

(The three little dots next to “report” open a menu that lets you edit. You’ve got a fair bit to do I think)


----------



## edcraw (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I've been a member of the OL Facebook group since it started. Not once has a DPO or other charity posted support on it, nor have i seen them ask their clients or supporters to do so.


That’s interesting and backed up by the OL post looking for potential clients.

It’d be interesting to hear which groups are backing the campaign, though I imagine it can’t help having a toxic Twitter feed.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> The payment in kind line is, frankly, bollocks. Have some dignity and just accept you were wrong and there was no payment - if an org or individual gave time for free that is simply time they’ve given for free.
> But that doesn’t  establish it happened anyway.
> 
> I assume (since you’re so sure about it) that you can back up this claim that  “they were the only non council group on a transport committee making decisions” - presumably there are meeting minutes you’ve FOI -d? Or some documentation about the decision making process?


I admitted that I was wrong and corrected/clarified my position. I then said it was payment in kind, you gave me a definition of what that was and I told you how it fitted into that definition. That is happened I know as there are Zoom recordings of that person in the transport group advising at the time. They were then let go from that position at a later date


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I didn’t ask if you controlled it - I asked if you were happy that your campaign is using such language. Are you?
> 
> “Ethnic cleansing” is very inflammatory language.
> 
> You keep saying “we” by the way but then distance yourself from any other part of your campaign.


How many One lambeths are there?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Thanks for this, nice to hear you were there, my maiden speech 😂😂😂👍 I was a cyclist a while ago when I lived in Oval and worked near London Bridge. Got knocked off my bike by a car clipping my front wheel once and then again in a huddle of cyclists. My other half stopped me from cycling after that.
> 
> I’m yet to know exactly where the case will focus as the judge will decide that once listening to the arguments.
> 
> ...



Im no legal expert. Sophia legal team have good track record. But just as suggestion they could look at consultation on Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and the Transport policy.

Looks to me that LCC had input on transport policy. Which is being used to justify LTNs now.

The other policy was Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood. This covered Ferndale, Railton and Tulse Hill.

This consultation was halted due to pandemic.

Then Council pushed through LTNs due to pandemic.

It looks like they had pretty advanced plans to put in place quickly. Despite saying re BLN that nothing had been decided yet.

So their are two policies/projects 

Transport policy

Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

For context, here’s lambeth’s 2019 transport strategy https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pl_Lambeth_Transport_Strategy_2019.pdf

And the baseline data: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Lambeth_LTS_Future_Baseline_Report_P2.pdf

Which sort of undermines the ‘they only asked lcc’ argument.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I've been a member of the OL Facebook group since it started. Not once has a DPO or other charity posted support on it, nor have i seen them ask their clients or supporters to do so. The bit in bold is them telling you politely to go away.


Ok, that’s your read of it. Having been involved with charitable fundraising for a long tim I know its pretty standard.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> How many One lambeths are there?


3 if you count the CAB Advice service whose name they took.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I admitted that I was wrong and corrected/clarified my position. I then said it was payment in kind, you gave me a definition of what that was and I told you how it fitted into that definition. That is happened I know as there are Zoom recordings of that person in the transport group advising at the time. They were then let go from that position at a later date


That doesn’t make any sense. You’re claiming that this policy and design stuff was all done ages ago, pre pandemic - no-one was using zoom then (certainly not councils for decision making committees). And if they did it would be public on the council site so you could link to it?

And your definition of “Payment in kind” would apply to anyone that responded to a  consultation


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, that’s your read of it. Having been involved with charitable fundraising for a long tim I know its pretty standard.


So you’re not Charles are you? Are you speaking at CIOF soon then?

editor  is it the same isp?


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 8, 2021)

> Which sort of undermines the ‘they only asked lcc’ argument.


See also https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/696235/response/1665622/attach/6/Transport Strategy Equality Impact Assessment.pdf.pdf which is the EQIA chowce5382 refers to. It mentions a consultation session specifically asking people with disabilities for feedback and and Wheels for Wellbeing.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

You also seem to be conflating service delivery charities with grant making ones


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> For context, here’s lambeth’s 2019 transport strategy https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pl_Lambeth_Transport_Strategy_2019.pdf
> 
> And the baseline data: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Lambeth_LTS_Future_Baseline_Report
> 
> ...





Gramsci said:


> Im no legal expert. Sophia legal team have good track record. But just as suggestion they could look at consultation on Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and the Transport policy.
> 
> Looks to me that LCC had input on transport policy. Which is being used to justify LTNs now.
> 
> ...


The critical issue here is that these sone pre-Covid. And to be put in place pre-Covid. Once COVID happens, everyone changes their habitual travel arrangements. That is another part of issue. I got these through and FOI but they aren’t EQIAs are they?


snowy_again said:


> So you’re not Charles are you? Are you speaking at CIOF soon then?
> 
> editor  is it the same isp?


So you’re not Charles are you? Are you speaking at CIOF soon then? 


snowy_again said:


> editor  is it the same isp?


I am the charles on the gofundme link. I do t know which other charles you’re talking about I’m afraid


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> You also seem to be conflating service delivery charities with grant making ones


No, I pointing out that I’m this instance there was a srcide and advice given which resulted in access to the decision making process


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> See also https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/696235/response/1665622/attach/6/Transport Strategy Equality Impact Assessment.pdf.pdf which is the EQIA chowce5382 refers to. It mentions a consultation session specifically asking people with disabilities for feedback and and Wheels for Wellbeing.


This is the EQIA I was pointing to earlier regarding the fully positive position but relying on data which didn’t relate to those who were physically disabled. Also undertaken before Covid. We aren’t going to court in relation to prevent-Covid documents as that is not what the LTNs in out in place under. I mentioned them previously as they formed part of my prices to understand how decision were made. Someone mentioned Zoom and how on-one was using it. The zoom I was referring to was post pandemic.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

Ah good, so if you’re experienced at fundraising you will be aware of the police factories etc miscellaneous provisions act 1916. 

What would you do as a treasurer if it was pointed out that you’d broken it?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Ah good, so if you’re experienced at fundraising you will be aware of the police factories etc miscellaneous provisions act 1916.
> 
> What would you do as a treasurer if it was pointed out that you’d broken it?


Please point me to which part exactly.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

The licensing requirement


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> The licensing requirement


Yup, which part of that exactly


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 8, 2021)

The requirement to apply for and be issued one to conduct street fundraising.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> The requirement to apply for and be issued one to conduct street fundraising.


We spoke to the police and we were told to proceed with the event, we got the appropriate jackets and ensured that the buckets were sealed.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> For context, here’s lambeth’s 2019 transport strategy https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pl_Lambeth_Transport_Strategy_2019.pdf
> 
> And the baseline data: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Lambeth_LTS_Future_Baseline_Report_P2.pdf
> 
> Which sort of undermines the ‘they only asked lcc’ argument.



So did Brixton Liveable neighbourhood trump Transport policy or the other way around?

I was at a local neighbourhood meeting pre Covid where this came up.

The LCC person there knew all about the "transport policy" local residents didn't. And didn't understand how this all got decided.

Lambeth got initial funding to consult on BLN. As this is connected to Mayor they had to show extensive consultation. Which they started to do.

( one thing Khan got right is to mske ke sure of this on projects funded through him. Good Growth Fund for Brixton Rec Quarter - the Council have to hire independent consultant to moniter the scheme from start to finish.)

That is when the Transport policy vs BLN comes in. LCC person assumes it's already been consulted on and decided. Local resident hasn't heard about it and thinks BLN consultation is the start.

Recent posts here by Ferndale resident said that the first they heard of LTNs was when this one was put in.

I'm not saying LCC is corrupt or anything like that. But looks to me that Council didn't really put itself out to consult outside its comfort zone until the TFL funded BLN meant it had to.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 8, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So did Brixton Liveable neighbourhood trump Transport policy or the other way around.
> 
> I was at a local neighbourhood meeting pre Covid where this came up.
> 
> ...


So there is a difference between pre and post Covid. I didn’t know about LTNs pre-Covid, hasn’t heard of them.

this seems to tally with my understanding g tough that the LCC rep would assume that the decision had already been made.

The change with Covid was that the council basically decided that the Covid funding package meant that they could implement what they wanted without consultation. The government has said officially on a number of occasion that this was not the case and they expected proper consultation.

Re the ferndale LTN, this is what I also understand. There are also another couple of val which have been put in without residents k owing and we’ve been contacted about them. I still can’t find where the council actually published the decision for one of them but it has still gone ahead. Most people I’ve spoken to are most annoyed about lack of consultation and the feeling that these have been imposed. It should consultation before implementation.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 9, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We spoke to the police and we were told to proceed with the event, we got the appropriate jackets and ensured that the buckets were sealed.


So you had an events licence not a separate street collections one. Street collection licenses are only given to registered charities for a reason, you’re not a registered charity. 

The Met Police forbid street fundraising by unregistered groups to prevent fraud amongst other reasons, especially as guidance on how to operate was updated during Covid due to proximity and shared contact points. 

This may seem pedantic but it’s not legal to collect funds that way. And even riskier during the pandemic. You say that other charities are struggling to cover costs during Covid - I’m sure they’d love the ability to fundraise in Windrush Square on a Saturday afternoon, but street collection licenses are limited and difficult to get. You ignored that and just carried on regardless.

It puts your legal firm in a difficult position as you’re paying them from these funds (which inherently through GFM are a little less transparent - resulting in the pending review of it as a platform for some sorts of activities/causes). 

It’s also a bit strange to overlook the law when it applies to you but to be using these funds as part of holding Lambeth to the law.

So, As treasurer, what are your responsibilities now and to whom?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 9, 2021)

A lot of this consultation stuff - local residents haven't heard of something but some interest group has - this is because to most people transport planning is pretty dull. It's some spods discussing  timetabling or junction design or traffic light prioritisation. So when Lambeth are consulting on their transport policy most people just aren't interested. But special interest groups are - because it's what they are interested in. They are often working away in the background for years, helping to push for incremental improvements and lots of things that barely get noticed by most people. I'm a bit of a transport spod - I follow things sporadically and from a mostly layperson point of view. I read the lengthy London reconnections articles about bus route rationalisation or the Uber court cases or Thameslink upgrades or whatever.

Most people find all this stuff really boring. But occasionally something happens and suddenly people who were never previously interested in the bigger picture of transport planning are paying attention. LTNs are one of those things. Certain people are paying attention because it now takes them somewhat longer to drive somewhere. The same people haven't been paying attention to the gradual cuts in funding for public transport in London that have been going on for the past few years, or at least they haven't been staying Facebook groups about it. The fact that they have never been interested in this stuff before means that they think LTNs are a wacky new idea, not a fairly conventional and well established method that's been used for decades. It means they don't have any alternative solutions to offer, because they haven't already been thinking about it for years and watching the things that do and don't work. 

I am rambling a bit. What I started out to write was a partial explanation for why you see this situation where it appears that the council has been talking to lobby groups but not local residents. When actually they have been talking to those people who are actually interested. It's not a sinister conspiracy. It's just that if you are talking about the bigger-picture, long term stuff, not the immediate 'shall we put a traffic filter on your road' stuff, most people just aren't interested, and think it's desperately dull. I've seen eyes glaze over myself...


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So there is a difference between pre and post Covid. I didn’t know about LTNs pre-Covid, hasn’t heard of them.
> 
> this seems to tally with my understanding g tough that the LCC rep would assume that the decision had already been made.
> 
> ...



Another issue is Loughborough Junction. Due to protest last time the Council have not tried to impose an LTN in LJ now. 

There were temporary pavement widening on LJ section of Coldharbour lane. Brought in for social distancing. These went some time ago. Despite social distancing still being encouraged. 

This is not the case for the LTNs. 

If Council is arguing that LTN were brought in due to health emergency that does not apply in LJ.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 9, 2021)

chowce5382 what relevance do e-scooters have to your campaign?

You (plural) seem to be opposed to them, can you explain why?

I’m sure you’ll repeat that the Twitter account isn’t anything to do with you but it’s seems to be the only public communications for you’re campaign and as your treasurer it must be implied that you’re supportive of it.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 9, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> This is the EQIA I was pointing to earlier regarding the fully positive position but relying on data which didn’t relate to those who were physically disabled. Also undertaken before Covid. We aren’t going to court in relation to prevent-Covid documents as that is not what the LTNs in out in place under. I mentioned them previously as they formed part of my prices to understand how decision were made. Someone mentioned Zoom and how on-one was using it. The zoom I was referring to was post pandemic.




I’ve asked some people who would know  and it seems the doctored video OneLambeth have been posting on social media is a Friends of the Earth meeting from last summer which matches when you say it is from.

So your smoking gun of Lambeth Cyclists secretly being “paid by the council” with an “exclusive, decision making, seat” at the “Transport Comittee” and evilly planning the LTNs and directing the council….
…is actually one volunteer group talking to another after LTNs had been installed

Either you’re trying to mislead us here or you’ve been misled yourself but someone is clearly just making stuff up.

Regardless of which it is you’ve a load more work to do with the edit button.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 9, 2021)

^^and the repeated Prof Rachel Aldred conspiracies


----------



## Collateral Dama (Jun 9, 2021)

ash said:


> None before and none after


I’ll recopy below a link from above to a video showing a motorbike on the pavement, among other things. You’ve said you’ve seen various videos so I thought you might have watched it, especially as it concerns the road on which you live. I’ve seen dozens of motorbikes on the pavements of Ferndale Road since the LTN was introduced and saw none before. I’ve never seen motorbikes on the pavement anywhere else in the world in my 60+ years. I can point you to other videos showing motorbikes on the pavements of the road we live on if you’d like. They’re one of the side effects of the excessive traffic being put down our road. They don’t indicate that the road is quieter than before the LTN (and neither does the data collected by Lambeth) and they don’t make for a more enjoyable pedestrian experience, as I think the young lady in the video would attest (although this motorbike driver is acting more considerately than many).


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 9, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We spoke to the police and we were told to proceed with the event, we got the appropriate jackets and ensured that the buckets were sealed.


So you already had sealed buckets?. Have you done collections previously?


----------



## editor (Jun 9, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> So you’re not Charles are you? Are you speaking at CIOF soon then?
> 
> editor  is it the same isp?


Come on: you know we will never reveal such details.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 9, 2021)

editor said:


> Come on: you know we will never reveal such details.


Yes, sorry I appreciate that. There’s another OL person who is a professional fundraiser which is why it surprised me when Charles said he knew about fundraising but didn’t know the fundamental basics of community fundraising.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 9, 2021)




----------



## editor (Jun 9, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> View attachment 272633



Once again,  a masterclass in how NOT to communicate with your target audience via social media.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 9, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> View attachment 272633


Only 659 donors altogether, how many of them are actually local?. Where does the bulk of that money come from?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 9, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> View attachment 272633


This person seems to think the court case is about letting everyone drive on all streets 🤔

Maybe only having 700 donors suggests that it’s a minority that oppose then.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 9, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> View attachment 272633


They definitely aren’t definitely linking fundraising and “driving on all of our streets” here.

this definitely doesn’t feel like grift


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 9, 2021)

“So we can drive on all of our streets”

It’s almost as if all the talk of doing this for disabled people is complete bullshit


----------



## nagapie (Jun 9, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “So we can drive on all of our streets”
> 
> It’s almost as if all the talk of doing this for disabled people is complete bullshit


Whether their motives are questionable or not, accessibility still needs to be challenged. As it's not the more palatable groups involved in LTNRs who have raised this issue, it has been left to other groups who oppose them. It would have been nice if all the so called caring groups had challenged the issues around disability in the system, but they haven't.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 9, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Whether their motives are questionable or not, accessibility still needs to be challenged. As it's not the more palatable groups involved in LTNRs who have raised this issue, it has been left to other groups who oppose them. It would have been nice if all the so called caring groups had challenged the issues around disability in the system, but they haven't.


But is there an issue, I guess we have to wait for the judgement but why haven't disability organisations pursued this or used grants to help fund it? Doesn't that suggest something.

I'm sure we can agree that it shouldn't be left up to a pro-motoring lobby group.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But is there an issue, I guess we have to wait for the judgement but why haven't disability organisations pursued this or used grants to help fund it? Doesn't that suggest something.
> 
> I'm sure we can agree that it shouldn't be left up to a pro-motoring lobby group.


All these questions mean there's a need for a forum for them to be asked. Unfortunately only the motorists have called for this so it has been left to them.
Let's not forget that these were brought in during covid which disproportionately affected people with disabilities in so many ways. I'm guessing disability organisations have been swamped. It's not exactly a well funded area.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 9, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Unfortunately only the motorists have called for this so it has been left to them.











						Pave The Way - 4 months on » Transport for All
					

Pave The Way : 4 months on Our Pave The Way report remains the only in-depth and independent piece of research into the impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on disabled people, and has proven to be an invaluable resource to so many. We had several goals when we embarked on this campaign. We...




					www.transportforall.org.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jun 9, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Pave The Way - 4 months on » Transport for All
> 
> 
> Pave The Way : 4 months on Our Pave The Way report remains the only in-depth and independent piece of research into the impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on disabled people, and has proven to be an invaluable resource to so many. We had several goals when we embarked on this campaign. We...
> ...


This looks like it will make a lot more meaningful progress than taking councils to court at vast espense - but then we know that's not really what those donating want.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2021)

So the disabled lady taking the Council to court is taking the wrong action. She should not have done this is how I'm reading this.

I agree with nagapie


----------



## lblres (Jun 9, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So the disabled lady taking the Council to court is taking the wrong action. She should not have done this is how I'm reading this.
> 
> I agree with nagapie


she is free to take them to court, the impression given by the group and herself is that they are challenging them all and should she win all LTN's will be immediately removed which is false.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 9, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So the disabled lady taking the Council to court is taking the wrong action. She should not have done this is how I'm reading this.
> 
> I agree with nagapie


I guess it depends what she wants.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 9, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Pave The Way - 4 months on » Transport for All
> 
> 
> Pave The Way : 4 months on Our Pave The Way report remains the only in-depth and independent piece of research into the impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on disabled people, and has proven to be an invaluable resource to so many. We had several goals when we embarked on this campaign. We...
> ...


I've seen this but the council have not responded to it with any consideration or change.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This looks like it will make a lot more meaningful progress than taking councils to court at vast espense - but then we know that's not really what those donating want.



So where's the meaningful response?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2021)

lblres said:


> she is free to take them to court, the impression given by the group and herself is that they are challenging them all and should she win all LTN's will be immediately removed which is false.



So you're saying this disabled lady is taking the wrong kind of action.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I guess it depends what she wants.



So in your view she's doing the wrong thing.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2021)

This disabled lady and her legal team have had to prove before the case continued that their is a case to answer.

Imo she has every right to do this. I don't think a disabled person motives should be questioned in case like this.

I await to see what the judgement is.


----------



## lblres (Jun 9, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So you're saying this disabled lady is taking the wrong kind of action.


i am saying her and her group have given the wrong impression/information as to what will actually happen


----------



## edcraw (Jun 9, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> This disabled lady and her legal team have had to prove before the case continued that their is a case to answer.
> 
> Imo she has every right to do this. I don't think a disabled person motives should be questioned in case like this.
> 
> I await to see what the judgement is.


You keep implying that people on here are saying she doesn't have the right to bring this case when no one has & in fact have said the exact opposite many times.

I have heard from councillors that the court case has stopped the council from making changes and tied up officer time. What action did OneLambeth take before launching legal action? did they try to engage with the council in a meaningful way? I can't see any mention of this on their fundraising page - but if they had engaged meaningfully that wouldn't mean the removal of the schemes though, which is afterall their true motivation.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You keep implying that people on here are saying she doesn't have the right to bring this case when no one has & in fact have said the exact opposite many times.
> 
> I have heard from councillors that the court case has stopped the council from making changes and tied up officer time. What action did OneLambeth take before launching legal action? did they try to engage with the council in a meaningful way? I can't see any mention of this on their fundraising page - but if they had engaged meaningfully that wouldn't mean the removal of the schemes though, which is afterall their true motivation.


Do you actually live in Lambeth? Does the council engage well with resident action? Look at Hondo, Cressingham etc. It seems this LEA only understand the same sort of aggressive response they afford their residents. Many people have raised the blue badge issue, the response was that it was unworkable which it isn't.


----------



## lblres (Jun 9, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Do you actually live in Lambeth? Does the council engage well with resident action? Look at Hondo, Cressingham etc. It seems this LEA only understand the same sort of aggressive response they afford their residents. Many people have raised the blue badge issue, the response was that it was unworkable which it isn't.


they have actually stated in several question and answer sessions that this will be looked into at the next phase and information was being gathered


----------



## nagapie (Jun 9, 2021)

lblres said:


> they have actually stated in several question and answer sessions that this will be looked into at the next phase and information was being gathered


When is the next phase? What are the details of that? How can we trust them when they have said blue badge access is unworkable? How can we trust them? Why don't they move on this thus removing the need for a judicial review?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 9, 2021)

Despite being pro LTN, I am nervous of the JR because with it being Lambeth, you sort of just know mistakes, oversights etc will have been made and that makes it more likely that one Lambeth may be successful. However, what that success looks like, I’m not sure.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 9, 2021)

Being an IT bod, I just can’t imagine why there can’t be a tech solution for the whole blue badge thing, e.g. I know it’s attached to a person not a vehicle but why does that need to be a physical badge? We don’t have tax discs displayed any more but the tech can know that you are taxed, why cannot it be a digital key that could be used in different vehicles albeit not all at the same time?


----------



## nagapie (Jun 9, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Being an IT bod, I just can’t imagine why there can’t be a tech solution for the whole blue badge thing, e.g. I know it’s attached to a person not a vehicle but why does that need to be a physical badge? We don’t have tax discs displayed any more but the tech can know that you are taxed, why cannot it be a digital key that could be used in different vehicles albeit not all at the same time?



Because that would cost money, money that would be spent on people with disabilities.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 9, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Because that would cost money, money that would be spent on people with disabilities.


Not necessarily, IT budgets in public services are separated from front line budgets, particularly if you are replacing a manual system with a digital one. Increasingly public bodies are adopting the same systems such as office 365. They offer a no cost/low cost software development capability as part of their standard offer. You could do something in this space really easily although I don’t know what IT Lambeth have


----------



## nagapie (Jun 9, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Not necessarily, IT budgets in public services are separated from front line budgets, particularly if you are replacing a manual system with a digital one. Increasingly public bodies are adopting the same systems such as office 365. They offer a no cost/low cost software development capability as part of their standard offer. You could do something in this space really easily although I don’t know what IT Lambeth have


Ok, just ableism then instead of ableism plus cost.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 9, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Ok, just ableism then instead of ableism plus cost.


Yeah you are probably on to something with that, disabled rights seem to be way down the list on many things, particularly big tech IT.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You keep implying that people on here are saying she doesn't have the right to bring this case when no one has & in fact have said the exact opposite many times.
> 
> I have heard from councillors that the court case has stopped the council from making changes and tied up officer time. What action did OneLambeth take before launching legal action? did they try to engage with the council in a meaningful way? I can't see any mention of this on their fundraising page - but if they had engaged meaningfully that wouldn't mean the removal of the schemes though, which is afterall their true motivation.



I'm implying that you are.

You present yourself as nice and liberal. Reading your posts it is clear to me you would rather this case was not happening.

But being nice and liberal you don't want to be seen criticising a disabled lady so you fixate on the kind of people you think are helping fund her case.

This case would not have happened if the disabled lady had said she didn't want to do it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You keep implying that people on here are saying she doesn't have the right to bring this case when no one has & in fact have said the exact opposite many times.
> 
> I have heard from councillors that the court case has stopped the council from making changes and tied up officer time. What action did OneLambeth take before launching legal action? did they try to engage with the council in a meaningful way? I can't see any mention of this on their fundraising page - but if they had engaged meaningfully that wouldn't mean the removal of the schemes though, which is afterall their true motivation.



You believe what Labour Cllrs say? Take it at face value? This is Progress led Labour Lambeth.

I bet they said the same about Cressingham.

Just to add what you say you have heard from Labour Cllrs rings true to me from my long experience of them. 

This is exactly the line they would take.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 9, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> you don't want to be seen criticising a disabled lady


Is that what you want? If you go on Sofia Sheakh's twitter feed you see her retweeting a whole bunch of appalling people, repeating bullshit about LTNs that there's little evidence for and lots of evidence against. I think this is Not A Good Thing™. Does that help?

At the same time, that doesn't mean she's lying about the problems she's had or doesn't have a specific point about a particular LTN.

I think that it's possible to believe that LTNs are in general a good thing, but also that people with specific needs should be listened to. I think it's possible to believe that someone has a right to bring a court case, and also that many of the people funding the court case don't really give a shit about the details, they just want the thing they don't like to go away.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 9, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Is that what you want? If you go on Sofia Sheikh's twitter feed you see her retweeting a whole bunch of appalling people, repeating bullshit about LTNs that there's little evidence for and lots of evidence against. I think this is Not A Good Thing™. Does that help?
> 
> At the same time, that doesn't mean she's lying about the problems she's had or doesn't have a specific point about a particular LTN.
> 
> I think that it's possible to believe that LTNs are in general a good thing, but also that people with specific needs should be listened to. I think it's possible to believe that someone has a right to bring a court case, and also that many of the people funding the court case don't really give a shit about the details, they just want the thing they don't like to go away.



Not how I read recent posts here.

Nor this one. You are criticising Sofia in first part of post. Implying she is bullshiter

This post reads to me that you want it both ways.

Individually undermine the actual disabled person who is doing the case. By searching their social media. Then saying there are issues. You want to have your cake and eat it.

BTW when you say its possible to believe that someone has right to bring case "possible" has nothing to do with it.

Her legal team have proved their is a case to answer. That is a fact.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 9, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> You want to have your cake and eat it.


This is possible if there are two cakes.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 10, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> This is possible if there are two cakes.



I find the way you are going on about this disabled lady offensive.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 10, 2021)

I don't think it's unfair to ask you to expand on that a bit.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 10, 2021)

Gramsci - if you want to ignore what people are actually saying repeatedly and instead imply your own interpretations that’s your issue tbh.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 10, 2021)

Road traffic injuries are currently the leading cause of death for children and young adults aged 5-29 years old. Which is a bit depressing.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 10, 2021)

editor said:


> Once again,  a masterclass in how NOT to communicate with your target audience via social media.



I see this post now. 'OneLambeth' is the group posted in, it is not the poster - its a random individual


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 10, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Only 659 donors altogether, how many of them are actually local?. Where does the bulk of that money come from?


Most people give their names when you dontate, im pretty sure if doesn't ask for location.

You could always check the names against facebook, dorectories and other places if it bothers u that much. Say what you want but you've got a few thousand people on their group signed up with their real names. Perhaps we should provide proof of address to post here


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But is there an issue, I guess we have to wait for the judgement but why haven't disability organisations pursued this or used grants to help fund it? Doesn't that suggest something.
> 
> I'm sure we can agree that it shouldn't be left up to a pro-motoring lobby group.



Why didn't the council pursue feedback from disability groups or age groups like AgeUK. Doesn't that suggest something/

I'm sure we can agree that advice into such impactful things shouldn't be left up to a cycling campaign.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 10, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Being an IT bod, I just can’t imagine why there can’t be a tech solution for the whole blue badge thing, e.g. I know it’s attached to a person not a vehicle but why does that need to be a physical badge? We don’t have tax discs displayed any more but the tech can know that you are taxed, why cannot it be a digital key that could be used in different vehicles albeit not all at the same time?



Yea other boroughs have done this. There was talk of allowing three cars to allow for carers and support staff. I think may be they are worried about abuse


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 10, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Not necessarily, IT budgets in public services are separated from front line budgets, particularly if you are replacing a manual system with a digital one. Increasingly public bodies are adopting the same systems such as office 365. They offer a no cost/low cost software development capability as part of their standard offer. You could do something in this space really easily although I don’t know what IT Lambeth have



THat sounds like to get it up and running but are there costs around people policing the system? Taking care of applications, looking for abuse of the system. It may not sound a lot but could mean another couple of bodies


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 10, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> THat sounds like to get it up and running but are there costs around people policing the system? Taking care of applications, looking for abuse of the system. It may not sound a lot but could mean another couple of bodies


Nah, shouldn’t do, the whole idea is to provide a no cost/low cost solution. You can automate a lot of the processes and there’s full audit and rules to “police” it. There’s a lot of ignorance around this that IT = high cost but it doesn’t have to


----------



## edcraw (Jun 10, 2021)

Why does chowce5382 care about cycling data for cycle lanes in areas with no LTNs?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 10, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Nah, shouldn’t do, the whole idea is to provide a no cost/low cost solution. You can automate a lot of the processes and there’s full audit and rules to “police” it. There’s a lot of ignorance around this that IT = high cost but it doesn’t have to



It sounds like its already in place. I heard Lambeths own work vehicles as well as rubbish trucks are allowed in? So there's clearly a way of making exemptions.

As someone above said the badge is linked to a person not a car. Then it would bring another argument about those who care for the disabled getting access.

Before my mum went in a home she had a blue badge and i was her part-time carer. I would have gone for access but they could have said it's for 'registered' carers. Or they allow up to three cars per badge and that just invites people to register friends and neighbours. Also people like ageUK who have a whole host of services (events for the elderley, handymen, plumbers) who would say 'what about us who help those who are isolated'. The doctors, then nurses, the food delivies.

So many factors in play it just feels like they don't want to exempt anyone but Lambeth vehicles


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why does chowce5382 care about cycling data for cycle lanes in areas with no LTNs?




This place goes stalker creepy muy rapido


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 10, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It sounds like its already in place. I heard Lambeths own work vehicles as well as rubbish trucks are allowed in? So there's clearly a way of making exemptions.
> 
> As someone above said the badge is linked to a person not a car. Then it would bring another argument about those who care for the disabled getting access.
> 
> ...


I wonder if the exemption for bin lorries is as basic as someone looking at the photo/video before sending a fine. Quick and simple to exempt bin lorries. A bit more difficult if need to exempt a list of car registrations (and doesn’t need an expensive tech development for something that is supposed to be a trial and people are complaining if money is spent that suggests permanent)


----------



## edcraw (Jun 10, 2021)

Croydon are reintroducing an LTN in Crystal Palace with ANPR cameras and resident exemptions:









						Crystal Palace Low Traffic Neighbourhood’s return in the form of cameras
					

After six months of back and forth, Croydon Council has decided it will go ahead with an ‘experimental order’ that will restrict traffic through a number of roads in Crystal Palace and South Norwoo…




					londonnewsonline.co.uk
				




Could someone actually say where Lambeth have said blue badge exemptions are unworkable?

I’m not sure full resident exemptions sits well with me as surely it means drivers in the area get all the benefits with no downsides and it’s not going to discourage unnecessary journeys.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 10, 2021)

Here they say a full review of LTN exemption is ongoing.









						Upcoming changes
					

A summary of upcoming improvements we intend to make in response to community feedback whilst working within the constraints of the ongoing lockdown




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 10, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I wonder if the exemption for bin lorries is as basic as someone looking at the photo/video before sending a fine. Quick and simple to exempt bin lorries. A bit more difficult if need to exempt a list of car registrations (and doesn’t need an expensive tech development for something that is supposed to be a trial and people are complaining if money is spent that suggests permanent)



I had heard that Lambeth's own vehicles were exempt (guessing marked cars, maintenance, etc. They would be hard to identify from the rear but I guess they have video so can see if its one of their cars

Good point about making exemptions for something that is a trial but the council would gain more support if they did it from the start. Catch22, screwed if they do screwed if they don't.

Someone on nextdoor just said goods vehciles (HGC) from retailers were exempt but I can't see how that is true


----------



## alex_ (Jun 10, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I had heard that Lambeth's own vehicles were exempt (guessing marked cars, maintenance, etc. They would be hard to identify from the rear but I guess they have video so can see if its one of their cars
> 
> Good point about making exemptions for something that is a trial but the council would gain more support if they did it from the start. Catch22, screwed if they do screwed if they don't.
> 
> Someone on nextdoor just said goods vehciles (HGC) from retailers were exempt but I can't see how that is true



I think everyone here would support blue badge exemptions, but it’d need to be linked to a number plate to make it workable. Which is almost what Lambeth have done with their vehicles.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 10, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I think everyone here would support blue badge exemptions, but it’d need to be linked to a number plate to make it workable. Which is almost what Lambeth have done with their vehicles.


That's not how blue badges work for reasons related to the care of the qualifying person. Blue badge exemption exists for the congestion charge, of course it can be done.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 10, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I think everyone here would support blue badge exemptions, but it’d need to be linked to a number plate to make it workable. Which is almost what Lambeth have done with their vehicles.


So that’s one way to do if another is like what happens to emergency vehicles when they trigger an anpr violation. In these cases, the ticket is still issued but the receiving organisation then needs to provide proof of who was driving and why, to get the ticket annulled. Swop emergency worker for blue badge holder and there’s a digital solution. Clearly you could identify people taking advantage by for instance multiple times with different reg numbers, two places at once etc. Same goes for carers or indeed anyone else exempted. My guess is that Lambeth do the same for their vehicles


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 10, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I wonder if the exemption for bin lorries is as basic as someone looking at the photo/video before sending a fine. Quick and simple to exempt bin lorries. A bit more difficult if need to exempt a list of car registrations (and doesn’t need an expensive tech development for something that is supposed to be a trial and people are complaining if money is spent that suggests permanent)


That is probably it, hard to justify spending money on a system when it’s for a trial and could be for nothing.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 10, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> That is probably it, hard to justify spending money on a system when it’s for a trial and could be for nothing.


But you can't trial the system without putting the necessary systems in place.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 10, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> That is probably it, hard to justify spending money on a system when it’s for a trial and could be for nothing.


Also priorities. More ableism.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 10, 2021)

nagapie said:


> But you can't trial the system without putting the necessary systems in place.



You mentioned people who would have issues sitting in traffic jams etc, but what percentage of disabled people are they, could these schemes be actually be beneficial to other disabled people?.
Can the traffic flow etc not be analysed?



nagapie said:


> Also priorities. More ableism.



It does presume there’s a negative impact from this.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Why does chowce5382 care about cycling data for cycle lanes in areas with no LTNs?



It’s a fair ask. I


edcraw said:


> Why does chowce5382 care about cycling data for cycle lanes in areas with no LTNs?



Hi Ed, mainly because I think decisions should be made on the numbers underlying the press release format. It’s exactly why I didn’t like the concept that Brexit would make people % better off. If I can’t see the underlying numbers I can’t judge the benefit. I think that its fair and an understandable position. Unless of course you think that we shouldn’t see the data…


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I wonder if the exemption for bin lorries is as basic as someone looking at the photo/video before sending a fine. Quick and simple to exempt bin lorries. A bit more difficult if need to exempt a list of car registrations (and doesn’t need an expensive tech development for something that is supposed to be a trial and people are complaining if money is spent that suggests permanent)


I don’t know S, it’s been done elsewhere. In fact, Fulham made it part of their process that they would allow badge holders and carers. You just send the details of the relevant person through and, if a camera catches them, the plate excludes them from a fine automatically. It is possible if there is the will


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I wonder if the exemption for bin lorries is as basic as someone looking at the photo/video before sending a fine. Quick and simple to exempt bin lorries. A bit more difficult if need to exempt a list of car registrations (and doesn’t need an expensive tech development for something that is supposed to be a trial and people are complaining if money is spent that suggests permanent)


The point about the EQIA process is that the council is perfectly able to know the exactly number disabled people in any street, the nature of their disability and how this will impact them. This is information they already have. As you say, quick and simple to exempt bin lorries. Just as quick and simple to ensure that others are allowed access if you do the work in the first place. Of course, if you don’t, they those disabled people are placed behind bin lorries in the of precedent.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s a fair ask. I
> 
> Hi Ed, mainly because I think decisions should be made on the numbers underlying the press release format. It’s exactly why I didn’t like the concept that Brexit would make people % better off. If I can’t see the underlying numbers I can’t judge the benefit. I think that its fair and an understandable position. Unless of course you think that we shouldn’t see the data…


It just seems weird that people opposing LTNs pretty much always seem to take an issue with any cycling infrastructure - certainly how OneLambeth comes across & just makes it look like a pro car lobby (dispute your protestations).

I presume you saw the data in the press release link in the tweet - just wondering what more you want & why? Do you want CS8 scrapped or just the recent improvements?



> Cycle counts carried out by TfL along the upgraded CS8 route show that up to 2,650 people are using the route every day, with an average increase of 30 per cent on weekdays compared to the 2014-19 average – despite a drop in the overall number of journeys being made across London during the pandemic. Counts also suggest an average of 1,600 people a day are using the route at weekends.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

Just noticed that SEND transport providers have exemptions - from the Tulse Hill stage 1 report:



> Early feedback gathered since the temporary scheme was launched indicated some individuals have had to change their routes to access essential services and support.
> 
> On the back of the data we have granted an exemption for all Special Educations Needs and Disabilities (SEND) transport providers across all LTNs.



It also says exemptions are being considered so really not sure where they’ve said they are unworkable.



> The EqIA for each trial LTNs is reviewed and updated as we gather data and feedback from stakeholders. To date we have received 28 emails regarding disability in Tulse Hill low traffic neighbourhood.
> 
> Impacts on disabled people will remain a key focus and the data we gather will be used to develop our exemption policy and other mitigation.











						Equalities impact assessment
					

In October 2020, we published an equalities impact assessment. This assessed the impact of the Tulse Hill low traffic Neighbourhood on different demographic groups including the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and...




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It just seems weird that people opposing LTNs pretty much always seem to take an issue with any cycling infrastructure - certainly how OneLambeth comes across & just makes it look like a pro car lobby (dispute your protestations).
> 
> I presume you saw the data in the press release link in the tweet - just wondering what more you want & why? Do you want CS8 scrapped or just the recent improvements?


It’s important to work out what the relevant return on investment is. I’m not taking issue with it. I was just asking what the figure was and now is in the headlines, the reason being that if is it working then maybe more money needs to be invested. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I used to cycle but don’t anymore due to being knocked off my bike twice. Ensuring that our money is spent in the most cost effective manner is always vital when it comes to infra as it is one area where we have an appalling record be it trains, airports, roads etc.


----------



## Southlondon (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But is there an issue, I guess we have to wait for the judgement but why haven't disability organisations pursued this or used grants to help fund it? Doesn't that suggest something.
> 
> I'm sure we can agree that it shouldn't be left up to a pro-motoring lobby group.


This is why the equalities act was needed to ensure disabled people have a voice and their rights are protected. The disabled support groups and charities spend huge amounts  of time and money advocating for disabled people, and there has been increased demand for services during the pandemic. I really don’t think any are likely to be awash with spare cash to set up all the legal challenges that they would like to. I find it abhorrent that some posters on here seem to resent  the fact that the equalities legislation is being enacted thus the quibble about who is paying for it. For me  it is absolutely right that access for all carers must be prioritised as these are essential visits not some optional luxury service these are roads and can not be shut off without regards for the impact on disabled people. These are big changes to our city access and the law is there to protect disabled people from discrimination, and this ill thought out closure of roads without consultation is wrong if it negatively impacts disabled persons period. A lot of people have a network of carers thus the reason for blue badges linking to the disabled person and not just named vehicles. Anyone who is visiting a disabled person be it on an ad-hoc basis to deliver shopping, provide company etc, or for more structured care provision must be allowed free access fir their vehicles. Some may choose to cycle but those that drive cars must not be deterred from providing  care. This is obviously on top of cars owned by those disabled people who have mobility issues and choose to drive a car themselves.
Isolation and loneliness often go with disability, so even social visits providing company to a housebound person must be protected. All this is easily managed in the congestion zone by enforcement cameras so it should have been considered by the council before they rushed in with these contentious road closures.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s important to work out what the relevant return on investment is. I’m not taking issue with it. I was just asking what the figure was and now is in the headlines, the reason being that if is it working then maybe more money needs to be invested. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I used to cycle but don’t anymore due to being knocked off my bike twice. Ensuring that our money is spent in the most cost effective manner is always vital when it comes to infra as it is one area where we have an appalling record be it trains, airports, roads etc.



Fair play - If you’re struggling for time, and need to prioritise your efforts, the Silvertown Tunnel may be worth your time for value for money concerns (as well as air quality & climate change impact of course) although some wands, a few sections of bus lane and right turn ban obviously are important 😉.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You mentioned people who would have issues sitting in traffic jams etc, but what percentage of disabled people are they, could these schemes be actually be beneficial to other disabled people?.
> Can the traffic flow etc not be analysed?
> 
> 
> ...


That's what's being asked for. A proper measure, study and analyse of impact with an informed and fair response. That's what's been missing from Lambeth.

I have given examples from real life as I've encountered them myself or from people I know. Those with severe learning, sensory and or medical needs cannot cycle or walk. Equally nothing has been put in place to make other aspects of their journey easier


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You mentioned people who would have issues sitting in traffic jams etc, but what percentage of disabled people are they, could these schemes be actually be beneficial to other disabled people?.
> Can the traffic flow etc not be analysed?
> 
> 
> ...


I needn't have replied. Just read Southlondon's post. He has summed it all up.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I have given examples from real life as I've encountered them myself or from people I know. Those with severe learning, sensory and or medical needs cannot cycle or walk. Equally nothing has been put in place to make other aspects of their journey easier



Not saying more shouldn’t be done but as mentioned above SEND transport providers seem to have exemptions so not true that nothing has been put in place. 

I do wonder why no one on here seems to have mentioned this exemption before but are able to speak with great authority on the council’s approach in this area.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not saying more shouldn’t be done but as mentioned above SEND transport providers seem to have exemptions so not true that nothing has been put in place.
> 
> I do wonder why no one on here seems to have mentioned this exemption before but are able to speak with great authority on the council’s approach in this area.


Because it's not nearly enough.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not saying more shouldn’t be done but as mentioned above SEND transport providers seem to have exemptions so not true that nothing has been put in place.
> 
> I do wonder why no one on here seems to have mentioned this exemption before but are able to speak with great authority on the council’s approach in this area.


I only found out about this in court yesterday. I had heard that there had been some sort of exemption. Whilst you obviously won’t believe me it’s worth mentioning that this is a recent development , SEND vehicles are owed by Lambeth (I think) and that’s important as you’d expect that they would have thought about this earlier rather than it being an afterthought. Good that it has changed though


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 11, 2021)

Southlondon said:


> This is why the equalities act was needed to ensure disabled people have a voice and their rights are protected. The disabled support groups and charities spend huge amounts  of time and money advocating for disabled people, and there has been increased demand for services during the pandemic. I really don’t think any are likely to be awash with spare cash to set up all the legal challenges that they would like to. I find it abhorrent that some posters on here seem to resent  the fact that the equalities legislation is being enacted thus the quibble about who is paying for it. For me  it is absolutely right that access for all carers must be prioritised as these are essential visits not some optional luxury service these are roads and can not be shut off without regards for the impact on disabled people. These are big changes to our city access and the law is there to protect disabled people from discrimination, and this ill thought out closure of roads without consultation is wrong if it negatively impacts disabled persons period. A lot of people have a network of carers thus the reason for blue badges linking to the disabled person and not just named vehicles. Anyone who is visiting a disabled person be it on an ad-hoc basis to deliver shopping, provide company etc, or for more structured care provision must be allowed free access fir their vehicles. Some may choose to cycle but those that drive cars must not be deterred from providing  care. This is obviously on top of cars owned by those disabled people who have mobility issues and choose to drive a car themselves.
> Isolation and loneliness often go with disability, so even social visits providing company to a housebound person must be protected. All this is easily managed in the congestion zone by enforcement cameras so it should have been considered by the council before they rushed in with these contentious road closures.


I know people do rely on their car and people visiting by cars, no roads have been shut off, every one can be accessed. This hasn’t been stopped and no one is saying it should.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 11, 2021)

I’ve always seen community transport and SEND transport go through the barriers on the Railton Road since the start of the pilot.

Lambeth own some SEND transport provision (they’re logoed) but other independent community transport providers exist and I’ve seen them using LTN streets and go through ANPR cameras for a long time. 

Wandsworth CTA being the most common one. I think anything above a nine seater is classed as a bus and therefore automatically exempt.

LaSCoT (Lambeth and Southwark CT) was taken over by Hackney CTA as it’s a difficult service to offer financially - the govt pays too little in transport components of benefits, so CTAs either have to fundraise continually, use volunteers and/or be more commercial in how they operate.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I only found out about this in court yesterday. I had heard that there had been some sort of exemption. Whilst you obviously won’t believe me it’s worth mentioning that this is a recent development , SEND vehicles are owed by Lambeth (I think) and that’s important as you’d expect that they would have thought about this earlier rather than it being an afterthought. Good that it has changed though



According to the Railton Equality Impact Assessment the exemption’s been in place since at least November last year or maybe August.



			https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/LAM-TS-EIA-RLTN-2%20_0.pdf


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> According to the Railton Equality Impact Assessment the exemption’s been in place since at least last November last year or maybe August.
> 
> 
> 
> https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/LAM-TS-EIA-RLTN-2%20_0.pdf


Again, this came up in court. It then wasn't included in the actual order implementing the ETO so there was confusion (on the side of their barrister) as to whether it was in place or not as the order is the actual implementation device.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Again, this came up in court. It then wasn't included in the actual order implementing the ETO so there was confusion (on the side of their barrister) as to whether it was in place or not as the order is the actual implementation device.


Hadn't someone in OneLambeth noticed it before? Isn't the EIA priviotal to your reasons for bringing the case?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Hadn't someone in OneLambeth noticed it before? Isn't the EIA priviotal to your reasons for bringing the case?


yup, they are part of it but not pivotal as they link back to a duty under legislation and how that duty is or isn't carried out. It had been noticed but, as I said, wasn't in the order which takes priority hence the confusion of the part of Lambeth's barrister who didn't know if it was valid or not.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

Can you share any more details about the case?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Can you share any more details about the case?


Not really tbh. It's very technical and I'd just prefer to not say anything as it's really up to the Judge now to deliberate. From a personal perspective, I tend to think that it's best not to try and re-tell the arguments on each side as you'll never be able to do them justice and it can lead to a misunderstanding which isn't really fair on the Judge or the barristers who put those arguments forward. I hope you understand why I'm taking that approach.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 11, 2021)

I think it's a good choice given previous posts.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> According to the Railton Equality Impact Assessment the exemption’s been in place since at least November last year or maybe August.
> 
> 
> 
> https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/LAM-TS-EIA-RLTN-2%20_0.pdf


But that impact assessment specifically mentions people that rely on cars?. 
I thought this didn't exist at all?.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I think it's a good choice given previous posts.


Yep - though suprised about chowce5382's previous comment about Lambeth's barrister being confused.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - though suprised about chowce5382's previous comment about Lambeth's barrister being confused.


Confused in the sense that he couldn't say either way as it wasn't entirely clear.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> But that impact assessment specifically mentions people that rely on cars?.
> I thought this didn't exist at all?.


Again, its very technical.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Again, its very technical.


Go on, try us.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Go on, try us.


As I said above, I'm not going to go over all the arguments of the case whilst a judge is deliberating. You're welcome to look up the relevant law yourself and go from there


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> As I said above, I'm not going to go over all the arguments of the case whilst a judge is deliberating. You're welcome to look up the relevant law yourself and go from there


It's not going to change the outcome of the case, go on.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not going to change the outcome of the case, go on.


See above post ☝️


----------



## alex_ (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> That's not how blue badges work for reasons related to the care of the qualifying person. Blue badge exemption exists for the congestion charge, of course it can be done.



yes, and it works for the congestion zone by the badge holder giving tfl two number plates which are then exempted.

which is what I said would need to happen


----------



## teuchter (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I only found out about this in court yesterday. I had heard that there had been some sort of exemption. Whilst you obviously won’t believe me it’s worth mentioning that this is a recent development , SEND vehicles are owed by Lambeth (I think) and that’s important as you’d expect that they would have thought about this earlier rather than it being an afterthought. Good that it has changed though


I'm a bit surprised you have only found this out in court because I'm sure I remember it being mentioned in some Lambeth document that I read at least a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

alex_ said:


> yes, and it works for the congestion zone by the badge holder giving tfl two number plates which are then exempted.
> 
> which is what I said would need to happen


I didn't know they only took 2. I'm sure it's possible to roll it out more in line with blue badge criteria if they wanted to. Tfl also have many areas to improve on in terms of access.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The point about the EQIA process is that the council is perfectly able to know the exactly number disabled people in any street, the nature of their disability and how this will impact them. This is information they already have. As you say, quick and simple to exempt bin lorries. Just as quick and simple to ensure that others are allowed access if you do the work in the first place. Of course, if you don’t, they those disabled people are placed behind bin lorries in the of precedent.



its only quick and easy if there is an automated process, as someone else said bin lorries are easy to see in a picture - cars with blue badge holders in look just like any other car


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 11, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> See above post ☝️


I'm not sure why you're not willing to explain the case on here.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 11, 2021)

It’s kind of interesting - your whole case seems to be that this is easy to fix, but Lambeth are hateful people who just hate disabled people and are doing it for spite.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure why you're not willing to explain the case on here.


Maybe urban75 were part of the case!!


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 11, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure why you're not willing to explain the case on here.


I've explained that


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 11, 2021)

I’m still confused that you (Charles)have the opportunity to come on here, unmoderated to discuss what doesn’t work and how to fix it, and apparently find out things you didn’t know, but the OL Facebook remains a closed group where it’s all ‘cyclists don’t pay for the roads’, ‘Claire Holland’s a bitch’, ‘let’s kick an old man building a parklet’ rant fests...


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 11, 2021)

Oh and after posting that image of the OL Facebook page (taken from someone else’s twitter account) I’ve started to receive abusive messages from OL members again! 

_waves_


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Oh and after posting that image of the OL Facebook page (taken from someone else’s twitter account) I’ve started to receive abusive messages from OL members again!
> 
> _waves_



How do you know it was OneLambeth members? It could have been squirrels 😉


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2021)

I don't think a discussion of route CS8 is on topic. Its not part of Brixton Liveable neighbourhood or the local LTNs that are being discussed.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2021)

alex_ said:


> It’s kind of interesting - your whole case seems to be that this is easy to fix, but Lambeth are hateful people who just hate disabled people and are doing it for spite.



Lambeth can dig their heels in sometimes. Which amounts to almost spiteful behaviour. Take Cressingham estate for example.

Or the way the Council opposed the Library campaigners.

I do think there is a certain amount of quite resentful behaviour from senior people in Lambeth when the decisions they take are opposed by residents. They think they know best and don't like opposition from organised residents.

I've seen some senior officers get quite upset when faced with opposition.

Remember when Council got police to attend planning meeting on the arches. Same thing happened when the library campaign was on. It got that adversarial.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

alex_ said:


> It’s kind of interesting - your whole case seems to be that this is easy to fix, but Lambeth are hateful people who just hate disabled people and are doing it for spite.


Yeah, institutional ableism, what a load of fanciful nonsense.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Yeah, institutional ableism, what a load of fanciful nonsense.



I’m not sure that’s what nagapie said and quite an accusation. It’d be good if people could back up these claims - I’ve asked several times when the council has said blue badge exemptions would be unworkable without an answer and no one seemed to have noticed the SEND transport exemption.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m not sure that’s what nagapie said and quite an accusation. It’d be good if people could back up these claims - I’ve asked several times when the council has said blue badge exemptions would be unworkable without an answer and no one seemed to have noticed the SEND transport exemption.


I don't see how any of this changes anything. A full impact assessment has not been done. You can't do a bit and hope people will think that's enough, it has to be done properly. 
Quite frankly, your posts are all nitpicky and fail to take into consideration the big questions which people have already pointed to amount to failing to comply with equalities acts. There's no excuse for that and you just sound a bit shit defending it.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I don't see how any of this changes anything. A full impact assessment has not been done. You can't do a bit and hope people will think that's enough, it has to be done properly.
> Quite frankly, your posts are all nitpicky and fail to take into consideration the big questions which people have already pointed to amount to failing to comply with equalities acts. There's no excuse for that and you just sound a bit shit defending it.


 But there are impact assessments for each LTN - genuine question: what do you mean by a full impact assessment & are these not them?


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But there are impact assessments for each LTN - genuine question: what do you mean by a full impact assessment & are these not them?


No. I believe they have not complied with full impact assessments according to the law for various groups or there would be no judicial case to be had.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> No. I believe they have not complied with full impact assessments according to the law for various groups or there would be no judicial case to be had.



Okay - it wasn’t clear to me that was the basis of the case.

Here’s the EIA template - I’m really not up on this but how do the Lambeth ones differ & what’s missing? Again, this is a genuine question.



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/534169/wales-local-justice-area-merger-equality-impact-assessment.doc


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

double posted in error


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - it wasn’t clear to me that was the basis of the case.
> 
> Here’s the EIA template - I’m really not up on this but how do the Lambeth ones differ & what’s missing? Again, this is a genuine question.
> 
> ...


I am not a legal bod. But the whole basis of the case is that it's not been done fully, if the judge disagrees there will be no case. 
But I can say that no one assessed the impact on blue badge holders until very recently after an almighty shitstorm. So it stands to reason impact on disability was not fully complied with.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> the whole basis of the case is that it's not been done fully, if the judge disagrees there will be no case.



actually I’m pretty much sure that the judge will agree that 1+1 = “remove the cpz’s now, so we can drive down every road” and that’s why we’ve grifted 35k from people who couldn’t really afford it


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

alex_ said:


> actually I’m pretty much sure that the judge will agree that 1+1 = “remove the cpz’s now, so we can drive down every road” and that’s why we’ve grifted 35k from people who couldn’t really afford it


You too seem to be missing the entire point. Unsurprisingly, as every post you write makes it clear that disability rights are something you have no interest in understanding, alex_


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> You too seem to be missing the entire point. Unsurprisingly, as every post you write makes it clear that disability rights are something you have no interest in understanding, alex_



I find that harsh and seems to be a go to to shout down people in favour of the schemes - “you don’t care about disabled people” / “you don’t care about poor people on main roads” etc.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I find that harsh and seems to be a go to to shout down people in favour of the schemes - “you don’t care about disabled people” / “you don’t care about poor people on main roads” etc.


Nonsense. Ignoring the rights of vulnerable groups is what's harsh. It is not caring, in the most insidious way.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Nonsense. Ignoring the rights of vulnerable groups is what's harsh. It is not caring, in the most insidious way.



Yes it is - but not sure how you can accuse people on here of that. alex_ has said he supports blue badge exemptions.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

What  is insidious is seeing people claim to care about social injustice around LTNs but who have shown no other interest at other times. Not aimed at anyone here but that how a lot of  OneLambeth members and it’s supporters eg. Cllr Briggs come across.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What  is insidious is seeing people claim to care about social injustice around LTNs but who have shown no other interest at other times. Not aimed at anyone here but that how a lot of  OneLambeth members and it’s supporters eg. Cllr Briggs come acits
> 
> 
> 
> It's fine to dislike that/them. It's not fine to use that dislike as a reason to not do a full accessibility impact. You are once again mistakingly conflating the two.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> You too seem to be missing the entire point. Unsurprisingly, as every post you write makes it clear that disability rights are something you have no interest in understanding, alex_



In posts 5030, 4406 and 4271 I’ve said blue badge holders should “clearly” be exempt.

great work sherlock

ps Also 4408


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

alex_ said:


> In posts 5030, 4406 and 4271 I’ve said blue badge holders should “clearly” be exempt.
> 
> great work sherlock


Didn't you join in the discussion about blue badge fraud and then say they could be introduced with curbs.
Also blue badges are not the only issue.
Ym


----------



## alex_ (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Didn't you join in the discussion about blue badge fraud and then say they could be introduced with curbs.
> Also blue badges are not the only issue.
> Ym


 
blue badge fraud exists, it doesn’t mean blue badges should not exist


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

alex_ said:


> actually I’m pretty much sure that the judge will agree that 1+1 = “remove the cpz’s now, so we can drive down every road” and that’s why we’ve grifted 35k from people who couldn’t really afford it


Do we should not go down reassessment route because LTNs may have not been introduced properly so may be recalled. We should rather take them as they are without proper impact studies. What are you saying,can't laws can be introduced without proper assessment in line with equality law?
It's this bs that I am pointing out in your posts. Yes, if the lea didn't introduce them properly with thought to all, they need to be recalled and redone no matter how small the group affected.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Do we should not go down reassessment route



 Come back in the morning


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

And I agree a full impact assessment should be done and have never said otherwise. Though I’m still not clear what’s missing from the ones that have been done as people seem happy to state these aren’t full.

I think people should reserve judgement for the court result unless they can show otherwise.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> And I agree a full impact assessment should be done and have never said otherwise.



totally agree


----------



## nagapie (Jun 11, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Come back in the morning


Why? Typo, should have said So. You use it to try say my points are not credible. Nice.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Why? Typo, should have said So. You use it to try say my points are not credible. Nice.


You did accuse him of not caring about disabled people.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I don't think a discussion of route CS8 is on topic. Its not part of Brixton Liveable neighbourhood or the local LTNs that are being discussed.


I was asking a question of the treasurer of OneLambeth which I thought was relevant & he seemed happy to reply.

You’ve seemed happy to take a very generous  approach to OneLambeth’s motivations or say they aren’t relevant but personally I think motivations are very relevant, especially when people seem happy to accuse others of not caring about others. I’m going to judge those motivations on what people actually say.

Can I ask you again whether you’ve read the comments on the OneLambeth fundraising page?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I was asking a question of the treasurer of OneLambeth which I thought was relevant & he seemed happy to reply.



I know what you're doing. Trawling through someones social media to try to discredit them. Post it up for public view.

I'm not impressed.

Whether poster was happy to reply is your view. Quite aggressive use of social media in my book.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I know what you're doing. Trawling through someones social media to try to discredit them. Post it up for public view.
> 
> I'm not impressed.
> 
> Whether poster was happy to reply is your view. Quite aggressive use of social media in my book.



Seriously? I follow both Will Norman and Charlie so it shows up on my feed straight away, hardly trawling.

Do you not think people should be judged on what they say? Especially a treasurer of a campaigning organisation.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Seriously? I follow both Will Norman and Charlie so it shows up on my feed straight away, hardly trawling.
> 
> Do you not think people should be judged on what they say? Especially a treasurer of a campaigning organisation.



I have better things to do than trawl through individuals "feed".

Your are only doing it to find dirt.

Social media like twitter I regard as pub talk. Unfortunately it remains on view. I don't really like the way its regarded as written in stone views.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I have better things to do than trawl through individuals "feed".
> 
> Your are only doing it to find dirt.



I said I didn’t trawl, it was on my feed. Again you ignore what people actually say, bad faith imo.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I said I didn’t trawl, it was on my feed. Again you ignore what people actually say, bad faith imo.



On your feed.

Why is someone whose views you are not in agreement with in your feed?

I do not have this on my social networks. 

Also can you stop saying things to me like I ignore what "people" actually say.

You don't speak for the "people".


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 11, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I said I didn’t trawl, it was on my feed. Again you ignore what people actually say, bad faith imo.



I did add this. 

Social media like twitter I regard as pub talk. Unfortunately it remains on view. I don't really like the way its regarded as written in stone views.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On your feed.
> 
> Why is someone whose views you are not in agreement with in your feed?
> 
> ...



I find it useful not to just follow people I agree with, surely I’d be accused of being in an “echo chamber” if I did.

You’ve consistently accused people posting here of saying things they haven’t actually said, if you stop I’ll stop pointing it out.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 11, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I did add this.
> 
> Social media like twitter I regard as pub talk. Unfortunately it remains on view. I don't really like the way its regarded as written in stone views.



Is pub talk the same as “banter”?

I asked chowce5382 a question about his comment - hardly saying it’s written in stone.

You seem very happy to believe OneLambeth have nothing but very honourable intentions whilst ignoring what they actually say - but you seem fine with implying the worst of everyone else!


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I find it useful not to just follow people I agree with, surely I’d be accused of being in an “echo chamber” if I did.
> 
> You’ve consistently accused people posting here of saying things they haven’t actually said, if you stop I’ll stop pointing it out.



So its a nit picking exercise. I say you are trawling you say you are "following"

I have looked at One Lambeth FB posts. I've no inclination to have that on my feed after reading it a few times. So I don't follow it on twitter/FB.

And I've asked once already can you stop talking to me as though your posting up for the "people".


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So its a nit picking exercise. I say you are trawling you say you are "following"
> 
> I have looked at One Lambeth FB posts. I've no inclination to have that on my feed after reading it a few times. So I don't follow it on twitter/FB.
> 
> And I've asked once can you stop talking to me as though your posting up for the "people".



Maybe we’re on very different wavelengths as tbh I just see you replying to things you think I’ve said rather than what I actually have.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Maybe we’re on very different wavelengths as tbh I just see you replying to things you think I’ve said rather than what I actually have.



The wavelength you're on isn't about listening to others. 

The reason you have anti LTN people on your feed is actually to confirm the echo chamber you inhabit.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> The wavelength you're on isn't about listening to others.
> 
> The reason you have anti LTN people on your feed is actually to confirm the echo chamber you inhabit.



You’re stating things as fact about someone you know nothing about. You don’t seem to be here for any actual discussion.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’re stating things as fact about someone you know nothing about. You don’t seem to be here for any actual discussion.



I'm making a judgement based on what you've saying. You have done the same to me.

We both disagree.

You extrapolate that into arguing I'm not here for discussion.

Which BTW not something I've said about you.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm making a judgement based on what you've saying. You have done the same to me.



Fine to make a judgement but please don’t state it as a fact.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I am not a legal bod. But the whole basis of the case is that it's not been done fully, if the judge disagrees there will be no case.
> But I can say that no one assessed the impact on blue badge holders until very recently after an almighty shitstorm. So it stands to reason impact on disability was not fully complied with.


I think that this is the point. People like Ed point to the fact that there is a document. I don’t deny that. But it comes down to if the document is fit for purpose. If it was fit for purpose then I would assume that judge would have said that there is no case to answer. That is the point. I would just say that, imagine if you had a loved one who was in this situation. Would you say that, because there is a document, then the council has done everything is should do.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I think that this is the point. People like Ed point to the fact that there is a document. I don’t deny that. But it comes down to if the document is fit for purpose. If it was fit for purpose then I would assume that judge would have said that there is no case to answer. That is the point. I would just say that, imagine if you had a loved one who was in this situation. Would you say that, because there is a document, then the council has done everything is should do.



No, I’m really not just pointing to the document - I’ve been asking what’s wrong with the it. That’s a genuine question- can you answer or is that what the judge will do?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Fine to make a judgement but please don’t state it as a fact.



Its what you do to me. So I don't know what you are complaining about.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I think that this is the point. People like Ed point to the fact that there is a document. I don’t deny that. But it comes down to if the document is fit for purpose. If it was fit for purpose then I would assume that judge would have said that there is no case to answer. That is the point. I would just say that, imagine if you had a loved one who was in this situation. Would you say that, because there is a document, then the council has done everything is should do.


This is the real point. We can all talk about who said what on social media but this is about genuine legal arguments in court. We would not be here if a judge had not thought that the point was valid, or had some validity. We need to wait for a judgement and then go from there. That is the whole point of the legal system. I’m not sure why people are so baffled by this concept. What you think is an acceptable EQIA (in your view) does not make it so. You don’t govern legislation and interpretation of the law. This is why the rule of law is fundamental. Let’s just let the court decide. Saying, “well I think this EQIA is fine” or that it exists is not a particularly compelling argument. Not here and definitely not in the eyes of the law


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

[





chowce5382 said:


> I would just say that, imagine if you had a loved one who was in this situation. Would you say that, because there is a document, then the council has done everything is should do.



What do you mean by this? Again a genuine question, what should the council be doing more than the impact assessment?

btw - I gave a loved one, my 90 yr old mother-in-law that has benefited by the Tulse Hill LTN, so I can imagine the situation to a degree.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> [
> 
> What do you mean by this? Again a genuine question, what should the council be doing more than the impact assessment?
> 
> btw - I gave a loved one, my 90 yr old mother-in-law that has benefited by the Tulse Hill LTN, so I can imagine the situation to a degree.



Back in post 5100 you say we should wait for the judgement.

Its what chowce5382 is also saying.

So why are you going on at this poster?

You said :



> think people should reserve judgement for the court result


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

ok. I’ll answer this in a bit. But first, you tell me what you think a council should do when making changes like that and the amount of data and the impact on the lives of people who are subject to that change. Have a think and take us through the steps you would take if you were in the same position. What you would think of, how your proposals might affect people and what you would do to mitigate those issues


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Saying, “well I think this EQIA is fine” or that it exists is not a particularly compelling argument. Not here and definitely not in the eyes of the law



Has anyone here said that? I’ve asked why it isn’t - presumably you have an idea to have started the legal action? Again, this is a genuine question, I want to understand.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> ok. I’ll answer this in a bit. But first, you tell me what you think a council should do when making changes like that and the amount of data and the impact on the lives of people who are subject to that change. Have a think and take us through the steps you would take if you were in the same position. What you would think of, how your proposals might affect people and what you would do to mitigate those issues



They should follow the law. I don’t know completely what this is, I know it includes impact assessments and I’ve seen these but you’re saying they haven’t followed the law - I’m asking how they haven’t.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Has anyone here said that? I’ve asked why it isn’t - presumably you have an idea to have started the legal action? Again, this is a genuine question, I want to understand.



We must be reading a different thread.

chowce5382 has posted up previously about this.

The legal action as has been repeatedly pointed out has gone this far as there is a case to answer in legal terms. 

Its not sbout chowce5382 personal opinion.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Back in post 5100 you say we should wait for the judgement.
> 
> Its what chowce5382 is also saying.
> 
> ...


I replied because chowce5382 suggested I was “pointing to a document” and implied I might understand if I had loved ones affected (which I do).

Not sure I was “going” at him.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> We must be reading a different thread.
> 
> chowce5382 has posted up previously about this.
> 
> ...



Okay - who on this thread has said “well I think this EQIA is fine”?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> They should follow the law. I don’t know completely what this is, I know it includes impact assessments and I’ve seen these but you’re saying they haven’t followed the law - I’m asking how they haven’t.





edcraw said:


> Okay - who on this thread has said “well I think this EQIA is fine”?


Ed, that is the exact position of people who have posted a copy of an EQIA and then asked why it isn’t sufficient


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed, that is the exact position of people who have posted a copy of an EQIA and then asked why it isn’t sufficient


i would suggest that you read the previously posted EQIA docs and put yourself in a position of a vulnerable group. Once you’ve done that that, re-read the document and work out whether you would be in the same position or not and how those decisions might impact you and the rights you have now and what they might be. Then I suggest you read this





__





						Equality Act 2010
					

An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the...




					www.legislation.gov.uk
				




Once you’ve done that, put the questions you have and relate them to the pertinent part of the legislation. I will endeavour to answer them


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - who on this thread has said “well I think this EQIA is fine”?


Hi Ed,  couple of people have posted an EQIA for railton (I think). Have a look back through the last couple of pages and follow the steps I’ve suggested above rather than posting the same question. Once you’ve done that. Come back with a set and questions that are pertinent to the topic.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed, that is the exact position of people who have posted a copy of an EQIA and then asked why it isn’t sufficient


Sorry, are you saying asking why they aren’t sufficient is the same as saying they are fine?

I’m genuinely asking what’s wrong with them.

I do struggle to understand how you didn’t know about the SEND transport providers exemption before the other day but knew the EQIAs were insufficient when it’s mentioned in them.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, are you saying asking why they aren’t sufficient is the same as saying they are fine?
> 
> I’m genuinely asking what’s wrong with them.
> 
> I do struggle to understand how you didn’t know about the SEND transport providers exemption before the other day but knew the EQIAs were insufficient when it’s mentioned in them.


Ed, you’re like an intelligent person. I’ve just given you the ability to look at the current EQIAs and then the relevant legislation and I’ve also then said I’ll answer your questions and also given you the basis on which to critically view those EQIAs. Why don’t you take some time and go through then and read the leigilstion and come back with questions. I know you want me to answer you questions now but, until you understand the legal basis of the argument, this is just going to turn into a teach in but without you understanding the basis for the argument. I can see you obviously care so, just like I did, look at the material and come back with questions.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - who on this thread has said “well I think this EQIA is fine”?



I've just gone back and looked at some of chowce5382 previous posts on the EQIA.

Poster has gone into why they think there is an issue. The legal system says there is case to answer.

Why don't you just go back and read them.

Instead of banging on at chowce5382.

As you said wait for the judgement


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed, you’re like an intelligent person. I’ve just given you the ability to look at the current EQIAs and then the relevant legislation and I’ve also then said I’ll answer your questions and also given you the basis on which to critically view those EQIAs. Why don’t you take some time and go through then and read the leigilstion and come back with questions. I know you want me to answer you questions now but, until you understand the legal basis of the argument, this is just going to turn into a teach in but without you understanding the basis for the argument. I can see you obviously care so, just like I did, look at the material and come back with questions.



You’re saying the EQIA’s are wrong, I’m asking how.

If you know they’re wrong surely you can say why rather than ask me to find out for myself.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Me: the Earth is flat

You: how do you know?

Me: It just is - if you want proof find it yourself!


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’re saying the EQIA’s are wrong, I’m asking how.
> 
> If you know they’re wrong surely you can say why rather than ask me to find out for myself.


Ed. It’s called education. If I tell you, I suspect that you’ll just challenge everything I say anyway. If you do it yourself then you’ll educate yourself. Also, there is the point that you want me to do your work for you. It’s simple. If you care about this then do your homework. I’ve spent months on this, I’m only asking you to take a couple of hours. If you don’t then you don’t have to take the steps I suggested but I would respectfully suggest that you can’t really be bothered to take the time to understand the issues.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed. It’s called education. If I tell you, I suspect that you’ll just challenge everything I say anyway. If you do it yourself then you’ll educate yourself. Also, there is the point that you want me to do your work for you. It’s simple. If you care about this then do your homework. I’ve spent months on this, I’m only asking you to take a couple of hours. If you don’t then you don’t have to take the steps I suggested but I would respectfully suggest that you can’t really be bothered to take the time to understand the issues.



Really? That’s not how it works. If you make a claim you need to back it up (see my post above). If you’ve spent months on it that should be easy.

Simple, genuine question:

Why are the EQIA’s insufficient?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Really? That’s not how it works. If you make a claim you need to back it up (see my post above). If you’ve spent months on it that should be easy.
> 
> Simple, genuine question:
> 
> Why are the EQIA’s insufficient?


See posts above Ed. The amount of time you’ve spent arguing you could have read one by now. I have posted previously on this. If you can’t be bothered to read the relevant posts that’s your look out


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> See posts above Ed. The amount of time you’ve spent arguing you could have read one by now. I have posted previously on this. If you can’t be bothered to read the relevant posts that’s your look out



I’m pretty sure it’s very apparent I’ve paid lots of attention (probably too much) to this thread and can’t say I’ve seen an answer to that question.

Does seem strange there’s not a simple answer - good job I’m not a donor 😉


----------



## nagapie (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You did accuse him of not caring about disabled people.


I accused him of ableism, ignoring disability rights, as have some of your posts displayed. It's an issue at the heart of this discussion. Spelling errors are not.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 12, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I accused him of ableism, ignoring disability rights, as have some of your posts displayed. It's an issue at the heart of this discussion. Spelling errors are not.



which is plainly bullshit - I’ve stated on a number of occasions there should be a blue badge exemption


----------



## nagapie (Jun 12, 2021)

alex_ said:


> which is plainly bullshit - I’ve stated on a number of occasions there should be a blue badge exemption


Yes, extremely generous of you. That's all fine then for the rest of the LTNR impact . And don't forget you were in favour of restricting this small concession on grounds of cost.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Yes, extremely generous of you. That's all fine then for the rest of the LTNR impact . And don't forget you were in favour of restricting this small concession on grounds of cost.



What are your suggestions?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed. It’s called education. If I tell you, I suspect that you’ll just challenge everything I say anyway. If you do it yourself then you’ll educate yourself. Also, there is the point that you want me to do your work for you. It’s simple. If you care about this then do your homework. I’ve spent months on this, I’m only asking you to take a couple of hours. If you don’t then you don’t have to take the steps I suggested but I would respectfully suggest that you can’t really be bothered to take the time to understand the issues.


I’m not sure why you’re on this forum, if you make a point, it’s reasonable to be asked to back it up. If you can’t or won’t then we can draw our own conclusions, especially in light of the Lycra clad cyclists on the payroll of Lambeth council stuff from a few pages back.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I’m not sure why you’re on this forum, if you make a point, it’s reasonable to be asked to back it up. If you can’t or won’t then we can draw our own conclusions, especially in light of the Lycra clad cyclists on the payroll of Lambeth council stuff from a few pages back.


As I’ve said, I’m not going to rehash the arguments. It pretty simple to see what the issue is. I’ll give you a hint, given that the council have allowed SEND vehicles into LTNs. Now ask yourself whether SEND represents all disabled people. If it does then the council has fulfilled its duty. If it doesn’t then it hasn’t. It’s pretty simple and not that difficult to understand. Now think about how many people who are disabled who don’t fit into this category and ask why they are not catered for. I’m surprised that you can’t see this. It’s pretty logical. No doubt you’ll come back with something unrelated and ask me how  to think about other groups and if I can explain it to you. Please just read what is here and have a sensible conversation regarding whether it’s acceptable or not


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed. It’s called education. If I tell you, I suspect that you’ll just challenge everything I say anyway. If you do it yourself then you’ll educate yourself. Also, there is the point that you want me to do your work for you. It’s simple. If you care about this then do your homework. I’ve spent months on this, I’m only asking you to take a couple of hours. If you don’t then you don’t have to take the steps I suggested but I would respectfully suggest that you can’t really be bothered to take the time to understand the issues.


dO uR oWn ReSuRcH!!!!!


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 12, 2021)

But you’re doing what that Transport for All report asks campaigners *not* to do - you’re treating people with disabilities as a homogenous group.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> As I’ve said, I’m not going to rehash the arguments. It pretty simple to see what the issue is. I’ll give you a hint, given that the council have allowed SEND vehicles into LTNs. Now ask yourself whether SEND represents all disabled people. If it does then the council has fulfilled its duty. If it doesn’t then it hasn’t. It’s pretty simple and not that difficult to understand. Now think about how many people who are disabled who don’t fit into this category and ask why they are not catered for. I’m surprised that you can’t see this. It’s pretty logical. No doubt you’ll come back with something unrelated and ask me how  to think about other groups and if I can explain it to you. Please just read what is here and have a sensible conversation regarding whether it’s acceptable or not


It’s not a rehash, you’ve never explained the issue in the first place.

Why would I ask myself such a stupid question?. You can’t set up a silly strawman argument then say disagreeing with it is illogical.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

I still don’t understand how posters can say the assessment is wrong without having read it - it’s bizarre and really makes it seem as just an angle to attack LTNs.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 has being giving support to a disabled person who is taking Lambeth to court. 

The disabled person is the client. The legal team are working for the client I believe. 

These recent posts criticising chowce5382 are in end criticism of the disabled person whose case it is.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I still don’t understand how posters can say the assessment is wrong without having read it - it’s bizarre and really makes it seem as just an angle to attack LTNs.


Not wrong, incomplete. As in does not fully comply with the equalities act. If this isn't the case, there will be no case.
So instead of saying people are just looking for a stick to beat the LTNRs with, why don't you wait to hear the court's view of this. 
I have no other reason to dislike LTNRs. Although I don't see how they can work if related issues in society are not addressed as part of the implementation.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> chowce5382 has being giving support to a disabled person who is taking Lambeth to court.
> 
> The disabled person is the client. The legal team are working for the client I believe.
> 
> These recent posts criticising chowce5382 are in end criticism of the disabled person whose case it is.



This is just ridiculous and an obvious way of shutting down any discussion it also suggests why OneLambeth are pursuing this course as they know arguing for disability rights looks a lot better than arguing to “open all roads” which if you read the fundraising comments (have you done that yet?) is their real motivation.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 12, 2021)

I just went back to the first page of this thread back in 2019. We were all arguing the toss then whether traffic would be displaced or reduced. Here we are still going! 
The judicial review feels a bit like al Capone being convicted for tax evasion, find the weak point and attack.
There are different statements that are true in this argument:
1. Disabled people are probably not being catered for properly by the current status of  the LTNs.
2. That most people contributing to the one Lambeth fund for the judicial review do not care about that, they just want to go back to how things were
3. The case argued in court by Charlie et al, is probably a strong one because it’s unlikely (due to Lambeth taking advantage of covid legislation) that they had done all the paperwork/consultations that would have been done had there not been a pandemic.
So where does that leave us? We will have to wait for the judgment.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 12, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> It’s not a rehash, you’ve never explained the issue in the first place.
> 
> Why would I ask myself such a stupid question?. You can’t set up a silly strawman argument then say disagreeing with it is illogical.


Ok. Pleas explain why it a ST argument taking into account the point above


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> The judicial review feels a bit like al Capone being convicted for tax evasion, find the weak point and attack.



I know what you mean, but to stretch the analogy that means that not sufficiently catering for some people with disabilities is the least worst thing about LTNs and they present much worse evils - which wouldn’t be true.

It is also true that LTNs do present many advantages to many people with disabilities & elderly people. For example crossing streets in an LTN is much safer and many in these groups can cycle especially if it’s made safer. I know this from my own family’s experience.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok. Pleas explain why it a ST argument taking into account the point above





> Now ask yourself whether SEND represents all disabled people.


Nobody has said this.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I know what you mean, but to stretch the analogy that means that not sufficiently catering for some people with disabilities is the least worst thing about LTNs and they present much worse evils - which wouldn’t be true.
> 
> It is also true that LTNs do present many advantages to many people with disabilities & elderly people. For example crossing streets in an LTN is much safer and many in these groups can cycle especially if it’s made safer. I know this from my own family’s experience.


Ah yes true, I’m not trying to say that an LTN is bad thing, far from it, I’m just saying that from a legal point of view, there are definitely weak elements that can be exploited.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This is just ridiculous and an obvious way of shutting down any discussion it also suggests why OneLambeth are pursuing this course as they know arguing for disability rights looks a lot better than arguing to “open all roads” which if you read the fundraising comments (have you done that yet?) is their real motivation.



No its not shutting down discussion. Its pointing out whose case this is. Which is the disabled lady. Its not One Lambeth case in legal terms. 

I don't have this black and white view of the LTN issue that you do.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 12, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> No its not shutting down discussion. Its pointing out whose case this is. Which is the disabled lady. Its not One Lambeth case in legal terms.
> 
> I don't have this black and white view of the LTN issue that you do.


I don’t think it’s black and white but do think the benefits heavily out way disadvantages (especially if some of these can be mitigated).

Cities should not be dominated by cars.

You are saying chowce5382 shouldn’t be challenged which is shutting down debate.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t think it’s black and white but do think the benefits heavily out way disadvantages (especially if some of these can be mitigated).
> 
> Cities should not be dominated by cars.
> 
> You are saying chowce5382 shouldn’t be challenged which is shutting down debate.


If the disadvantages are that some vulnerable groups get sidelined, then no, the advantages are not enough.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 12, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Ah yes true, I’m not trying to say that an LTN is bad thing, far from it, I’m just saying that from a legal point of view, there are definitely weak elements that can be exploited.


Lack of proper assessment of impact on vulnerable groups is not a weakness to be exploited. Your language is all wrong, it's an unnacceptibility.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> But you’re doing what that Transport for All report asks campaigners *not* to do - you’re treating people with disabilities as a homogenous group.


Who is doing that?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Me: the Earth is flat
> 
> You: how do you know?
> 
> Me: It just is - if you want proof find it yourself!


Ahh, you’re a flat earther. This explains everything


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Nobody has said this.


But people keep on saying that the EQIAs cater for SEND. Ok, that’s good. I’m asking whether you think that represents all disabled people. If it doesn’t then why is that the only group. It’s a fair argument


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 13, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Lack of proper assessment of impact on vulnerable groups is not a weakness to be exploited. Your language is all wrong, it's an unnacceptibility.


I’ve said multiple times that LTNs should cater better for disabled people. Equally, if I’m looking for an attack point to reverse the legislation, this is my in. Both statements can be true. Apologies for my clumsy language


----------



## alex_ (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ahh, you’re a flat earther. This explains everything


ad hominem attacks, always used by people with a really strong argument


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

alex_ said:


> ad hominem attacks, always used by people with a really strong argument


See Ed’s post above that I was commenting on and the relevant set of comments which lead up to this.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 - had you read the EQIA for Railton Road before the court case last week and if so why did you not know about the SEND exemption before then?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> chowce5382 - had you read the EQIA for Railton Road before the court case last week and if so why did you not know about the SEND exemption before then?


Ed, we’ve been over this. It was in the EQIA but not the order implementing the LTN. The order takes priority so there was confusion as to whether this was the case. As I’ve said, Lambeth’s barrister was also not sure as to whether SEND had exemption. As I’ve also said, above, SEND is a subset, does it represent all disabled people or not? I’ve posted on that above.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed, we’ve been over this. It was in the EQIA but not the order implementing the LTN. The order takes priority so there was confusion as to whether this was the case. As I’ve said, Lambeth’s barrister was also not sure as to whether SEND had exemption. As I’ve also said, above, SEND is a subset, does it represent all disabled people or not? I’ve posted on that above.



Okay - but that’s not what I asked. Had you read it & if so why weren’t you aware that it mentions the exemption before Thursday as you say in post #5049?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - but that’s not what I asked. Had you read it & if so why weren’t you aware that it mentions the exemption before Thursday as you say in post #5049?


Yes I read it but had also read the order which implement the LTN which didn’t mention it and takes precedence. I was unaware that it was an exemption as that thing which would give it exemption status didn’t give the exemption. I had heard that SEND vehicles had been seen inside LTNs but hadn’t  seen any myself so thought that someone might be mistaken. To clear up the issue I went back and looked at the order and did not see an exemption.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes I read it but had also read the order which implement the LTN which didn’t mention it and takes precedence. I was unaware that it was an exemption as that thing which would give it exemption status didn’t give the exemption. I had heard that SEND vehicles had been seen inside LTNs but hadn’t  seen any myself so thought that someone might be mistaken. To clear up the issue I went back and looked at the order and did not see an exemption.



Okay - but not what you say in #5049 when you say you’d only just found out about it.

Also, maybe I’m being pedantic here but of course SEND vehicles would be seen inside LTNs as that’s not the restriction, it’s whether they’re seen going through the filters.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - but not what you say in #5049 when you say you’d only just found out about it.
> 
> Also, maybe I’m being pedantic here but of course SEND vehicles would be seen inside LTNs as that’s not the restriction, it’s whether they’re seen going through the filters.


Only just found out that the exemption had been formally given and was in force. As I said, SEND vehicles had been seen inside LTNS, I didn’t know how they had got in (whether it was through the filters or not). So, I looked at the order and saw that there wasn’t an exemption mentioned. Lambeth’s QC was also not sure whether there was an exemption.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t think it’s black and white but do think the benefits heavily out way disadvantages (especially if some of these can be mitigated).
> 
> Cities should not be dominated by cars.
> 
> You are saying chowce5382 shouldn’t be challenged which is shutting down debate.



I'm saying if you are "challenging" the case you are challenging the person who brought it. The disabled lady.

You have said previously that people should wait for the judgement.

I see what you are getting at. That chowce5382 is only doing this to get rid of LTNs. I'm now skipping posts as the argument is going no where now. 

As the Judge will be looking at the arguments on both sides perhaps waiting to see what Judge thinks of the issue is best now.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Only just found out that the exemption had been formally given and was in force. As I said, SEND vehicles had been seen inside LTNS, I didn’t know how they had got in (whether it was through the filters or not). So, I looked at the order and saw that there wasn’t an exemption mentioned. Lambeth’s QC was also not sure whether there was an exemption.


I’m sure you know of Elm Court School in the Tulse Hill LTN so if you weren’t aware of SEND vehicles using LTNs that would be a surprise.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m sure you know of Elm Court School in the Tulse Hill LTN so if you weren’t aware of SEND vehicles using LTNs that would be a surprise.


Haven’t really been out of my house much in the last year and I know of the school but don’t ever go near there so haven’t seen a SEND vehicle. As you said, it’s not about using them, it’s about seeing them go through the ANPR


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Haven’t really been out of my house much in the last year and I know of the school but don’t ever go near there so haven’t seen a SEND vehicle. As you said, it’s not about using them, it’s about seeing them go through the ANPR


They have their own buses for SEND transport and the Elm Park Filter is in between its 2 gates.

 I know that councillors spoke to the school from the start and I’m guessing that fed into the exemption.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> But people keep on saying that the EQIAs cater for SEND. Ok, that’s good. I’m asking whether you think that represents all disabled people. If it doesn’t then why is that the only group. It’s a fair argument


It doesn't represent all disabled people and nobody is saying it does. The assessment is not say it does either. It's not a fair argument, you're just inventing a position.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

Article in the Torygraph about the court case - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/12/transport-revolution-creates-perfect-storm-disabled-people-court/amp/



> Road closures introduced as part of Grant Shapps’s green transport revolution created the "perfect storm" for disabled people who rely on cars to get about, the High Court has heard.
> 
> Lambeth Council was accused of badly affecting "the quality of life" by ignoring the needs of those who cannot walk or cycle when they created a series of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs).
> 
> ...


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> It doesn't represent all disabled people and nobody is saying it does. The assessment is not say it does either. It's not a fair argument, you're just inventing a position.


My point is that SEND being mentioned in the EQIA actually highlights that fact that others groups aren’t catered for


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - but not what you say in #5049 when you say you’d only just found out about it.
> 
> Also, maybe I’m being pedantic here but of course SEND vehicles would be seen inside LTNs as that’s not the restriction, it’s whether they’re seen going through the filters.


SEND being only one subset of a community - but Given that most day centres for adults are closed due to covid, their vehicles (the CTA or self managed transport wouldn’t be happening at the mo) but would also be eligible to use LTNs.

You can also access LTN areas without going through any barriers or ANPR cameras so I’m not sure what Charlie’s on about with that.

However community transport isn’t a panacea and doesn’t always follow the social model.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> SEND being only one subset of a community - but Given that most day centres for adults are closed due to covid, their vehicles (the CTA or self managed transport wouldn’t be happening at the mo) but would also be eligible to use LTNs.
> 
> You can also access LTN areas without going through any barriers or ANPR cameras so I’m not sure what Charlie’s on about with that.
> 
> However community transport isn’t a panacea and doesn’t always follow the social model.


Yes, you can access all parts but not in the quickest manner. This matters to disabled people due to increased journey times


----------



## sparkybird (Jun 13, 2021)

All the cameras in the Streatham Hill LTN have been vandalized over night


----------



## alex_ (Jun 13, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> All the cameras in the Streatham Hill LTN have been vandalized over nig



naturally all at onelambeth are condemning this mindless criminal activity ?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

I’m sure if only Lambeth were to give blue badge exemptions the vandalism would stop.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m sure if only Lambeth were to give blue badge exemptions the vandalism would stop.


That's a pointless point.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

Okay - to be serious I find it really depressing and the fact that people are vandalising signs & cameras, covering number plates or using false ones etc just shows the entitlement of a lot of drivers and the danger they pose that impacts so many people.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - to be serious I find it really depressing and the fact that people are vandalising signs & cameras, covering number plates or using false ones etc just shows the entitlement of a lot of drivers and the danger they pose that impacts so many people.


How depressing exactly? Would be good to get an idea as to how this behaviour is impacting your life


----------



## Winot (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> How depressing exactly? Would be good to get an idea as to how this behaviour is impacting your life


How can vandalism help anyone? Whatever the faults of Lambeth they are cash-strapped. Vandalism increases costs and decreases the money available for vulnerable people, schooling etc.

I would hope that reasonable people on both sides of the debate condemn the vandalism. Will you do so?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> How depressing exactly? Would be good to get an idea as to how this behaviour is impacting your life


Are you defending it? 

Depressing because of the entitlement of some drivers & how these dangerous drivers impact many people’s lives.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

Winot said:


> How can vandalism help anyone? Whatever the faults of Lambeth they are cash-strapped. Vandalism increases costs and decreases the money available for vulnerable people, schooling etc.
> 
> I would hope that reasonable people on both sides of the debate condemn the vandalism. Will you do so?


Of course,I’m not a fan of Vandalism. I was just trying to find out how difficult it has been for Ed.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

Winot said:


> How can vandalism help anyone? Whatever the faults of Lambeth they are cash-strapped. Vandalism increases costs and decreases the money available for vulnerable people, schooling etc.
> 
> I would hope that reasonable people on both sides of the debate condemn the vandalism. Will you do so?


It must cost a fortune to get a van with a cherry picker out to get these fixed - weird reaction from chowce5382 & shows his priorities.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> My point is that SEND being mentioned in the EQIA actually highlights that fact that others groups aren’t catered for


Are other groups mentioned?. Is the assessment just for SEND?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It must cost a fortune to get a van with a cherry picker out to get these fixed - weird reaction from chowce5382 & shows his priorities.


No Ed, just picking on one tiny point in a post and making an overinflated point about it to deflect from the actual purpose behind the post. You know, just like you do


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 13, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are other groups mentioned?. Is the assessment just for SEND?


Have you read it? If you have, what you do think about it?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No Ed, just picking on one tiny point in a post and making an overinflated point about it to deflect from the actual purpose behind the post. You know, just like you do



?

You’ve lost me here. Are you saying that’s what you were doing?


----------



## nagapie (Jun 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - to be serious I find it really depressing and the fact that people are vandalising signs & cameras, covering number plates or using false ones etc just shows the entitlement of a lot of drivers and the danger they pose that impacts so many people.


I don't have a problem with that view, which is normal, it's the constantly conflating it with disability rights. They are two separate things.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Have you read it? If you have, what you do think about it?


I think it doesn’t just talk about SEND, is this correct?.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 13, 2021)

Winot said:


> How can vandalism help anyone? Whatever the faults of Lambeth they are cash-strapped. Vandalism increases costs and decreases the money available for vulnerable people, schooling etc.
> 
> I would hope that reasonable people on both sides of the debate condemn the vandalism. Will you do so?



It worked for the suffragettes and also for those who put the statue in Bristol in the sea.

I expect in that case getting the statue out of the water cost the local Council a lot of money.

The issue of "vandalism" depends on where you are coming from.

An argument could be that any direct action /vandalism is to be objected to as there are legitimate channels to pursue disagreements in a democracy.

From reading chowce5382 posts here this person has gone down the road of legal 'legitimate' opposition.

Despite this the poster has been given a hard time here.

Imo I don't think chowce5382 can't win on Urban. Going to get a hard time whatever line of action they take.

Including the argument that the legal case chowce5382 has been helping has tied up officer time (ie cost to Council) which could have been spent in more "meaningful" way.

So if your using "legitimate" or non "legitimate" ways to oppose the Council you're going to get criticised for wasting money.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 13, 2021)

Sorry whatever your thoughts about the LTN, vandalism is a crime. Trying to invoke some sort of legitimacy about it is misguided. It’s costs all of us, not just money and we should be better than that. It’s a dangerous road, no pun intended, it can lead to unintentional consequences.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 13, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Sorry whatever your thoughts about the LTN, vandalism is a crime. Trying to invoke some sort of legitimacy about it is misguided. It’s costs all of us, not just money and we should be better than that. It’s a dangerous road, no pun intended, it can lead to unintentional consequences.



So you would disagree with seeing the Brixton riots in 80s as "uprisings".

I've seen that term Uprising being now the given way to name them. The use of the word says they were legitimate.

I was in Brixton for all the riots. They included looting business and in one case a building of flats was burnt down. Luckily no one died. I saw this. So I'm not just quoting what I've read. Those affected didn't have anything to do with the issue of racism and policing.

So to follow your line of argument you would oppose what one of my local Cllrs referred to as the Uprising?

Sorry I lived through the 80s. I see it in that context.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 14, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So you would disagree with seeing the Brixton riots in 80s as "uprisings".
> 
> I've seen that term Uprising being now the given way to name them. The use of the word says they were legitimate.
> 
> ...


So far tonight you’ve compared the vandalism of some cameras with the suffragette movement and the brixton riots. Get over yourself.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> So far tonight you’ve compared the vandalism of some cameras with the suffragette movement and the brixton riots. Get over yourself.



It’s kind of offensive really. 

Also, the suffragettes stayed put to get arrested after carrying vandalism as that was the reason for it. This person just wants to avoid some fines.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 14, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So you would disagree with seeing the Brixton riots in 80s as "uprisings".
> 
> I've seen that term Uprising being now the given way to name them. The use of the word says they were legitimate.
> 
> ...


I think you just jumped this particular threads shark.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 14, 2021)

Lost in all the ad-hominem attacks here and elsewhere online is the fact that there’s a crisis, cars cause pollution and congestion, support for LTNs and cycle lanes is support for actually doing something about it.  

For sure Lambeth should make sure to consult properly and address the needs of vulnerable people properly.  However that does not mean making everyone happy. Change will never make everyone happy, yet change is necessary.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 14, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> So far tonight you’ve compared the vandalism of some cameras with the suffragette movement and the brixton riots. Get over yourself.


I think you've missed a local trick.

Look at the measures the Oval cricket  ground took to  prevent Peter Hain digging up their pitch in 1970.
Maybe Lambeth Council should trake similar measures to protect their CCTV equipment?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I think you've missed a local trick.
> View attachment 273419
> Look at the measures the Oval cricket  ground took to  prevent Peter Hain digging up their pitch in 1970.
> Maybe Lambeth Council should trake similar measures to protect their CCTV equipment?


 Did Peter Hain just really not like cricket?!


----------



## CH1 (Jun 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Did Peter Hain just really not like cricket?!


I'm sure he loved it - this was direct action against the  Springboks Cricket Tour whose team refused to play any MCC team containing Basil D'Oliviera - a former "Cape coloured" player who had taken British Citizenship and was supposed to be in the England team - except the MCC under South African pressure did not select him.

DIRECT ACTION- as per Gramsci above.

Your facetious question is addressed on the front of leaflets handed out at the time 


Just as an aside this later picture from 1985 was a shock to me, as I knew the man in the wheelchair quite well as a workmate. This is Dick Leaman who worked at 336 Brixton Road from about 1984-1999. Here he was demonstrating at Stoke Mandeville - the occasion being a scheduled Disabled Peoples Games including Apartheid South Africa. I'm not suggesting they pulled out any CCT cameras - but looks like they were blocking the traffic.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2021)

I’m all in favour of disabled people protesting by blocking the traffic.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

So vandalising LTN cameras is comparable to protesting racisim, slavery, women's suffrage & aparthied. Anyone got anything else?


----------



## Southlondon (Jun 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So vandalising LTN cameras is comparable to protesting racisim, slavery, women's suffrage & aparthied. Anyone got anything else?


XR is another example. Glueing up doors of offices etc. If people feel strongly about something they are justified, I’m my book, to take direct action which may well include vandalism. Often that the only way to get people to engage in debate. We have a problem with pollution and car traffic is part of that problem. But there was no public consultation regarding implementing these LTNs so a lot of drivers Are upset. If I was a parent trying to do shopping with a couple of todlers I wouldn’t be happy if all of a sudden, without warning or consultation my life had suddenly been made that much harder. Same for the many people that have to drive for a living or those who feel their air quality has fallen further due to displaced traffic etc. I would support anybody’s right to take direct action in such circumstances because at the moment they have not had an opportunity to be consulted and for their views and opinions to be considered.
Direct action will always be likely to inconvenience people and that’s why our elected representatives should always consult as widely as possible to make every attempt to avoid situations where a sizeable proportion of people affected by such huge changes feel so frustrated that they feel compelled to act 
The council commits vandalism every time it demolishes people’s homes without consultation or when it closes off public space fir commercial ventures etc. In the general scheme of things we are talking about pennies and if that gets them to reconsider their rushed assault on car drivers then good


----------



## CH1 (Jun 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So vandalising LTN cameras is comparable to protesting racisim, slavery, women's suffrage & aparthied. Anyone got anything else?


Far beit from me to speak for others who are more intellectually cogent than me - but take it in stages, I would 
1. damaging cameras is direct action
2. why do people do direct action - because they are being ignored by those in authority


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 14, 2021)

I have to say, I assumed the reference to protesting apartheid was deliberately absurd to make a satirical point.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 14, 2021)

It’s somewhat unusual to justify direct action to maintain the status quo rather than change it (which are all the other examples given).

I’m seeing repeated calls for consultation above but an absence of any suggestions for how people want the scheme tweaked - ie what a consultation would ask.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Southlondon said:


> XR is another example. Glueing up doors of offices etc. If people feel strongly about something they are justified, I’m my book, to take direct action which may well include vandalism. Often that the only way to get people to engage in debate. We have a problem with pollution and car traffic is part of that problem. But there was no public consultation regarding implementing these LTNs so a lot of drivers Are upset. If I was a parent trying to do shopping with a couple of todlers I wouldn’t be happy if all of a sudden, without warning or consultation my life had suddenly been made that much harder. Same for the many people that have to drive for a living or those who feel their air quality has fallen further due to displaced traffic etc. I would support anybody’s right to take direct action in such circumstances because at the moment they have not had an opportunity to be consulted and for their views and opinions to be considered.
> Direct action will always be likely to inconvenience people and that’s why our elected representatives should always consult as widely as possible to make every attempt to avoid situations where a sizeable proportion of people affected by such huge changes feel so frustrated that they feel compelled to act
> The council commits vandalism every time it demolishes people’s homes without consultation or when it closes off public space fir commercial ventures etc. In the general scheme of things we are talking about pennies and if that gets them to reconsider their rushed assault on car drivers then good


Okay so we have protesting racisim, slavery, women's suffrage, aparthied & the climate crisis.

I thought they were just doing it to escape fines but hey.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Seriously, you're comparing this to people that took action that had actual real consequences for them - if they were smashing the windows of the town hall you might have a point.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Seriously, you're comparing this to people that took action that had actual real consequences for them - if they were smashing the windows of the town hall you might have a point.


You're missing the point again, ed.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 14, 2021)

Well I can’t speak for Ed but I’m not missing the point, I just fundamentally disagree with you. Crime is crime, simple. We live in a democracy underpinned by law and order. You can pick and choose which laws you want to observe, depending on your moral compass but then so can the burglars, racists and anyone else who doesn’t agree with something, doesn’t make it right. It’s just a few cameras, who cares? What happens if another young woman is snatched off the street and the cameras are not working so you can’t trace the car. That ok? One Lambeth to be fair have gone down the correct, legal route. To use examples like the suffragette movement to make it an equitable case is classic deflection, most would just say fair point and agree to disagree


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 14, 2021)

Just looking at some really interesting unpublished data on traffic trends on LTN boundary roads. If a decision is taken to remove the LTNs in Brixton, will an EQIA on the effect of removing them be done?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 14, 2021)

Traffic is already exceeding pre-lockdown levels and this with a lot of people still wfh. I wonder if the antis have any solution to this?.









						Traffic heavier than before pandemic
					

Traffic on British roads is exceeding pre-pandemic levels, fuelled by a reluctance to use public transport and a big rise in internet shopping.Official data s




					www.thetimes.co.uk


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2021)

MOAR ROADS


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 14, 2021)

Winot said:


> MOAR ROADS


Maybe instead of an LTN  they could do that motorway they were going to put through Brixton?.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 14, 2021)

What was the vandalism? I heard someone pointed them all upwards. is that what people are referring to?


----------



## nagapie (Jun 14, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Well I can’t speak for Ed but I’m not missing the point, I just fundamentally disagree with you. Crime is crime, simple. We live in a democracy underpinned by law and order. You can pick and choose which laws you want to observe, depending on your moral compass but then so can the burglars, racists and anyone else who doesn’t agree with something, doesn’t make it right. It’s just a few cameras, who cares? What happens if another young woman is snatched off the street and the cameras are not working so you can’t trace the car. That ok? One Lambeth to be fair have gone down the correct, legal route. To use examples like the suffragette movement to make it an equitable case is classic deflection, most would just say fair point and agree to disagree


I think the point was that lack of proper and meaningful consultation leads to anger and frustration that is easy avoidable. It also leads to unchecked bodies of power, which is never a good thing.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 14, 2021)

Winot said:


> MOAR ROADS


"Just build one more lane"


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 14, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> It’s somewhat unusual to justify direct action to maintain the status quo rather than change it (which are all the other examples given).
> 
> I’m seeing repeated calls for consultation above but an absence of any suggestions for how people want the scheme tweaked - ie what a consultation would ask.


Not really if a change such as the LTNs has had an negative effect on people's lives why wouldn't they want it to go back to the way it was or protest something that would have had a negative effec tto many (poll tax riots).

Many people don't want these shemes at all. They don't want tweaks. They don't want to hear how maybe adjusting xyz traffic light would help. Its a sticking plaster on a gunshot wound. Everyone knows the consultation is a farce, excludes many (Lambeth already admitted they breach human rights) and is pre determined. Thats why many are taking the no compromises route.

I see lots of council due diligence talked about five a side pitches on common, planning for new things...but throw something in that has a massive impact on a huge number of people and they stick their fingers in their ears and sing lalalalalalalala


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Well I can’t speak for Ed but I’m not missing the point, I just fundamentally disagree with you. Crime is crime, simple. We live in a democracy underpinned by law and order. You can pick and choose which laws you want to observe, depending on your moral compass but then so can the burglars, racists and anyone else who doesn’t agree with something, doesn’t make it right. It’s just a few cameras, who cares? What happens if another young woman is snatched off the street and the cameras are not working so you can’t trace the car. That ok? One Lambeth to be fair have gone down the correct, legal route. To use examples like the suffragette movement to make it an equitable case is classic deflection, most would just say fair point and agree to disagree



Fair enough.

Your view is we live in democracy with rule of law. There is legal right to peaceful demonstration following the rules , writing letters to Cllrs and lobbying those in power for example. If one isn't happy with present state of affairs there is legal route to take to change things.

Direct action/ vandalism  of any kind is outside of this and is not legitimate. Its a criminal act whatever the reasons/justifications behind it are.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2021)

This started with chowce5382 being told to condemn "vandalism".

What irritated me last night was that chowce5382 has gone down the legal route. That wasn't good enough. Poster was expected to account for the actions of others in the very loose group of those who oppose LTNs who break the law.

The line that a person who is opposing the actions of state authorities legally must condemn a minority who break the law is pretty standard right wing thing imo.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Traffic is already exceeding pre-lockdown levels and this with a lot of people still wfh. I wonder if the antis have any solution to this?.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’m sure some will argue that it’s the wrong time to close roads but this was predicted and one of the reasons behind LTNs. These schemes are protecting residents from the minority of car owners and people driving through the borough’s minor roads.

Where was the consultation & EQIAs on ever increasing traffic?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 14, 2021)

So from what I can read the recent 'vandalism' towards the cameras in Streatham was someone pointing all the cameras up with a stick or something.

Seeing as being pedantic is a common theme......that doesn't even meet the definition of vandalism. Yes there has been actual vandalism to all sorts of signs and planters but the cameras.....

What does that fall under? There's no damage. It's public property so no trespass. The fines can't lead to a criminal conviction so it's not perverting the course of justice. WHat can they do here?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> This started with chowce5382 being told to condemn "vandalism".
> 
> What irritated me last night was that chowce5382 has gone down the legal route. That wasn't good enough. Poster was expected to account for the actions of others in the very loose group of those who oppose LTNs who break the law.



I don’t think that’s true. I think it started with Charlie appearing to defend them, or at least down play them.



chowce5382 said:


> How depressing exactly? Would be good to get an idea as to how this behaviour is impacting your life


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 14, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Traffic is already exceeding pre-lockdown levels and this with a lot of people still wfh. I wonder if the antis have any solution to this?.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


or from another angle the attempt to stop a 'car led recovery' has failed


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 14, 2021)

Disgusting car lobby fuck off.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> So from what I can read the recent 'vandalism' towards the cameras in Streatham was someone pointing all the cameras up with a stick or something.
> 
> Seeing as being pedantic is a common theme......that doesn't even meet the definition of vandalism. Yes there has been actual vandalism to all sorts of signs and planters but the cameras.....
> 
> What does that fall under? There's no damage. It's public property so no trespass. The fines can't lead to a criminal conviction so it's not perverting the course of justice. WHat can they do here?



The police & council have confirmed it’s criminal damage.







__





						Criminal Damage | The Crown Prosecution Service
					






					www.cps.gov.uk


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 14, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> or from another angle the attempt to stop a 'car led recovery' has failed



It hasn't failed its a continuing battle. Perhaps distance-based road pricing is in the offing as an addition not as an alternative to LTNs. The technology is increasingly there.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 14, 2021)

toblerone3 said:


> Disgusting car lobby fuck off.


Car lobby. Big car lobby money is taking over our country. Has learned form big oil and big tobacco.

Or car lobby. AKA normal people who happen to have a car.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The police & council have confirmed it’s criminal damage.
> 
> View attachment 273517
> 
> ...


I stand corrected


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don’t think that’s true. I think it started with Charlie appearing to defend them, or at least down play them.



No it wasn't. BTW its chowce5382 on the forum. Not "Charlie".


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> No it wasn't. BTW its chowce5382 on the forum. Not "Charlie".


What wasn’t?

I haven’t seen you ask chowce5382 to stop calling me Ed btw.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The police & council have confirmed it’s criminal damage.
> 
> View attachment 273517
> 
> ...



So smearing "mud" is criminal damage. Your having a laugh. Or are you serious


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What wasn’t?
> 
> I haven’t seen you ask chowce5382 to stop calling me Ed btw.



Your using posters real name. Ed is part of your user name. 

Its not the etiquette here.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Not really if a change such as the LTNs has had an negative effect on people's lives why wouldn't they want it to go back to the way it was or protest something that would have had a negative effec tto many (poll tax riots).
> 
> Many people don't want these shemes at all. They don't want tweaks. They don't want to hear how maybe adjusting xyz traffic light would help. Its a sticking plaster on a gunshot wound. Everyone knows the consultation is a farce, excludes many (Lambeth already admitted they breach human rights) and is pre determined. Thats why many are taking the no compromises route.
> 
> I see lots of council due diligence talked about five a side pitches on common, planning for new things...but throw something in that has a massive impact on a huge number of people and they stick their fingers in their ears and sing lalalalalalalala


Don’t compare LTNs to gunshot wounds please. Not ever and not right now in Lambeth.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So smearing "mud" is criminal damage. Your having a laugh. Or are you serious



I think that’s rather off topic 😉


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Your using posters real name. Ed is part of your user name.
> 
> Its not the etiquette here.


Fair play Grams!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 14, 2021)

Winot said:


> Don’t compare LTNs to gunshot wounds please. Not ever and not right now in Lambeth.


It wasnt a comparison it was an analogy and get back in your box - Pre-kids I was a volunteer at a youth club trying to stop the very stuff that is happening in Lambeth now so save your faux offence


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2021)

Winot said:


> Don’t compare LTNs to gunshot wounds please. Not ever and not right now in Lambeth.



And to follow from Jeanette Moo I was one of those who campaigned against our right on LTN Council to stop them selling off my local Adventure playground. Used by kids on my local Council estate.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2021)

Very off topic now Ci


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It wasnt a comparison it was an analogy and get back in your box - Pre-kids I was a volunteer at a youth club trying to stop the very stuff that is happening in Lambeth now so save your faux offence


The usual analogy is just ‘sticking plaster for a wound’. But presumably you typed that out and thought - no - that doesn’t properly represent the _true horror_ of LTNs - better make it a _gunshot wound_


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 14, 2021)

Winot said:


> The usual analogy is just ‘sticking plaster for a wound’. But presumably you typed that out and thought - no - that doesn’t properly represent the _true horror_ of LTNs - better make it a _gunshot wound_



Your post 402 here makes clear you think these LTNs should be imposed without consultation. 

Can you stop having a go at this poster. 

Unless you have changed your mind.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 15, 2021)

Winot said:


> The usual analogy is just ‘sticking plaster for a wound’. But presumably you typed that out and thought - no - that doesn’t properly represent the _true horror_ of LTNs - better make it a _gunshot wound_



The usual analogy is band aid on a bullet wound. You're huffing and puffing like a toddler


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 15, 2021)

It’s an American idiom isn’t it? Besides no one really says Band Aid here unless they’re Americans, Australians or don’t like Monday’s.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 15, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Your post 402 here makes clear you think these LTNs should be imposed without consultation.
> 
> Can you stop having a go at this poster.
> 
> Unless you have changed your mind.


Grams - you're constantly trying to shut people down and seem to add very little to any debate, not sure it's helpful.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 15, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> or from another angle the attempt to stop a 'car led recovery' has failed


It's unfortunate more councils didn't have the guts Lambeth did, now we will just have much worse congestion and pollution than before - and people will complain about that!.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 15, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So smearing "mud" is criminal damage. Your having a laugh. Or are you serious



Legally speaking it is - anything that changes the appearance of something is criminal damage, no matter how quickly or easily it can be restored to its original state. That's how the law is worded, so it covers anything that can be removed or any damage that can be repaired.
Moving the lights cameras would (imo, nal) count under this though it sounds ridiculous, because the camera has been changed, and needs someone to come and move it back. So although no "damage" has been done, it has been changed and needs to be restored.
Any sentencing should take into account the reality of damage done and how difficult/expensive it was to repair/restore.

edited to correct a word


----------



## edcraw (Jun 15, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Legally speaking it is - anything that changes the appearance of something is criminal damage, no matter how quickly or easily it can be restored to its original state. That's how the law is worded, so it covers anything that can be removed or any damage that can be repaired.
> Moving the lights would (imo, nal) count under this though it sounds ridiculous, because the camera has been changed, and needs someone to come and move it back. So although no "damage" has been done, it has been changed and needs to be restored.
> Any sentencing should take into account the reality of damage done and how difficult/expensive it was to repair/restore.


It does state "the interference (must) amount to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner" which is pretty clear for the cameras and not an unreasonable standard.

But, hey, if they want to be carrying out direct action doesn't it help that the action is illegal? Grams can't have it both ways - ie. it's direct action but it's such a minor action that it doesn't amount to criminal damage.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's unfortunate more councils didn't have the guts Lambeth did, now we will just have much worse congestion and pollution than before - and people will complain about that!.


Didn't have the guts to bring in more not properly consulted policies under the guise of emergency regulations. I think our government managed a fair few.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It does state "the interference (must) amount to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to the owner" which is pretty clear for the cameras and not an unreasonable standard.
> 
> But, hey, if they want to be carrying out direct action doesn't it help that the action is illegal? Grams can't have it both ways - ie. it's direct action but it's such a minor action that it doesn't amount to criminal damage.



Their real mistake is not causing a high enough value of damage to make this an either/or offence and be able to take it to the crown court and argue in front of a jury that their illegal actions were justified to prevent a bigger injustice, like Seeds of Hope (Hawk jets going to indonesia), Smash EDO (arms company supplying Israel) and Extinction Rebellion (criminal damage to Shell's HQ) did - although I remember the climate camp trespassers at Kingsnorth power station ran this defence and it did not succeed.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 15, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Didn't have the guts to bring in more not properly consulted policies under the guise of emergency regulations. I think our government managed a fair few.


I'm not arsed about consultation, people won't put the environment above a little bit of inconvenience and will keep clogging the roads up which is not a solution for anyone. 
Modal filters and LTNs have been around for decades, it's not some crazy new idea that we're not sure works or not.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not arsed about consultation, people won't put the environment above a little bit of inconvenience and will keep clogging the roads up which is not a solution for anyone.
> Modal filters and LTNs have been around for decades, it's not some crazy new idea that we're not sure works or not.



I know where you’re coming from but consultation is not, and should not, be a referendum but a process to help find out any issues and take views on board.

People still banging on about the lack of consultation when these are now temporary traffic orders that will have consultation I suspect are just worried that once people have seen them in action won’t want to see them go. LTNs can be quite difficult to understand so I can’t see the issue with having a temporary trial period. I’m sure Chowec would say they’re anti democratic but that would be to misunderstand democracy.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not arsed about consultation, people won't put the environment above a little bit of inconvenience and will keep clogging the roads up which is not a solution for anyone.
> Modal filters and LTNs have been around for decades, it's not some crazy new idea that we're not sure works or not.


A little bit of inconvenience is not what the consultation that is missing is about.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 15, 2021)

nagapie said:


> A little bit of inconvenience is not what the consultation that is missing is about.


Well One Lambeth have declined time and time again to explain their case so I’m not sure what that’s about.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Well One Lambeth have declined time and time again to explain their case so I’m not sure what that’s about.


I and others on this thread have explained repeatedly about the need to do a proper assessment for those with disabilities and all that transport and care for them. If that's what you call an inconvenience, then I don't even need to bother to discuss this with you.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 15, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I and others on this thread have explained repeatedly about the need to do a proper assessment for those with disabilities and all that transport and care for them. If that's what you call an inconvenience, then I don't even need to bother to discuss this with you.


I am talking about the more widespread opposition to these changes. You’ve been talking about consultations the last few posts, now it’s the assessment?. I and others on this thread have asked about the existing ones and not got anything back.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I know where you’re coming from but consultation is not, and should not, be a referendum but a process to help find out any issues and take views on board.
> 
> People still banging on about the lack of consultation when these are now temporary traffic orders that will have consultation I suspect are just worried that once people have seen them in action won’t want to see them go. LTNs can be quite difficult to understand so I can’t see the issue with having a temporary trial period. I’m sure Chowec would say they’re anti democratic but that would be to misunderstand democracy.



To bang on again as you don't listen to views that are different to yours.

This thread was started as it was about the TFL pre pandemic funded Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood.

As I've posted several times when officer in charge of the scheme talked to my local residents forum in LJ. He said lessons had been learnt from the previous Loughborough Junction debacle. That (as Ive posted up about Good Growth scheme) this time full consultation would be done. Lambeth had to show to TFL that they had done this. If they couldn't get local support the next tranche of money would not be given.

The consultation process was going to in words of the officer to concentrate on reaching hard to reach groups of resudents.

What you are wanting is to impose a particular type of scheme and assume in end people will accept it. The top down approach.

This is not what officer who came to my LJ Neighbourhood forum meeting said. No talk of using temporary traffic orders.

This was to be done in phases. Changes to road use to be designed in conjuction with local communities.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 15, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> To bang on again as you don't listen to views that are different to yours.
> 
> This thread was started as it was about the TFL pre pandemic funded Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood.
> 
> ...



Okay - but that changed, funding became available for such schemes and we’re now where we are so let’s deal with that. What should we do now? Rip them out and proceed how it was going before or take it from the current position we’re now in?

What about the Oval, Tulse Hill & Streatham Hill LTNs not in Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood plan.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - but that changed, funding became available for such schemes and we’re now where we are so let’s deal with that. What should we do now? Rip them out and proceed how it was going before or take it from the current position we’re now in?
> 
> What about the Oval, Tulse Hill & Streatham Hill LTNs not in Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood plan.



So lack of proper prior consultation as promised is fine with you?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 15, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So lack of proper prior consultation as promised is fine with you?



Not fine but we need to deal with where we are now as things changed.

Another example of things changing is Tulse Hill gyratory - there were plans and funding for this and consultation and engagement carried out, but because of TfL’s funding troubles is not going ahead - is that fine?

What do you think we should do now with the LTNs?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not fine but we need to deal with where we are now as things changed.
> 
> Another example of things changing is Tulse Hill gyratory - there were plans and funding for this and consultation and engagement carried out, but because of TfL’s funding troubles is not going ahead - is that fine?
> 
> What do you think we should do now with the LTNs?



So why are you so against the JR by the disabled lady. 

Given that Lambeth have gone down the route of imposing this surely a JR is fair way to respond. 

Imo the way that Lambeth have gone about this is typical of their behaviour on series of past issues.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 15, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So why are you so against the JR by the disabled lady.



I’m not.

I did ask you a question twice and would be interested to hear your answer - what should we do now with the LTNs?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m not.
> 
> I did ask you a question twice and would be interested to hear your answer - what should we do now with the LTNs?



You've spent an awful lot of posts here criticising where the funding for the disabled ladies case comes from. And the motivation of those supporting her. 

And no I'm not going to answer your question.

Imo the Council have gone down the road, as you agree, of doing this without the promised prior consultation.

Its the Council mess. I'm a bystander now. I should not be asked. Its nothing to do with me now. The Council have made their political choice.

More to the point is what you think the Council should be asked. My impression is that you are quite happy with how things stand now.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 15, 2021)

Has the judgment on the JR been made yet.  When is it due?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> You've spent an awful lot of posts here criticising where the funding for the disabled ladies case comes from. And the motivation of those supporting her.
> 
> And no I'm not going to answer your question.
> 
> ...



Okay - what do you think about the Tulse Hill gyratory scheme not proceeding? Is that fine? As that is stalled for lack of TfL presumably Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood would have been put on hold as well.

So, if Lambeth had refused the COVID funding nothing at all would happen. Is that fine?

I am happy with how things stand, in that that they’ve been implemented and need to go through consultation to be made permanent. I much prefer this than the alternative which seems to have been to keep the status quo due to lack of funding.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2021)

toblerone3 said:


> Has the judgment on the JR been made yet.  When is it due?



I’ve heard it would take a couple of weeks so maybe towards the end of next week.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 16, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I am talking about the more widespread opposition to these changes. You’ve been talking about consultations the last few posts, now it’s the assessment?. I and others on this thread have asked about the existing ones and not got anything back.


Consultation with relevant groups and proper assessment. The two go together.  
I don't know exactly what was done but as there are issues around disability that have not been addressed, we know a full impact assessment in line with the equalities act was not done. There would also be no case if it had 
Would you consider it ok if the scenes were not fully assessed for equality according to race, class and gender? I hope not. But somehow disability rights are less important.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 16, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Consultation with relevant groups and proper assessment. The two go together.
> I don't know exactly what was done but as there are issues around disability that have not been addressed, we know a full impact assessment in line with the equalities act was not done. There would also be no case if it had
> Would you consider it ok if the scenes were not fully assessed for equality according to race, class and gender? I hope not. But somehow disability rights are less important.


One Lambeth haven't actually said what the case is and the person behind it hadn't read the existing Equality assessment.

I've said, and I've emailed my councillor that blue badges should be allowed through, but I also see the point that there isn't a system that records this atm, unlike council vehicles and they would have had to build one for a trial which could have been very temporary, it's probably why they are looking at it later.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 16, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> One Lambeth haven't actually said what the case is and the person behind it hadn't read the existing Equality assessment.
> 
> I've said, and I've emailed my councillor that blue badges should be allowed through, but I also see the point that there isn't a system that records this atm, unlike council vehicles and they would have had to build one for a trial which could have been very temporary, it's probably why they are looking at it later.


Blue badges are not the only issue around disability that have not been addressed. Cost should not be a barrier to fair access ever, that's called Ableism.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 16, 2021)

UTAG appear to have lost the bishopsgate appeal case.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> UTAG appear to have lost the bishopsgate appeal case.


Does that mean we never have to hear about KHAN'S ILLEGAL UNLAWFUL LUDICROUS DISCRIMINATORY ROAD CLOSURES again?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 16, 2021)

No, it’s apparently all corruption and there’s no coincidence that Khan was a lawyer. 

UTAG can appeal.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 16, 2021)

And the reasoning behind the decision to be made public later this week. 

This is TfL winning the appeal against a previous high court judgement which ruled that the Streetspace programme and Bishopsgate closure was unlawful.


----------



## Winot (Jun 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> UTAG can appeal.


Can they afford it?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 16, 2021)

There are some bonkers twitter taxi bot accounts out there.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2021)

The mayor's encouraging council's to work with him after the ruling today. Pretty strong message.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> It’s an American idiom isn’t it? Besides no one really says Band Aid here unless they’re Americans, Australians or don’t like Monday’s.


Which is why my post said sticking plaster, not band aid...or you can use 'plaster' depending on what your household used.

Either way the saying is as I described and as old as I can remember.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2021)

On Bishopgate.

I cycle around that area every day.

I just don't see the problem in letting Black cab drivers be able to go all way down Bishopgate.

Also the pavement widening at top end near Primrose Street is a pain. Can't filter through with bus in front of me now. Have to watch when enter that bit to make sure bus isn't behind me going into that bit. As their isn't space for both now. I don't think the pavement widening on that section of Bishopgate has aided cycling. Several cyclists I know have complained about that section. 

The City is still largely empty and I think their is chance WFH will be here to stay with people coming in couple of days in a week for face to face meetings.

In which case lot of street space isn't needed. Its getting difficult for van drivers to get around city for deliveries now.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2021)

One company I know has told people they can continue to WFH post pandemic or come into office to work. Whatever suits them best. If WFH post pandemic they will be expected to come into office one or two days a week for team meetings etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 16, 2021)

BTW I voted for Khan as I vote Labour. I didn’t vote for Khan to give him a "mandate" to do this. I don't think much of him actually. But their you go I don't want Tories running London. Khan is least worse option of candidate who would win.

I find it annoying when politicians of mainstream parties say this kind of thing. They know full well that people vote for a variety of reasons. Not to give them "mandate" for their pet projects.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2021)

Gramsci - you just seem to be anti any changes to reduce vehicles. The Bishopsgate changes aren’t even that huge but stop through traffic and so make a major difference to the area. You already cycle so these aren’t aimed at you they’re for people that don’t at the moment.

Agree Khan saying he has a mandate isn’t great but this isn’t a pet project - these schemes will transform large areas of London. And I think he can rightly feel vindicated especially from the amount of vile abuse he constantly gets, lots fro cabbies who really aren’t doing themselves any favours.

You’ve said that courts should decide when needed and today they have.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2021)

Should add that one of the main reasons for the Bishopsgate scheme is actually to improve bus times, which can be shocking along there and will benefit huge numbers.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 16, 2021)

I see that Khan just heavily promoted the massive Oxford Circus changes which are coming in via ETO. 

I’m 100% supportive of the right of Ms Sheikh to bring a case, things must be done properly and anyway, who doesn’t want to sue Lambeth on any given day?

But supporting her right to sue does not mean I think her suit  is a good idea.  It’s a shit idea.  Many better ways to spend money and time.  In order for London to be liveable and indeed excellent for the next 100 years, we’re going to chuck most of the cars out. 

hopefully with the developments this week the mötorheads and their useful idiots can go attack Khan about doing the job he was hired to in the centre and leave us to just get the future moving here in the Effra valley. 

I look forward to ms Sheikh and he-who-must-not-be-named-charlie-here helping us build an equitable and entirely less car-focused Lambeth and Southwark, after they reverse out of the cul-de-sac they’ve parked in.  .


----------



## nagapie (Jun 16, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I see that Khan just heavily promoted the massive Oxford Circus changes which are coming in via ETO.
> 
> I’m 100% supportive of the right of Ms Sheikh to bring a case, things must be done properly and anyway, who doesn’t want to sue Lambeth on any given day?
> 
> ...


I don't understand some of this, so you do not want this woman to gain easier access to the roads for those with severe and complex medical and/or learning needs? Will London then be more excellent for this already marginalised and segregated group?


----------



## madolesance (Jun 16, 2021)

Every Street In Paris To Be Cycle-Friendly By 2024, Promises Mayor
					

Hidalgo wants to effect what she calls an "ecological transformation of the city," aiming to improve the "daily life of Parisians."




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Gramsci - you just seem to be anti any changes to reduce vehicles. The Bishopsgate changes aren’t even that huge but stop through traffic and so make a major difference to the area. You already cycle so these aren’t aimed at you they’re for people that don’t at the moment.
> 
> Agree Khan saying he has a mandate isn’t great but this isn’t a pet project - these schemes will transform large areas of London. And I think he can rightly feel vindicated especially from the amount of vile abuse he constantly gets, lots fro cabbies who really aren’t doing themselves any favours.
> 
> You’ve said that courts should decide when needed and today they have.


I have to say that if it's one thing i've learned from reading this topic its that he isnt pro vehicle or anti LTN. Just all for proper procedure with things that effect the community....going by his past experiences with the community with which he seems very active in. These procedures have been in place for years to ensure people are considered and their needs protected. Now they are brushed aside under powers for something unrelated.

Some of us are anti,some pro but hes always sat in the middle talking about the impact and consultation......and defo does go into it with some more than others.

Looks like the taxi union are going to regroup and consider the supreme court. So still avenues.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Gramsci - you just seem to be anti any changes to reduce vehicles. The Bishopsgate changes aren’t even that huge but stop through traffic and so make a major difference to the area. You already cycle so these aren’t aimed at you they’re for people that don’t at the moment.
> 
> Agree Khan saying he has a mandate isn’t great but this isn’t a pet project - these schemes will transform large areas of London. And I think he can rightly feel vindicated especially from the amount of vile abuse he constantly gets, lots fro cabbies who really aren’t doing themselves any favours.
> 
> ...





I'm an experienced cyclist and gave my view on section of the Bishopgate pavement widening. So as I have personal knowledge of the roads in that area my view is to be discounted is what your saying. Not valid.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm an experienced cyclist and gave my view on section of the Bishopgate pavement widening. So as I have personal knowledge of the roads in that area my view is to be discounted is what your saying. Not valid.


No, just making the point that these changes are about encouraging people to cycle that don’t already.

Although as I added after Bishopsgate is also very much about speeding up buses. I think that’s something that gets missed in this eg. the changes to A23 between Brixton Hill & E&C (continuous & 24/7 bus lanes).

I guess that’s why TfL felt the need to appeal the case. If they always have to let taxis go everywhere buses do it will effect how they can prioritise bus journeys.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

@chowce5382’s campaign pushing the white, middle class, Lycra clad men line again whilst stirring hate against Sadiq Khan by mentioning his bullet proof car that’s needed because of the (mostly racist) hate aimed at him. They really want to make this part of a f-ing culture war, absolutely pathetic!


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 17, 2021)

Also, that tweet from the mayor is about ULEZ - so it seems OneLambeth is against that too

So much for wanting cleaner air.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

Absolutely toxic.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 17, 2021)

The Workers Party seem like a great bunch of lads. I mean as long as your transphobic from a "marxist materialist perspective" then that's fine.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 17, 2021)

madolesance said:


> Every Street In Paris To Be Cycle-Friendly By 2024, Promises Mayor
> 
> 
> Hidalgo wants to effect what she calls an "ecological transformation of the city," aiming to improve the "daily life of Parisians."
> ...


Awesome.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Awesome.


These white, middle class, lyrcra clad men get everywhere!


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 17, 2021)

Tory councillor Tim Briggs giving a wee boost to a conspiracy theory without checking first if it's true (it's not). All very normal.


----------



## Southlondon (Jun 17, 2021)

I think that if any administration pushes through measures like these that affect so many people in many different ways without consultation, then they are fuelling this “us and then” mentality. Of course there are going to be great changes to the way we commute around the city, but spare a thought for the people who have no choice but to drive . Every effort should be made to ensure disabled people are prioritised, and that doesn’t just mean their blue badge cars, it also means the black cabs as they are used extensively by disabled passengers. Then the multitude of delivery drivers, many of whom are on low wages or are self employed which means any delays to their journeys will cost them in the pocket. Running roughshod over the concerns of road users is not a good way to tackle the climate crisis if we want to bring everyone with us. Huge sections of the population are not able to cycle or walk far for all sorts of reasons and with the current pandemic raging I for one would choose to drive rather than jump on a train at the moment if I had to travel in to London from Essex/Kent etc. I think people need to show a bit more empathy for those sections of the community for whom a car journey is not a luxury it’s the only viable option, And likewise, can I suggest people watch the Ken Loach film about gig economy delivery drivers. Maybe then people would be a bit more understanding as to why not everyone is jumping up and down with joy because lots of ordinary people will be greatly inconvenienced by these sudden changes.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 17, 2021)

DfTs latest letter to local authorities on how to plan for more active travel might get Charles back on his bike. It’s a £2bn investment* aimed at local authorities (pushing on out of London boroughs too)

They include much more infrastructure and changing of road layouts: “anything that doesn’t meaningfully alter the status quo on the road will not be funded’ and they have updated the cycling design standards. All cycling schemes need to include segregation or point closure to through traffic.

Interesting push back in some LAs: “consultation does not mean giving anyone a veto, requiring consensus on schemes, or prioritising the loudest voices” and that schemes must bed in for longer periods of time before changes are made.

Which will be interpreted in various ways in Twitter. 

It sounds like mini-Holland roll out.

*still tiny in proportion to car subsidies


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 17, 2021)

Southlondon said:


> I think that if any administration pushes through measures like these that affect so many people in many different ways without consultation, then they are fuelling this “us and then” mentality. Of course there are going to be great changes to the way we commute around the city, but spare a thought for the people who have no choice but to drive . Every effort should be made to ensure disabled people are prioritised, and that doesn’t just mean their blue badge cars, it also means the black cabs as they are used extensively by disabled passengers. Then the multitude of delivery drivers, many of whom are on low wages or are self employed which means any delays to their journeys will cost them in the pocket. Running roughshod over the concerns of road users is not a good way to tackle the climate crisis if we want to bring everyone with us. Huge sections of the population are not able to cycle or walk far for all sorts of reasons and with the current pandemic raging I for one would choose to drive rather than jump on a train at the moment if I had to travel in to London from Essex/Kent etc. I think people need to show a bit more empathy for those sections of the community for whom a car journey is not a luxury it’s the only viable option, And likewise, can I suggest people watch the Ken Loach film about gig economy delivery drivers. Maybe then people would be a bit more understanding as to why not everyone is jumping up and down with joy because lots of ordinary people will be greatly inconvenienced by these sudden changes.


And, yet again, if all those people who didn’t need to use the roads took alternative transport, the relatively few left who do genuinely need a car would find life a lot easier.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Jun 17, 2021)

Southlondon said:


> I think that if any administration pushes through measures like these that affect so many people in many different ways without consultation, then they are fuelling this “us and then” mentality. Of course there are going to be great changes to the way we commute around the city, but spare a thought for the people who have no choice but to drive . Every effort should be made to ensure disabled people are prioritised, and that doesn’t just mean their blue badge cars, it also means the black cabs as they are used extensively by disabled passengers. Then the multitude of delivery drivers, many of whom are on low wages or are self employed which means any delays to their journeys will cost them in the pocket. Running roughshod over the concerns of road users is not a good way to tackle the climate crisis if we want to bring everyone with us. Huge sections of the population are not able to cycle or walk far for all sorts of reasons and with the current pandemic raging I for one would choose to drive rather than jump on a train at the moment if I had to travel in to London from Essex/Kent etc. I think people need to show a bit more empathy for those sections of the community for whom a car journey is not a luxury it’s the only viable option, And likewise, can I suggest people watch the Ken Loach film about gig economy delivery drivers. Maybe then people would be a bit more understanding as to why not everyone is jumping up and down with joy because lots of ordinary people will be greatly inconvenienced by these sudden changes.


The same proportion (3%) of people with a disability cycle as use black cabs at least once a week, according to TfL's Travel in London 2019 report.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 17, 2021)

London vision is running a session on Streetspace for partially sighted and blind people later in June 









						TfL Streetspace for London consultation - London Vision
					

Join London Vision on 29 June to have your say on the schemes TfL has delivered under its Streetspace for London programme




					www.londonvision.org


----------



## Southlondon (Jun 17, 2021)

mbyrde12 said:


> The same proportion (3%) of people with a disability cycle as use black cabs at least once a week, according to TfL's Travel in London 2019 report.


Which shows that at a minimum they should be given equal consideration. Plus people who cycle have an west of alternative travel options. The person with mobility issues doesn’t.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 17, 2021)

I think the black cab guys are missing a trick. They should be actively campaigning for LTNs if they get an exception. If you think about it, pre sat-nav, you had to have local knowledge (or the knowledge) to travel round the back streets, now all you need is the sat-nav, hence Uber and everyone else which is causing these rat runs. LTNs could help their cause as they’d have an advantage once again.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

Anti LTN-er sentenced for harassing Florence Eshalomi:









						Man who harassed Vauxhall MP given restraining order and ordered to pay £500 compensation
					

A man who harassed a South London MP by sending her offensive emails about her appearance and character has been sentenced. Brian Haven, 59, sent out the emails to Vauxhall MP Florence Eshalomi bet…




					londonnewsonline.co.uk
				




I’m sure some will make excuses but it does seem lots are helping to whip this up as shown by OneLambeth’s Twitter posts & the Facebook group.

Article also says he got wound up by talk radio. People should really try and calm this down.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 17, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I don't understand some of this, so you do not want this woman to gain easier access to the roads for those with severe and complex medical and/or learning needs? Will London then be more excellent for this already marginalised and segregated group?


I want women like ms Sheikh, and men too, who may have to rely on cars to have no problem relying on them at all.  By forcing the vast majority of unnecessary journeys off our streets.  then yes, London will be more excellent for that already marginalised group.  And for you and me, too.

Too many Cars, not ltns, are what cause the problem.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 17, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I want women like ms Sheikh, and men too, who may have to rely on cars to have no problem relying on them at all.  By forcing the vast majority of unnecessary journeys off our streets.  then yes, London will be more excellent for that already marginalised group.  And for you and me, too.
> 
> Too many Cars, not ltns, are what cause the problem.


I'm afraid in order for this to happen, she needs to have some success. Lambeth didn't care about this issue til there was legal action. The money wasters are them, for not doing things properly and fairly in the first place thus being morally in the wrong but also alienating groups who would have been on board and creating opportunity for problems and dissent.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

OneLambeth going full on at Claire Holland. 

chowce5382 - if you’re still following this, in light of the news above about Florence Eshalomi,  have a word with whoever’s posting this as it can’t be helping your cause and could get pretty dangerous.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> OneLambeth going full on at Claire Holland.
> 
> chowce5382 - if you’re still following this, in light of the news above about Florence Eshalomi,  have a word with whoever’s posting this as it can’t be helping your cause and could get pretty dangerous.
> 
> View attachment 274002View attachment 274003


Yup, still following this on the odd days but just waiting for the judgement and will go from there. It’s been very draining getting this far given we have no real resources so I’m taking some time to deal with everything else in life which is going wrong at the moment. Sorry I can’t be more engaging but I’m just interested in hearing the legal arguments and need to deal with a raft of other things. Hope you’re all well and not too frustrated about the continued lockdown. Sure we’ll talk soon 😊


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, still following this on the odd days but just waiting for the judgement and will go from there. It’s been very draining getting this far given we have no real resources so I’m taking some time to deal with everything else in life which is going wrong at the moment. Sorry I can’t be more engaging but I’m just interested in hearing the legal arguments and need to deal with a raft of other things. Hope you’re all well and not too frustrated about the continued lockdown. Sure we’ll talk soon 😊



Huh - did you read my post?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Huh - did you read my post?


Yes I did. Please just read what I’ve said above and respect that I need a break from things at the moment. I’m trying to be open and have just pretty much told you why. Thanks


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Huh - did you read my post?


Rude !


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes I did. Please just read what I’ve said above and respect that I need a break from things at the moment. I’m trying to be open and have just pretty much told you why. Thanks



It’s your campaign, I think you need to take some responsibility, they’re talking on your behalf and so looks like you condone it.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 17, 2021)

Sorry, I don’t want to be rude and sorry to hear if you’re having a tough time but that account is just stiring up hate and this could get dangerous. It’s representing you and really isn’t helping anyone’s cause.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s your campaign, I think you need to take some responsibility, they’re talking on your behalf and so looks like you condone it.


Thanks for your advice and thoughts Ed. Please just re-read what I’ve said and try to read between the lines to see what im trying to say given what has been going on in the world for the last 18 months.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, I don’t want to be rude and sorry to hear if you’re having a tough time but that account is just stiring up hate and this could get dangerous. It’s representing you and really isn’t helping anyone’s cause.



I'm a bit at a loss here. I unlike you don't spend a lot of time looking at twitter /FB of people I don't agree with. 

chowce5382 has come on here as new poster and my impression is that you are making him answer for any postings on the twitter /FB world of social media. Which is full of people mouthing off and other unpleasantness. 

chowce5382 has been supporting a disabled lady in her case against Lambeth, gone down the legal route yet repeatedly your making him responsible for any post on the imo rather unpleasant world of mainstream social media. Why? 

I use Twitter, FB and Instagram in sparing fashion. So as not to let myself get wound up. 

I think, whether you agree with him or not, he has tried to take course in personal level of responsible legal route of opposing LTNs using the processes that the law allows.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 18, 2021)

Because the twitter & fb accounts posted above are the social media accounts of the fundraising drive.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm a bit at a loss here. I unlike you don't spend a lot of time looking at twitter /FB of people I don't agree with.
> 
> chowce5382 has come on here as new poster and my impression is that you are making him answer for any postings on the twitter /FB world of social media. Which is full of people mouthing off and other unpleasantness.
> 
> ...



I’m not sure you actually read anyone’s posts. As I mentioned the Twitter account is representing the OneLambeth campaign that chowce5382 is treasurer of. I’m hardly trawling social media as you try and make out.

It’s posts are whipping up hate and are pretty unhinged. I can’t see what their end game is. It makes no sense for a campaigning organisation to do that and is frankly dangerous.

I was asking chowce5382 to only answer for postings by his own organisation which seemed fair. I’m not going to pursue it, but you can hardly take a moral high ground when that’s the public face of your own organisation.

What do you think of OneLambeth posts?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 19, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm a bit at a loss here. I unlike you don't spend a lot of time looking at twitter /FB of people I don't agree with.
> 
> chowce5382 has come on here as new poster and my impression is that you are making him answer for any postings on the twitter /FB world of social media. Which is full of people mouthing off and other unpleasantness.
> 
> ...


Why are you getting involved? Chowce5382 asked people to wait for the judgment which everyone has done so why rake it up again?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Why are you getting involved? Chowce5382 asked people to wait for the judgment which everyone has done so why rake it up again?



I wasn't. I'm waiting for the judgement. Its not me stirring it up.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

More “direct action”…



Do these people ever add anything positive to our communities?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> More “direct action”…
> 
> View attachment 274327
> 
> Do these people ever add anything positive to our communities?


Where’s this picture from....social media ?
Has anyone claimed responsibility for the damage ?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> Where’s this picture from....social media ?
> Has anyone claimed responsibility for the damage ?



I took the picture, it’s Roupell Rd. They’ve done this to Upper Tulse Hill signs and others in Streatham Hill. Seems such an aggressive action.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

How does this vandalism send any message apart from wanting to drive where they want? 

It doesn’t give a message about disability rights or anything else. It just comes across as very aggressive.


----------



## Happy Herne (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How does this vandalism send any message apart from wanting to drive where they want?
> 
> It doesn’t give a message about disability rights or anything else. It just comes across as very aggressive.


What exactly does vandalism achieve? I don't understand how anyone can think is OK?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How does this vandalism send any message apart from wanting to drive where they want?
> 
> It doesn’t give a message about disability rights or anything else. It just comes across as very aggressive.


That's because the vast majority of these cunts don't give a flying fuck about disability rights. It's about them, and their cars. That's it. That's all they have.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 19, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> Has anyone claimed responsibility for the damage ?


Unclear whether it's foxes or squirrels this time.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I wasn't. I'm waiting for the judgement. Its not me stirring it up.



It’d be great to hear an actual opinion on LTNs from you rather than they need better consultation. What are your views?


----------



## sparkybird (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> More “direct action”…
> 
> View attachment 274327
> 
> Do these people ever add anything positive to our communities?


Sorry to see that. If you've not already reported the vandalism please do so via lowtrafficneighbourhoods@lambeth.gov.uk
With locations and pics. The council are pretty quick at sending out their contractor to fix things


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’d be great to hear an actual opinion on LTNs from you rather than they need better consultation. What are your views?



Done that enough on this thread.

I don't now if your trying to insinuate I'm against them. I hope not.

I do think proper consultation and Co producing with local communities changes to public realm prior to any changes is something a self styled Coop Council should do.

That local communities could have worked with Council to define what a Liveable Neighbourhood is for each local area within the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood area, what the outcomes should be, how they are to be measured.

This is not how its been done.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Done that enough on this thread.
> 
> I don't now if your trying to insinuate I'm against them. I hope not.
> 
> ...



Sorry if I haven’t read the whole thread & im not trying to institute anything but I’d like to know your views. I’ve read a fair bit and can’t say I’ve seen them.

It’s one think to want better consultation and community engagement but you must have your own opinions.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I took the picture, it’s Roupell Rd. They’ve done this to Upper Tulse Hill signs and others in Streatham Hill. Seems such an aggressive action.





edcraw said:


> How does this vandalism send any message apart from wanting to drive where they want?
> 
> It doesn’t give a message about disability rights or anything else. It just comes across as very aggressive.





liquidindian said:


> Unclear whether it's foxes or squirrels this time.


It had crossed my mind that the way this whole  issue has become polarised and toxic that extreme LTN supporters could be doing it to make the anti’s look bad....


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry if I haven’t read the whole thread & im not trying to institute anything but I’d like to know your views. I’ve read a fair bit and can’t say I’ve seen them.
> 
> It’s one think to want better consultation and community engagement but you must have your own opinions.



Just given you my views.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> It had crossed my mind that the way this whole  issue has become polarised and toxic that extreme LTN supporters could be doing it to make the anti’s look bad....


Really?

Not sure OneLambeth need much help to look bad. What’s your views on their Twitter feed?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry if I haven’t read the whole thread & im not trying to institute anything but I’d like to know your views. I’ve read a fair bit and can’t say I’ve seen them.
> 
> It’s one think to want better consultation and community engagement but you must have your own opinions.



This is a thread about a Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood programme that got ditched due to pandemic.

Its morphed into hard line Pro or anti LTN thread. Which is something different. Which is why I don't think you follow all I'm saying.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> This is a thread about a Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood programme that got ditched due to pandemic.
> 
> Its morphed into hard line Pro or anti LTN thread. Which is something different. Which is why I don't think you follow all I'm saying.



Okay - what are you saying? What are your opinions? I know you want better consultation but what do you actually want to see?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Really?
> 
> Not sure OneLambeth need much help to look bad. What’s your views on their Twitter feed?


I don’t have one.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> I don’t have one.



Haha - yet you’re still able to think that someone might be vandalising signs to make them look bad.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - what are you saying? What are your opinions? I know you want better consultation but what do you actually want to see?



You don't get it. 

Your trying to push me into one of the hard line camps. I'm not playing your game. 

Imo changes to public realm should be designed and Co produced with local communities. Not done to them by local authorities. 

People did not have the opportunity to do that in this case. 

So I'm in position of not supporting or being against what has been done in hardline way. 

I'm now  as I've said a bystander of what I regard as a mess now.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Haha - yet you’re still able to think that someone might be vandalising signs to make them look bad.


...funnily enough it was one of your posts upthread where you said it was self defeating for their cause that put the idea in my head...


----------



## edcraw (Jun 20, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ...funnily enough it was one of your posts upthread where you said it was self defeating for their cause that put the idea in my head...











						The January 6 Apologists Have Let Antifa Off the Hook. Now the FBI Did It.
					

Here is a good place to start if you’re formulating a roster for the clique.




					www.esquire.com


----------



## Winot (Jun 20, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> It had crossed my mind that the way this whole  issue has become polarised and toxic that extreme LTN supporters could be doing it to make the anti’s look bad....


Jesus - are we at the stage of false flag theories? Really?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The January 6 Apologists Have Let Antifa Off the Hook. Now the FBI Did It.
> 
> 
> Here is a good place to start if you’re formulating a roster for the clique.
> ...











						Corbyn speaks at rally where Hitler placards spotted
					

ON SATURDAY Jeremy Corbyn addressed a pro-Palestine rally in London where controversial banners referencing the Holocaust and Nazis were spotted.




					www.express.co.uk
				





Winot said:


> Jesus - are we at the stage of false flag theories? Really?


maybe....its more likely that it’s a case of random elements who enjoy a bit of wanton destruction who are responsible.
that said the use of smear tactics is not impossible ( see my reply to Ed raw above). From my experience I know a lot of people who see the ltns as top down imposition of restrictions, supporters of ltns indulging in sneery attempts to portray anyone who dare question the ltn orthodoxy as retrograde and potentially aggressive helps to create the trough .of hostility and discord in which we find ourselves .


----------



## Loose meat (Jun 20, 2021)

rewinding a bit, can anyone remember why Conservative Central Office and the Tresuary thought it was a good idea to throw money at mostly Labour Councils?


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 20, 2021)

Because they’re policy for all the main parties with the exception of UKIP / the reform party?


----------



## Loose meat (Jun 20, 2021)

Sigh. Any grown ups?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 20, 2021)

Loose meat said:


> rewinding a bit, can anyone remember why Conservative Central Office and the Tresuary thought it was a good idea to throw money at mostly Labour Councils?



It’s available to all councils it’s just Tory ones have caved in to pro car groups, probably as there tends to be higher car ownership in their areas.

Wandsworth and Hammersmith & Fulham both installed measures only to rip them out after a very short time wasting thousands.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 20, 2021)

Very mature.

It’s not just Labour administrators putting them in. There are something like 150+ across the UK.

Tory authorities who pulled them out quickly have just been criticised by their own transport minister and told that they have to repay the funds.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 20, 2021)

The government is embarking on the next stage of the prime minister’s goal to “unleash our nation of cyclists” with a £239 million programme of “mini-Holland” schemes outside the capital.









						‘Mini-Holland’ bike zones coming to a town near you
					

As with Marmite, you either love or hate low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), which have prompted bitter rows since Boris Johnson started setting them up 12 mont




					www.thetimes.co.uk


----------



## BigTom (Jun 20, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The government is embarking on the next stage of the prime minister’s goal to “unleash our nation of cyclists” with a £239 million programme of “mini-Holland” schemes outside the capital.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you have  access to the full article and could you c+p it if you do please - I can't find this story anywhere else yet which is odd and would like to know more.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 20, 2021)

From that story, and relevant given all the cries for consultation


----------



## edcraw (Jun 20, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Do you have  access to the full article and could you c+p it if you do please - I can't find this story anywhere else yet which is odd and would like to know more.



As with Marmite, you either love or hate low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), which have prompted bitter rows since Boris Johnson started setting them up 12 months ago to encourage people to get out of their cars and walk or cycle.

Rather than back down, the government is embarking on the next stage of the prime minister’s goal to “unleash our nation of cyclists” with a £239 million programme of “mini-Holland” schemes outside the capital.

Twelve local authorities are to become “as cycle and pedestrian-friendly as their Dutch equivalents”, according to documents sent to town halls by the Department for Transport (DfT) on June 14.

Separately, four local authorities are to be designated GP prescribing pilots: patients will be provided with a free bicycle by their doctor, trained in how to ride it and directed to segregated cycling lanes.

The government is holding firm. The DfT says: “Consultation does not mean giving anyone a veto or prioritising the loudest voices.”


While protests in London boroughs including Hackney, Ealing and Wandsworth have highlighted the problems caused by displaced congestion, the letter claims the three existing mini-Holland schemes in London — Waltham Forest, Enfield and Kingston — have brought dramatic improvements, with cycling increasing by 18 per cent and walking by 13 per cent in the first year after construction. “Congestion did not rise in the longer term because the changes allowed many who have previously driven very short journeys to walk or cycle instead.”

Johnson, a keen cyclist, has also kept faith with the view he expressed as he was recovering from his dangerous brush with Covid-19: that bikes should be prescribed on the NHS “with our bike lanes becoming huge, 24-hour gyms, free and open to everyone”.

The DfT cites research from Glasgow University that found taking up cycling is among the most effective health interventions a person can make. Cycling to work rather than using motorised transport can contribute to a 45 per cent lower risk of cancer, a 46 per cent lower risk of heart disease and a 41 per cent lower risk of premature death.

Motorists who strayed into the first wave of LTNs in London have paid more than 260,000 fines adding up to more than £15.5 million in 12 of the capital’s 32 boroughs. Fines are typically £130, or half that if paid within 14 days. Some councils have scrapped them, and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party campaigned against them.

SPONSORED



Jack Cousens, head of roads policy at the AA, said: “Local authorities have got the perfect opportunity to balance car traffic and the future of mobility in and around urban areas. They should not be drawn into creating fines simply because they think there’s a revenue stream. A first-time warning letter is a very good method.”

Clyde Loakes, who as deputy leader of Waltham Forest council introduced one of the country’s first mini-Holland schemes, said he won over sceptics because he did not present it solely as a transport initiative to reduce car dependency.

“When you take out thousands of car journeys, you create space for extra planting, for people to meet and chat and for cafes and restaurants to expand out on to the pavement.”


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 20, 2021)

Straight in with the  divisive stuff I see...

_“As with Marmite, you either love or hate low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs_)”


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Very mature.
> 
> It’s not just Labour administrators putting them in. There are something like 150+ across the UK.
> 
> Tory authorities who pulled them out quickly have just been criticised by their own transport minister and told that they have to repay the funds.



So you reckon this Boris led government is led by mature adults unlike say UKIP or local Tory Councils ?  Reason UKIP have become an irrelevance is that under Boris Tory party has moved to the right.

But hey Boris supports bike lanes so lets forget about rest of this Boris led right wing government.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> Straight in with the  divisive stuff I see...
> 
> _“As with Marmite, you either love or hate low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs_)”



Quite. And going back to thread topic this kind of language was to be avoided. To be replaced by concept of Liveable Neighbourhoods. Which I thought was good idea. 

This has all gone now.

So now its  either middle of the ground "adults" or knuckle scraping car nuts.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Quite. And going back to thread topic this kind of language was to be avoided. To be replaced by concept of Liveable Neighbourhoods. Which I thought was good idea.
> 
> This has all gone now.
> 
> So now its  either middle of the ground "adults" or knuckle scraping car nuts.



You realise I was quoting the Times article and those were not my words?

I’ve only used people’s own words and actions to show what they are, especially when you’ve tried to make out that chowce5382 & OneLambeth are somehow morally irreproachable. I’m not generalising forget everyone opposed.

I haven’t noticed you pulling chowce5382 or his organisation up on their divisive language around “white, middle class, Lycra clad, male cyclists” and accusing LTN supporters of “ethnic cleansing”.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 21, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> Straight in with the  divisive stuff I see...
> 
> _“As with Marmite, you either love or hate low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs_)”


That’s the opening paragraph of The Times article - not a comment from a poster on here!


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 21, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So you reckon this Boris led government is led by mature adults unlike say UKIP or local Tory Councils ?  Reason UKIP have become an irrelevance is that under Boris Tory party has moved to the right.
> 
> But hey Boris supports bike lanes so lets forget about rest of this Boris led right wing government.


I didn’t say the tories we’re mature, that was a comment to a different poster. Strange bit of projecting...

Nor have I said I support the tories. I never have.

LTNS would be coming in irrespective whether it’s Corbyn / Starmer / Boris / Davey / Bartley & Berry.

And it’s also not ‘bike lanes’ as you seem determined to call it. It’s about offering better alternatives to the cars that are being used for too many short journeys, and are the highest cause of injury and death for children and young people before you even start on their pollution impact / climate change.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 21, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I didn’t say the tories we’re mature, that was a comment to a different poster. Strange bit of projecting...
> 
> Nor have I said I support the tories. I never have.
> 
> ...


The G-man opposes anything proposed or supported by
a) tories 
b) Lambeth council.  ("noo-labr")
even if it's something he has previously called for himself.

(although not clear how his support for the anti-LTN campaign lines is reconciled with Lambeth's tory councillor being tied up with them)


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 21, 2021)

No, that’s unfair - I appreciate that gramsci was frustrated by how crap Lambeth was with communication on the Loughborough Junction scheme.

And that this thread starts from that place. May be it should have been a separate Brixton Active Travel thread to distinguish between the two things.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2021)

Article in the Telegraph about the court case.









						Council faces calls to refund every LTN fine after admitting it introduced schemes 'illegally'
					

Lambeth Council has blamed its unauthorised closure of roads in South London on an 'administrative error'




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




Looks like the council made an error in installing the Oval LTN but the article doesn’t say what the consequences are.

Also, despite Steve Bird writing about LTNs extensively he still doesn’t understand them or is happy to misrepresent them:



> A Freedom of Information request shows more than £80,000 of fines were obtained from drivers who entered or exited the Oval LTN.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 21, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> No, that’s unfair - I appreciate that gramsci was frustrated by how crap Lambeth was with communication on the Loughborough Junction scheme.


Happy to be proved wrong but I've been around here many years and yet to see it.  He blasted the council for "caving in to the motor lobby" on Loughborough Junction but seems to want them to do so now.  Theres this idea that these schemes shouldn't happen 'where people don't want them' but the tiny attendance at 1L's rally and small number of donors to their crowdfund (based on the post on their Facebook that cropped up upthread) suggests opposition is loud but very limited.

No-one calling for consultation  will say what they would/will call when it takes place (as it must before schemes can be made permanent, and is ongoing through the trial) - so it's easy to assume the hope is just that they could block it by shouting loudly or getting cabbies from Essex to flood the consultation with responses.  The complaints of 'not being listened to' are actually 'we're not getting our way' - there seem to have been numerous meetings, presentations and ways to feed back.

Things that will create a better society will always have people opposing them - the tories are finding this with their attempts to build more housing right now*. I'm strongly in favour of higher taxes (on wealth, property and inheritance amongst other things), probably including council tax, to pay for better public services but there would be very angry opposition to that as there would be many policies that a left wing government would introduce.

As the Govt quote from in the Telegraph makes clear - Consultation doesn't mean a veto or listening to those most angry - it should be based on evidence.   And it's obvious 1L don't think the evidence is in their favour and the immediate response is to try to rubbish it and call it biased.

(*edit
as are Lambeth.  
"Theres a housing shortage, build more housing".  
"Not like that - don't knock anything down"
"Not like that - don't build anything high"
Where do you build it if you're not going to build high, or increase the density of existing estates?)


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Article in the Telegraph about the court case.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The judge in the case says it doesn't mean the fines aren't valid which kind of negates the headline.  

"Mr Justice Kerr, who will rule soon on the case in the coming weeks, insisted that because Oval Triangle LTN is now law ‘road closed’ signs should be obeyed."


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> The judge in the case says it doesn't mean the fines aren't valid which kind of negates the headline.
> 
> "Mr Justice Kerr, who will rule soon on the case in the coming weeks, insisted that because Oval Triangle LTN is now law ‘road closed’ signs should be obeyed."


Yeah - I noticed that, though not to sure how to read it.

Don't want to read too much into it but if this is what OneLambeth are briefing a friendly journalist about I wonder what thay says about the rest of the case.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2021)

Don’t know what this means though. Lambeth contacted them to agree the Oval LTN was illegal?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - I noticed that, though not to sure how to read it.
> 
> Don't want to read too much into it but if this is what OneLambeth are briefing a friendly journalist about I wonder what thay says about the rest of the case.


Have a read of this. It was a complex legal point about exactly what a judge could or couldn’t say as a matter of law in relation to an executive authority admitting that they had acted unlawfully.









						Ouster clause - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Have a read of this. It was a complex legal point about exactly what a judge could or couldn’t say as a matter of law in relation to an executive authority admitting that they had acted unlawfully.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’m not sure I understand any of that Wiki page to be honest. 

Do you know what OneLambeth means by the tweet above?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m not sure I understand any of that Wiki page to be honest.
> 
> Do you know what OneLambeth means by the tweet above?


Lambeth contacted us before the case with a document admitting that they had imposed the Oval LTN unlawfully. We agreed and countersigned the document agreeing it was unlawful. When we got to the hearing, lambeth then didn’t want the document to be part of the case so relied on the Outser clause and said that judge couldn’t opine on the document and therefore officially record, and as a matter of law and couldn’t make it part of court proceedings, that it was unlawful as that could possibly impact whether they could keep the money from fines resulting from an unlawfully imposed traffic restriction.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Lambeth contacted us before the case with a document admitting that they had imposed the Oval LTN unlawfully. We agreed and countersigned the document agreeing it was unlawful. When we got to the hearing, lambeth then didn’t want the document to be part of the case so relied on the Outser clause and said that judge couldn’t opine on the document and therefore officially record, and as a matter of law and couldn’t make it part of court proceedings, that it was unlawful as that could possibly impact whether they could keep the money from fines resulting from an unlawfully imposed traffic restriction.


I can't see why they would want to agree the Oval LTN was unlawful before going to court.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I can't see why they would want to agree the Oval LTN was unlawful before going to court.


Because they looked at the manner in which they implemented it and realised that it was unlawful so effectively wanted to settle before the case. They relied on the ouster clause to ensure that the judge couldn’t formally agree that it was unlawful and have to recorded by the court that it was.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2021)

Okay, cheers.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 21, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> That’s the opening paragraph of The Times article - not a comment from a poster on here!


yes I was saying the article is pushing the dualistic thinking, it’s not that simple.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 21, 2021)

Ferndale monitoring is delayed because of the vandalism- from their Q&A today.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 21, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Because they looked at the manner in which they implemented it and realised that it was unlawful so effectively wanted to settle before the case. They relied on the ouster clause to ensure that the judge couldn’t formally agree that it was unlawful and have to recorded by the court that it was.



So effectively the Council are using ouster clause to keep this bit of information out of public domain. This isn't good.

Not saying that anyone should be banged up for this. But imo it should have been allowed in court that implementation was unlawful.It would have put it on public record. 

Typical of Council to use legal means to stop scrutiny of their decision making process. They can get quite bullish in court.

Point of JR is to look at these issues.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 22, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So effectively the Council are using ouster clause to keep this bit of information out of public domain. This isn't good.
> 
> Not saying that anyone should be banged up for this. But imo it should have been allowed in court that implementation was unlawful.It would have put it on public record.
> 
> ...


"They should follow the law."

"No, not that law!"


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> "They should follow the law."
> 
> "No, not that law!"


Yup, right out of the council playbook in this case. Do something unlawful then rely on the law to ensure that it can’t be recorded by the court


----------



## edcraw (Jun 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, right out of the council playbook in this case. Do something unlawful then rely on the law to ensure that it can’t be recorded by the court



If you take them to court you can’t really argue about them using the law to defend themselves.

We’re very much hearing one side of it here though, from what you choose to share (you hadn’t mentioned this part of the case before) and OneLambeth briefing a journalist & paper that both appear ideological opposed to LTNs.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> If you take them to court you can’t really argue about them using the law to defend themselves.
> 
> We’re very much hearing one side of it here though, from what you choose to share (you hadn’t mentioned this part of the case before) and OneLambeth briefing a journalist & paper that both appear ideological opposed to LTNs.


Was just pointing out the irony in your statement. Not point dwelling on it as you didn’t get the basis of the ouster clause. I suppose I would make the differentiation between using the law to defend themselves (which they rightlyfully did) and admitting that they acted unlawfully then using the law to ensure that court couldn’t record that they did. I would assume contrition and then moving on would be the best course.
The journalist got the public record of the case which you can also look at and that’s how he got the story. You can tell because he quotes verbatim what was said by the relevant parties


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, right out of the council playbook in this case. Do something unlawful then rely on the law to ensure that it can’t be recorded by the court


You’re saying that drivers who drive through a road closed sign should be let off in this case because of an admin error, or are you just going for the “unlawful” headline?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You’re saying that drivers who drive through a road closed sign should be let off in this case because of an admin error, or are you just going for the “unlawful” headline?


If the order put in place which legally enforced the ability to give the fines is unlawful (and is was) then it follows that, as a matter of law, those fines had no basis in law. I don’t see why this would be a controversial point and would apply to any form of unlawful act by an executive as acts as a general protection for the population


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2021)

It is confusing isn't it?  chowce5382 has repeatedly said onelambeth want this to be decided by the court and they'll accept the judgement.  The judge said that because Oval Triangle LTN is now law ‘road closed’ signs should be obeyed, yet the Telegraph are reporting OneLambeth as calling for fines (issued for breaking road laws) should be refunded and their twitter account continues to encourage people to appeal their PCNs.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> It is confusing isn't it?  chowce5382 has repeatedly said onelambeth want this to be decided by the court and they'll accept the judgement.  The judge said that because Oval Triangle LTN is now law ‘road closed’ signs should be obeyed, yet the Telegraph are reporting OneLambeth as calling for fines (issued for breaking road laws) should be refunded and their twitter account continues to encourage people to appeal their PCNs.


Not really confusing tbh. For the period of time that it was unlawful, the fines are unlawful. Once the council implemented it lawfully then the fines are lawful. That seems pretty easy to understand. Not sure why this is even an issue.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2021)

So one Lambeth accept that the Oval LTN is lawful? Which presumably means the EQIA is sufficient as well?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> So one Lambeth accept that the Oval LTN is lawful? Which presumably means the EQIA is sufficient as well?


Not sure if you’ve been reading the case, if you had you know that we were not challenging Oval due to timing so don’t know why you’re asking about it here. Furthermore, you can enact a restriction yet still fall foul of not meeting the obligations under the EA.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Not sure if you’ve been reading the case, if you had you know that we were not challenging Oval due to timing so don’t know why you’re asking about it here. Furthermore, you can enact a restriction yet still fall foul of not meeting the obligations under the EA.


I've not, and you've been seemingly unwilling to actually detail it.  I would be interested to - presumably you could share it?

Asking about the Oval LTN because it was being discussed as a result of a One Lambeth tweet about the court case that mentioned it...and because the judges comment (in the Telegraph story) referred to it.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I've not, and you've been seemingly unwilling to actually detail it.  I would be interested to - presumably you could share it?
> 
> Asking about the Oval LTN because it was being discussed as a result of a One Lambeth tweet about the court case that mentioned it...


You can approach the court for a transcript. Worth doing if you want to go through the arguments in finer detail.

The tweet was relating to the unlawfulness of the fines following the unlawful implementation. Wasn’t relating to EQIAs which was why I questioned you asking about that one specifically.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2021)

But the judge said they were legal and should be obeyed, and you’ve said you will defer to the judges decision which you already seem to be disagreeing with.

do you have the court transcript? It seems likely you do


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> But the judge said they were legal and should be obeyed, and you’ve said you will defer to the judges decision which you already seem to be disagreeing with.
> 
> do you have the court transcript? It seems likely you do





thebackrow said:


> But the judge said they were legal and should be obeyed, and you’ve said you will defer to the judges decision which you already seem to be disagreeing with.
> 
> do you have the court transcript? It seems likely you do


Please re-read my post at 8.17. There was a period where they were unlawful and so were the resulting fines. This really isn’t a difficult concept to understand unless you’re wilfully trying not to.

I don’t have a transcript as I listened to the case. Feel free to approach the court though to get one


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Please re-read my post at 8.17. There was a period where they were unlawful and so were the resulting fines. This really isn’t a difficult concept to understand unless you’re wilfully trying not to.
> 
> I don’t have a transcript as I listened to the case. Feel free to approach the court though to get one


I see - that's not clear from your social media which suggests Oval is 'illegal' (which is different from unlawful isn't it?) and doesn't mention a time period.

Also talks about 'profiteering' which is a strange way to refer to fines issued to drivers for breaking road laws and ignoring signs.


edcraw said:


> Don’t know what this means though. Lambeth contacted them to agree the Oval LTN was illegal?
> 
> View attachment 274586


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I see - that's not clear from your social media which suggests Oval is 'illegal' (which is different from unlawful isn't it?) and doesn't mention a time period.
> 
> Also talks about 'profiteering' which is a strange way to refer to fines issued to drivers for breaking road laws and ignoring signs.


As I’ve said, I have nothing to do with that account, which is why I’m answering your questions here. I’ve explained the position in my post above which, if you re-read it again, might serve to enlighten and dispel this confusion


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> As I’ve said, I have nothing to do with that account, which is why I’m answering your questions here. I’ve explained the position in my post above which, if you re-read it again, might serve to enlighten and dispel this confusion


Ok, I think the issue is that your unwillingness to actually call out an account (that claims to represent the group you are a part of) on any of the more outlandish claims and attacks on individuals it makes, and the contrast between your tone here and the inflammatory speech you made at the protest in central Brixton, and for that matter the inflammatory and just plain false statements you made in your first posts on here (which you've not removed) suggests that account does represent your position.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Ok, I think the issue is that your unwillingness to actually call out an account (that claims to represent the group you are a part of) on any of the more outlandish claims and attacks on individuals it makes, and the contrast between your tone here and the inflammatory speech you made at the protest in central Brixton, and for that matter the inflammatory and just plain false statements you made in your first posts on here (which you've not removed) suggests that account does represent your position.


you are welcome to your opinion of what you think the issue is. I think the issue is something different (I.e unlawful actions by the executive). Give our divergence of opinions we should probably leave it there as you seem to be emotionally and possibly professionally invested in these schemes and I doubt that we’ll ever see eye to eye.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 23, 2021)

Are you on the payroll of Lambeth council thebackrow ?. Like the cyclists?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> you are welcome to your opinion of what you think the issue is. I think the issue is something different (I.e unlawful actions by the executive).


So you keep saying,


chowce5382 said:


> which is why I’m answering your questions here



except that you don't - when it actually comes down to it you refuse to answer them and resort to ad hom attacks


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> So you keep saying,
> 
> 
> except that you don't - when it actually comes down to it you refuse to answer them and resort to ad hom attacks


I’ve been answering your questions since I came on here, main one recently being the questions you had about the Oval LTN. Sorry you feel that I’ve been attacking you. This seems quite personal so, as I said, let’s just leave it there


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’ve been answering your questions since I came on here, main one recently being the questions you had about the Oval LTN. Sorry you feel that I’ve been attacking you. This seems quite personal so, as I said, let’s just leave it there


whatever.

it’s going to be interesting to see the outcome of the case. Based on what’s been explained here it seems very unlikely that any LTNs will be removed whatever the result since this is they’re being challenged on process not principle. The government is calling for more LTNs, as is TfL (who won the appeal on  streetspace) so the idea that they are fundamentally discriminatory seems far fetched. 

I suppose there might be a few tweaks to allow blue badges through bus gates (which has just been announced in Hackney).  Perhaps that’s enough for you but like the cabbies and bidhopsgate I’m guessing there will be a lot more cries of “the fight goes on”


----------



## edcraw (Jun 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> you seem to be emotionally and possibly professionally invested in these schemes



Nice! Not convinced you aren’t behind the Twitter account tbh.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 23, 2021)

Judicial Review are one way ordinary people can hold the executive to account. They are limited as the judiciary cannot usurp the executive.

Cressingham Gardens have used them. It doesn't stop an obstinate local authority like New Labour Lambeth from ploughing on despite losing first time. Eventually they will get their way.

Unlike hard pressed residents Councils like Lambeth have deep pockets when it comes to litigation.

I can understand why local residents use a mechanism like a JR.

To argue that it won't make a difference in practise shows the power difference between those who decide (the executive) and those who are subject to the executive (the ordinary Joe).

One of the problems with legal system in this country is that its adversarial. Its not about learning from mistakes or an open discussion.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 25, 2021)

People’s Front  of One  Lambeth (‘we are cyclists and car drivers’ says their website) are back on their Twitter anti cycling agenda...


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> People’s Front  of One  Lambeth (‘we are cyclists and car drivers’ says their website) are back on their Twitter anti cycling agenda...



It’s weird - it’s almost like they’re just a pro car lobby group…


----------



## alex_ (Jun 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s weird - it’s almost like they’re just a pro car lobby group…



a very pro disabled, pro cyclist car lobby


----------



## newbie (Jun 25, 2021)

I haven't regretted giving up on this thread, but I want to put this here in case it gets missed.  I said last year that all the new cyclists were being put in danger by the starry eyed propaganda from the cycling evangelists and here are some figures.









						Cyclist fatalities on British roads rose by 40% in 2020, says DfT
					

AA says increase revealed in official figures is ‘staggering’, as cycling groups blame dangerous driving




					www.theguardian.com
				





from Reported road casualties Great Britain, provisional results: 2020


I've no doubt I'll be told it's all the fault of the car drivers: none the less, a 40% increase in cycling deaths in a year when traffic has been so low and all other fatalities were well down is far more shocking than I anticipated.

My anecdata observation is that the standard of driving hasn't changed much, what's changed is the number of innocent but untrained and very inexperienced cyclists, who've been conned into thinking that the cosy LTNs make their journey safe.  They don't, it's still very dangerous to cycle on busy roads and the people who promote the fiction that that's changed bear a heavy responsibility.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 25, 2021)

newbie The number of deaths and KSIs proportionately decreased - more people cycling massive larger number of miles.

That’s even quoted in the guardian article:

“The DfT thus calculated that the overall casualty rate for cyclists, the number of deaths or injuries per mile travelled, fell by 34% in 2020 against the year before, the biggest drop for any road user type.”


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2021)

newbie said:


> I haven't regretted giving up on this thread, but I want to put this here in case it gets missed.  I said last year that all the new cyclists were being put in danger by the starry eyed propaganda from the cycling evangelists and here are some figures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This sounds quite a lot like victim blaming tbh.

Also, you’re blaming LTNs for these increased deaths, any evidence?

I got close passed on Brixton Water Lane yesterday by a guy on his phone whilst driving - he said I shouldn’t be in the middle of the lane… so many dangerous drivers and lots of hatred towards cyclists.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2021)

Also there’s something really wrong that nearly as many pedestrians and cyclists were killed as car users!


----------



## newbie (Jun 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> newbie The number of deaths and KSIs proportionately decreased - more people cycling massive larger number of miles.
> 
> That’s even quoted in the guardian article:
> 
> “The DfT thus calculated that the overall casualty rate for cyclists, the number of deaths or injuries per mile travelled, fell by 34% in 2020 against the year before, the biggest drop for any road user type.”


That's precisely my point.  New cyclists were encouraged onto the roads, every available bike was bought, and too many of them ended up dead or injured.
That doesn't count as success in my book.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 25, 2021)

newbie said:


> That's precisely my point.  New cyclists were encouraged onto the roads, every available bike was bought, and too many of them ended up dead or injured.
> That doesn't count as success in my book.


So cycling got safer but because more people cycled & that meant more deaths we should therefore just stop people cycling?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 25, 2021)

LTNs take up a tiny fraction of the total amount of all roads and have been in place since the 1970’s. How many fatalities were caused by other cyclists? I’m guessing close to 0. Speed is the biggest factor in many fatal road accidents. The main complaint against the new LTNs seems to be excess congestion, i.e. motorised vehicles not moving very fast so I can’t see that contributing to the deaths of cyclists. Being on your mobile phone whilst driving, I’ve lost count how many times I’ve seen it as a pedestrian. It’s clear however that a combination of better cycling infrastructure and education for all road users is the way forward, it feels way too confrontational from both sides at present stoked up by social media and some shock jocks.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 25, 2021)

newbie said:


> I haven't regretted giving up on this thread, but I want to put this here in case it gets missed.  I said last year that all the new cyclists were being put in danger by the starry eyed propaganda from the cycling evangelists and here are some figures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a staggering bit of victim blaming and deflection. Can you actually post up anything where people say it's safer to cycle on busy roads now?.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 25, 2021)

newbie said:


> That's precisely my point.  New cyclists were encouraged onto the roads, every available bike was bought, and too many of them ended up dead or injured.
> That doesn't count as success in my book.


No it doesn’t (mean that). It’s basic maths they teach 14 year olds.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 26, 2021)

Personally on the rush hour into City and West End number of cyclists has picked up. 

But with WFH less people are going into central London. 

So whilst more are cycling in WFH means less overall going in


----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Personally on the rush hour into City and West End number of cyclists has picked up.
> 
> But with WFH fewer people are going into central London.
> 
> So whilst more are cycling in WFH means fewer overall going in



Yep - numbers cycling in definitely much larger than before COVID and I imagine will increase even more as & when people start coming back.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 26, 2021)

If you actually read the report in the article you linked to newbie a few things stand out:


> Compared to other road users, pedal cyclist casualty rates saw the greatest reduction of 34% (Chart 6). This may be as a result of reduced motor vehicle traffic and increased pedal cyclist traffic .
> 
> For all road user types, and for car occupants, fatality rates increased in 2020 while casualty rates fell slightly in line with recent trends.
> 
> However, despite an increase in pedal cycle fatalities, there was a slight (4%) reduction in fatality rates for pedal cyclists


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> If you actually read the report in the article you linked to newbie a few things stand out:


I did read it. 140 cyclists are dead.  

We're not told to what extent pedestrian mileage has increased, though it clearly has, but if the cycling casualty rate had fallen to the same extent as pedestrians there would have been around 75 deaths.

That is not a successful strategy.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So cycling got safer but because more people cycled & that meant more deaths we should therefore just stop people cycling?



But we shouldn’t ban driving which kills at least 10x more people


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 26, 2021)

newbie said:


> I did read it. 140 cyclists are dead.
> 
> We're not told to what extent pedestrian mileage has increased, though it clearly has, but if the cycling casualty rate had fallen to the same extent as pedestrians there would have been around 75 deaths.
> 
> That is not a successful strategy.


Hang on, how do you know the rate for pedestrians when you don't know the mileage?


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Hang on, how do you know the rate for pedestrians when you don't know the mileage?


fairplay, my sloppy use of language.

We're not told to what extent pedestrian mileage has increased, though it clearly has, but if the cycling casualties had fallen to the same extent as pedestrians there would have been around 75 deaths.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 26, 2021)

We 


newbie said:


> I did read it. 140 cyclists are dead.
> 
> We're not told to what extent pedestrian mileage has increased, though it clearly has, but if the cycling casualty rate had fallen to the same extent as pedestrians there would have been around 75 deaths.
> 
> That is not a successful strategy.


Again, those stats are literally in the source you quoted - look at the DfT links in the article - it has updated stats on walking, cycling and driving rates and distances in the period covered.

As an aside, these are UK wide figures, not London specific.

But somehow a splashy, alarmist headline from the Automobile Association who state 

“Since day one, back in June 1905, our goal has been the same: to protect motorists and put their interests first” 

Seems to have you assuming their bias. 

If we’re doing anecdata, the level of cycling has increased so much that the present segregated infrastructure in some places is no longer big enough. Vauxhall Cross for example is rammed in commuting times and still busy outside those times. Same with the west end. Just look at the counters on the embankment paths.

The number of parents riding or scooting their children in LTNs and outside them is massively up and are still there on rainy days.

EBikes are inevitably outselling cars.


----------



## newbie (Jun 26, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> We
> 
> Again, those stats are literally in the source you quoted - look at the DfT links in the article - it has updated stats on walking, cycling and driving rates and distances in the period covered.
> 
> ...


Are you reading the same DFT report as me?  The one that says _'Pedestrian casualty rates will be provided in the September release when data on distance walked is available from the National Travel Survey_.'

I have nothing good to say about the AA or any other motorist first organisation.

Irresponsibly encouraging people to cycle before adequate safe infrastructure is in place has contributed to the excess number of cyclists killed.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 26, 2021)

Think you’ve just made the case for the mini Holland cycle ways planned


----------



## Winot (Jun 26, 2021)

newbie said:


> Irresponsibly encouraging people to cycle before adequate safe infrastructure is in place has contributed to the excess number of cyclists killed.


A rise in the number of cyclists persuades politicians to cater for cyclists.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 26, 2021)

newbie said:


> Are you reading the same DFT report as me?  The one that says _'Pedestrian casualty rates will be provided in the September release when data on distance walked is available from the National Travel Survey_.'
> 
> I have nothing good to say about the AA or any other motorist first organisation.
> 
> Irresponsibly encouraging people to cycle before adequate safe infrastructure is in place has contributed to the excess number of cyclists killed.


It's not an excess number, the rate is falling while the other rates are increasing. 

If you want some stats look at this, 70% of drivers exceeded the speed limit on residential roads (not your busy main roads) at the height of lockdown.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 26, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Jun 26, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>



To be fair, like the OneLambeth demo, it did conflict with an anti-mask anti-vaccine march again 😉


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 27, 2021)

Safer Streets for Tulse Hill came round asking for opinions yesterday. These were going to be forwarded onto our Councillors. I tried to give a balanced opinion of our LTN but it's pretty hard because of the pandemic and with the imminent ULEZ coming in there's many factors at play. Certainly our streets are quieter and more pleasant. I no longer have cars idling outside my window but I understand that people on main roads living in blocks may have a come off worse. Disabled badge holders should be exempt.

There still seems this view that to get from A->B you have to drive or take an Uber. I'm not sure the LTNs really alter people's minds on this.

? Our LTN appears to have been cancelled today with black tar over the signs?


----------



## Ol Nick (Jun 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> To be fair, like the OneLambeth demo, it did conflict with an anti-mask anti-vaccine march again 😉


Yesterday was the day of the micro-demo in central London. No sooner had the anti-vaxxers gone past than Extinction Rebellion turned up. Then the LTN guys then who knows what. You had to be very careful not to cheer or boo the wrong thing. Nice day for it though.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 27, 2021)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Safer Streets for Tulse Hill came round asking for opinions yesterday. These were going to be forwarded onto our Councillors. I tried to give a balanced opinion of our LTN but it's pretty hard because of the pandemic and with the imminent ULEZ coming in there seem. to be so many factors at play. Certainly our streets are quieter and more pleasant. I no longer have cars idling outside my window but I understand that people on main roads living in blocks may have a come off worse. Disabled badge holders should be exempt.
> 
> There still seems this view that to get from A->B you have to drive or take an Uber. I'm not sure the LTNs really alter people's minds on this.



this is a fair point - 2.5 million cars in London are subject to pay ulez from September. This is going to remove even more cars, force people to buy newer cars or just not use them.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 27, 2021)

I’m starting to think the Telegraph aren’t huge fans of LTNs.









						Low traffic neighbourhoods ‘will prevent priests from giving last rites’
					

Delays caused by green roads schemes will end in tears for the dying and their families, warns north London church leader




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## alex_ (Jun 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m starting to think the Telegraph aren’t huge fans of LTNs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If god didn’t want LTNs, why did he let them happen ?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 27, 2021)

alex_ said:


> If god didn’t want LTNs, why did he let them happen ?


😆 pretty conclusive proof God isn’t a catholic then.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 27, 2021)

Christ on a bike etc


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 27, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Christ on a bike etc


Very good


----------



## alex_ (Jun 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 😆 pretty conclusive proof God isn’t a catholic then



Or a driver


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 27, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Or a driver


That's the devil. But only when needs must. Not even he pops to the shops in an SUV.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

More “direct action” over the weekend with black tar like paint including on the benches on Upper Tulse Hill. These are used regularly, mainly by people that might struggle to walk far.

I guess these sort of actions would just put off undecided or neutral people and seem very self defeating.


----------



## Winot (Jun 28, 2021)

Fucks sake.


----------



## sparkybird (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> More “direct action” over the weekend with black tar like paint including on the benches on Upper Tulse Hill. These are used regularly, mainly by people that might struggle to walk far.
> 
> I guess these sort of actions would just put off undecided or neutral people and seem very self defeating.
> 
> View attachment 275684


Jeez, I'm sorry but putting that on the benches that's just fucking shit. Have you reported it? lowtrafficneighbourhoods@lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Jeez, I'm sorry but putting that on the benches that's just fucking shit. Have you reported it? lowtrafficneighbourhoods@lambeth.gov.uk


Yes, I’ve reported to there and included the local police email.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jun 28, 2021)

Saw the vandalism last night and honestly couldn't work out whether it was because the scheme being withdrawn or vandalism. ☹️
Pathetic.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> More “direct action” over the weekend with black tar like paint including on the benches on Upper Tulse Hill. These are used regularly, mainly by people that might struggle to walk far.
> 
> I guess these sort of actions would just put off undecided or neutral people and seem very self defeating.
> 
> View attachment 275684



the ironic thing is that ultimately this is likely to cause Lambeth to replace these with concrete bollards, which are much harder to vandalise, easier to maintain and much more permanent.

But I guess thinking and logic is hard for these people.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> More “direct action” over the weekend with black tar like paint including on the benches on Upper Tulse Hill. These are used regularly, mainly by people that might struggle to walk far.
> 
> I guess these sort of actions would just put off undecided or neutral people and seem very self defeating.
> 
> View attachment 275684


It’s almost as if a lot of the people opposing them are absolute cunts, isn’t it?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 28, 2021)

Actual direct action involves directly stopping something you don't think should happen or doing something you think should happen.
Taking out the ANPR cameras is direct action against an LTN, since it effectively removes the blocks.
This is not that. Even if you think the LTNs are such a huge moral injustice that direct action to remove them is justified, this doesn't do that. It just stops people using the bench without achieving anything else. Covering the sign so it only says "open" does not open the roads to motorised vehicles.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> More “direct action” over the weekend with black tar like paint including on the benches on Upper Tulse Hill. These are used regularly, mainly by people that might struggle to walk far.
> 
> I guess these sort of actions would just put off undecided or neutral people and seem very self defeating.
> 
> View attachment 275684


youre making assumptions again - this could be fixed or squirrels or a false flag attack…, 

Much like cutting down flowers or ripping out plants this just says we hate the community and don’t want to be part of it - Im not interested  in these nice things so I don’t want anyone else to enjoy them either.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 28, 2021)

False flag attack? What is that in this context?
Obviously were are not talking Antifada attacking the Capitol here.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

Love Lambeth
					

A High Court judge has rejected a legal challenge to Lambeth’s “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” (LTNs), in a judgement published today (28 June). Below is the council’s response to the ruling.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## alex_ (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Love Lambeth
> 
> 
> A High Court judge has rejected a legal challenge to Lambeth’s “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods” (LTNs), in a judgement published today (28 June). Below is the council’s response to the ruling.
> ...


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

Obviously this is good news but genuinely concerned what the reaction will be from people that have put a lot of money into this. Average donation is £50 and a lot have put much more then that in.

Also, think OneLambeth are liable for some of the council's costs but not sure if the fundraising covered this.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Obviously this is good news but genuinely concerned what the reaction will be from people that have put a lot of money into this. Average donation is £50 and a lot have put much more then that in.
> 
> Also, think OneLambeth are liable for some of the council's costs but not sure if the fundraising covered this.


Capped at £5,000, according to their Gofundme.

Any good conspiracy theories about how the judge's spouse's cousin's brother-in-law was once spotted near a bike yet?


----------



## Winot (Jun 28, 2021)

Has anyone seen the published decision? Can't seem to find it yet.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

This is apparently the judges notes:

_That the experimental traffic orders are not part of genuine experiments_

I do not think there is any merit in these arguments.  I am not prepared to draw the inference that the experimental nature of the LTNs and the ETOs made to maintain them, is other than genuine. 


_Breach of the public sector equality duty_

I turn to my reasoning and conclusions on this ground of challenge.  I have already accepted that the ETOs were made by way of a genuine experiment.  I therefore accept that the function being exercised when the decision of 9 October 2020 was taken was the function of initiating the experiment.  It was not a decision to introduce the LTNs on a permanent basis. 

Next, I accept Mr Mould’s submission that the duty is not a duty to carry out an assessment.  It is a duty to have due regard to what can be called the equality objectives.  Assessment is the tool used to create the evidence base to show performance of the duty.  It is not the performance of the duty itself.  There is no necessary breach of the duty where no formal assessment has been done. 

In my judgment, the evidence is clear: it was the coronavirus epidemic and the resulting statutory guidance that led to abandonment of that conventional and leisurely approach to introducing LTNs.  The Secretary of State urged local authorities to take radical and almost immediate measures to enhance walking and cycling and pointed to their power to do so using TTOs and ETOs. 

Lambeth responded by adopting the TSP less than a week after the statutory guidance was published.  Equality issues were not overlooked; the report to which the TSP was attached noted that the TSIP had been “subject to a full E[Q]IA”; and stated that “[a]ll Traffic Orders required as part of the Response will be subject to E[Q]IA”. 

In my judgment, Mr Mould is right to submit that the director incontestably had some regard to the equality objectives and the question is whether the regard he had was sufficient to qualify as due regard.  He was not aware of the detailed findings made up to that point but I do not think that unawareness is sufficient to condemn his regard for equality objectives as less than what was due. 

In my judgment, there was enough consideration of equality objectives in the October report to qualify as due regard to those objectives.  That included, legitimately, consideration of the point that the same equality objectives would be looked at further, in much more detail and with a sharpened focus, at later stages in the statutory process. 

For those brief reasons, I prefer Lambeth’s submissions to those of the claimant.  She has demonstrated that her particular problem of dependence on car transport with increased journey times and stress, was not identified until after the operative decision in October 2020; but she has not demonstrated that Lambeth thereby, or at all, breached the public sector equality duty. 

I therefore dismiss that ground of challenge.  If I had found a breach of the duty, I would have considered making a declaration to that effect but I would not, in all the circumstances, have been willing to condemn outright and quash the relevant ETOs.  They are not yet set in stone and consideration of them is, or should be, ongoing and subject to further assessment, over and above the EQIAs that have been carried out since the decision in October 2020. 


_Section 122 of RTRA_ 

On this ground, I found Lambeth’s submissions compelling and unanswerable.  While it is possible that an LTN could be introduced without the section 122 factors being properly weighed against each other – for example, if only the pro-neighbourhood amenity factors were considered and the pro-vehicle traffic factors ignored and left out of account – that certainly did not happen here. 

There is ample evidence of the balancing exercise being performed, in the passages in the extracts to which I was taken by Mr Mould from the TSIP, the TSP and the October report, the latter two documents responding positively to the strong steer from the Secretary of State to draw the balance in a particular way owing the unusual circumstances of the coronavirus epidemic. 

I agree with Mr Mould that it is difficult to have a discussion of the advantages of LTNs at all unless in the course of the discussion you measure their virtues against the interests of motor vehicle users.  Thus, for example, the very act of prohibiting rat running is intended to inconvenience the rat runners by keeping them out of the LTN, thereby probably lengthening their journey. 

I conclude that the claimant is wrong to say there is no evidence of the balance being struck; there is plenty of evidence of it being struck; and the unusual circumstances in which these LTNs came into being makes that not in the least surprising.  I dismiss this ground of challenge. 


_Failure to consult properly/inadequate consultation_ 

I agree with Lambeth that this ground of challenge is without merit.  The claimant cannot fashion from a supposed legitimate expectation an obligation to consult going above and beyond the limited obligations imposed under the 1996 Regulations.  The two communications from the Secretary of State do not begin to support such an expectation. 

Nor do I accept that the claimant can complain of an irrational choice of organisations with which to consult.  There is nothing irrational about consulting a cycling organisation about measures to encourage cycling.  The omission to consult the charity dasl is not actionable; there was no obligation to consult that organisation and it was not irrational to omit it from the list; it can contribute to the debate via the objections procedure if it wishes to do so.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

Sounds like some lawyers have done rather well out of all of this….


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 28, 2021)

CH1 said:


> False flag attack? What is that in this context?
> Obviously were are not talking Antifada attacking the Capitol here.


someone suggested upthread that the planter vandalism was by supporters of LTNs to make the anti's look like car obsessed arseholes.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 28, 2021)

__





						Sheakh, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 1745 (Admin) (28 June 2021)
					





					www.bailii.org


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

Deleted - liquidindian got there first.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

OneLambeth Twitter account as laughable as ever:


----------



## Winot (Jun 28, 2021)

They can't have it both ways - if they want to raise a legal challenge (as is their right) they can't complain when Lambeth defends it.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 28, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> someone suggested upthread that the planter vandalism was by supporters of LTNs to make the anti's look like car obsessed arseholes.


That was me,I think I said aggressive and unreasonable and I said it was a possibility not a certainty... 🙂


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> OneLambeth Twitter account as laughable as ever:
> 
> View attachment 275739


Oh dear, how sad, etc etc.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> OneLambeth Twitter account as laughable as ever:
> 
> View attachment 275739


They also employed a QC and had 35k behind them.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 28, 2021)

Winot said:


> They can't have it both ways - if they want to raise a legal challenge (as is their right) they can't complain when Lambeth defends it.


also "we are in talks with our legal team about an appeal"

Where was the post where chowce5382 said they'd accept the courts judgement?  (Also that one lambeth account he claims to have nothing to do with talking about 'we' again....)


chowce5382 said:


> This is why we are going to court, these are very technical questions but with overriding humans rights issues. I know what it think but ultimately we decided to put ourselves in the hands of a judge so that we could see what is lawful or not. To me this seemed like the best outcome. We ask the experts whether the process is legal or not.



Interestingly the judge clearly says that he would NOT have quashed the ETOs even if he _had_ found Lambeth had breached equality duties. It will be interesting to see whether 1L supporters will throw more money at this when it's clear that there is no way this legal route is going to lead to the LTNs being removed:


> ....has not demonstrated that Lambeth thereby, or at all, breached the public sector equality duty.
> 
> I therefore dismiss that ground of challenge.  If I had found a breach of the duty, I would have considered making a declaration to that effect but I would not, in all the circumstances, have been willing to condemn outright and quash the relevant ETOs.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

chowce5382 - you may need to up date the fundraiser as you've met their target now and with the court case result it's unsure what any money now donated will be for: OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth


----------



## alex_ (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> chowce5382 - you may need to up date the fundraiser as you've met their target now and with the court case result it's unsure what any money now donated will be for: OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 28, 2021)

I think we can add "we want a legal opinion / not that legal opinion" to "we want data / not that data" and "we want a mayoral election / not that result"


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2021)

Maybe the reason they didn't go into the arguments on here was because they were so thin, arguing that it wasn't an experiment?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 28, 2021)

There’s talk of an appeal but that might just be a knee jerk reaction to the verdict as presumably more funds would be needed.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 28, 2021)

The law firm reckon they can make some more money out of this.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 28, 2021)

Going back to @newbie’s comments that it was irresponsible to let more cyclists on the streets, bigger analysis of the road safety stats has been done - which proves just the opposite.

“The fatality data does show a huge 40% increase in cyclist deaths. Over a third of these happened in the ‘lockdown months’ of April – June when we saw the biggest rise in cycling, which was associated with quieter roads and largely fair weather. When the 45.7% increase in cycling is taken into consideration however this means that ‘cycling became 14% safer’.”

Comprehensive KSI analysis (of all forms of transport) here:









						Record low road deaths but did our roads actually become more dangerous?
					

The provisional 2020 Great Britain casualty data has been released by the DfT and shows a record low number of road deaths but the story behind […]




					agilysis.co.uk
				




And the National Statistics updated data: Reported road casualties in Great Britain, provisional estimates: year ending June 2020

With more pedestrian and cycling analysis on September.

Turns out that older people may be dying more in car crashes as they weren’t used to driving after a period of absence.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2021)

Here is the CV of the lawyer who its said here just wants to make money out of this.





__





						Anne-Marie Irwin | Rook Irwin Sweeney - Public Law. Human Rights.
					






					rookirwinsweeney.co.uk
				




She seems to me to be one of those in the legal profession who try to use their skills to take up social issues.



> In recent years Anne-Marie has acted in landmark judicial reviews seeking a change to the law on assisted dying in England & Wales and against central government, challenging its funding policy for Special Educational Needs & Disabilities. She is also a trustee of the Globe Community Project, a charity working with communities in east London, and has conducted international trial monitoring and reporting with the Solicitors International Human Rights Group and EuroMed Rights.


----------



## Winot (Jun 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The law firm reckon they can make some more money out of this.
> 
> View attachment 275838


Any idea if the quoting of Kerr J is accurate? I couldn’t see any discussion of appeal in the judgement.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2021)

Here is what Sofia says, the disabled lady who took the case. She says she is unwell. I hope the strain of taking on Lambeth isn't taking to much of a toll on her.

Looks like she and her legal team are looking at appealing




Can't get link to work. Its on public view on Sofia FB.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 28, 2021)

Winot said:


> Any idea if the quoting of Kerr J is accurate? I couldn’t see any discussion of appeal in the judgement.


Standard text isn’t it? Section 190:


For those reasons, I grant permission to bring the judicial review claim but dismiss that claim; and I dismiss the claim brought under Part 8 of the CPR for statutory review.
He does dismiss all of the OL arguments in the case.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 28, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Here is the CV of the lawyer who its said here just wants to make money out of this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think Ed said law firm rather than making it personal. My experience of barristers is that they do cases on both sides of the divide.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 28, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> She seems to me to be one of those in the legal profession who try to use their skills to take up social issues


Ah, sorry, if you're taking money that's been pooled together by a bunch of people (what is tax but mandatory crowdfunding?) then that's a bad thing. Just ask the mysterious person running the OLJ twitter account.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2021)

Sounds like they didn't lose after all, read the embedded letter.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I think Ed said law firm rather than making it personal. My experience of barristers is that they do cases on both sides of the divide.



The poster quoted a specific person after saying this. Which is why I looked them up. 

So instead your saying its the law firm she works for who are just trying to make money out of this?


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Ah, sorry, if you're taking money that's been pooled together by a bunch of people (what is tax but mandatory crowdfunding?) then that's a bad thing. Just ask the mysterious person running the OLJ twitter account.



So your saying she is corrupt.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 28, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> The poster quoted a specific person after saying this. Which is why I looked them up.
> 
> So instead your saying its the law firm she works for who are just trying to make money out of this?


Nope, I’m just posting that he said law firm not person


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2021)

It might be idea that disabled people should get full coverage through legal aid to pursue a JR like this.

Then any arguments about where money came from would not happen.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Nope, I’m just posting that he said law firm not person



Then put a quote from a specific person.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 28, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Nope, I’m just posting that he said law firm not person



So you don't agree with the original post. I'm a bit lost here with what you are getting at.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 28, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So you don't agree with the original post. I'm a bit lost here with what you are getting at.


1. Edcraw said that the law firm were trying to make more money
2. You ran with that and tried to insinuate that he was talking about the individual barrister named in his quote
3. I challenged your interpretation of that
4. You then accused me that I believed the law firm were trying to make more money out of the case
All of which are classic deflection techniques.
To be clear, I’m pleased that the law has been upheld. I hope that more money is not spent on legal matters that could be spent on our communities


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 28, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So your saying she is corrupt.


No, I didn't set this standard. I think she's a person being paid to do a job, like the guy doing the same for the council.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2021)

double post


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2021)

I know about the law firm and know they do a lot of good work but reading the judgement I can’t see how the £35k has been worth it & can’t see how spending more money is going to help anyone. The judge says that even if he had ruled against the council he wouldn’t have quashed the traffic orders. (Law firms do still have to make money, it doesn’t look like they’re acting pro bono here and this is getting them publicity).

Gramsci - do you have any view on the judgement?


----------



## Winot (Jun 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Standard text isn’t it? Section 190:
> 
> 
> For those reasons, I grant permission to bring the judicial review claim but dismiss that claim; and I dismiss the claim brought under Part 8 of the CPR for statutory review.
> He does dismiss all of the OL arguments in the case.


No, that’s his summary of his decision in this case (“grant permission to bring the judicial review claim” = Sheakh has passed legal test to be able to bring JR claim at first instance). No mention of right to appeal.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2021)

Yeah, not sure where the judge mentioned the appeal - doesn’t seem to be on the written judgement or any idea what the appeal would be based on.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 29, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Sounds like they didn't lose after all, read the embedded letter.



I’ve skimmed this twice and already spotted 2 fundamental factual errors that are answered by google or the Justice Kerr text...


----------



## Winot (Jun 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah, not sure where the judge mentioned the appeal - doesn’t seem to be on the written judgement or any idea what the appeal would be based on.


The right to appeal is normally dealt with in the judgment. Perhaps chowce5382 can enlighten us.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 29, 2021)

Totally normal. OLJ calling Claire Holland ‘part of a sick cult’. They seem to be scaling up abuse:



“What a piece of filth that you scrape of a turd @willnorman is. Celebrating a judgement against a disabled member of the community. This ladies & gentlemen is the Cycling Lobby. Vile. Inhuman. Selfish. Scum. They’re like vermin.”

With Ed / Buzz now apparently biased against them (and Sofia complaining about it on twitter).


----------



## Jesterburger (Jun 29, 2021)

The escalation of language from the antis is really quite scary.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 29, 2021)

Meanwhile the actual tweet they are talking about couldn’t be more factual, or less celebratory


----------



## BigTom (Jun 29, 2021)

plus they will tell us to wait for the legal judgement, will you accept it when it comes etc and then go like that.
Due legal process? Only when it works for them. Otherwise sticking by due legal process makes you vile, inhuman, selfish scum apparently.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 29, 2021)

I've reported some of Gramsci's tweets. They really are vile


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

a_chap said:


> I've reported some of Gramsci's tweets. They really are vile


Gramsci ? I think you might have got him mixed up with someone else?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

Having been away for a couple of weeks this is good news to come back to.

Not so great to see the ugliness on Twitter seemingly escalated further. Here's what's going round today including on the one Lambeth justice account.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Gramsci ? I think you might have got him mixed up with someone else?



Quite possibly. I have a shocking memory for names. Trying to keep track of twitter names and Urban names. I forget my own name sometimes.

In which case, my apologies to Gramsci if they've never posted anything even remotely vile.

I've reported someone, anyway.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Having been away for a couple of weeks this is good news to come back to.
> 
> Not so great to see the ugliness on Twitter seemingly escalated further. Here's what's going round today including on the one Lambeth justice account.
> 
> View attachment 275895


This is where it ends up if their resonable supporters don't call this crap out and instead make excuses.

This “fuck tfl” slogan is written on the planter by Holy Trinity primary school!



It's been covered up with hearts:


----------



## nick (Jun 29, 2021)

Palace Road / Daysbrook road this morning
(the camera has been painted over as well)
Whatever the view on LTNs, on what planet is such behaviour acceptable ?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

a_chap said:


> Quite possibly. I have a shocking memory for names. Trying to keep track of twitter names and Urban names. I forget my own name sometimes.
> 
> In which case, my apologies to Gramsci if they've never posted anything even remotely vile.
> 
> I've reported someone, anyway.


I've never seen Gramsci post anything 'vile' here and I don't know if he even uses twitter.

It's also a bit against etiquette to link people's urban75 and other identities unless you're sure they are happy for you to do so.


----------



## BusLanes (Jun 29, 2021)

I wonder if the prospect of the court case winning now gone means an upsurge in defacement or sabotage?

That's not to say an appeal won't happen, but getting that organised and the money is a big job.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's also a bit against etiquette to link people's urban75 and other identities unless you're sure they are happy for you to do so.



I haven't linked anyone's U75 identity to any Twitter accounts.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Totally normal. OLJ calling Claire Holland ‘part of a sick cult’. They seem to be scaling up abuse:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm banned from their FB group and no one sent me a press release,. but I'm stil expected to chase after them for a statement   

Anyway I published this One Lambeth respond to the High Court’s rejection of their challenge to Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods


----------



## newbie (Jun 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Going back to @newbie’s comments that it was irresponsible to let more cyclists on the streets, bigger analysis of the road safety stats has been done - which proves just the opposite.
> 
> “The fatality data does show a huge 40% increase in cyclist deaths. Over a third of these happened in the ‘lockdown months’ of April – June when we saw the biggest rise in cycling, which was associated with quieter roads and largely fair weather. When the 45.7% increase in cycling is taken into consideration however this means that ‘cycling became 14% safer’.”
> 
> ...


That blogpost doesn't '_prove_' anything, it's just an attempt to use statistics to endorse policy irrespective of outcome.  It appears to be written by someone whose background is in '_active travel interventions_'. It doesn't use the words '_collateral damage_' but that's clearly how all those dead cyclists are viewed.

The only group of road users with increased fatalities during the year of lockdowns and reduced traffic was cyclists, in particular there were fewer pedestrians and motorcyclists killed.  Yet one of the things I notice is that people and groups who might otherwise be putting out white bicycles, holding vigils and using words like '_carnage_' are noticeably more than just silent, they are actively attempting to endorse what's happened as showing that cycling is safer!  

To my mind that's irresponsible.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2021)

newbie said:


> That blogpost doesn't '_prove_' anything, it's just an attempt to use statistics to endorse policy irrespective of outcome.  It appears to be written by someone whose background is in '_active travel interventions_'. It doesn't use the words '_collateral damage_' but that's clearly how all those dead cyclists are viewed.
> 
> The only group of road users with increased fatalities during the year of lockdowns and reduced traffic was cyclists, in particular there were fewer pedestrians and motorcyclists killed.  Yet one of the things I notice is that people and groups who might otherwise be putting out white bicycles, holding vigils and using words like '_carnage_' are noticeably more than just silent, they are actively attempting to endorse what's happened as showing that cycling is safer!
> 
> To my mind that's irresponsible.



I’m not sure anyone’s arguing that cycling is safe - in fact the opposite it needs to be made safer. You’re answer just seems to be to stop people cycling!

Wonder what you’re going to say when this year’s car death figures are released and inevitably show an increase?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2021)

editor said:


> I'm banned from their FB group and no one sent me a press release,. but I'm stil expected to chase after them for a statement
> 
> Anyway I published this One Lambeth respond to the High Court’s rejection of their challenge to Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods



They also seem happy to publish your DMs as well….


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> They also seem happy to publish your DMs as well….


Could you PM me screengrabs please?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

newbie said:


> The only group of road users with increased fatalities during the year of lockdowns and reduced traffic was cyclists, in particular there were fewer pedestrians and motorcyclists killed.  Yet one of the things I notice is that people and groups who might otherwise be putting out white bicycles, holding vigils and using words like '_carnage_' are noticeably more than just silent, they are actively attempting to endorse what's happened as showing that cycling is safer!



Who are these people and groups who are "silent"? I mean specifically? Give us some twitter accounts or whatever it is you are talking about.

I see people using these figures to point out that cyclists are safer when there are fewer cars on the roads. 

Your strange reasoning suggests that anyone who does stuff like holding vigils for cyclists killed on the roads, should also be campaigning for fewer people to cycle. Not just in the light of these figures, but generally.

This is a bit like noting that many house fires start in kitchens, and saying that it's irresponsible to encourage people to cook at home. Instead of campaigning for things that reduce the danger, such as getting people to fit smoke alarms, or stopping manufacturers from selling dodgy appliances, or resisting cuts to firefighting services.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 29, 2021)

newbie said:


> That blogpost doesn't '_prove_' anything, it's just an attempt to use statistics to endorse policy irrespective of outcome.  It appears to be written by someone whose background is in '_active travel interventions_'. It doesn't use the words '_collateral damage_' but that's clearly how all those dead cyclists are viewed.
> 
> The only group of road users with increased fatalities during the year of lockdowns and reduced traffic was cyclists, in particular there were fewer pedestrians and motorcyclists killed.  Yet one of the things I notice is that people and groups who might otherwise be putting out white bicycles, holding vigils and using words like '_carnage_' are noticeably more than just silent, they are actively attempting to endorse what's happened as showing that cycling is safer!
> 
> To my mind that's irresponsible.


You have a really fucking weird way of looking at this.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 29, 2021)

I know Twitter is generally a sewer, but there’s a certain level of qanon/ woo-anon to some of the main OLJ supporters - apparently ‘Kerr recommended an appeal against his own ruling” and appeal papers have already been lodged.


editor said:


> I'm banned from their FB group and no one sent me a press release,. but I'm stil expected to chase after them for a statement
> 
> Anyway I published this One Lambeth respond to the High Court’s rejection of their challenge to Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods


they're


editor said:


> I'm banned from their FB group and no one sent me a press release,. but I'm stil expected to chase after them for a statement
> 
> Anyway I published this One Lambeth respond to the High Court’s rejection of their challenge to Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods


according to one of them on twitter it was because you made abusive comments!


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 29, 2021)

^^ failing to mulitquote whilst queuing in the post office...


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

a_chap said:


> I haven't linked anyone's U75 identity to any Twitter accounts.


Sure, not exactly, but you've suggested there's an identifiable link between a U75 poster and their twitter account, and also suggested that they are posting nasty stuff there. I quite often disagree with Gramsci but he's a long standing and thoughtful poster and I'd be really surprised if he was acting otherwise on twitter - I just think it's unfair to leave that suggestion out there with the potential for people to jump to very wrong conclusions about who is who and what they are saying in different places.


----------



## editor (Jun 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> according to one of them on twitter it was because you made abusive comments!


I never made 'abusive' comments on their FB page. 

Meanwhile, some prick called Jonathon Price has taken to calling me an 'arsehole' via private message on Facebook because he was told that OneLambeth sent me a press release which I ignored.

Except I received no press release and instead had to copy their statement from another Facebook page.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 29, 2021)




----------



## spitfire (Jun 29, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Totally normal. OLJ calling Claire Holland ‘part of a sick cult’. They seem to be scaling up abuse:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




One Tower Hamlets has been causing our local councillors all sorts of grief and is a deranged stalking obsessed cunt. He's horrible.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 29, 2021)

The lawyers use of “human rights” here is interesting - particularly “Lambeth have already admitted that they are breaching human rights” - this isn’t even a fair quote of the telegraph article which says “may interfering with the human rights of residents”.

this feels so naive it’s disingenuous and exploitative.

human rights are not absolute - my right to be a dick does not overrule your right not to suffer my dickery.

the lawyers must know this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 29, 2021)

a_chap said:


> I've reported some of Gramsci's tweets. They really are vile



I think you've got me mixed up with someone else.

I hardly use Twitter. 

I don't think Twitter or FB brings out best in people. So tend to avoid them as far as messaging goes. I also look at it sparingly.


----------



## Gramsci (Jun 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I know about the law firm and know they do a lot of good work but reading the judgement I can’t see how the £35k has been worth it & can’t see how spending more money is going to help anyone. The judge says that even if he had ruled against the council he wouldn’t have quashed the traffic orders. (Law firms do still have to make money, it doesn’t look like they’re acting pro bono here and this is getting them publicity).
> 
> Gramsci - do you have any view on the judgement?



I think its disappointing. Was hoping that some negative criticism from Judge would push Lambeth to give Blue Badge holders exemption.

JR don't stop executive from enacting decisions in the end. Cressingham "regeneration" is still on despite Lambeth losing one JR. Cressingham are fundraising for a new one.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 29, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I think you've got me mixed up with someone else.



I clearly have.

Please accept my apologies.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 29, 2021)

editor said:


> I never made 'abusive' comments on their FB page.
> 
> Meanwhile, some prick called Jonathon Price has taken to calling me an 'arsehole' via private message on Facebook because he was told that OneLambeth sent me a press release which I ignored.
> 
> Except I received no press release and instead had to copy their statement from another Facebook page.


is that what is referred to here.....


edcraw said:


> They also seem happy to publish your DMs as well….


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 29, 2021)

Puzzled by a couple of the Onesies claims I've had a look at the judgement: 
*- Oval LTN is "illegal". "*

the judge's decision here was that -
_1.              [THE ETOs for Oval] are valid and must be respected.  The absence of authority when they were made is regrettable but even during the six week period before they became impregnable against challenge, the want of authority objection was technical: Lambeth clearly intended them to be made and intended the director concerned to have authority to make them._

*-  "the council have stated implementation of LTNs was more important that peoples human rights"*
(below is from a comment on the BB story.  not sure what link they're talking about? The Telegraph story?)
_The actual report itself – see link – says that the LTN may interfere with the rights to enjoyment of property (e.g., using a car),or respect for home – by restricting the driving routes to it. Any traffic measure might. But the report goes on to justify those interferences. In other words, Lambeth’s view is that the LTN measures do not breach human rights. _

The statement they've put out also just repeats all the claims the judge dismissed as being false or irrelevant ...

Finally, just on the point that the Onesies have always been clear when fundraising that this was about the rights of disabled drivers, I noticed the poster they were using at their protest in that tweet upthread....


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 29, 2021)

Still they push the lie that roads have been “shut”.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I think its disappointing. Was hoping that some negative criticism from Judge would push Lambeth to give Blue Badge holders exemption.



I've just had a read through of the judgement. This is just my lay interpretation of what it all means. Some of it is quite technical, but it seems to me that those technical bits aren't really the important bits. By that I mean that I don't think Lambeth have got away on technicalities.

He doesn't really criticise Lambeth - essentially he says that the way they have implemented the schemes is lawful, and that includes the questions of whether they carried out their equalities assessments adequately and whether they consulted adequately. In both cases he seems to have decided that yes they did, in the context of these particular schemes and the times in which they were implemented. He says that the decision might have been different in a different context - but he's looked at in the context that actually existed. That includes of course the Covid crisis and the direction from central government to implement changes very rapidly. So he is examining a process that starts with Lambeth considering various schemes to be brought in over a 3 year period, that is suddenly accelerated and results in various things being brought in very quickly using a different method than originally envisaged.

As part of this he talks quite a bit of things being assessed and adjusted on a rolling basis. This includes the equality considerations. He seems to think that Lambeth are genuinely considering issues on this "rolling" basis. That means that he does not necessarily criticise them for not having made mitigations so far - but this certainly doesn't mean that he considers this process complete. In other words there seems to be an expectation that various mitigations will be adopted in due course, and based on the outcome of ongoing monitoring and consultation. He talks about the decision having been made to exempt SEND vehicles - even though this has not yet actually been done. It seems to be OK that it has not yet been done but it would not be OK if they fail to do it in a reasonable time. So - I don't see anything in the judgement that tells Lambeth they shouldn't or don't need to consider a blue badge exemption.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

The other thing that runs throughout the judgement is the notion that this kind of decision making has to weigh benefits for one group against disbenefits for another. It seems to acknowledge that you can't implement changes that are in the wider interest without making things worse for some people. There is a lot of talk about balancing exercises. Of course, while you might have to accept that you will cause some inconvenience for some people, you also have to try and make sure it's not disproportionate or unacceptably severe.

I'd slightly misunderstood how this case would be assessed - I'd thought it would take the claimant's case as a kind of "example" case and look at her particular situation, and look at the effects on her, and decide whether or not they were unacceptably severe and then somehow extrapolate that to a wider judgement. But that's not really what it is at all - the particulars of her case seem not to be significant (is the involvement of a 'claimant' merely a technical requirement?) and it's all about whether or not Lambeth have demonstrated that they have given sufficient thought to weighing up benefits and disbenefits in a more general sense.

As far as the claimant is concerned, I simply can't say whether or not _I_ think she's been unreasonably affected, because I don't know the full details of her situation, which are none of my business unless she chooses to share and discuss them, and there's no reason she should be expected to do that. No-one, of course, wants to say that someone who's already been disadvantaged by severe health problems should just have to put up with some further disadvantage. However, the response to this is that there are lots of people with severe health problems who are disadvantaged by the status quo - and this has to be balanced against those who will be disadvantaged by the changes.


----------



## Winot (Jun 29, 2021)

Yep. Also important to note that the court wasn’t required to look at whether Lambeth made the *correct* decisions - only to check that they had gone through the right process when reaching those decisions.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 29, 2021)

I think the issue with the Blue Badges though is that they could be allowed through LTNRs without compromising the ideals and benefits of the scheme but benefiting those in need.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I think the issue with the Blue Badges though is that they could be allowed through LTNRs without compromising the ideals and benefits of the scheme but benefiting those in need.


Which is why pretty much everyone posting on this thread seems to think that such an exemption would be a good idea.


----------



## nagapie (Jun 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Which is why pretty much everyone posting on this thread seems to think that such an exemption would be a good idea.


I wasn't saying they were but it's not the people on here who have to give it, it's Lambeth. Why haven't they done this already? Maybe plans are afoot, happy to be updated.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 29, 2021)

Disappointed. Keen to see what they do now. Are transcritps available yet?

Still confused over appeal, in one article it claims the judge invited it?!


----------



## alex_ (Jun 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Which is why pretty much everyone posting on this thread seems to think that such an exemption would be a good idea.



You kind of have to wonder if Lambeth are holding onto this for a last minute concession, rather than giving in too soon.

if so this would be quite a hostile strategy


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2021)

OneLambeth are quoting para 110 of the judgement as the part that gives them right to appeal - however this part is dealt with later in para 168. All rather misleading.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2021)

Doesn't para 110 just tell them that he's willing to hear the case? He's heard the case and concluded that there isn't one. I don't think it's got anything to do with appeals.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 29, 2021)

I believe that the judge has not refused appeal which I believe (caveats galore here) is not that common. You'd need a legal expert to say what that really means, though.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Doesn't para 110 just tell them that he's willing to hear the case? He's heard the case and concluded that there isn't one. I don't think it's got anything to do with appeals.


Exactly - if they’re saying this on Twitter I wonder what they’re saying in the Facebook group and whether they’re looking to raise more money for an appeal.

I’m guessing chowce5382 isn’t coming back but maybe he can shed some light on what grounds they might appeal on.


----------



## Winot (Jun 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Doesn't para 110 just tell them that he's willing to hear the case? He's heard the case and concluded that there isn't one. I don't think it's got anything to do with appeals.


This is correct I think.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 29, 2021)

It'd be really strange if they were refused appeal, but it's difficult to see what they could actually appeal from that case.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Disappointed. Keen to see what they do now. Are transcritps available yet?
> 
> Still confused over appeal, in one article it claims the judge invited it?!


If you look back through the thread, I'm sure someone posted a link to the full judgement.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 30, 2021)

BigTom said:


> If you look back through the thread, I'm sure someone posted a link to the full judgement.



The judgement and the transcript are two different things. It would be nice to see what each side said


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 30, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> It'd be really strange if they were refused appeal, but it's difficult to see what they could actually appeal from that case.



From what I understand it is strange to refuse appeal. The judge did it with the taxi case they were so sure of their judgement. They went from four out of five points uphled to case lost.

IN this case news articles seem to indicate the judge invited appeal....which is strange and why the transcripts would be interesting.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> From what I understand it is strange to refuse appeal. The judge did it with the taxi case they were so sure of their judgement. They went from four out of five points uphled to case lost.
> 
> IN this case news articles seem to indicate the judge invited appeal....which is strange and why the transcripts would be interesting.


News articles might just have been written from the onelambeth press release that claimed that. No reason to assume they had a reporter in court or have looked at the transcript themselves


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2021)

Transcripts aren’t always produced. Only if the parties pay for them.

Based solely on the judgement, appeal was neither refused nor encouraged. There may have been comments at the time from the judge that weren’t in the judgement. I guess we’ll find out in due course.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 30, 2021)

Onesies making much of the judge saying their appeal had a "real prospect of success". I googled to see what that phrase actually means in legal terms and it seems its just the minimum threshold to ensure  it's not a complete waste of everyones time. 





__





						Seeking Permission to Appeal with a ‘Real Prospect of Success’: R (A Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 895
					

BC Legal Ltd is a new boutique law firm specialising exclusively in defendant occupational disease litigation.



					www.bc-legal.co.uk


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2021)

My sign off from a FB thread where they're bizarrely denying that they're a well funded campaign group and that their first crowdfunder didn't happen. 



> I referred to that page right at the start. So now you're saying that the OneLambeth crowdfunder was not actually a OneLambeth crowdfunder at all? So where did that money go?
> 
> But I'll tell you what. I have never come across such a belligerent campaign group in all my years of campaigning. Despite Brixton Buzz publishing more anti-LTN statements than any other media outlet (go on, check), I get shouted down for failing to immediately publish a statement (that was never sent to me), while I remain banned from the FB group so I have no idea what's going on. And then some prick starts abusing me via PM.
> 
> ...


----------



## alex_ (Jun 30, 2021)

editor said:


> My sign off from a FB thread where they're bizarrely denying that they're a well funded campaign group and that their first crowdfunder didn't happen.



This totally doesn’t sound like a scam


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2021)

alex_ said:


> This totally doesn’t sound like a scam


Most campaign groups struggle to reach £500.
Their first crowdfunder that closed in Nov 2020 raised £2,180 to finance themselves,  while their second one for legal fees reached a huge £35,000. 

But apparently they doesn't make them a well funded campaign group. 









						OneLambeth
					

A resident-led campaign shining a light on 'low traffic neighbourhoods' (LTNs) in Lambeth.




					www.crowdfunder.co.uk
				











						OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

In May 2020, Lambeth Council began closing residential roads to create “Low Traffic Neighb… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge




					www.gofundme.com


----------



## alex_ (Jun 30, 2021)

editor said:


> Most campaign groups struggle to reach £500.
> Their first crowdfunder that closed in Nov 2020 raised £2,180 to finance themselves,  while their second one for legal fees reached a huge £35,000.
> 
> But apparently they doesn't make them a well funded campaign group.
> ...


Trebles all round !


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 30, 2021)

We hear so many complaints about filtered roads "dividing local communities" and about the troubles of local people who need to move their fridge freezer on the regular or whatever. And yet it turns out that 82% of PCNs for people who refuse or cannae be bothered to follow the rules in Hackney are for people who don't live in Hackney.









						Council raises £2.7m by fining drivers for breaching LTNs
					

Hackney Council has raked in £2.7m by fining drivers £130-a-pop for breaching controversial low traffic neighbourhood (LTN)...




					www.hackneygazette.co.uk


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 30, 2021)

editor said:


> Most campaign groups struggle to reach £500.
> Their first crowdfunder that closed in Nov 2020 raised £2,180 to finance themselves,  while their second one for legal fees reached a huge £35,000.
> 
> But apparently they doesn't make them a well funded campaign group.
> ...


And that first appeal specifically links back to the one Lambeth Facebook group! 

I’m assuming that’s when the other OL ran OL?


----------



## alex_ (Jun 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> We hear so many complaints about filtered roads "dividing local communities" and about the troubles of local people who need to move their fridge freezer on the regular or whatever. And yet it turns out that 82% of PCNs for people who refuse or cannae be bothered to follow the rules in Hackney are for people who don't live in Hackney.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



who’d have thought


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 30, 2021)

editor said:


> My sign off from a FB thread where they're bizarrely denying that they're a well funded campaign group and that their first crowdfunder didn't happen.


Ed, its an incredible labour of love your trying to engage with these motor cunts.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 30, 2021)

alex_ said:


> who’d have thought


this is exactly why we need LTNs and a bunch more of them.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 30, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> this is exactly why we need LTNs and a bunch more of them.



Yes - ltns block ratruns


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> And that first appeal specifically links back to the one Lambeth Facebook group!
> 
> I’m assuming that’s when the other OL ran OL?



Obviously you're confusing One Lambeth with One Lambeth which has nothing to do with the One Lambeth Facebook group.  Of course it might be the OneLambeth Justice twitter account which has nothing to do with the court case or the person who was raising the money despite being the route by which their statements and the outcome of the case were shared. None of the people or groups the accounts claim to represent has any control over the messaging or knows who actually runs any of them.

Remember that the majority of residents in Lambeth support OneLambeth and oppose LTNs.  Thats despite only 35 people (including neutral observers like Gramsci and others) turning up to their Brixton protest, a couple of hundred turning up to the London wide protest last weekend, only about 600 donating to the legal fund and fewer Lambeth residents voting for their promoted candidate Farah at the mayoral election than thought Count Binface was the man (apologies for gender assumption) to sort out London.


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2021)

It seems that while there is only one Lambeth, there are many One Lambeths.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 30, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Obviously you're confusing One Lambeth with One Lambeth which has nothing to do with the One Lambeth Facebook group.  Of course it might be the OneLambeth Justice twitter account which has nothing to do with the court case or the person who was raising the money despite being the route by which their statements and the outcome of the case were shared. No-one knows who runs any of the accounts or has any influence over them.



Top scamming lads !


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 30, 2021)

It seems that chowce5382 has fled, having realised he was on the wrong side of history. I think he was probably well intentioned and the cognitive dissonance of working with the many (all ugly) faces of oneLambeth must have been really stressful.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 30, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> It seems that chowce5382 has fled, having realised he was on the wrong side of history. I think he was probably well intentioned and the cognitive dissonance of working with the many (all ugly) faces of oneLambeth must have been really stressful.


Given all the dog whistles in his protest speech and the various lies and exaggerations he was happy to spout on here I think you're being far too kind.


----------



## Jesterburger (Jun 30, 2021)

He's still lurking here, just not posting.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 30, 2021)

Jesterburger said:


> He's still lurking here, just not posting.


Last seen 49 minutes ago...


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 30, 2021)

I’ve not run their messages through any of the twitter analytics tools, but the more spiky OLJ posts are getting less and less traction - down to the same 40 same accounts. 

They’ve just retweeted a GB News article.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 30, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Given all the dog whistles in his protest speech and the various lies and exaggerations he was happy to spout on here I think you're being far too kind.


Maybe. But I think he's not really the Joseph Goebbels of OneLambeth. Probably more a Bogdan Radista figure. "Useful Innocent"


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 30, 2021)

...there’s some very weird stalker behaviour being displayed on this thread 🥺


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 30, 2021)

Not really- it’s a pretty standard XenForo site and he signed up to the t&cs - and is perfectly capable of hiding his profile page if he wishes.

Don’t you think it’s strange that he was a frequent poster before the case and then disappeared?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Not really- it’s a pretty standard XenForo site and he signed up to the t&cs - and is perfectly capable of hiding his profile page if he wishes.
> 
> Don’t you think it’s strange that he was a frequent poster before the case and then disappeared?



....what he or she does is not what I’m on about, I’m referring to people looking at his profile and posting the findings, it seems a bit weird and obsessive to an outsider.


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 30, 2021)

But you’re not an outsider (and nor is he by signing up to be a member) and this forum platform encourages it - scroll down and look at the associated threads - it links to one you and I were posting in about cycling 8 years ago...


----------



## teuchter (Jun 30, 2021)

Seems fair enough really if chowce5382 decides not to engage further on here - what does anyone expect him to say? He came here to discuss things related to the case, and the case is finished. Like Torpid Scorpion I'm happy to assume his actions were broadly well intentioned, and agree that it must have been a stressful process and that there will have been others under the Onelambeth banner saying things that he would not necessarily agree with.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Seems fair enough really if chowce5382 decides not to engage further on here - what does anyone expect him to say? He came here to discuss things related to the case, and the case is finished. Like Torpid Scorpion I'm happy to assume his actions were broadly well intentioned, and agree that it must have been a stressful process and that there will have been others under the Onelambeth barrier saying things that he would not necessarily agree with.


It's fair enough but he was happy to hint at things that happened in court and claim the LTNs were unlawful etc. which don't seem tio fit in with the judgement so just to disengage now & not explain his view on it seems slightly out of order - but maybe it is the stress of it or that it's just reached the end of the road.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jun 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> But you’re not an outsider (and nor is he by signing up to be a member) and this forum platform encourages it - scroll down and look at the associated threads - it links to one you and I were posting in about cycling 8 years ago...



That is quite a weird reply in itself ....I’ve stayed out of the cut and thrust of this debate for the most part because it is so nasty and experience tells me that me posting my views on here is unlikely to have any influence on final outcomes, I’m a nobody and not part of any lobby or grouping and not taking sides...Regards the way. the forum works I know enough to quote if I am replying to someone so they can respond if they can be bothered.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2021)

Screenshots from OneLambeth apparently:


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jun 30, 2021)

Of course they should be able to keep appealing until all avenues of appeal are closed to them. thats the nature of the adversarial judicial system. And if the mötorheads want to keep funding them, thats fine. I hope their liability for costs on Lambeth's side is not capped at a low amount for appeals, and that they have to raise money or a bond for it, which should go a ways to keeping it 'real'.

I just wish they would drop the anti-khan, anti-cyclist, anti-flowers, anti-kids, asshole bullshit aspects but what do you expect from a bunch of car nuts that are posing (incompetently) as equalities activists and dont understand that the new world is being born, and they are the morbid symptom.

I feel bad for Ms. Sheakh (apparently we have been spelling her name wrong) and hope the negative effects on her end up getting mitigated by changes to the implementation.

But roll on LTNs!


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2021)

You just think that for £50k they could have done a whole lot more to campaign against LTNs - including getting someone to do their PR!


----------



## snowy_again (Jun 30, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> That is quite a weird reply in itself ....I’ve stayed out of the cut and thrust of this debate for the most part because it is so nasty and experience tells me that me posting my views on here is unlikely to have any influence on final outcomes, I’m a nobody and not part of any lobby or grouping and not taking sides...Regards the way. the forum works I know enough to quote if I am replying to someone so they can respond if they can be bothered.


Yeah, sorry probably an over coffee’d reply from me - basically bemoaning the algorithms in social media.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 30, 2021)

Fair play, if they want to continue the legal challenge, it’s their money. The only caveat in that update is that it doesn’t talk about removing the LTNs, merely how they are implemented for disabled people which I think all of us are in agreement about allowing a blue badge exemption. I’m not sure that’s what most of the people opposed to LTNs would be happy with if that was the only outcome.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You just think that for £50k they could have done a whole lot more to campaign against LTNs - including getting someone to do their PR!



WHat? I thought they had big money backing and a PR firm going by what was said when I first joined this topic!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 30, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> WHat? I thought they had big money backing and a PR firm going by what was said when I first joined this topic!


35k is big money backing, and they're after more!


----------



## alex_ (Jun 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Screenshots from OneLambeth apparently:
> 
> View attachment 276139
> 
> ...



plz send more $$$


----------



## alex_ (Jun 30, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> WHat? I thought they had big money backing and a PR firm going by what was said when I first joined this topic!



the one campaigns are clearly AstroTurf setup by a pr firm, who have now disappeared as they’ve found useful idiots to do it all for free


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> WHat? I thought they had big money backing and a PR firm going by what was said when I first joined this topic!



Not sure where anyone’s said that. £35k is big money though and could be very effective if used wisely - lawyers are very expensive however.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jun 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not sure where anyone’s said that. £35k is big money though and could be very effective if used wisely - lawyers are very expensive however.



It was way back someone was adamant they had big backing and a PR firm. I don't have a brain like a computer like some of you able to scour back and quote reply numbers but its not an important point, just joking


----------



## edcraw (Jun 30, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It was way back someone was adamant they had big backing and a PR firm. I don't have a brain like a computer like some of you able to scour back and quote reply numbers but its not an important point, just joking



Well if a PR firm is behind them they’ve done a very good job of hiding it!


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well if a PR firm is behind them they’ve done a very good job of hiding it!


This is true. It's all the same bullshit but there's a massive variance in how nice a tie they wear over it. Some are so poisonous, though, that if I was a person who wanted to keep my good name I'd be running a mile from being associated by OneAnything.

I do find OneWandsworth's cardboard signs quite endearing, though. They seem to genuinely think they're good!


----------



## editor (Jun 30, 2021)

I've no reason to think there's a PR firm behind this campaign, but if there was one, they'd be the worst PR firm in the land.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 1, 2021)

Local councillor using the word "eugenics" to describe filtering roads. Extremely normal and unproblematic stuff from an elected representative.



(Now taken down, so here's a screenshot)


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Local councillor using the word "eugenics" to describe filtering roads. Extremely normal and unproblematic stuff from an elected representative.



What a fucking idiot.

"*Eugenics* is the practice or advocacy of improving the human species by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits"


----------



## edcraw (Jul 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Local councillor using the word "eugenics" to describe filtering roads. Extremely normal and unproblematic stuff from an elected representative.




From that OneTowerHamlets tweet is obvious that very few graphic designers oppose LTNs.


----------



## Winot (Jul 1, 2021)

I'd encourage everyone to report that Tim Briggs tweet btw.


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2021)

Winot said:


> I'd encourage everyone to report that Tim Briggs tweet btw.


I've just called him a fucking idiot on Twitter. Worth doing too if  you have a moment. If I had more time I'd write a Buzz article to shame the twat


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

Don't forget that this is the councillor who, in his motion to the council last year calling for all LTNs to be scrapped, included some small print that in his own, rather affluent ward, an LTN probably should be kept. Presumably it has some special characteristics that mean no eugenics will happen there. 

I look forward to seeing how he does in next year's elections.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I look forward to seeing how he does in next year's elections.


It's an interesting strategy - his ward is pretty unique in Lambeth in having a strong conservative vote, and barely changes in the new ward boundaries.  He's unlikely to pick up loads of Anti-LTN votes in his own ward (as there aren't any there) and he doesn't need to  alienate many people who've voted for him in the past to find himself without a seat. He only scraped in by 32 votes last time.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

They've spotted that a commercial service that says it will deliver stuff from a shop to your home by bike, picks up that stuff from a shop which gets its stock like any other shop does.

Therefore it must be a conspiracy by councillors to help their friends in a cycling advocacy organisation make loads of money.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 1, 2021)

He’s deleted the tweet now and tweeted the same message again, taking out the eugenics word. 

Strange that he can do that, but still hasn’t read his own party's guidance on language when talking about disability.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> He’s deleted the tweet now and tweeted the same message again, taking out the eugenics word.


For the record here's his original tweet


----------



## Jesterburger (Jul 1, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> It's an interesting strategy - his ward is pretty unique in Lambeth in having a strong conservative vote, and barely changes in the new ward boundaries.  He's unlikely to pick up loads of Anti-LTN votes in his own ward (as there aren't any there) and he doesn't need to  alienate many people who've voted for him in the past to find himself without a seat. He only scraped in by 32 votes last time.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 276234


In the recent elections the biggest fall in the Conservative vote across the entire borough was in his ward. 

In Clapham Common ward:

Mayoral first prefs, the Tory vote declined 10% (average -2.5% across the borough)
Lambeth & Southwark assembly member the Tory vote went down 11.5% (average -3.6% across the borough)
London wide list vote the Tory vote went down 10.5% (average -2.8% across the borough)
Most of the lost Tory votes looks like they shifted to the pro-LTN Greens & a lesser extent the LibDems
(and yes I am an election geek)


----------



## BusLanes (Jul 1, 2021)

I didn't realise the Greens were explicitly pro LTN in Lambeth. I haven't been following them close enough to know, but some of the Greens I interact off line with seem a bit sour on them. Not so much the concept as the application in Lambeth (consultation etc).


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

BusLanes said:


> I didn't realise the Greens were explicitly pro LTN in Lambeth. I haven't been following them close enough to know, but some of the Greens I interact off line with seem a bit sour on them. Not so much the concept as the application in Lambeth (consultation etc).


They had been notably quiet on them for some time (I assume for the reason you say) but then were explicitly pro them in their Mayoral manifesto stuff.









						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

What's the source for the traffic light data?  It was released in a FOI to TfL. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/scoot_data_request_for_lambeth  It's the raw data for Lambeths traffic light sensor data (SCOOT) from 2018 till early 2021.




					www.urban75.net


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2021)

Although I naturally have every sympathy with Sonia, I'm really uncomfortable about the way the campaign suddenly centred around her once her plight was discovered.

That's not to say that some people in the group don't care about her - I'm sure some sincerely do -  but that's not why One Lambeth was formed.

It's utterly dishonest for them to be now making out that the whole campaign is on her behalf, or is deeply concerned with fighting for the rights of the disabled.

Or to put it another way: if she didn't need a car, would they be mentioning her at all?


----------



## BusLanes (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They had been notably quiet on them for some time (I assume for the reason you say) but then were explicitly pro them in their Mayoral manifesto stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That makes sense. I think the LDs are generally in favour Londonwide too, but I don't see there would be any political benefit to either party in Lambeth to be a full throated champion of the LTNs, given the fervour.  Which isn't great if it is a principle they both adhere to, but on the other hand it would seem like an own goal.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It was way back someone was adamant they had big backing and a PR firm. I don't have a brain like a computer like some of you able to scour back and quote reply numbers but its not an important point, just joking



I remember this. Looking back their are posts around pages 66 about the anti LTN one groups being funded by shadowy right wing groups. But the money is "astroturfed" to make them look like genuine grass roots organisation.

Didn't last long but some here definitely thought it was a distinct possibility. But difficult to prove directly due to astroturfing.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 1, 2021)

Slightly off topic but this is a really useful page, especially if you want to pretend to be ignoring a thread on this forum.



			https://www.urban75.net/forums/account/privacy


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2021)

I put my profile on private some time ago due to this thread.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 1, 2021)

editor said:


> Although I naturally have every sympathy with Sonia, I'm really uncomfortable about the way the campaign suddenly centred around her once her plight was discovered.
> 
> That's not to say that some people in the group don't care about her - I'm sure some sincerely do -  but that's not why One Lambeth was formed.
> 
> ...



I have sympathy that its someone else feeling the same pain over the same issue. I saw Sofia speak at the first protest (in September?) so its hardly like she is new to the scene. I don't really have empathy because I don't know her struggle, I don't have to look after anyone disabled (just old). I am not fighting for disabled rights, for other rights. I'm fighting these because they have affected me. I cant think of a single other initiative that has affected me so much. Even Brexit is no non issue compared to life impact.

People were upset, united and protesting before they decided to go legal. Its one aspect of the whole thing.....and of course she has support of the group. Shes seen as being on the same side but is no way considered teh spearhead.

The legal case gets a lot of attention because it's reportable... but the small time I get to browse Facebook and other places I see 20 different things happening. Different areas meeting to flyer, people making big signs for the outside their house (like for sale signs), petitioning, people in streatham doing their own detailed before and after traffic counts and on and on. It might appear like it was centered around her but that's given the court case was literaly just going on, it was an exciting time.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I put my profile on private some time ago due to this thread.



...not a bad move considering the weird antics that are being revealed.


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I have sympathy that its someone else feeling the same pain over the same issue. I saw Sofia speak at the first protest (in September?) so its hardly like she is new to the scene. I don't really have empathy because I don't know her struggle, I don't have to look after anyone disabled (just old). I am not fighting for disabled rights, for other rights. I'm fighting these because they have affected me. I cant think of a single other initiative that has affected me so much. Even Brexit is no non issue compared to life impact.
> 
> People were upset, united and protesting before they decided to go legal. Its one aspect of the whole thing.....and of course she has support of the group. Shes seen as being on the same side but is no way considered teh spearhead.
> 
> The legal case gets a lot of attention because it's reportable... but the small time I get to browse Facebook and other places I see 20 different things happening. Different areas meeting to flyer, people making big signs for the outside their house (like for sale signs), petitioning, people in streatham doing their own detailed before and after traffic counts and on and on. It might appear like it was centered around her but that's given the court case was literaly just going on, it was an exciting time.


Yet for all the noise One Lambeth made, and their insistence that they were representing a majority of residents, they could barely muster a crowd of 40 people for their disastrously back-firing Windrush Square rally.

On a related note, there was a big traffic queue on Coldharbour Lane earlier and I decided to do a rough count of the amount of cars that had only one person in them. It was around 70%. That has to change, no?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 1, 2021)

editor said:


> On a related note, there was a big traffic queue on Coldharbour Lane earlier and I decided to do a rough count of the amount of cars that had only one person in them it was around 70%. That has to change, no?



This is what I see every morning on Christchurch Rd, which I live next to, and that’s why it really sticks in the throat when OneLambeth claim to care about air pollution and blame LTNs. 

The majority of Lambeth residents are managing without cars, are all those single occupied cars really driving because they have to or is it just because they can and it’s the easiest option.

Drivers need to take responsibility for the harm they cause and, if they really do care work, to find solutions. They haven’t, in fact cars are just getting bigger and bigger, and that’s why we are where we are.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2021)

editor said:


> Yet for all the noise One Lambeth made, and their insistence that they were representing a majority of residents, they could barely muster a crowd of 40 people for their disastrously back-firing Windrush Square rally.
> 
> On a related note, there was a big traffic queue on Coldharbour Lane earlier and I decided to do a rough count of the amount of cars that had only one person in them. It was around 70%. That has to change, no?



The way the Council has set up LTNs does not include Coldharbour lane as that is classified as main road. Ive noticed a lot of traffic on it recent mornings early around 7. I'm not clear if that is extra traffic due to LTNs or due to other reasons.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ...not a bad move considering the weird antics that are being revealed.



Yes. Me getting mixed up with some one else's Twitter makes me think going private was right decision. Kind of wondering what is going on.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 1, 2021)

Not sure there’s much in the way of weirdness going on or maybe there is, maybe the anti vaxers are right and we are all part of some huge social experiment. Add LTNs to the conspiracy. Anyway… the STOP boards I’ve seen around Herne hill and Brixton (quite a few on streets within LTNs) are interesting. The use of the colour green sort of suggests it’s a climate issue threat and I never thought I’d see the word displacement on a protest sign, I’m not sure that many will know what it means. That said, they are noticeable. I hope that doesn’t come across as condescending, I don’t mean it to be. For all the nastiness on Twitter, particularly, it does feel that we are starting to debate how these schemes should work instead of a rip them all out and keep the status quo approach.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Jul 1, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Not sure there’s much in the way of weirdness going on or maybe there is, maybe the anti vaxers are right and we are all part of some huge social experiment. Add LTNs to the conspiracy. Anyway… the STOP boards I’ve seen around Herne hill and Brixton (quite a few on streets within LTNs) are interesting. The use of the colour green sort of suggests it’s a climate issue threat and I never thought I’d see the word displacement on a protest sign, I’m not sure that many will know what it means. That said, they are noticeable. I hope that doesn’t come across as condescending, I don’t mean it to be. For all the nastiness on Twitter, particularly, it does feel that we are starting to debate how these schemes should work instead of a rip them all out and keep the status quo approach.


Stop traffic displacement = deliver measures to reduce traffic generally. Nice 👍


----------



## madolesance (Jul 1, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Not sure there’s much in the way of weirdness going on or maybe there is, maybe the anti vaxers are right and we are all part of some huge social experiment. Add LTNs to the conspiracy. Anyway… the STOP boards I’ve seen around Herne hill and Brixton (quite a few on streets within LTNs) are interesting. The use of the colour green sort of suggests it’s a climate issue threat and I never thought I’d see the word displacement on a protest sign, I’m not sure that many will know what it means. That said, they are noticeable. I hope that doesn’t come across as condescending, I don’t mean it to be. For all the nastiness on Twitter, particularly, it does feel that we are starting to debate how these schemes should work instead of a rip them all out and keep the status quo approach.


Also, none of those boards have any info about who is responsible for them, just a statement, in green and slightly vague.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This is what I see every morning on Christchurch Rd, which I live next to, and that’s why it really sticks in the throat when OneLambeth claim to care about air pollution and blame LTNs.
> 
> The majority of Lambeth residents are managing without cars, are all those single occupied cars really driving because they have to or is it just because they can and it’s the easiest option.
> 
> Drivers need to take responsibility for the harm they cause and, if they really do care work, to find solutions. They haven’t, in fact cars are just getting bigger and bigger, and that’s why we are where we are.



I see the same, also live on a main-ish road and over the past 10 years have just watched things get increasingly worse; it feels like the roads become ever more aggressive, there are more and more cars speeding around and so many of them have just one person in them and they aren't cheap cars. I started this thread four years ago before LTNs were ever mentioned. As you say, cars are also getting bigger and bigger. Air pollution has become recognised as the serious problem it is.

And no-one objecting to the LTNs actually ever has any alternative solutions to offer, other than talk of 'consultation' that won't come up with any magic fixes and is a way of kicking the can down the road forever.

I happened upon this thread earlier today:





I don't 100% agree with everything he says but certainly recognise where he's coming from.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Not sure there’s much in the way of weirdness going on or maybe there is, maybe the anti vaxers are right and we are all part of some huge social experiment. Add LTNs to the conspiracy. Anyway… the STOP boards I’ve seen around Herne hill and Brixton (quite a few on streets within LTNs) are interesting. The use of the colour green sort of suggests it’s a climate issue threat and I never thought I’d see the word displacement on a protest sign, I’m not sure that many will know what it means. That said, they are noticeable. I hope that doesn’t come across as condescending, I don’t mean it to be. For all the nastiness on Twitter, particularly, it does feel that we are starting to debate how these schemes should work instead of a rip them all out and keep the status quo approach.



I've had someone post here saying they reported my twitter. I took it in good heart but it counts as weird to me. 

I didn't put my profile here on private because I believe in conspiracies. I did it some time ago.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I genuinely hope you can quote this back at me in a few months and prove me wrong: but I bet you, there will be absolutely no "starting again" of a real effort in that group to change anything meaningful - the group will fizzle out as soon as the danger of anything meaningful happening has passed. No one will come up with any magic solutions that allow you to reduce traffic and pollution without upsetting some people. The voices making a lot of noise about how they _really do want things to change, just not quite like this_ - they will disappear. The people, whoever they are, investing lots of time making well produced propaganda videos anti the LTNs will not move on to making well produced videos persuading people to make changes to their transport habits. Either the council will manage to re-instate something smaller within the next couple of months, which might manage to be "better than nothing" or things will just stay as they are for another ten or twenty years and a load more people will suffer ill health from pollution related stuff and you'll continue with crappy, congested, noisy streets that are unwelcoming to pedestrians and cyclists. In fact it looks depressingly likely that things are just going to get worse and worse post covid, anywhere that doesn't manage to make some big changes right now.



^ I'm quoting myself here - this was a reply to girasol who was part of the "One Wandsworth" group. Around Spetember last year they managed to get Wandsworth to dump their LTNs.

So I wonder if girasol can provide us with an update on what One Wandsworth have been doing since; in what way have they 'started again' and been pushing for measures to improve congestion and pollution and road danger?

A look at their facebook page suggests that they are mainly posting about getting rid of cycle lanes, retweeting Tim Briggs and so on but maybe this gives a false impression of what their aims are?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I've had someone post here saying they reported my twitter. I took it in good heart but it counts as weird to me.
> 
> I didn't put my profile here on private because I believe in conspiracies. I did it some time ago.


My post wasn’t necessarily aimed at you, hence I didn’t reply, just a general comment


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This is what I see every morning on Christchurch Rd, which I live next to, and that’s why it really sticks in the throat when OneLambeth claim to care about air pollution and blame LTNs.
> 
> The majority of Lambeth residents are managing without cars, are all those single occupied cars really driving because they have to or is it just because they can and it’s the easiest option.
> 
> Drivers need to take responsibility for the harm they cause and, if they really do care work, to find solutions. They haven’t, in fact cars are just getting bigger and bigger, and that’s why we are where we are.



I thought in case of Railton the Council argument for LTN was to stop through traffic. Traffic that had no business within the Railton LTN area. As majority of traffic going through didn't stop and was using the roads to transit to another area. 

I didn't think it was about people with legitimate reasons to visit ( care work) being made to change their behaviour.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> ^ I'm quoting myself here - this was a reply to girasol who was part of the "One Wandsworth" group. Around Spetember last year they managed to get Wandsworth to dump their LTNs.
> 
> So I wonder if girasol can provide us with an update on what One Wandsworth have been doing since; in what way have they 'started again' and been pushing for measures to improve congestion and pollution and road danger?
> 
> A look at their facebook page suggests that they are mainly posting about getting rid of cycle lanes, retweeting Tim Briggs and so on but maybe this gives a false impression of what their aims are?



In case of LJ after the road closure debacle a new round of consultation redesigned the CHL/Loughborough Road crossroads. This design was finished but Lambeth never did it.

I also know the TRA on North end of Loughborough Road wants improvements to that road. And have been talking to Council I believe.

Local community does have alternatives if asked. They aren't full on LTNs. But these people aren't petrol heads. They see issues with their roads and if asked want improvements.

This isn't going to satisfy those who want a specific form of Liveable Neighbourhood/LTN

It should be the Council going out and asking people what they want. Unlike other parts of Brixton the Council are treating LJ differently. They are talking to at least one TRA I know. 

Quite different from way they have imposed LTNs in Railton and Ferndale.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> In case of LJ after the road closure debacle a new round of consultation redesigned the CHL/Loughborough Road crossroads. This design was finished but Lambeth never did it.
> 
> I also know the TRA on North end of Loughborough Road wants improvements to that road. And have been talking to Council I believe.
> 
> ...


It's very frustrating that Lambeth failed to implement that, but the changes were in the end fairly minor and weren't part of something of the scale needed to address wider problems.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's very frustrating that Lambeth failed to implement that, but the changes were in the end fairly minor and weren't part of something of the scale needed to address wider problems.



In your opinion.

I edited my previous post.

The redesign of the cross roads was done to produce scheme that had cross community support. Which inevitably was going to be a comprimise.

If the Council had been serious about community engagement it would have built the scheme. Thus getting local community trust.

Then it could have suggested more later on. Building support gradually. 

That isn't how this Council works.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> In your opinion.
> 
> I edited my previous post.
> 
> ...


I'm not here to defend or represent the council.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm not here to defend or represent the council.



I don't know what that means. 

I was pointing out that there is another way to go about this.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

editor said:


> Yet for all the noise One Lambeth made, and their insistence that they were representing a majority of residents, they could barely muster a crowd of 40 people for their disastrously back-firing Windrush Square rally.
> 
> On a related note, there was a big traffic queue on Coldharbour Lane earlier and I decided to do a rough count of the amount of cars that had only one person in them. It was around 70%. That has to change, no?



Yes. Could use all range of excuses from COVID to whatever but then Ealing pull up with 3000+ people from what I saw so it puts it to shame. I think Ealing are better organised. They were doing all the things Lambeth are doing now some 6 months ago (flyers, placards).


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

madolesance said:


> Also, none of those boards have any info about who is responsible for them, just a statement, in green and slightly vague.



I have not seen any in the flesh but they do appear to get people talking


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes. Could use all range of excuses from COVID to whatever but then Ealing pull up with 3000+ people from what I saw so it puts it to shame. I think Ealing are better organised. They were doing all the things Lambeth are doing now some 6 months ago (flyers, placards).


Ealing has significantly higher car ownership than Lambeth.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> ^ I'm quoting myself here - this was a reply to girasol who was part of the "One Wandsworth" group. Around Spetember last year they managed to get Wandsworth to dump their LTNs.
> 
> So I wonder if girasol can provide us with an update on what One Wandsworth have been doing since; in what way have they 'started again' and been pushing for measures to improve congestion and pollution and road danger?
> 
> A look at their facebook page suggests that they are mainly posting about getting rid of cycle lanes, retweeting Tim Briggs and so on but maybe this gives a false impression of what their aims are?



What do you care what people do with their time? Given your presence at LJ LTN meeting this subject is clearly something you have been involved in for a long time why would you expect others to have as much passion as you do? Sometimes it takes sometihng right in your face to get involved.

Im happy to admit i'll be a one-issue campaigner and then you'll probably never see me again. I'm drained with my own life (health, kids, mother, relationship, bills, work). I put myself down as someone who is just getting by and a lot of campaigning beyond doing your 'own bit' in your life so to speak is exhausting. " I'm not an night owl or an early bird i'm just some sort of permanently exhausted pigeon".

The sad thing is the distrust we saw of local councillors after the LJ LTN is now much larger. There's going to be a whole raft of opposition to the council making any changes, good or bad, to anything.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Ealing has significantly higher car ownership than Lambeth.



More affluent also. Likely more cars per household. I remember ealing being quite 'nice'


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> More affluent also. Likely more cars per household. I remember ealing being quite 'nice'



Do you think a higher level of car ownership means more or less should be done to discourage car _use_?  It does seem likely that an area of higher car ownership will generate more resistance to change but I don't think it follows that it's not just as important to make that change.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> What do you care what people do with their time? Given your presence at LJ LTN meeting this subject is clearly something you have been involved in for a long time why would you expect others to have as much passion as you do? Sometimes it takes sometihng right in your face to get involved.
> 
> Im happy to admit i'll be a one-issue campaigner and then you'll probably never see me again. I'm drained with my own life (health, kids, mother, relationship, bills, work). I put myself down as someone who is just getting by and a lot of campaigning beyond doing your 'own bit' in your life so to speak is exhausting. " I'm not an night owl or an early bird i'm just some sort of permanently exhausted pigeon".
> 
> The sad thing is the distrust we saw of local councillors after the LJ LTN is now much larger. There's going to be a whole raft of opposition to the council making any changes, good or bad, to anything.



The distrust is still there.

And it continues. LJ Neighbourhood meeting this week. Told that we would not be allowed to talk to the consultants Council had hired to write some supplementary planning docs for LJ. This came from the top.

 This is imo because residents in LJ have now a reputation to not always go along  with Officers ideas. So this is how the Council top officers treat some sections of community. Cllrs sit there and won't criticise top echelons of Officers. Backbench Cllrs to afraid to do this.

I can understand why people can get irate with top of Council and why things get so adversarial.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Protest against LTNs and similar is not Lambeth specific. Absolutely everywhere they are proposed, regardless of the council, and regardless of the way they are implemented or consulted on, there are people who will vehemently oppose them.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

But its Lambeth that this thread is about.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> But its Lambeth that this thread is about.



My point is that while Lambeth could undoubtedly always have done things better/differently, the core of the opposition to these schemes would still be there, and the process would still be a bumpy and difficult one. In my opinion.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Do you think a higher level of car ownership means more or less should be done to discourage car _use_?  It does seem likely that an area of higher car ownership will generate more resistance to change but I don't think it follows that it's not just as important to make that change.



That's the thing though. I don't think. Like my last post said, you'll never see me again.

There was an article ages ago about how this level of interaction and campaigning is the forte of the middle class, well off. Unless you're paid to do it or it really is your passion.

I can't even solve my own health problems in London let alone try to solve car use in London. I've had to take a loan to travel to a foreign country to pay for medical procedures because COVID absolutely screwed the NHS waiting times. Anyone who could intubate was sent to the COVID wards and the waiting lists were long before - they are epic now. So i'm here, doing my best to work remotely while recovering at a friends house in a foreign land.

I'm just keeping my head above the water. Still getting the updates from my partner and neighbours about the traffic and situation there.

Before we had a borough that had heavily declining pollution levels. Now Its a car park. Traffic, honking, no one able to get around by (god forbid) car, bus. No one opening the windows to let in a breeze. Was it often liek this? Yup. Rush hour. Accidents. 2015. A few road works. Now its been a nightmware for months. What for? The rage on nextdoor, the media, the comments section on BB shows this isnt like the council has decided to make one rubbish trip a fortnight instead of every week or pave over a playground.. This is hitting people hard - not just car users either

All to try to eek out a few percentage points of car users. Whatever percentage they are of overall travel....and have an option to give up the car. i.e not work work and 'unnecessary' journeys. All while bus and tube capacity reduced and buses just sit there inching along.

For gods sake improve public transport, lower the cost, make better routes, more routes, fast track those e scooters. Don't create a car park to punish people into submission. It doesn't work, this is UK, not belarus.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Before we had a borough that had heavily declining pollution levels.


From 2017:








						Report: Lambeth is the second worst borough in London for air pollution
					

With depressing regularity, Brixton Buzz has found itself reporting on the horrendous levels of pollution in our borough, and a recent report from the Mayor of London’s office shows that Lambeth Co…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2021)

2019:








						Lambeth is the worst borough in central London for action on air pollution, according to Mayor’s report
					

Lambeth is among the worst boroughs for action on air pollution. According to the Mayor’s annual survey of London, Lambeth is breaking legal air pollution limits on two key measures – and the…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> From 2017:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/projects_attachements/lambeth-air-quality-annual-status-report-2019.pdf
		


Heavily declining. Brixton road once famous for being the most polluted in London.

2014 = 149u
2019 = 60.1u

In fact most measurements that go back that far show heavy reductions.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> For gods sake improve public transport, lower the cost, make better routes, more routes, fast track those e scooters.


Public transport is already pretty good in Lambeth; it's perfectly possible to easily get almost anywhere by public transport. 

There has been a fares freeze for several years. The bus hopper fare to make bus journeys cheaper. (And don't let it escape your attention that a large portion of the LTN opposition is forever banging on about Kahn having bankrupted TfL through these measures).

Part of the whole point of the LTNs is to make it easier and safer to get around on e-scooter, e-bike, bike, on foot.

It's simply not possible to improve these other modes of transport without getting private cars off the road as much as possible.

You say you "don't think" and don't have time to come up with solutions to London's transport problems. Fair enough. But then you come up with these kinds of throwaway comments - your "solutions" which are just nonsense, either stuff that's already happening or which can't happen without car use being restricted. Or just hyperbole - the whole of Lambeth has not been turned into a "car park" by LTNs and then this rubbish about Belarus as if some traffic adjustments amount to authoritarianism. Next stop, talk of eugenics.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Public transport is already pretty good in Lambeth; it's perfectly possible to easily get almost anywhere by public transport.
> 
> There has been a fares freeze for several years. The bus hopper fare to make bus journeys cheaper. (And don't let it escape your attention that a large portion of the LTN opposition is forever banging on about Kahn having bankrupted TfL through these measures).
> 
> ...



On one hand you want to hear solutions, the next you slap them down because you already have it in your mind what you want. That's why people fight you and don't work with you...because there is no right answer. Just your answer and be damned how it affects the general public.

Given the traffic and many cycle on main roads I can't actually see them being any safer. Probably why all pictures are of kids on tricycles in LTNs and not commuters trying to get around while swearing under their breath as they navigate slow moving or idel traffic.

...as for safer on foot. Come on. The only danger i've ever in my life felt on foot is walking at night and my fear doesn't come from a car. It's safe to walk. Candidly 'walking and cycling' is banded together to bolster cycling numbers.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Now Its a car park. Traffic, honking, no one able to get around by (god forbid) car, bus. No one opening the windows to let in a breeze.



This hyperbole just really dosen't help - this is not what I've seen at all. Traffic has been bad for ever and drivers just try and find something to blame it own - look at Wansdworth & Clapham with no LTNSon the map below showing fraffic right now. At least the council is doing something to make sure this isn't on all roads.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This hyperbole just really dosen't help - this is not what I've seen at all. Traffic has been bad for ever and drivers just try and find something to blame it own - look at Wansdworth & Clapham with no LTNSon the map below showing fraffic right now. At least the council is doing something to make sure this isn't on all roads.
> 
> View attachment 276432



Are they not in the middle of large A24 changes and new restrictions in Clapham around turning off certain roads?

hmmmm


----------



## alex_ (Jul 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I can understand why people can get irate with top of Council and why things get so adversarial.



lambeth could have a bloke handing out tenners outside the council offices and some dickhead would complaining they were handing out pictures of the queen.

Alex


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Are they not in the middle of large A24 changes and new restrictions in Clapham around turning off certain roads?
> 
> hmmmm





edcraw said:


> Traffic has been bad for ever and drivers just try and find something to blame it on.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> My point is that while Lambeth could undoubtedly always have done things better/differently, the core of the opposition to these schemes would still be there, and the process would still be a bumpy and difficult one. In my opinion.



with all of the consultations in the world the antis would have found something to complain about.

i kind of see why they just crack on with things.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> On one hand you want to hear solutions, the next you slap them down because you already have it in your mind what you want. That's why people fight you and don't work with you...because there is no right answer. Just your answer and be damned how it affects the general public.
> 
> Given the traffic and many cycle on main roads I can't actually see them being any safer. Probably why all pictures are of kids on tricycles in LTNs and not commuters trying to get around while swearing under their breath as they navigate slow moving or idel traffic.
> 
> ...as for safer on foot. Come on. The only danger i've ever in my life felt on foot is walking at night and my fear doesn't come from a car. It's safe to walk. Candidly 'walking and cycling' is banded together to bolster cycling numbers.



imo, as a commuter cyclist it's really, really easy to move around idle and slow moving traffic. I don't swear under my breath when I get into that situation, I'm happy about it because it's easy to filter past stopped cars and it's safer than being in moving traffic as long as you are sensible about things.
Plus, to be candid, I get some pleasure from not being in a car and being able to skip past all the traffic jams and get home quicker than drivers. 

The LTN in my area happens to be in the opposite direction to my work but I have cycled to my local high street and it's way better than it was before the LTN was put in place - it's just not a journey I make very often because I'm usually not buying enough stuff to want or need my bike to carry it on.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

alex_ said:


> with all of the consultations in the world the antis would have found something to complain about.



Indeed - the Streatham A23 went through consultation and still tons of people moaned.

“We want consultation! No not that consultation…”


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> On one hand you want to hear solutions, the next you slap them down because


...because they aren't solutions and I've explained why.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

Traffic was bad but predicable. Now you don't know if something will take you 10 minutes or an hour at 2pm on a Wednesdya.

Best use the hour just to be safe. More of the day lost.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> ...because they aren't solutions and I've explained why.



Just like LTNs!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Traffic was bad but predicable. Now you don't know if something will take you 10 minutes or an hour at 2pm on a Wednesdya.
> 
> Best use the hour just to be safe. More of the day lost.


I don't know your circumstances but if what used to be a 10min drive now takes an hour most people would probably be better of getting there another way.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don't know your circumstances but if what used to be a 10min drive now takes an hour most people would probably be better of getting there another way.



An exaggeration, but buses can't solely use bus lanes on their route. Get on one and sit in traffic. Wait at the connecting stop for 25 minutes because that bus has been stuck down side roads for most of its journey. 

but wait whats the next thing? 'Guess whats causing all the traffic? Cars!'

No. LTNs.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/projects_attachements/lambeth-air-quality-annual-status-report-2019.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the data. Moving in the right direction as you say. Mainly seems to be due to Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ initiative. Hopefully things will get even better when that’s extended to the south circular.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> An exaggeration, but buses can't solely use bus lanes on their route. Get on one and sit in traffic. Wait at the connecting stop for 25 minutes because that bus has been stuck down side roads for most of its journey.
> 
> but wait whats the next thing? 'Guess whats causing all the traffic? Cars!'
> 
> No. LTNs.


The changes to the A23 are helping bus times a lot - continous bus lanes, 24/7, stopping some left turns. Guess what? Drivers don't like these either.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> Thanks for the data. Moving in the right direction as you say. Mainly seems to be due to Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ initiative. Hopefully things will get even better when that’s extended to the south circular.



Fantastic isnt it that such big changes can be made to the pollution figures without LTNs. Which are most likely doing the opposite.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The changes to the A23 are helping bus times a lot - continous bus lanes, 24/7, stopping some left turns. Guess what? Drivers don't like these either.



If only LTNs could be removed to reduce bus times and pollution.

Guess what? A wide range of people don't like these either. Not just 'the car lobby'


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Fantastic isnt it that such big changes can be made to the pollution figures without LTNs. Which are most likely doing the opposite.


1. We don’t know that yet.
2. There are additional reasons for LTNs other than pollution.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo - at least your honest that you want LTNs gone to make it as easy as possible for you to drive. Quite refreshing really.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I don't know your circumstances but if what used to be a 10min drive now takes an hour most people would probably be better of getting there another way.


“My local stables have closed and I have to park my horse miles from my house, these low horse neighbourhoods are a nightmare”


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

I know - instead of saying things like _"which are most likely doing the opposite"_, let's look at the pollution records for Brixton Road, a "perimeter road" location right in the middle of a bunch of LTNs, and see if we can see any big differences between 2019 and 2021:







I don't really have the expertise to confidently interpret these - so would welcome any comments. But I don't see in these graphs a strong signal that pollution has become dramatically worse post LTN implementation.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> An exaggeration, but buses can't solely use bus lanes on their route. Get on one and sit in traffic. Wait at the connecting stop for 25 minutes because that bus has been stuck down side roads for most of its journey.
> 
> but wait whats the next thing? 'Guess whats causing all the traffic? Cars!'
> 
> No. LTNs.



yes pre LTN there was hardly a car on the road


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Jeanette Moo - at least your honest that you want LTNs gone to make it as easy as possible for you to drive. Quite refreshing really.



Yup. I am that person but not solely for that reason. I dont claim to hold a banner for [insert group]. Just myself and my neighbours.

It's harder to drive anywhere and I need a car at this stage in my life. It's not a luxury. Kids, work, my health. I need it. No sob story, just not having a car would mean i'd have to give up my work or my kids. Even if I wanted to bus now there's no way I would/could.
The roads around me are, like i've said many times, clogged. Windows are closed all day.
My community all feel the same way.

It has impacted my life negatively and even if I didn't have or use a car i'd still be negatively impacted. That's the thing.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I know - instead of saying things like _"which are most likely doing the opposite"_, let's look at the pollution records for Brixton Road, a "perimeter road" location right in the middle of a bunch of LTNs, and see if we can see any big differences between 2019 and 2021:
> 
> 
> View attachment 276438



not those facts, do you have any graphs of feelings which show more traffic


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 2, 2021)

I reckon if you're lobbying on behalf of cars you're part of the car lobby.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

alex_ said:


> not those facts, do you have any graphs of feelings which show more traffic



One Lambeth have the TFL data you want I hear. I hear Lambeth council didn't even bother with it


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I reckon if you're lobbying on behalf of cars you're part of the car lobby.



I'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you damn kids.

Please don't out me BP will stop paying me


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> The roads around me are, like i've said many times, clogged. Windows are closed all day.


I thought you said you were on Calais Rd. The reason I remember this is that it was part of a discussion about the LJ road closures (which are now gone) and how they affected you.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I thought you said you were on Calais Rd. The reason I remember this is that it was part of a discussion about the LJ road closures (which are now gone) and how they affected you.



Years ago. When did I say that?!

Paranoid now!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Years ago. When did I say that?!
> 
> Paranoid now!


Less than a year ago. It was the discussion here:









						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

They said that is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. Which it was.   ......but still stood up and said it was noticeable. They did not have the manpower or time to measure the impact but firmly threw their hat in the 'NOT GOOD' pile.  Absence of evidence...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Less than a year ago. It was the discussion here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My street at the time of the LJ LTN.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> One Lambeth have the TFL data you want I hear. I hear Lambeth council didn't even bother with it


One Lambeth have no data on pollution that I've seen.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Traffic was bad but predicable. Now you don't know if something will take you 10 minutes or an hour at 2pm on a Wednesdya.
> 
> Best use the hour just to be safe. More of the day lost.


Could you give an example of one of these '10 minute' journeys?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> One Lambeth have no data on pollution that I've seen.



I saw something about traffic from TFL, I just don't know where I dont bookmark things well


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

editor said:


> Could you give an example of one of these '10 minute' journeys?


 
I can't it was an exaggeration on how you just can't predict your journey by bus or car. Even google doesn't help as it changes so rapidy.

Result is you end up allocating much more time for each journey regardless of how you're making it by car or bus. Personally it feels as if half my life is either spent working or traveling now, when before it wasnt like that. Predictable.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I can't it was an exaggeration on how you just can't predict your journey by bus or car. Even google doesn't help as it changes so rapidy.



If you’re exaggerating about this it makes me wonder what else you’re exaggerating about as well.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> If you’re exaggerating about this it makes me wonder what else you’re exaggerating about as well.



Of course it does. If I had a twitter you'd probably report it or something


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I can't it was an exaggeration on how you just can't predict your journey by bus or car. Even google doesn't help as it changes so rapidy.
> 
> Result is you end up allocating much more time for each journey regardless of how you're making it by car or bus. Personally it feels as if half my life is either spent working or traveling now, when before it wasnt like that. Predictable.


I never seem to have this problem when getting around my local area - and I've never owned a car.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> My point is that while Lambeth could undoubtedly always have done things better/differently, the core of the opposition to these schemes would still be there, and the process would still be a bumpy and difficult one. In my opinion.



Lambeth had planned to attempt to do it differently. They decided to take another path.

I've said enough of what I think should have happened on this thread 

On that basis I can't support what Lambeth have done.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

editor said:


> I never seem to have this problem when getting around my local area - and I've never owned a car.



I guess it depends on how far you have to go and how often. Even three or four miles in London is a long way in terms of distance, connections.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

alex_ said:


> lambeth could have a bloke handing out tenners outside the council offices and some dickhead would complaining they were handing out pictures of the queen.
> 
> Alex



I don't want to blow my own trumpet here but if it wasn't for people like me and many others in Lambeth who are "dickheads" things like the Brixton Rec site for example would have been disposed of as a development opportunity by Lambeth. That's just one example. 

There are others.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I can't it was an exaggeration on how you just can't predict your journey by bus or car. Even google doesn't help as it changes so rapidy.
> 
> Result is you end up allocating much more time for each journey regardless of how you're making it by car or bus. Personally it feels as if half my life is either spent working or traveling now, when before it wasnt like that. Predictable.



love how fact free your feelings are


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Given the traffic and many cycle on main roads I can't actually see them being any safer. Probably why all pictures are of kids on tricycles in LTNs and not commuters trying to get around while swearing under their breath as they navigate slow moving or idel traffic.


Is there any truth in this? I'm new to commuter cycling and only because LTNs and other changes make it feel safe enough. I don't seem to be the only commuter cyclist using Railton Road and Shakespeare Road. Are there way more on the main roads and I just don't see them?


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I guess it depends on how far you have to go and how often. Even three or four miles in London is a long way in terms of distance, connections.


Could you give some examples of these short journeys you were alluding to previously?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I can't it was an exaggeration on how you just can't predict your journey by bus or car. Even google doesn't help as it changes so rapidy.
> 
> Result is you end up allocating much more time for each journey regardless of how you're making it by car or bus. Personally it feels as if half my life is either spent working or traveling now, when before it wasnt like that. Predictable.


It was only a page ago that you were telling us that you don't and can't travel by bus at all. Now you are telling us that you can't predict bus journey times.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Is there any truth in this? I'm new to commuter cycling and only because LTNs and other changes make it feel safe enough. I don't seem to be the only commuter cyclist using Railton Road and Shakespeare Road. Are there way more on the main roads and I just don't see them?



I think Jeanette Moo was exaggerating.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It was only a page ago that you were telling us that you don't and can't travel by bus at all. Now you are telling us that you can't predict bus journey times.



Yeah its almost like people in the area speak to each other. Community. It will never catch on.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think Jeanette Moo was exaggerating.



All we are missing now is a 'did your whatsapp group tell you that!'


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Is there any truth in this? I'm new to commuter cycling and only because LTNs and other changes make it feel safe enough. I don't seem to be the only commuter cyclist using Railton Road and Shakespeare Road. Are there way more on the main roads and I just don't see them?


I'm a confident cyclist who has cycled everywhere in London (on all types of roads) since 1993. 

What's interesting about the new-ish segregated routes and LTNs is that they have changed the way I move about London. Given a choice, I tend to visit locations which I can get to via those routes. And it is noticeably more stressful when cycling on 'open roads'. Mrs W pointed out the other day that whenever we got home from work one or the other of us had a story about being cut-up by a car. Doesn't happen nearly as often now.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> That's the thing though. I don't think. Like my last post said, you'll never see me again.
> 
> There was an article ages ago about how this level of interaction and campaigning is the forte of the middle class, well off. Unless you're paid to do it or it really is your passion.
> 
> ...


You're missing the big point, which is covid. A lot of people don't want to go on public transport.  If you want them to use the car instead then you need to start talking about knocking buildings down and building motorways - we don't have the capacity. LTNs are part of the solution,  along with those other things you mention.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> I'm a confident cyclist who has cycled everywhere in London (on all types of roads) since 1993.
> 
> What's interesting about the new-ish segregated routes and LTNs is that they have changed the way I move about London. Given a choice, I tend to visit locations which I can get to via those routes. And it is noticeably more stressful when cycling on 'open roads'. Mrs W pointed out the other day that whenever we got home from work one or the other of us had a story about being cut-up by a car. Doesn't happen nearly as often now.



This is my experience as well and started seeing so many nice areas that never used to. Walworth is a lovely area that I hardly knew about.

Also has meant can cycle with my daughter rather than using public transport. You really start to appreciate how oppressive traffic makes an area once it’s gone. I don’t see how it’s unreasonable to make cars use main roads rather than cutting through areas.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

editor said:


> Could you give some examples of these short journeys you were alluding to previously?



I can try to do you one better. We are taking about resuming our community meetings once lockdown ends (fully open I mean) and people feel safe. They were always well attended with 50-60 people and if they are on would you come sit?

A mixture of all sorts. Old, young, able bodied, not. Some working, some unemployed, some retired, some shop owners. Majority public transport users. It's not all about LTNs. It's not all anti LTN.

Youd get a wide range of feelings and experiences from bus users losing significant time every day, those whose friends / family / carers are no longer visiting, car users (who are also human) who are losing hours every day. I could go on.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I can try to do you one better. We are taking about resuming our community meetings once lockdown ends (fully open I mean) and people feel safe. They were always well attended with 50-60 people and if they are on would you come sit?
> 
> A mixture of all sorts. Old, young, able bodied, not. Some working, some unemployed, some retired, some shop owners. Majority public transport users. It's not all about LTNs. It's not all anti LTN.
> 
> Youd get a wide range of feelings and experiences from bus users losing significant time every day, those whose friends / family / carers are no longer visiting, car users (who are also human) who are losing hours every day. I could go on.


I'd be happier with a straight answer, actually.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

editor said:


> I'd be happier with a straight answer, actually.



I'd rather let people tell you their struggles themselves. I clearly don't do it justice myself.

Third hand info doesn't cross well and while it's by no means reportable (or interesting) its an invitation that I leave open


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I'd rather let people tell you their struggles themselves. I clearly don't do it justice myself.
> 
> Third hand info doesn't cross well and while it's by no means reportable (or interesting) its an invitation that I leave open


Why can't you answer a simple question? You were quick to cite your own experiences earlier and now you've suddenly gone all coy when asked for some details.

 It's ridiculous expecting me to give up my time and attend a meeting full of people I've never met just to get an answer to a simple, direct question.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I can try to do you one better. We are taking about resuming our community meetings once lockdown ends (fully open I mean) and people feel safe. They were always well attended with 50-60 people and if they are on would you come sit?
> 
> A mixture of all sorts. Old, young, able bodied, not. Some working, some unemployed, some retired, some shop owners. Majority public transport users. It's not all about LTNs. It's not all anti LTN.
> 
> Youd get a wide range of feelings and experiences from bus users losing significant time every day, those whose friends / family / carers are no longer visiting, car users (who are also human) who are losing hours every day. I could go on.



Losing hours a day!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Losing hours a day!



God damn working class will want feeding next! Peasants!


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> working class


With their cars in the city. Maybe I just move in the wrong circles.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> God damn working class will want feeding next! Peasants!



get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 2, 2021)

..... we’ve almost gone full Kafka now....too weird


----------



## alex_ (Jul 2, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> With their cars in the city. Maybe I just move in the wrong circles.



car ownership correlates most strongly with above average incomes


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

I cycle in a lot of traffic and use cycle lanes. Sometimes its quicker using busy main roads and at other times cycle lanes work well.

So for me it is about how quickly I want to get from A to B.

Google maps does have good cycle option. But they go all over the place sometimes. I check both car and cycle routes and my old fashioned paper map. Then choose my route. Some of the Streets pace pavement widening is causing me problems.

On pandemic. To be frank the idea that LTNs and Streets pace had to be brought in at short notice to encourage people not to use cars is bollox.

WFH has meant that until September people won't be commuting into City and West End.

Date I've heard from one big City company is September. Even then WFH will be an option. Its likely their will be permanent change in where people work. With more spending time WFH rather than commuting. So potentially less traffic due to changed work patterns. Makes me wonder if all road closures are really necessary.

The City is empty yet hard pressed van drivers I know are still getting tickets for loading up on empty streets.

Occupants of City are mainly security guards, post room staff, couriers and traffic wardens.

Kind of wished traffic wardens had all been put on furlong permanently.

Though my van driver mate got ticket from a camera. So someone must be spending pandemic glued to CCTV screen.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 2, 2021)

Anecdotal, but some people I know are still WFH, some are full-time back in the office, others like me are WFH most of the time and in the office once or twice a week. My work was keen to offer people the opportunity to go to the office as there are a lot of youngsters, and WFH in a flatshare has the potential to get old real fast. The idea that the centre of London is empty isn't really true any more. It was kinda spooky a couple of months ago. Now it's not normal, but it ain't empty. Roads are busyish. The cycle lanes _seem _really busy but I don't have anything from before to compare them to.



Gramsci said:


> So for me it is about how quickly I want to get from A to B.


I want to not get killed. I'm not a cyclist, I think. I'm just a guy on a bike I suppose.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I cycle in a lot of traffic and use cycle lanes. Sometimes its quicker using busy main roads and at other times cycle lanes work well.
> 
> So for me it is about how quickly I want to get from A to B.
> 
> ...


Thoughtful post....someone will be along with a clipboard and a load of questions shortly.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Anecdotal, but some people I know are still WFH, some are full-time back in the office, others like me are WFH most of the time and in the office once or twice a week. My work was keen to offer people the opportunity to go to the office as there are a lot of youngsters, and WFH in a flatshare has the potential to get old real fast. The idea that the centre of London is empty isn't really true any more. It was kinda spooky a couple of months ago. Now it's not normal, but it ain't empty. Roads are busyish. The cycle lanes _seem _really busy but I don't have anything from before to compare them to.
> 
> 
> I want to not get killed. I'm not a cyclist, I think. I'm just a guy on a bike I suppose.



The West End is almost back to normal. The City has some office staff back. Most big City firms are looking at September for back to normal.

Most big city companies ignored Boris. And still do. They are multi nationals. They make their own decisions. They aren't going to bring people back until they think its safe. Not when Boris says.

They've also had experiment in different kind of working.

None of this has anything to do with Khan or Boris. Capitalism also works as alternative system of government in a crisis.

The main thing thing government has done to prop up Capitalism is furlong. But don't expect big business to be grateful for this in long term.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I cycle in a lot of traffic and use cycle lanes. Sometimes its quicker using busy main roads and at other times cycle lanes work well.
> 
> So for me it is about how quickly I want to get from A to B.
> 
> ...



Google maps is seriously shit for safe cycling routes, just brings you straight onto main roads for long stretches.

Citymapper and TfLGo slightly better but if you want quiet routes you have to really plan. 

Isn’t that bizarre that you have to thoroughly research cycling routes while drivers just use sat nav and then get furious at any restrictions.

Really wish drivers would realise how privileged they have had it and just give a tiny shit about anyone else.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 2, 2021)

So, loads of workplaces are still empty. They've set their own timetable to return to the office. Yet road traffic was pretty much back to pre-pandemic levels a month or two ago, according to news reports. But with far fewer people travelling to work and road traffic somehow way up, there was zero need for schemes to try to discourage people from driving.

I think there's still, after all this time, a tendency to think there are a fixed number of journeys that need to be made by certain modes of transport every day, and any attempt to change that just leads to disaster... even though we've seen car journeys increase to fill the space available in a matter of months.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Google maps is seriously shit for safe cycling routes, just brings you straight onto main roads for long stretches.
> 
> Citymapper and TfLGo slightly better but if you want quiet routes you have to really plan.
> 
> ...



Actually it isn't in my experience.

I often know quickest route. But check on Google bike route. Its pretty good imo for bike routes. But they take longer.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Google maps is seriously shit for safe cycling routes, just brings you straight onto main roads for long stretches.
> 
> Citymapper and TfLGo slightly better but if you want quiet routes you have to really plan.
> 
> ...



BTW the drivers I know do it as living. Delivering for people. Key Workers.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Actually it isn't in my experience.
> 
> I often know quickest route. But check on Google bike route. Its pretty good imo for bike routes. But they take longer.



As you say, you’re an experienced cyclist

We need to make it safer and easier for people that at the moment are put off cycling because they see it as too dangerous.

You can actually see LTNs are encouraging more people to cycle. It means some minor inconvenience for drivers but that’s too much for lots.

No one’s actually have a 10min drive become an hour. It might add 5mins max to some journeys but that’s outrageous for privileged drivers. It just smacks of selfishness.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 2, 2021)

Maybe Google is better than it was. I was warned away from it and use Citymapper (which uses the Cycle Streets API, as does TFLGo I think).

Just tried Google for a route to work and the first thing it does is make me go round the murderous roundabout at the end of South Croxted Road and then all they way along there rather than the much quieter Rosendale Road. I think I'll leave Google for those who are happy to take that sort of thing on.

But it is a good bit of insight in to what some people think is a perfectly good bike route. Brr.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 2, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> BTW the drivers I know do it as living. Delivering for people. Key Workers.



But that’s not representative of most that drive. It’s just bizarre to think that pro car policies are in anyway progressive.

Let’s enable people that can’t afford cars to cycle which is quicker and faster than most alternatives. There’s a reason Tory councillors don’t support LTNs.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On pandemic. To be frank the idea that LTNs and Streets pace had to be brought in at short notice to encourage people not to use cars is bollox.
> 
> WFH has meant that until September people won't be commuting into City and West End.



Easy to say this kind of thing with hindsight. No-one knew how long things were going to go on, at the stage where these decisions were being made.

In any case we have a load of new cycling infrastructure ready for when people start going back to commuting - at whatever scale - and people are already using it. Some bits are so far underused, some bits have been scaled back, some bits are already at capacity.

It was already TfL policy to shift some of the burden off public transport and onto cycling/walking. Before the pandemic. Public transport was alreay stretched and it's very expensive to increase capacity on the tube for example. Some of the infrastructure was alrady happening, just painfully slowly.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 3, 2021)

If you live in Lambeth and can cycle to work rather than public transport you’re saving at least £1k a year - enabling that’s helping working class people a lot more than some minor inconveniences to drivers.


----------



## madolesance (Jul 3, 2021)

I work as a Dr Bike around Lambeth and have been since the first lockdown. Initially people really wanted to start cycling as a way to get around. Week after week we repaired bicycles dragged out of sheds, bikes that had been abandoned in gardens. There was definitely a reason and desire for these new cyclist to switch to this new 2 wheeled freedom.
Fast forward 18 months and they are still cycling. At the Dr Bikes I meet these people who are now committed to using a bicycle for their daily commute, saving £4 a day, £20 a week..... the benefits are clearly obvious.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 3, 2021)

madolesance said:


> I work as a Dr Bike around Lambeth and have been since the first lockdown. Initially people really wanted to start cycling as a way to get around. Week after week we repaired bicycles dragged out of sheds, bikes that had been abandoned in gardens. There was definitely a reason and desire for these new cyclist to switch to this new 2 wheeled freedom.
> Fast forward 18 months and they are still cycling. At the Dr Bikes I meet these people who are now committed to using a bicycle for their daily commute, saving £4 a day, £20 a week..... the benefits are clearly obvious.



Fantasy work! Dr Bike is such a positive thing!


----------



## madolesance (Jul 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Fantasy work! Dr Bike is such a positive thing!


The fantasy continues tomorrow at the Oval 12-3pm-









						Dr Bike - Kennington Monument
					

Visit our FREE Dr Bike session to get your bike checked and keep pedalling this summer!




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jul 3, 2021)

Sign in Knatchbull Rd showing stats from from traffic monitoring commissioned and paid for by local residents. 70% of drivers are speeding!


----------



## alex_ (Jul 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sign in Knatchbull Rd showing stats from from traffic monitoring commissioned and paid for by local residents. 70% of drivers are speeding!
> 
> View attachment 276541


I’m pretty sure these are all disabled people who are late to urgent hospital appointments, how dare you question their human rights ?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 3, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Maybe Google is better than it was. I was warned away from it and use Citymapper (which uses the Cycle Streets API, as does TFLGo I think).
> 
> Just tried Google for a route to work and the first thing it does is make me go round the murderous roundabout at the end of South Croxted Road and then all they way along there rather than the much quieter Rosendale Road. I think I'll leave Google for those who are happy to take that sort of thing on.
> 
> But it is a good bit of insight in to what some people think is a perfectly good bike route. Brr.



Just downloaded citymapper. This does look a good app. Gives different routes for a destination depending on whether you want to use longer quiet routes or fast route. Routes look accurate to me. So it is better than Google.

I still use my trusty dog eared A to Z. Which gets laughed at. __


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 3, 2021)

Looks like it makes for a good emergency snack on a long ride too.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Just downloaded citymapper. This does look a good app. Gives different routes for a destination depending on whether you want to use longer quiet routes or fast route. Routes look accurate to me. So it is better than Google.
> 
> I still use my trusty dig eared A to Z. Which gets laughed at. __View attachment 276596



Citymapper still just takes you on some horrible roads but is pretty good.

This guys videos are fantastic meant I’ve seen areas I never would have otherwise.



			https://youtube.com/c/Londoncycleroutes
		


The first part of this route in particular:


----------



## alex_ (Jul 3, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Just downloaded citymapper. This does look a good app. Gives different routes for a destination depending on whether you want to use longer quiet routes or fast route. Routes look accurate to me. So it is better than Google.
> 
> I still use my trusty dig eared A to Z. Which gets laughed at. __View attachment 276596



it has loads of really good long cuts around nasty functions etc


----------



## Winot (Jul 4, 2021)

This is a really interesting Twitter thread. Specifically about Ealing LTNs and referendums, but more broadly about leadership and how local decisions should be made.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Citymapper still just takes you on some horrible roads but is pretty good.
> 
> This guys videos are fantastic meant I’ve seen areas I never would have otherwise.
> 
> ...



That’s really good, almost my route to work, I avoid Brixton altogether and head through LJ.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

Winot said:


> This is a really interesting Twitter thread. Specifically about Ealing LTNs and referendums, but more broadly about leadership and how local decisions should be made.




Here is what Ealing Council said in May.





__





						LTN 21 trial to be ended and local people to vote on LTNs in Ealing | Ealing Council
					

LTN 21 trial to be ended and local people to vote on LTNs in Ealing - Announcement on LTN 21




					www.ealing.gov.uk
				




They will have what they call CPZ style consultation with local referendum. 



> Remaining LTNs will be subject to a CPZ style consultation, with a vote for local people on whether they think the LTNs will work in their neighbourhoods.



Article says there has been mixed response to LTN. That Council will work with residents to keep parts that are supported. New leadership say they want to do more to consult prior to implementation. To persuade rather than impose. Which is a form of leadership.

Leo Murray twitter thread is argument for why ordinary people can't be trusted with democracy. So I don't agree with it.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 4, 2021)

Democracy does not equate to a referendum on every issue. We elect people to sometimes make decisions that are difficult or unpopular for the good of society as a whole (or for the disadvantaged within it).


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2021)

If it's agreed that problems of excess traffic need to be addressed then the referendum should be a choice between plausible solutions to the problem. If the referendum is on yes/no to LTNs then it's effectively a referendum on "shall we try to reduce motor traffic or not" but not presented as such to voters.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

Democracy is not a fixed thing. It changes over time. 

Lambeth is for instance doing an experiment in Citizen Assembly. Better described as Deliberative Democracy. Switzerland mentioned in the twitter thread uses more referendums. 

Argument against referendums by Leo Murray is that;

Those motivated to vote will be antis. The silent majority may not come out. 

Old people tend to reply to consultations. (over 55) They don't want change and their inaction on climate changes means they have let done younger generation. The fact (according to Murray) is that this generation are part of the problem. Note he's talking about consultations in general here not just referendums. Its part of the wrong sort of people use mainstream democratic routes line of argument. 

People say they want change in abstract. But when given a concrete action don't like it. 

If the state or local state impose a change on community they will in end accept it. So in practise that means don't consult or do referendums imo. 


So Murray isn't only talking about referendums he's criticising consultation as well. 

Whole thing reads as citizens can't be persuaded so impose it on them and they will in end put up with it. 

I do find the line that over 55s are just a bunch of self interested supporters of the status quo a sweeping generalisation.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

Ealing Council appear to be saying that the LTNs put in place will be subject to a referendum once the trial period ends.

I don't have a problem with that.

In Leo Murray twitter he is using examples of referendums before something is in place.

 He is saying if something is implemented first people in end are likely to accept it.

So having a referendum after a reasonable length of a trial period of LTN isn't going against what he is saying in part of the twitter thread. Its really referendums prior to policy implementation that he sees as problem.

It could also see possible vote in favour in some areas.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Democracy is not a fixed thing. It changes over time.
> 
> Lambeth is for instance doing an experiment in Citizen Assembly.


How's that going?

Last I heard it had just been taken over by anti-LTN obsessives.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How's that going?
> 
> Last I heard it had just been taken over by anti-LTN obsessives.



The WhatsApp group set up by a few local greens to inform people about it was taken over by anti LTN lot so I left.

The Citizen Assembly is on now. I've been getting emails from Council about it.

The speakers for it are being recorded and put online. Looks interesting speakers. I've not had chance to look at the YouTube videos yet.

Available here.









						Lambeth’s Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change
					

Visit this site to engage with Lambeth’s Citizens’ Assembly on Climate Change. From 25th May – 3rd July, you can join the conversation addressing the question: ‘How can we work together in Lambeth to address climate change and its causes fairly, effectively and quickly?’. #LambethClimateAction




					lambethclimateaction.commonplace.is
				




Here is one that I want to watch.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How's that going?
> 
> Last I heard it had just been taken over by anti-LTN obsessives.


Personally I'm for the Swiss model on this issue. Which would also require the council to step back from funding LTN propaganda until the matter is resolved.
None of this should have been bounced through under emergency powers.
If the schemes had been through proper democratic due process acceptable compromises could have been bedded in by now.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I do find the line that over 55s are just a bunch of self interested supporters of the status quo a sweeping generalisation.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Leo Murray twitter thread is argument for why ordinary people can't be trusted with democracy. So I don't agree with it.



That’s horseshit, and you are smart enough to know it.

It an argument about you don’t want to subject very complex decisions with long term consequences, which will create winners and losers to direct democracy.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2021)

I don't actually see where it says that Ealing are going to do 'referendums'. Their web page says they are going to do 'non statutory consultations' that will 'inform' the decision about whether to keep the LTNs.

One big problem with a referendum approach is how you decide to draw the boundary around who can and can't vote. Is it just people inside the LTN or is it people in neighbouring areas too? How do you decide what a relevant 'neighbouring area' is?

I've asked this question before, of people proposing that Lambeth have a yes/no vote, and never received an answer.

You'd have great difficulty doing things like deciding where to put, say, drugs rehab clinics using this kind of method.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't actually see where it says that Ealing are going to do 'referendums'. Their web page says they are going to do 'non statutory consultations' that will 'inform' the decision about whether to keep the LTNs.
> 
> One big problem with a referendum approach is how you decide to draw the boundary around who can and can't vote. Is it just people inside the LTN or is it people in neighbouring areas too? How do you decide what a relevant 'neighbouring area' is?
> 
> ...


Surely in these Lambeth LTNs the area consulted should be both the proposed LTN streets, and those adjoining at the very least.

By the way at the risk of being accused of being senile I have had experience with consulting about a controversial project back when it was proposed to locate the Mosaic Clubhouse in Atkins Road in the mid 90s. Somewhat unusually for the time Lambeth Social Services and SLAM held a consultation meeting in the nearby Clapham Park Library - which was inundated by irate residents making all sorts of allegations about what the proposed mental patients at the day centre would get up to. Disturbingly this opposition included the nearby St Bedes Catholic School headteacher - who as snowy_again might have said should have known better.

 The thing was in such a heated atmosphere I - as one of the two ward councillors present - was obliged to leap into the defence of Clubhouse, not least as I could see my fellow councillor who had not been briefed was wavering and likely to support the objectors.

Anyway pointing out the advantages and debunking some of the scare stories worked at the meeting - and as far as I know the most serious problem the Clubhouse had in the several years it was at Atkins Road was hosting a visit by the Minister of Health Frank Dobson.

What I am trying to say is if the proponents of LTN are sure of their ground they would not be afraid to meet the people - or consult them.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Surely in these Lambeth LTNs the area consulted should be both the proposed LTN streets, and those adjoining at the very least.
> 
> By the way at the risk of being accused of being senile I have had experience with consulting about a controversial project back when it was proposed to locate the Mosaic Clubhouse in Atkins Road in the mid 90s. Somewhat unusually for the time Lambeth Social Services and SLAM held a consultation meeting in the nearby Clapham Park Library - which was inundated by irate residents making all sorts of allegations about what the proposed mental patients at the day centre would get up to. Disturbingly this opposition included the nearby St Bedes Catholic School headteacher - who as snowy_again might have said should have known better.
> 
> ...


In that case, was there a referendum with a vote? Or was it a consultation where apparent opposition was reduced by presenting the arguments, and then councillors/the council made the final decision?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

alex_ said:


> That’s horseshit, and you are smart enough to know it.
> 
> It an argument about you don’t want to subject very complex decisions with long term consequences, which will create winners and losers to direct democracy.



This just confirms what I said previously.

Worse Murray says this in his twitter thread,



It runs through the twitter thread from the start. That the majority of people aren't capable of decision making. Things should be left to proper urban planners and Joe public should be kept at arms length from decision making as its to complicated for them.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> This just confirms what I said previously.
> 
> Worse Murray says this in his twitter thread,
> 
> ...



“We’ve had enough of experts - joe on WhatsApp reckons we just need to fiddle the traffic lights and raise the speed limit to 40mph and all the pollution will go away. That’s a far better idea than lTNs that make it more difficult for me to drive”


----------



## CH1 (Jul 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In that case, was there a referendum with a vote? Or was it a consultation where apparent opposition was reduced by presenting the arguments, and then councillors/the council made the final decision?


In that case it was a public meeting to give information before the planning application went in.
And although the public were free to give reign to their worst fears - which some did - there was not a vote at the end of the meeting.
At that time referenda were a twinkle in Tony Blair's eye and  it was actually the time of the Major Tory government and a hung Lambeth council.

But the point is the Social Services boss of Community Care, John Ballat, covened a public meeting with Ray Rowden of West Lambeth HA - part of now SLAM - to put their case to the local residents. It was a stormy meeting - but the planning application was not so much contested when it came, from my recollection.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't actually see where it says that Ealing are going to do 'referendums'. Their web page says they are going to do 'non statutory consultations' that will 'inform' the decision about whether to keep the LTNs.



The Leader of the Council Peter Mason promises this,



> This decision is about giving local people control over change in their neighbourhoods. Our commitment to tackling the climate emergency and enabling active travel and cycling remains unchanged, but we know we must take people with us.”







__





						LTN 21 trial to be ended and local people to vote on LTNs in Ealing | Ealing Council
					

LTN 21 trial to be ended and local people to vote on LTNs in Ealing - Announcement on LTN 21




					www.ealing.gov.uk
				




No detail.

Looked him up. The Labour Council had a leadership change. Looks like Labour Group were concerned about losing votes. So new Leadership are saying they will involve community more.









						Ealing leader announces new approach to development | Capital West London
					

Ealing Council’s new leader, Councillor Peter Mason, has announced a new approach to development that he says will “put community led development in the driving seat of regeneration.” He says this approach will ask more of developers, focusing on bringing back good jobs and employment...




					capitalwestlondon.co.uk
				






> Ealing Council’s new leader, Councillor Peter Mason, has announced a new approach to development that he says will “put community led development in the driving seat of regeneration.”



Sounds like a number of issues of how this Labour Council has dealt with community have caused Council to become less popular. So this is a change of direction. Sounds positive to me.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2021)

CH1 said:


> What I am trying to say is if the proponents of LTN are sure of their ground they would not be afraid to meet the people - or consult them.



Pretty sure most proponents agree with this - talking to people makes you realise that the polorisation is just online, most people see the positives and negatives, it really helps to have them in place temporarily first before consultation as they aren’t an easy think to understand and can be counterintuitive so well have much better consultation with people coming from a more knowledgeable position.

But again, consultation isn’t a referendum. Good referenda have a minimum number of people needing to vote and that’s very unlikely on most local issues.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> It runs through the twitter thread from the start. That the majority of people aren't capable of decision making. Things should be left to proper urban planners and Joe public should be kept at arms length from decision making as its to complicated for them.


Are you disputing the referenced research which shows that traffic calming measures are strongly supported after they are implemented, or are you saying it doesn’t apply to LTNs ?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2021)

CH1 said:


> In that case it was a public meeting to give information before the planning application went in.
> And although the public were free to give reign to their worst fears - which some did - there was not a vote at the end of the meeting.
> At that time referenda were a twinkle in Tony Blair's eye and  it was actually the time of the Major Tory government and a hung Lambeth council.
> 
> But the point is the Social Services boss of Community Care, John Ballat, covened a public meeting with Ray Rowden of West Lambeth HA - part of now SLAM - to put their case to the local residents. It was a stormy meeting - but the planning application was not so much contested when it came, from my recollection.



Lambeth have been putting their case - mainly online during the pandemic - but you refer to it as "propaganda". Maybe "propaganda" was employed to put the case for that clubhouse relocation?


----------



## CH1 (Jul 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Lambeth have been putting their case - mainly online during the pandemic - but you refer to it as "propaganda". Maybe "propaganda" was employed to put the case for that clubhouse relocation?


The papers through the door in both Railton and Tulse Hill LTN tell the resident what is going to happen - complete with mis-annotated map in th case of Tulse Hill - where Brixton Road now runs all the way to Christchurch Road. I reckon whoever designed the schemes and/or their graphic artists have limited local knowledge.

The leaflets do give addresses to write to in the case of complaint - in Winchester hopefully a scanning centre not a rubbish bin?
There are also email addresses.

My verdict on this is - divide and obfuscate.
Individuals can write to or email Lambeth council without the confidence they will be taken notice of at all.
They will not be told if others agree with them. This is why organisations like the One people can organise so easily.

Obviously having this exercise in mid-pandemic does make having meetings impossible.
But as I understand it if there were no Covid crisis these measures could not have been brought in anyway.

I would prefer consensus to be developed on controversial changes.
With the LTN whoever is in charge of it is not so much Stalinist - more totally cynical.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Pretty sure most proponents agree with this - talking to people makes you realise that the polorisation is just online, most people see the positives and negatives, it really helps to have them in place temporarily first before consultation as they aren’t an easy think to understand and can be counterintuitive so well have much better consultation with people coming from a more knowledgeable position.
> 
> But again, consultation isn’t a referendum. Good referenda have a minimum number of people needing to vote and that’s very unlikely on most local issues.


Are you saying that if it hadn't been for Urban and Twttter the LTNs would have been accepted without complaint?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Are you saying that if it hadn't been for Urban and Twttter the LTNs would have been accepted without complaint?



? - I’m saying most people are fairly neutral/undecided and not as polarised as it seems online.

That’s probably true of most things tbf.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

As this thread started as being about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood I'd like to point out that the Councils original pre pandemic way to consult on the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood was prior to any implementation.

I was at local LJ meeting where officer in charge outlined how the consultation would progress. That scheme would not go ahead without Council and the funders TFL seeing that community support had been built up. Prior to implementation.

Now I see the view is that its necessary to put schemes in first.

That was definitely not the way the way this scheme was originally planned.

I note posters like me and CH1 are now being asked to justify prior consultation. When in fact that is what the Council originally said it was going to do.

Council could make argument that pandemic changed things.

But recent posts here suggest that some think implementation first is the way to do it pandemic or no pandemic.

Which is different argument.

I don't remember Council arguing at the meeting I attended that research showed people initially opposed change so better to put in first. Definitely not.

BTW the officer in charge told LJ forum that Council had learned lessons of the LJ Road closure failure.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2021)

We have a bit of a problem in this discussion in that the range of what 'consultation' can mean is pretty wide.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> As this thread started as being about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood I'd like to point out that the Councils original pre pandemic way to consult on the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood was prior to any implementation.
> 
> I was at local LJ meeting where officer in charge outlined how the consultation would progress. That scheme would not go ahead without Council and the funders TFL seeing that community support had been built up. Prior to implementation.
> 
> ...



Not necessary to put them in first just pointing out that it can be helpful. And you and @CH1don’t need to justify anything this is a discussion.

I do think it’s useful to deal with the situation as it is now rather than it was a couple of years ago as can’t see how it would be helpful (or cost effective) to rip them out now and start from scratch.

Finally, it’s an old point and probably made several times here before, but there was no consultation about allowing motor vehicles to dominate our streets, we just let it happen.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We have a bit of a problem in this discussion in that the range of what 'consultation' can mean is pretty wide.



I was quite happy to go with what the Council originaly intended to re consultation. 

It now appears some posters here would have disagreed with this if pandemic hadn't altered things. 

So I'm in position of someone who has been regularly portrayed here as opposing anything the Council does actually supporting their original line.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not necessary to put them in first just pointing out that it can be helpful. And you and @CH1don’t need to justify anything this is a discussion.
> 
> I do think it’s useful to deal with the situation as it is now rather than it was a couple of years ago as can’t see how it would be helpful (or cost effective) to rip them out now and start from scratch.
> 
> Finally, it’s an old point and probably made several times here before, but there was no consultation about allowing motor vehicles to dominate our streets, we just let it happen.



You said this few posts back, 



> really helps to have them in place temporarily first before consultation



Sorry to get pedantic here but saying this means imo that is what you'd prefer. 

I'm pointing out this is not how Council initially envisaged doing the Liveable Neighbourhood project.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 4, 2021)

Why do we have to keep going over this? We know there was an initial plan that suddenly changed, as a result of the pandemic and what central government decided to encourage councils to do. Everyone knows the plan changed and the implementation is not as it would have been otherwise.

As far as consultation before or after is concerned it doesn't have to be an either/or thing - it should be used before, during and after implementation. In my opinion. Where people will disagree is what consultation actually means or should mean in the context of something like this. For me, it's getting feedback from people who know the area and using that to make the scheme work as well as possible without abandoning the stated aims, which should be decided at a wider policy level. For others it's asking people whether they want the thing at all.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 5, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> You said this few posts back,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You said I was saying it was necessary to put them in first, but I said it helps, not that it’s necessary.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 6, 2021)

Another truly distasteful tweet from OneLambeth:


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2021)

chowce5382 has set up a new fundraiser for an appeal: OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth



> *OneLambeth Anti-LTN Court Appeal Fundraiser*
> 
> On Monday 28th June High Court Judge Justice Tim Kerr ruled in favour of Cllr Claire Holland and Lambeth Council and against
> Sofia Sheikh (a disabled resident and Covid Coma survivor representing Lambeth residents) in our challenge to the undemocratic
> ...



You can also still donate to the old one if you want: OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth


----------



## alex_ (Jul 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> chowce5382 has set up a new fundraiser for an appeal: OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
> 
> 
> 
> You can also still donate to the old one if you want: OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth



do you know which oneLambeth is doing this ?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2021)

alex_ said:


> do you know which oneLambeth is doing this ?


It mentions they consulted the OneLambeth community so I guess it's all of them.

I wonder why they set up a new fundraiser rather than increase the existing one again. Strange to have 3 different fundraisers - maybe they don't like the £55k as a headline figure. Perhaps our lurker can let us know.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 7, 2021)

It has different end beneficiaries and therefore need to be separate.

Sofia was for the first one as she was named as the person taking Lambeth to court.

That doesn’t apply for the new one - Charles J is it all (no longer just treasurer for the recent second one).


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> It has different end beneficiaries and therefore need to be separate.
> 
> Sofia was for the first one as she was named as the person taking Lambeth to court.
> 
> That doesn’t apply for the new one - Charles J is it all (no longer just treasurer for the recent second one).


Sofia's must still be the client as it's an appeal of her case. Presumably chowce5382 is just acting as the treasurer again.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2021)

Latest from Tim Briggs



Apparently there's no congestion in Conservative Wandsworth! It's a low tax miracle!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2021)

How is Bedford Road the busiest in the country? I would have though the M25 would have been busier but I'm sure Tim knows better.

Edit: maybe he's refering to this article.... from 2010.





__





						Britain’s most congested street is in south London
					

South-west London is one of the most congested places in Europe, a new report reveals.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Jul 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How is Bedford Road the busiest in the country? I would have though the M25 would have been busier but I'm sure Tim knows better.
> 
> Edit: maybe he's refering to this article.... from 2010.
> 
> ...



The LTN caused congestion 10 years ahead of implementation - a smoking gun if ever I saw one!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The LTN caused congestion 10 years ahead of implementation - a smoking gun if ever I saw one!


Everyone wanted to make sure they made their journeys before the impact of the LTNs obviously.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 8, 2021)

Overnight the Shakespeare road gates and camera has been vandalised with white paint. What’s really galling is that they (as in anti LTN people) agreed to the legal process and having lost, resort to this sort of bollocks.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Overnight the Shakespeare road gates and camera has been vandalised with white paint. What’s really galling is that they (as in anti LTN people) agreed to the legal process and having lost, resort to this sort of bollocks.


Upper Tulse Hill signs also painted over again last night. It's the third time in as many weeks. If you haven't yet do report the damage to lowtrafficneighbourhoods@lambeth.gov.uk

Presumably, if they become permanent and the vandalism continues, there comes a time that making some of the filters physical rather than ANPR is more beneficial than having to constantly deal with the vandalism rather than remove them totally.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sofia's must still be the client as it's an appeal of her case. Presumably chowce5382 is just acting as the treasurer again.


It’s the same position as before. Sofia is the client but I’m helping with paying the bills so she doesn’t have to. We decided on a new page as it just looked cleaner and would ensure people knew it was specifically for an appeal to the ruling. Some people have already said that they will donate through the old page as it took them some time to understand how gofundme works and feel comfortable doing it that way although that will be the minority.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 8, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> some time to understand how gofundme works


I think I'm starting to see how modal shift and traffic evaporation can be difficult concepts.


----------



## nick (Jul 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Upper Tulse Hill signs also painted over again last night. It's the third time in as many weeks. If you haven't yet do report the damage to lowtrafficneighbourhoods@lambeth.gov.uk
> 
> Presumably, if they become permanent and the vandalism continues, there comes a time that making some of the filters physical rather than ANPR is more beneficial than having to constantly deal with the vandalism rather than remove them totally.


Yesterday the camera on west end of palace road had paint over it - although the paint from previous week had been removed from the no entry signs.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 8, 2021)

Council seeks views of community groups on LTN consultation
					

The Railton LTN in Herne Hill    Lambeth council is seeking the views of local voluntary and community organisations to help prepare its consultations on the five low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) it has created in the borough.    It plans to begin full public consultation on the LTNs in the autumn.




					brixtonblog.com


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 8, 2021)

The signs at the Herne Hill end of Railton Road have been painted white too. Someone had a busy night.


----------



## BusLanes (Jul 9, 2021)

Putting paint on the cameras seems like a bit of an escalation too.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 9, 2021)

BusLanes said:


> Putting paint on the cameras seems like a bit of an escalation too.


I'm sure some will say it "shows the strength of feeling" around these but tbh it seems like it's a few selfish motorists that have had it so priveleged they'll throw their toys out of the pram at the slightest inconvience.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 9, 2021)

The law firm OneLambeth are using have a more measured assessment of the appeal on their website than OneLambeth’s fundraisers presents. It sounds like the judge didn’t want to set a precedent for rolling equality impact assessments that Lambeth has used and that’s why he granted leave for appeal.

chowce5382 maybe you should link to this on your fundraiser for full transparency.





__





						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the Public Sector Equality Duty | Rook Irwin Sweeney - Public Law. Human Rights.
					






					rookirwinsweeney.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jul 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The law firm OneLambeth are using have a more measured assessment of the appeal on their website than OneLambeth’s fundraisers presents. It sounds like the judge didn’t want to set a precedent for rolling equality impact assessments that Lambeth has used and that’s why he granted leave for appeal.
> 
> chowce5382 maybe you should link to this on your fundraiser for full transparency.
> 
> ...



As mentioned before, what I don’t get is that this court case looks very unlikely to stop LTNs. In fact consultation for them to become permanent may well have been carried out before this appeal is heard and then surely that would mean this becomes moot as other impact assessments would have been carried out.

chowce5382 have your lawyers given any indication that a win in the court case would mean the LTNs would be taken out?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> As mentioned before, what I don’t get is that this court case looks very unlikely to stop LTNs. In fact consultation for them to become permanent may well have been carried out before this appeal is heard and then surely that would mean this becomes moot as other impact assessments would have been carried out.
> 
> chowce5382 have your lawyers given any indication that a win in the court case would mean the LTNs would be taken out?


Yes


----------



## edcraw (Jul 10, 2021)

MOTOR VEHICLES NOW!!!


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 10, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> The signs at the Herne Hill end of Railton Road have been painted white too. Someone had a busy night.


Signs repaired


----------



## edcraw (Jul 10, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes



The piece on their website doesn’t really suggest that. Are you going to link to it on your fundraiser so people donating can read it?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The piece on their website doesn’t really suggest that. Are you going to link to it on your fundraiser so people donating can read it?


The judge certainly didn’t say it, the opposite in fact.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 10, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The judge certainly didn’t say it, the opposite in fact.


Yes - it’s suspicious that the old fundraiser hasn’t been updated with the ruling and that the new one also doesn’t include the ruling or the summary of their own lawyers.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 10, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s the same position as before. Sofia is the client but I’m helping with paying the bills so she doesn’t have to. We decided on a new page as it just looked cleaner and would ensure people knew it was specifically for an appeal to the ruling. Some people have already said that they will donate through the old page as it took them some time to understand how gofundme works and feel comfortable doing it that way although that will be the minority.



Just donated. I hope Sofia is coping OK with the stress of taking Lambeth on.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 14, 2021)

Bit of stuff on social media about residents requesting the removal of disabled parking bays in ferndale road as not enough ordinary parking spaces. The pro disabled halo is starting to slip


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 14, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Bit of stuff on social media about residents requesting the removal of disabled parking bays in ferndale road as not enough ordinary parking spaces. The pro disabled halo is starting to slip


Pretty sure disabled spaces on residential streets are there to serve specific individuals, so if they have moved on it makes sense for them to be repurposed.


----------



## Winot (Jul 14, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Pretty sure disabled spaces on residential streets are there to serve specific individuals, so if they have moved on it makes sense for them to be repurposed.


As bike hangars.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 14, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Pretty sure disabled spaces on residential streets are there to serve specific individuals, so if they have moved on it makes sense for them to be repurposed.


.... but disabled parking bays are not reserved for use of a named individual,


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 14, 2021)

Winot said:


> As bike hangars.


Yep making life more difficult for people with mobility issues, do you think they like to sit in parking bays without actually going anywhere...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 14, 2021)




----------



## sparkybird (Jul 14, 2021)

Why doesn't this person park in Sandmere Road then and walk 'just yards' to get home???? It's not true that they can't access the bays- if they spend 10 mins driving around to find a space, they can spend 10 mins driving to Sandmere Road


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 14, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Why doesn't this person park in Sandmere Road then and walk 'just yards' to get home???? It's not true that they can't access the bays- if they spend 10 mins driving around to find a space, they can spend 10 mins driving to Sandmere Road


yeah they are being lazy but I don’t think the disabled bays are their main issue here rather that the LTN has meant parking has been concentrated in the road they live in, interesting that it took place on an evening when parking is free anyway, this happens a lot where I live, parking controls mean the street is fairly quiet when cplz is operational, but weekends and evenings it’s often full of parked cars.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 14, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Why doesn't this person park in Sandmere Road then and walk 'just yards' to get home???? It's not true that they can't access the bays- if they spend 10 mins driving around to find a space, they can spend 10 mins driving to Sandmere Road


Why? Because these people are entitled lazy twats who think a driving license means they should be allowed to park outside their house whenever they want.


----------



## Jesterburger (Jul 14, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> yeah they are being lazy but I don’t think the disabled bays are their main issue here rather that the LTN has meant parking has been concentrated in the road they live in, interesting that it took place on an evening when parking is free anyway, this happens a lot where I live, parking controls mean the street is fairly quiet when cplz is operational, but weekends and evenings it’s often full of parked cars.


Time to make the CPZ 24/7 then


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 14, 2021)

Jesterburger said:


> Time to make the CPZ 24/7 then



....not sure that would be great for extended families who live a long distance from their relatives or people who require a vehicle for work


----------



## teuchter (Jul 14, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ....not sure that would be great for extended families who live a long distance from their relatives or people who require a vehicle for work


How so?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How so?



in my part of town both groups are well represented, regarding extended families at weekends it’s not unusual to see vehicles rock up and numerous kids, grandkids etc pile out to visit family, I think this is a good thing and imposing a charge for this a bit mean spirited, and not just limited to families but community/religious/sports groups as well. Those who work in transport, van, delivery drivers wouldn’t qualify for a permit as company vehicles would probably not have the documentation one needs to get a permit in the first place, so they do a gruelling shift and can’t park close to their residence....and if they can get a permit they are being taxed for providing a service..


----------



## teuchter (Jul 14, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> in my part of town both groups are well represented, regarding extended families at weekends it’s not unusual to see vehicles rock up and numerous kids, grandkids etc pile out to visit family, I think this is a good thing and imposing a charge for this a bit mean spirited, and not just limited to families but community/religious/sports groups as well. Those who work in transport, van, delivery drivers wouldn’t qualify for a permit as company vehicles would probably not have the documentation one needs to get a permit in the first place, so they do a gruelling shift and can’t park close to their residence....and if they can get a permit they are being taxed for providing a service..


Given that part of the aim of the LTNs and indeed London-wide policy in general is to reduce the amount of journeys made by car, I don't really see that there is a problem in making it less easy for numerous visitors to rock up in cars instead of using public transport. Of course, if you disagree with the general policy aim then fair enough. Plus, isn't this what visitors' permits are for?

As for company vehicles, I'm not really familiar with how the rules operate there, but I don't think residential streets should really be places companies can store their vehicles for free if there's pressure on space, so I wouldn't be inclined to make decisions that try to accommodate this. This is the same kind of thinking that says we can't make any delivery routes more circuitous because delivery companies pay their drivers by parcel delivered rather than miles travelled...it's tail wagging dog; the delivery companies should adapt to the infrastructure and streetscape we want, not the other way around.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 14, 2021)

What do they mean by disabled bays being a disruption spot?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Given that part of the aim of the LTNs and indeed London-wide policy in general is to reduce the amount of journeys made by car, I don't really see that there is a problem in making it less easy for numerous visitors to rock up in cars instead of using public transport. Of course, if you disagree with the general policy aim then fair enough. Plus, isn't this what visitors' permits are for?
> 
> As for company vehicles, I'm not really familiar with how the rules operate there, but I don't think residential streets should really be places companies can store their vehicles for free if there's pressure on space, so I wouldn't be inclined to make decisions that try to accommodate this.



the salient part is ‘numerous’ , maybe you haven’t had the pleasure of making a trip of any distance by public transport on the weekend with kids, pushchairs bags etc, I only did it with one kid, and it ain’t easy, visitors permits aren’t free btw and I don’t know if you can buy them if you don’t have a resident permit.
not clear about company vehicles either, I know a guy who drives a van for a charity and he was having problems last time we spoke about it....don’t personally have any investment in these issues, just trying to have some empathy for people who might struggle with restrictions,


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 14, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> .... but disabled parking bays are not reserved for use of a named individual,


If people have restricted mobility surely they need spaces that are close the places they want to visit rather than a number randomly distributed around residential streets next to homes where a disabled person previously lived - that doesn't seem to be providing for their needs in an effective way.  (if they have the blue badge they need to park in the disabled space they can park in any free residents bay or on a single yellow line, if not causing an obstruction).


----------



## edcraw (Jul 14, 2021)

Encouraging letter from the council regarding the vandalism - don’t see what this is going to achieve except wasting money. Over £50k so far.


----------



## madolesance (Jul 14, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>



What's your point?


----------



## madolesance (Jul 14, 2021)

Apparently someone was arrested and charged with vandalism of the LTN's. And the police have CTTV footage of a couple of others they are looking for.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 15, 2021)

madolesance said:


> Apparently someone was arrested and charged with vandalism of the LTN's. And the police have CTTV footage of a couple of others they are looking for.


Where did you see this?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 15, 2021)

madolesance said:


> What's your point?


That the vast majority of people against LTN’s who claim they’re doing it out of concern for “the disabled” are lying twats.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 15, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> That the vast majority of people against LTN’s who claim they’re doing it out of concern for “the disabled” are lying twats.



who seem to think that ltn’s are to blame when they get ticketed for parking in disabled bays


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 15, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> If people have restricted mobility surely they need spaces that are close the places they want to visit rather than a number randomly distributed around residential streets next to homes where a disabled person previously lived - that doesn't seem to be providing for their needs in an effective way.  (if they have the blue badge they need to park in the disabled space they can park in any free residents bay or on a single yellow line, if not causing an obstruction).


You can’t just park anywhere for more than three hours with a blue badge and where and how long you can park varies between local authorities.

You tend to start to have a mental map of disabled bays in certain areas, but can’t guarantee it’ll be free when you get there. 

Also bays like this one - even if you apply for one near your home, it isn’t _your_ bay. Any bb holder can use it.

This person knowingly parked their car in a place they knew they shouldn’t that’s reserved for blue badge users as they didn’t want to leave their car anywhere else than directly outside their house and subsequently got fined.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 15, 2021)

Driver pulls out of a parking bay without looking in front of me cycling this morning nearly hitting me. Wants to stop for an argument in front of his kids in the car and shouts “who pays for the roads”…

We have a real problem with aggressive drivers.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 15, 2021)

Traffic jam levels of cyclists on South Lambeth Road this morning - the sunny weather obviously helps and it’s good to see lots more people commuting or doing the school run in everyday clothes


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 15, 2021)

OL are back on Twitter - sharing their libertarian friends tweets about  refusing to be forced to wear masks on public transport or in shops.

Which is strange as every disabled persons organisation is campaigning for the exact opposite as they say it will force more disabled people into isolation and cause them higher death rates.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 15, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> OL are back on Twitter - sharing their libertarian friends tweets about  refusing to be forced to wear masks on public transport or in shops.
> 
> Which is strange as every disabled persons organisation is campaigning for the exact opposite as they say it will force more disabled people into isolation and cause them higher death rates.


Not all anti-LTNers are anti-mask, but all anti-maskers are anti-LTNs?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not all anti-LTNers are anti-mask, but all anti-maskers are anti-LTNs?


Do not create a venn diagram for this it will look too much like a bicycle and enrage them.


----------



## ash (Jul 15, 2021)

The latest nonsense on Twitter:

Its very interesting how empty bike racks around Lambeth are slowly filling up with unused bikes. An Oval NIMBY of SaveOvalStreets was seen wheeling a crap bike down the road towards these racks on Brixton rd. The bikes don't move lambethlabour @clairekholland think we are thick


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 15, 2021)

ash said:


> An Oval NIMBY


Body shaming on top of everything else.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

ash said:


> The latest nonsense on Twitter:
> 
> Its very interesting how empty bike racks around Lambeth are slowly filling up with unused bikes. An Oval NIMBY of SaveOvalStreets was seen wheeling a crap bike down the road towards these racks on Brixton rd. The bikes don't move lambethlabour @clairekholland think we are thick



All very Trumpian!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

What looks like oil has been poured over the Upper Tulse Hill planters overnight. The signs were already still covered from previous vandalism ffs and now means oil in the road where kids cross for Holy Trinity primary school.

chowce5382 - a respectable organisation would be actively condemning and distancing themselves from this behaviour, but you seem v happy to be a key member of this ugly lobby group.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What looks like oil has been poured over the Upper Tulse Hill planters overnight. The signs were already still covered from previous vandalism ffs and now means oil in the road where kids cross for Holy Trinity primary school.
> 
> chowce5382 - a respectable organisation would be actively condemning and distancing themselves from this behaviour, but you seem v happy to be a key member of this ugly lobby group.
> 
> View attachment 278723 View attachment 278724


As I’ve said numerous times, I don’t support vandalism, hence the reason why I’m going down a purely legal route.

I think this is probably one or two people who are doing the signs around Lambeth. I’ve asked around but no one seems to know who it is.

My view is that no one should be allowed to put anything on the planters. All the green signs (which are not legally compliant) should be removed and people should be told that these are council property and that nothing at all is to be placed on them. Unfortunately it seems that there is a level of frustration with regards to these changes which is leading to these actions which could and should have been easily avoided.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

That’s a very “you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

You’ll of course condemn people pouring oil on roads won’t you?


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 16, 2021)

I just don't get what the person/people are trying to achieve with the oil. The signs and cameras are already vandalized. The only thing I can think of is that they want to cause accidents for cyclists?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> As I’ve said numerous times, I don’t support vandalism, hence the reason why I’m going down a purely legal route.
> 
> I think this is probably one or two people who are doing the signs around Lambeth. I’ve asked around but no one seems to know who it is.
> 
> My view is that no one should be allowed to put anything on the planters. All the green signs (which are not legally compliant) should be removed and people should be told that these are council property and that nothing at all is to be placed on them. Unfortunately it seems that there is a level of frustration with regards to these changes which is leading to these actions which could and should have been easily avoided.



Way to both sides it!

I wasn’t talking about you as an an individual I was talking about your organisation condemning it.


----------



## spitfire (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> /snip Unfortunately it seems that there is a level of frustration with regards to these changes which is leading to these actions which could and should have been easily avoided.



"LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO."

That picture is absolutely awful, as is your response.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> That’s a very “you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
> 
> You’ll of course condemn people pouring oil on roads won’t you?


I’ve just said it above. I don’t support vandalism. This is council property which has been vandalised


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Way to both sides it!
> 
> I wasn’t talking about you as an an individual I was talking about your organisation condemning it.


Yet you were as you made my role in supporting Sofia which is personal and extrapolated that to the entire group and the person who did this.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yet you were as you made my role in supporting Sofia which is personal and extrapolated that to the entire group and the person who did this.


You said that you're treasurer of OneLambeth (Justice?) hence your organisation. Seriously, take some responsibilty for your group.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What looks like oil has been poured over the Upper Tulse Hill planters overnight. The signs were already still covered from previous vandalism ffs and now means oil in the road where kids cross for Holy Trinity primary school.
> 
> chowce5382 - a respectable organisation would be actively condemning and distancing themselves from this behaviour, but you seem v happy to be a key member of this ugly lobby group.
> 
> View attachment 278723 View attachment 278724


And all over the seats as well, which provide places for older and disabled people to stop and rest (though their social media/allies are clear they hate seating, and planting, and bikes, and scooters, and cycle lanes, and the congestion charge, and ULEZ). Would be good to see OneLambeth  out there clearing up the shit that’s done in their name rather than leaving it to the council and residents who _actually_ care about their neighbourhood and community.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You said that you're treasurer of OneLambeth (Justice?) hence your organisation. Seriously, take some responsibilty for your group.


Treasurer means that I pay the legal bills. I don’t run the group as I’ve said numerous times. I’ve put something on the group and no one knows who did it.
However, I was just contacted by someone who said that this is a political statement about our reliance on fossil fuels and especially oil. Apparently the juxtaposition of the oil contaminating what is supposed to be a green focal point for the community is supposed create a greater awareness of what pollution is doing to our world. As the oil kills the flowers this will become a more pertinent and powerful message day by day.
Personally I don’t agree with that but, if that was their reason, it is a powerful message about pollution and a visual representation of the damage we are doing


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Treasurer means that I pay the legal bills. I don’t run the group as I’ve said numerous times. I’ve put something on the group and no one knows who did it.
> However, I was just contacted by someone who said that this is a political statement about our reliance on fossil fuels and especially oil. Apparently the juxtaposition of the oil contaminating what is supposed to be a green focal point for the community is supposed create a greater awareness of what pollution is doing to our world. As the oil kills the flowers this will become a more pertinent and powerful message day by day.
> Personally I don’t agree with that but, if that was their reason, it is a powerful message about pollution and a visual representation of the damage we are doing


“ I was just contacted by someone“ - so you have a name you can pass on to the Police?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’ve just said it above. I don’t support vandalism. This is council property which has been vandalised


“Not supporting” is a different statement to “condemning acts of vandalism to public property”

You can condemn that can’t you - given that what’s been intentionally poured there is classed as hazardous waste and is near school children and vulnerable road users?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> “ I was just contacted by someone“ - so you have a name you can pass on to the Police?


No obviously, because the person who contacted me gave an opinion as to the message this was sending. They didn’t say it was them or know who did it


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Treasurer means that I pay the legal bills. I don’t run the group as I’ve said numerous times. I’ve put something on the group and no one knows who did it.
> However, I was just contacted by someone who said that this is a political statement about our reliance on fossil fuels and especially oil. Apparently the juxtaposition of the oil contaminating what is supposed to be a green focal point for the community is supposed create a greater awareness of what pollution is doing to our world. As the oil kills the flowers this will become a more pertinent and powerful message day by day.
> Personally I don’t agree with that but, if that was their reason, it is a powerful message about pollution and a visual representation of the damage we are doing



You’re having a laugh… or gaslighting!


----------



## spitfire (Jul 16, 2021)

The greenies did it and ran away.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> “Not supporting” is a different statement to “condemning acts of vandalism to public property”
> 
> You can condemn that can’t you - given that what’s been intentionally poured there is classed as hazardous waste and is near school children and vulnerable road users?


Of course, I condemn this.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Of course, I condemn this.


But not enough to do anything about it...nor for any of  OneLambeth’s social feeds to do so...
Because  this is seriously damaging to your aims of getting the changes removed ( I see the new crowdfunder is illustrated by lots of “no to closed roads” signs rather than “better access for disabled people”) - theres no way a council  could be seen to back down in the face of this sort of behaviour so you’ve clearly lost the debate, though it seems to be taking a while to register.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’re having a laugh… or gaslighting!


No, this is exactly what someone said. There is a rich vein of modern art which uses pre-existing installations as their canvas to make a point. The most famous is the art of the Berlin Wall which was considered vandalism at the time and it has only grown since then due to a number of modern artists deciding that they can make more impact by taking their art out into the community and away from the staid and artistically suffocating area of the museum. As recently as 2018 Banksy painted a piece call “Vandalism as Modern Art” which acts as a commentary about the reaction to clearing up art/vandalism as a whole by, probably in a personal level, is a specific comment of what the authorities do to his art work.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Treasurer means that I pay the legal bills. I don’t run the group as I’ve said numerous times. I’ve put something on the group and no one knows who did it.


A treasurer is fundamentally someone who runs a group. If you just pay the bills you’re an admin assistant.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No, this is exactly what someone said. There is a rich vein of modern art which uses pre-existing installations as their canvas to make a point. The most famous is the art of the Berlin Wall which was considered vandalism at the time and it has only grown since then due to a number of modern artists deciding that they can make more impact by taking their art out into the community and away from the staid and artistically suffocating area of the museum. As recently as 2018 Banksy painted a piece call “Vandalism as Modern Art” which acts as a commentary about the reaction to clearing up art/vandalism as a whole by, probably in a personal level, is a specific comment of what the authorities do to his art work.


This increasingly sounds like defending it


----------



## Winot (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> you’ve clearly lost the debate, though it seems to be taking a while to register.


This is key.


----------



## spitfire (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No, this is exactly what someone said. There is a rich vein of modern art which uses pre-existing installations as their canvas to make a point. The most famous is the art of the Berlin Wall which was considered vandalism at the time and it has only grown since then due to a number of modern artists deciding that they can make more impact by taking their art out into the community and away from the staid and artistically suffocating area of the museum. As recently as 2018 Banksy painted a piece call “Vandalism as Modern Art” which acts as a commentary about the reaction to clearing up art/vandalism as a whole by, probably in a personal level, is a specific comment of what the authorities do to his art work.



Art like this usually comes with an announcement, a manifesto or such like. Until I see such a thing rather than "someone" contacting you in a non specific manner then I can't believe it.

Looks more like a couple of pissed off cabbies have brought some waste oil from a garage and trashed it.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> This increasingly sounds like defending it


No, it doesn’t. I’m having to explain to you what an art installation is if this is indeed one of those. I don’t know, but this is what has been mentioned


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

Let me help you out. It is not an art installation.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

spitfire said:


> Art like this usually comes with an announcement, a manifesto or such like. Until I see such a thing rather than "someone" contacting you in a non specific manner then I can't believe it.
> 
> Looks more like a couple of pissed off cabbies have brought some waste oil from a garage and trashed it.


Most art installations/vandalism of this form do not come with a manifesto. The artist wants people to talk about it and interpret, it’s the whole concept and school of thought which says that once your art is in the public domain you should not talk about it as the artist as it stifles true and pure reflection on the work itself


----------



## spitfire (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Most art installations/vandalism of this form do not come with a manifesto. The artist wants people to talk about it and interpret, it’s the whole concept and school of thought which says that once your art is in the public domain you should not talk about it as the artist as it stifles true and pure reflection on the work itself



Cabbies.


----------



## BusLanes (Jul 16, 2021)

Presumably the oil is both harder to clean off (or impossible) and more visibly outrageous.  The logic may be that where there's something that's been treated like trash, other people will too, then it becomes an eyesore.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Most art installations/vandalism of this form do not come with a manifesto. The artist wants people to talk about it and interpret, it’s the whole concept and school of thought which says that once your art is in the public domain you should not talk about it as the artist as it stifles true and pure reflection on the work itself


You've lost the plot. 

Maybe spend more time trying to make you're organisation respectable & constructive rather than defending vandalism with pseudo art criticism.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No, this is exactly what someone said. There is a rich vein of modern art which uses pre-existing installations as their canvas to make a point. The most famous is the art of the Berlin Wall which was considered vandalism at the time and it has only grown since then due to a number of modern artists deciding that they can make more impact by taking their art out into the community and away from the staid and artistically suffocating area of the museum. As recently as 2018 Banksy painted a piece call “Vandalism as Modern Art” which acts as a commentary about the reaction to clearing up art/vandalism as a whole by, probably in a personal level, is a specific comment of what the authorities do to his art work.


Oh just fuck right off.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You've lost the plot.
> 
> Maybe spend more time trying to make you're organisation respectable & constructive rather than defending vandalism with pseudo art criticism.


Not defending it, just telling you guys what I’ve been told and the exact rationale given. Also, it’s not pseudo criticism, these are pretty main stream concepts which flow through the Arts.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

BusLanes said:


> Presumably the oil is both harder to clean off (or impossible) and more visibly outrageous.  The logic may be that where there's something that's been treated like trash, other people will too, then it becomes an eyesore.


Also, why use oil (I assume it is). If it’s just vandalism use creosote or something like that which is cheaper as this is a fair amount of oil


----------



## spitfire (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Also, why use oil (I assume it is). If it’s just vandalism use creosote or something like that which is cheaper as this is a fair amount of oil



Yes the kind of waste oil that garages have a lot of lying around.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Not defending it, just telling you guys what I’ve been told and the exact rationale given. Also, it’s not pseudo criticism, these are pretty main stream concepts which flow through the Arts.


I’m with beesonthewhatnow on this.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m with beesonthewhatnow on this.


Fair enough, this is normally the reaction to this type of thing. Followed by I don’t know much about art, but I know that this isn’t art


----------



## Winot (Jul 16, 2021)

Coming soon to Brixton - a conceptual art piece by the shadowy 'OneLambeth' involving a series of excavation projects at LTN borders. In a clever nod to the pluralism and confusion of the nature of modern debate, it transpires that there are in fact multiple 'OneLambeths', resulting in the holes being simultaneously emptied by one group and filled by another, illustrating the metaphor of 'keeping digging' whilst - ironically - closing the very thoroughfares that they seek to keep open.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

Winot said:


> Coming soon to Brixton - a conceptual art piece by the shadowy 'OneLambeth' involving a series of excavation projects at LTN borders. In a clever nod to the pluralism and confusion of the nature of modern debate, it transpires that there are in fact multiple 'OneLambeths', resulting in the holes being simultaneously emptied by one group and filled by another, illustrating the metaphor of 'keeping digging' whilst - ironically - closing the very thoroughfares that they seek to keep open.


This is a very interesting interpretation. But be careful, you’ll get told to fuck off soon for that kind of language


----------



## technical (Jul 16, 2021)

Those planters are literally right next to a primary school. I cannot believe that any right minded person thinks that is a legitimate way to protest against LTNs.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Also, why use oil (I assume it is). If it’s just vandalism use creosote or something like that which is cheaper as this is a fair amount of oil


indeed, if it’s environmental art why not use something _that looks like oil_,
rather than dumping toxic waste on the street and polluting the environment? 

Like XR, Greenpeace and other environmental protesters do.

perhaps also don’t do it in the same place that high traffic campaign criminals  have been vandalising public property so they can get away with breaking the law (to avoid any possible confusion).


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Not defending it, just telling you guys what I’ve been told and the exact rationale given. Also, it’s not pseudo criticism, these are pretty main stream concepts which flow through the Arts.


Are you aware of just how fucking stupid you sound right now?

Let’s just be clear - you’re saying someone has vandalised the planters that mark an LTN (designed in part as an anti pollution measure) as part of an art installation that highlights, errrr, pollution?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> This is a very interesting interpretation. But be careful, you’ll get told to fuck off soon for that kind of language


That’s what someone told him. He’s no idea who it was but I’m sure it’s true.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Fair enough, this is normally the reaction to this type of thing. Followed by I don’t know much about art, but I know that this isn’t art



I do know a fair amount about art and I will just say this:
Fuck right off with this.
There is no way this is a piece of art and Banksy absolutely has had manifestos and books he's written about his art.
This is a piece of vandalism, politically motivated. There is an approximately 0% chance this is an environmental activist creating a piece of art to talk about how oil destroys nature.
There is an approximately 100% chance this was done because oil will kill the plants and they want to fuck the planters up because they think this will help their political cause.

Trying to claim this is a piece of art just makes you look like a fool who is supportive of these actions whatever you say about not supporting them.
a piece of art.
lol.

good luck in your court case if you try to take a similar level of arguments and reason into the appeal court.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> indeed, if it’s environmental art why not use something _that looks like oil_,
> rather than dumping toxic waste on the street and polluting the environment?
> 
> Like XR, Greenpeace and other environmental protesters do.
> ...


I don’t know, you’d have to ask the artist. It’s an interesting point though and glad to see that you’re thinking about this installation. It’s what the artist would have wanted


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

BigTom said:


> I do know a fair amount about art and I will just say this:
> Fuck right off with this.
> There is no way this is a piece of art and Banksy absolutely has had manifestos and books he's written about his art.
> This is a piece of vandalism, politically motivated. There is an approximately 0% chance this is an environmental activist creating a piece of art to talk about how oil destroys nature.
> ...


No. We’ll be going on the grounds that the judge suggested we go on. Also, not sure if you know this but the law courts aren’t the right forum to talk about this kind of thing.
I’m telling you what I’ve been told. When I saw it I thought that someone had poured oil all over a planter because they didn’t like them.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

Also, quick question. What is the legal difference between this act of vandalism and the rainbows and stars which were painted on a council road at the beginning of lockdown during the night by the children (which I have to say looked quite nice) somewhere at the top of Tulse Hill?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

Are you going to go on suggest that your posts and the OLJ twitter feed (nothing to do with you, of course, you're just the bagman) are a form of performance art? And then explain to everyone what performance art is?


----------



## spitfire (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Also, quick question. What is the legal difference between this act of vandalism and the rainbows and stars which were painted on a council road at the beginning of lockdown during the night by the children (which I have to say looked quite nice) somewhere at the top of Tulse Hill?



I'll be honest, I read all of your posts and was happy to see that at least one of the anti LTN brigade wasn't a frothing loon and could engage like a grown up but mate...


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Are you going to go on suggest that your posts and the OLJ twitter feed (nothing to do with you, of course, you're just the bagman) are a form of performance art? And then explain to everyone what performance art is?


Nope.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

spitfire said:


> I'll be honest, I read all of your posts and was happy to see that at least one of the anti LTN brigade wasn't a frothing loon and could engage like a grown up but mate...
> 
> 
> View attachment 278744


Ok, I’ll answer for you. Nothing. The only difference is that of aesthetics. One looks appalling, the other doesn’t


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2021)

If it wasn't art then the next most plausible explanation is that it was done by the squirrels and foxes which have been roaming the LTNs and terrorising residents.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If it wasn't art then the next most plausible explanation is that it was done by the squirrels and foxes which have been roaming the LTNs and terrorising residents.


No, the most plausible explanation is that it was a person or persons.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Also, quick question. What is the legal difference between this act of vandalism and the rainbows and stars which were painted on a council road at the beginning of lockdown during the night by the children (which I have to say looked quite nice) somewhere at the top of Tulse Hill?




It seems to me that one quite clearly "amounts to an impairment of the value of the usefulness of the property to the owner" while the other quite clearly doesn't.


----------



## spitfire (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, I’ll answer for you. Nothing. The only difference is that of aesthetics. One looks appalling, the other doesn’t



Thanks. Glad you cleared that up for me.

I remember similar arguments put forward by the mentalist behind the One Tower Hamlets account when some kids drew on the road with chalk. Interesting fellow traveller.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I don’t know, you’d have to ask the artist. It’s an interesting point though and glad to see that you’re thinking about this installation. It’s what the artist would have wanted





BigTom said:


> Trying to claim this is a piece of art just makes you look like a fool who is supportive of these actions whatever you say about not supporting them.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

I take it all back. Please pour oil on all the other planters.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 278747
> 
> It seems to me that one quite clearly "amounts to an impairment of the value of the usefulness of the property to the owner" while the other quite clearly doesn't.


and he claims to have been a lawyer! No wonder he's funding the avaition industry now instead.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 278747
> 
> It seems to me that one quite clearly "amounts to an impairment of the value of the usefulness of the property to the owner" while the other quite clearly doesn't.


Yup, case law says that it is would be need to be cleaned to put it back to its original state The the cost of the cleaning can lead to diminution in value of the property as it is as embedded cost.


----------



## Jesterburger (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, I’ll answer for you. Nothing. The only difference is that of aesthetics. One looks appalling, the other doesn’t


A cyclist could slip on that oil and cause themselves serious damage. It is a lot more than aesthetic. Trying to defend this shit won't do you or the anti-brigade any favours at all.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, case law says that it is would be need to be cleaned to put it back to its original state The the cost of the cleaning can lead to diminution in value of the property as it is as embedded cost.


Why would there be a need to clean the chalk drawings?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

Anyway, it’s been great fun winding you up for part of the morning.
For the record, this is obviously vandalism, I condemn it and it’s dangerous but it’s been fun to see how people like Backrow react to a bit of their own medicine in terms of being wound up.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Why would there be a need to clean the chalk drawings?


Well the wouldn’t, hence it’s not vandalism as no need to clean it up


----------



## teuchter (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Well the wouldn’t, hence it’s not vandalism as no need to clean it up


So - the difference is not simply one of aesthetics.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

Man - I’d forgotten what disingenuous, self-righteous dicks you get on forums sometimes.


----------



## spitfire (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Anyway, it’s been great fun winding you up for part of the morning.
> For the record, this is obviously vandalism, I condemn it and it’s dangerous but it’s been fun to see how people like Backrow react to a bit of their own medicine in terms of being wound up.



I don't know anything about the Backrow comment but your "wind up" has frankly just made you look awful in your reaction to this. 

There's nothing "fun" about this vandalism.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Man - I’d forgotten what disingenuous, self-righteous dicks you get on forums sometimes.


You writing this is probably the definition of irony


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

I’ve tried to be utterly genuine with you since the very beginning on this forum. You have chosen to see my every reason for supporting Sofia as being disingenuous. People think we have a huge backer, that we have a big PR company working for us and the One groups are just a front for this one company. Every time I’ve told you the actual truth you’ve chosen not to give the benefit of the doubt that this might actually be about disabled rights and that the team who are running this is mainly female, and mainly have disabled relatives. I’ve even been referred to as being one of a group of “motor cunts”. This small bit of ribbing is fair game.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’ve tried to be utterly genuine with you since the very beginning on this forum. You have chosen to see my every reason for supporting Sofia as being disingenuous. People think we have a huge backer, that we have a big PR company working for us and the One groups are just a front for this one company. Every time I’ve told you the actual truth you’ve chosen not to give the benefit of the doubt that this might actually be about disabled rights and that the team who are running this is mainly female, and mainly have disabled relatives. I’ve even been referred to as being one of a group of “motor cunts”. This small bit of ribbing is fair game.


You've been judged on your own & your organisations actions and words.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Anyway, it’s been great fun winding you up for part of the morning.
> For the record, this is obviously vandalism, I condemn it and it’s dangerous but it’s been fun to see how people like Backrow react to a bit of their own medicine in terms of being wound up.


It really has backfired on you though - the photos of your friends vandalism has just caused a massive dent in the anti LTN cause.

The planters are now likely to be replaced or rebuilt with concrete and cameras. That trial will now go on for longer. It will cost all of us -  as taxpayers - money.

What do you think Rook Irwin Sweeney will think of you?

If this is about people with disabilities- why does pouring a waste product that causes pollution and affects people with disabilities become a laughing matter to you?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> It really has backfired on you though - the photos of your friends vandalism has just caused a massive dent in the anti LTN cause.
> 
> The planters are now likely to be replaced or rebuilt with concrete and cameras. That trial will now go on for longer. It will cost all of us -  as taxpayers - money.
> 
> ...


Not my friend and I have no idea who has done this. Apparently it’s cabbies, I have nothing to do with them. The vandalism isn’t funny, what is amusing is that if I had said that it was cabbies, without having any evidence, you would have all agreed with me straight away as it would have confirmed your position. You would have agreed with without me having any evidence for my assertion. If I had then said that I didn’t have evidence for this I doubt very much we would see the same level of righteousness indignation as we do now. You’re upset because of who I said it could be, not that I wouldn’t have had any evidence either way.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

I’ve no idea what you are talking about and I suspect nor do you.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I’ve no idea what you are talking about and I suspect nor do you.


That’s a pretty simple concept to grasp hold of


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

Lots of ifs in there. What's not an if: the One Lambeth Justice campaign's treasurer suggested that this vandalism was some sort of art protest, suggested that it was no different from a nice painted mural, then rowed back pretty sharpish, lol just a windup lads.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, I’ll answer for you. Nothing. The only difference is that of aesthetics. One looks appalling, the other doesn’t


Well, and this.....


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Lots of ifs in there. What's not an if: the One Lambeth Justice campaign's treasurer suggested that this vandalism was some sort of art protest, suggested that it was no different from a nice painted mural, then rowed back pretty sharpish, lol just a windup lads.





thebackrow said:


> Well, and this.....View attachment 278761


Yup. Anything which also effectively needs toxic/highly hazardous material to clean it up


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Lots of ifs in there. What's not an if: the One Lambeth Justice campaign's treasurer suggested that this vandalism was some sort of art protest, suggested that it was no different from a nice painted mural, then rowed back pretty sharpish, lol just a windup lads.



A respectable organisation would probably be looking for another treasurer…


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Not my friend and I have no idea who has done this. Apparently it’s cabbies, I have nothing to do with them.



So you _do_ have some information about who has done it, or at least could help the Police with their enquiries as it does sound like you can put them in touch with people who've 'heard something'....

Cabbies being "London's finest" of course.... (this was posted by their trade association yesterday - obviously when "the best drivers in the trade" can find themselves charged with road rage assault  it's good to know your trade association will help keep you behind the wheel.)


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That’s a pretty simple concept to grasp hold of


What, your random fact free suppositions?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> So you _do_ have some information about who has done it, or at least could help the Police with their enquiries as it does sound like you can put them in touch with people who've 'heard something'....
> 
> Cabbies being "London's finest" of course.... (this was posted by their trade association yesterday - obviously when you're a law breaker "the odds being stacked against you" and it's good to know your trade association will help keep you behind the wheel.)


Are you actually being serious? Read the post above about me saying what would happen if I said it was cabbies…


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> What, your random fact free suppositions?


I thought there was a guy works down the Facebook swears he knowsthis? 
(with apologies to Kirsty)


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> What, your random fact free suppositions?


No, whether you would blindly agree or disagree with something if it either a) confirmed your likely position or b) ran counter to that position without there being any facts to back up either position


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

You’ve previously posted things on here, had it pointed out you were incorrect, you’ve back tracked, apologised and clarified. So at the moment I’m taking anything you say with a massive pinch of salt thanks.

And I know you’re relatively new to this anti-ableist world - but what metaphor have you just used?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> You’ve previously posted things on here, had it pointed out you were incorrect, you’ve back tracked, apologised and clarified. So at the moment I’m taking anything you say with a massive pinch of salt thanks.
> 
> And I know you’re relatively new to this anti-ableist world - but what metaphor have you just used?


Sorry, I shouldn’t have said that. I apologise. I should have said unquestioningly or without thought


----------



## nick (Jul 16, 2021)

It seems the artistic statement concept is spreading. This is Palace Road this morning (9.15 ish).


Oh Yeah - the plate on the Merc Cabriolet driving though it (the camera is painted over) is DH 55 SON


----------



## nick (Jul 16, 2021)

And thanks for the lowtrafficneighbourhood@lambeth.gov.uk address upthread.
Photos above forwarded to them so that they know to fix it (again)


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 16, 2021)

An artist known to me made an installation piece to raise environmental awareness
it was a shallow enclosure 6‘ by 8‘ containing used sump oil to a depth of about 2” with a diorama of a tropical paradise and a sandy beach juxtaposed within it. It got great plaudits at the exhibition, but problems started  with the de-install and it rapidly became a real life environmental issue when the oil would not go back into cans to be disposed of safely, in fact that palaver was quite symbolically powerful in its own right.


----------



## editor (Jul 16, 2021)

What kind of fucking shithead does this to their own neighbourhood?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

Artists, man, don't you get it?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

editor said:


> View attachment 278794
> 
> What kind of fucking shithead does this to their own neighbourhood?


They don't care about this/my neighbourhood, they just want to be able to drive through there. Upper Tulse Hill was a horrible road to cross before and the filter has transformed this part. Parents take their time to cross with kids here now and people stop to chat. It used to have tons of commercial vehicles bombing down here just to avoid the south circular.

A friend went out there this morning to try and clean it up and got threatened by a driver trying to go through.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

editor said:


> View attachment 278794
> 
> What kind of fucking shithead does this to their own neighbourhood?


According to One Lambeth’s treasurer, people who are concerned about environmental injustice.


----------



## Winot (Jul 16, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> An artist known to me made an installation piece to raise environmental awareness
> it was a shallow enclosure 6‘ by 8‘ containing used sump oil to a depth of about 2” with a diorama of a tropical paradise and a sandy beach juxtaposed within it. It got great plaudits at the exhibition, but problems started  with the de-install and it rapidly became a real life environmental issue when the oil would not go back into cans to be disposed of safely, in fact that palaver was quite symbolically powerful in its own right.


There is also Richard Wilson’s 20:50 (from the Saatchi but also appeared at the Hayward a few years ago). On seeing it George Melly allegedly said that it made him want to release a cormorant.





__





						Richard Wilson - Artist - Saatchi Gallery
					

Artist at Contemporary art gallery in London.




					www.saatchigallery.com


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

editor said:


> View attachment 278794
> 
> What kind of fucking shithead does this to their own neighbourhood?


or even to someone else's....


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 16, 2021)

Winot said:


> There is also Richard Wilson’s 20:50 (from the Saatchi but also appeared at the Hayward a few years ago). On seeing it George Melly allegedly said that it made him want to release a cormorant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Tbf that’s a much more accomplished piece than the low budget one I was talking about. Is ’releasing a cormorant’ a euphemism for something...?


----------



## BusLanes (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Also, why use oil (I assume it is). If it’s just vandalism use creosote or something like that which is cheaper as this is a fair amount of oil



I think they may have used that last week - the sticky stuff on the signs has that look to it (but I didn't make a closer inspection to find out)


----------



## Winot (Jul 16, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> Tbf that’s a much more accomplished piece than the low budget one I was talking about. Is ’releasing a cormorant’ a euphemism for something...?


Possibly knowing Melly but I think he meant it literally.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

Winot said:


> There is also Richard Wilson’s 20:50 (from the Saatchi but also appeared at the Hayward a few years ago). On seeing it George Melly allegedly said that it made him want to release a cormorant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Saw this in 1991 - would have much preferred to have seen this again on my dog walk this morning.

Seems to have been quite a PR disaster for chowce5382's group:


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 16, 2021)

Winot said:


> Possibly knowing Melly but I think he meant it literally.


.....he was saying he literally wanted this cormorant to get coated in oil, a sick joke surely or am I missing something ?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

I see the _other _One Lambeth has publicly condemned the vandalism. I wonder whether Charles will do the same?


----------



## alex_ (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> You’ll of course condemn people pouring oil on roads won’t you?



Or only roads which don’t have cyclists on.


----------



## Winot (Jul 16, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> .....he was saying he literally wanted this cormorant to get coated in oil, a sick joke surely or am I missing something ?


No, it was a joke, but the joke was about a literal cormorant.

Shall we go back to arguing about LTNs?


----------



## nick (Jul 16, 2021)

It was a slick joke


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> It really has backfired on you though - the photos of your friends vandalism has just caused a massive dent in the anti LTN cause.
> 
> The planters are now likely to be replaced or rebuilt with concrete and cameras. That trial will now go on for longer. It will cost all of us -  as taxpayers - money.
> 
> ...



You seem to hold him resonsible for everything done in the name of onelambeth. Asking for comment on things that nothing to do with him. That aint on

When BB published the article about those racist tweets by the cycling campaigner no one came in here calling anyone pro-LTN or a cyclist racist, asking each person for comment, if they denounce racism and so on.

You cant judge all by the act of one or expect one person to comment on every act of others.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 16, 2021)

Winot said:


> Shall we go back to arguing about LTNs?



is that a joke 🤪?
(edited to add non confrontational emoticon signifying humor)


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> You seem to hold him resonsible for everything done in the name of onelambeth. Asking for comment on things that nothing to do with him. That aint on
> 
> When BB published the article about those racist tweets by the cycling campaigner no one came in here calling anyone pro-LTN or a cyclist racist, asking each person for comment, if they denounce racism and so on.
> 
> You cant judge all by the act of one or expect one person to comment on every act of others.


LCC took responsibility for that. chowce5382 won’t take any responsibility for his organisation and has just treated this vandalism as a joke.

This is in his neighbourhood but he doesn’t seem to give a shit.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> You seem to hold him resonsible for everything done in the name of onelambeth. Asking for comment on things that nothing to do with him. That aint on
> 
> When BB published the article about those racist tweets by the cycling campaigner no one came in here calling anyone pro-LTN or a cyclist racist, asking each person for comment, if they denounce racism and so on.
> 
> You cant judge all by the act of one or expect one person to comment on every act of others.


Out of all of today’s conversation that’s your main point? Strange. 

He names himself as their treasurer - that’s a role with responsibility and accountability.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 16, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If it wasn't art then the next most plausible explanation is that it was done by the squirrels and foxes which have been roaming the LTNs and terrorising residents.



squirrels on crack?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 16, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Out of all of today’s conversation that’s your main point? Strange.
> 
> He names himself as their treasurer - that’s a role with responsibility and accountability.



How do you know it's anyone who is part of onelambeth and it's many different groups?

How are your racist friends doing?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

I do not think those three racist tweets constitute art either, if it helps.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> LCC took responsibility for that. chowce5382 won’t take any responsibility for his organisation and has just treated this vandalism as a joke.
> 
> This is in his neighbourhood but he doesn’t seem to give a shit.


But I don’t think that C Holland said anything about it or formally denounced it. I also remember mentioning this in the long post I did and thebackrow said something like, “oh and they bring the racist tweets up again”. He obviously doesn’t take their content seriously or think there was anything wrong with them. I suspect he'll delete it now but would be nice to hear him denounce it.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

Here's Cllr Holland condemning it, after being asked to do so.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 16, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> How do you know it's anyone who is part of onelambeth and it's many different groups?
> 
> How are your racist friends doing?



how are your friends who destroy public property doing ?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> But I don’t think that C Holland said anything about it or formally denounced it. I also remember mentioning this in the long post I did and thebackrow said something like, “oh and they bring the racist tweets up again”. He obviously doesn’t take their content seriously or think there was anything wrong with them. I suspect he'll delete it now but would be nice to hear him denounce it.


You can check back and see exactly what I said in the thread, but we’ve already established that truth and accuracy aren’t really your strong points. 

you do seem rather obsessed with my posts when ive been far from the most active on this thread.


Jeanette Moo said:


> You cant judge all by the act of one or expect one person to comment on every act of others.


didnt onelambeth and some of their weird obsessive supporters social media bang on about little else for months?


Jeanette Moo said:


> How are your racist friends doing?


Oh the irony.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 16, 2021)

alex_ said:


> how are your friends who destroy public property doing ?



See! It's catching on!

A question. In my day in was the national front to look out for. Then along came the BNP. WHo is it now? or is it a mixture?!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Here's Cllr Holland condemning it, after being asked to do so.



In reply to the guy who made accusations of eugenics….


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> didnt onelambeth and some of their weird obsessive supporters social media bang on about little else for months?
> 
> Oh the irony.



Well seeing as no one can actually say fair point I guess its the Vandals vs the Racists.

Like the mods vs the rockers.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> You can check back and see exactly what I said in the thread, but we’ve already established that truth and accuracy aren’t really your strong points.
> 
> you do seem rather obsessed with my posts when ive been far from the most active on this thread.
> 
> ...


So you condemned them? Do you think the person who wrote them was racist or that those tweets were racist?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Well seeing as no one can actually say fair point I guess its the Vandals vs the Racists.
> 
> Like the mods vs the rockers.


I mean OneLambeth openly praised the vandalism of planters that had nothing to with LTNs, I’ve not seen anyone try to defend the racist tweets.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 16, 2021)

Classic deflection tactics. Absolutely indefensible vandalism but instead of saying, yes it is, there’s a series of bizarre posts, where the truth is probably in there somewhere but when that fails and it has as it’s all over more mainstream social media, we’ll change it to, oh but you’re all racists. You’ve lost the argument, you’ve lost the legal challenge. I’m actually embarrassed for you. No-one wins when you are happy to trash your own community.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So you condemned them? Do you think the person who wrote them was racist or that those tweets were racist?


why would I need to? I think this obsession with everyone making some virtue signaling  expression about each and every public event is both bizarre and unhealthy. 

As far as I can see the person concerned apologised for them and resigned from their job and role in Lambeth Cyclists. It seemed to be an isolated out of character outburst from years in the past and I’ve seen no suggestion that there was any racism expressed or implied in any of their work or anything they campaigned for.

That OneLambeth are still banging on about it and trying to tar other people by association months after it emerged and years after it happened, while allying themselves with that  right wing shit Tim Briggs would seem to show that they’re fully aware that they have lost the argument both on evidence and public opinion.

So you’re trying to deflect  from the criminal damage being done in your name by going ad hom once again - presumably because you need the support of these criminals.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 16, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Classic deflection tactics. Absolutely indefensible vandalism but instead of saying, yes it is, there’s a series of bizarre posts, where the truth is probably in there somewhere but when that fails and it has as it’s all over more mainstream social media, we’ll change it to, oh but you’re all racists. You’ve lost the argument, you’ve lost the legal challenge. I’m actually embarrassed for you. No-one wins when you are happy to trash your own community.



I didn't deflect! I just copied the same reasoning. Seems to hit a nerve when the shoe ison the other foot


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> why would I need to? as far as I can see the person concerned apologised for them and resigned from their job and role in Lambeth Cyclists. It seemed to be an isolated out of character outburst from years in the past and I’ve seen no suggestion that there was any racism expressed or implied in any of their work or anything they campaigned for.
> 
> That OneLambeth are still banging on about it and trying to tar other people by association months after it emerged and years after it happened, while allying themselves with that racist right wing shit Tim Briggs would seem to show that they’re fully aware that they have lost the argument both on evidence and public opinion.
> 
> So you’re trying to deflect  from the criminal damage being done in your name by going ad hom once again - presumably because you need the support of these criminals.


“Any of their work or anything they campaigned for” you obviously know this person well enough to comment on their professional career. Of course, if they told you that, then it’s hardly believable as they wouldn’t have noticed if they were racist or not given that they didn’t realise their tweets were racist in the first place. Or maybe they did.
I’d heard that he was pushed and so “resigned”


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 16, 2021)

Yeah moo keep digging that hole you’re in


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> “Any of their work or anything they campaigned for” you obviously know this person well enough to comment on their professional career. Of course, if they told you that, then it’s hardly believable as they wouldn’t have noticed if they were racist or not given that they didn’t realise their tweets were racist in the first place. Or maybe they did.
> I’d heard that he was pushed and so “resigned”


LCC dealt with it as a respectable organisation should and he decided to resign as I saw it.

You and your organisation takes no responsibility for anything - vandalism it encourages, accusations of ethnic cleansing - you’ve funnelled £55k to lawyers on a punt to scrap LTNs that looks v unlikely. You’re not adding anything positive and seem to have no interest in you neighbourhood or community. £55k used wisely would be huge but you’re on the wrong side of an argument and not adding anything constructive. 

You say you’re treasurer but what do you actually do?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> LCC dealt with it as a respectable organisation should and he decided to resign as I saw it.
> 
> You and your organisation takes no responsibility for anything - vandalism it encourages, accusations of ethnic cleansing - you’ve funnelled £55k to lawyers on a punt to scrap LTNs that looks v unlikely. You’re not adding anything positive and seem to have no interest in you neighbourhood or community. £55k used wisely would be huge but you’re on the wrong side of an argument and not adding anything constructive.
> 
> You say you’re treasurer but what do you actually do?


I’m just asking him a question about whether he personally condemns those tweets. Its what you asked me on a number of occasions. I’m sure he can answer himself. I seem to have hit a nerve with you though. How about you let him answer


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

From the cabinet member for children:


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> “Any of their work or anything they campaigned for” you obviously know this person well enough to comment on their professional career.


Merely that all of the attacks seem to go no further that “he’s a racist because of this tweet” - with the forensic abilities of one Lambeth’s loyal supporters who seem to have worked their way through endless council minutes, numerous FOIs, and stolen videos of campaigner meetings if there was anything at all surely they’d be all over it with actual evidence rather than just name calling.

onelambeths highly distasteful attempts to portray resistance to LTNs as some kind of race war - their allusions to apartheid, the Holocaust and to the brixton riots - have been discussed on here before, as have Briggs accusations of eugenics(!). doesnt their Twitter feed continue to use some weird Police brutality picture as a avatar?  All seems another desperate attempt to deflect from the evidence that LTNs have a positive impact on deprived communities which have lower car ownership.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’m just asking him a question about whether he personally condemns those tweets. Its what you asked me on a number of occasions. I’m sure he can answer himself. I seem to have hit a nerve with you though. How about you let him answer


You’ve hit a nerve because I just see you enabling and excusing the worst of your organisation whilst taking no responsibility and adding nothing to our community.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Merely that all of the attacks seem to go no further that “he’s a racist because of this tweet” - with the forensic abilities of one Lambeth’s loyal supporters who seem to have worked their way through endless council minutes, numerous FOIs, and stolen videos of campaigner meetings if there was anything at all surely they’d be all over it with actual evidence rather than just name calling.
> 
> onelambeths distasteful attempts to portray resistance to LTNs as some kind of race war - their allusions to apartheid, the Holocaust and to the brixton riots - have been discussed on here before, as have Briggs accusations of eugenics(!).


So they weren’t racist. You don’t think they were?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So they weren’t racist. You don’t think they were?


to me they looked like some stupid angry tweets that repeated some common racist tropes. I don’t think that makes the person who made them a racist - surely you’d judge them on their behaviour and the way they relate to and treat other people. I can’t see how you could make that sort of judgement without knowing them. 

I could probably make a whole load of baseless judgements about you based on your photo and your job in the (aviation industry?) that might lead me to assume you’re were a posh twat climate change denier. But I’d be an arsehole if I made those sort of assumptions about someone without knowing more about them and their worldview.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So they weren’t racist. You don’t think they were?


With arguments like this and the earlier poor attempt at trolling it's no mystery how they burned through 35k of people's money on a flimsy case - and they want 15k more!. (Plus whatever it cost Lambeth).


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

Spoiler: CW: Transphobia







If it's fair game to go rummaging around in someone's Twitter history and draw conclusions, it looks like the treasurer of the One Lambeth Justice campaign was retweeting a whole bunch of ugly transphobic shit a few years ago.

(Is it possible to put images behind spoilers? I'd rather seeing this sort of thing was a choice if possible Figured it out I think!)


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

I suspect chowce5382 will do another of his disappearing acts for a while.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> With arguments like this and the earlier poor attempt at trolling it's no mystery how they burned through 35k of people's money on a flimsy case - and they want 15k more!. (Plus whatever it cost Lambeth).


So flimsy it’s at the court of appeal on suggestion of the judge who presided over the case.


thebackrow said:


> to me they looked like some stupid angry tweets that repeated some common racist tropes. I don’t think that makes the person who made them a racist - surely you’d judge them on their behaviour and the way they relate to and treat other people. I can’t see how you could make that sort of judgement without knowing them.
> 
> I could probably make a whole load of baseless judgements about you based on your photo and your job in the (aviation industry?) that might lead me to assume you’re were a posh twat climate change denier. But I’d be an arsehole if I made those sort of assumptions about someone without knowing more about them and their worldview.


That could be a fair assessment of the person. To me it looked like your classic racist person who doesn’t seem to know they are until they’ve been caught out but you may know the person better than I do. I heard they had to go to some sort of training. Do you think they are less racist now?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I suspect chowce5382 will do another of his disappearing acts for a while.



Or perhaps he’ll just ignore it…


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I suspect chowce5382 will do another of his disappearing acts for a while.


Depends if he can crowdfund "some sort of training" I guess.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Depends if he can crowdfund "some sort of training" I guess.


For the racist guy?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> For the racist guy?


For the transphobic guy. You.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 16, 2021)

.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> For the transphobic guy. You.


By arguing for respect of the ECHR


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

You're going to have to explain that for me, sorry.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> By arguing for respect of the ECHR


You’re a busted flush. OneLambeth isn’t really anything 

a Facebook group of a couple of hundred active members (most of which prob aren’t in Lambeth)

a fundraiser for a lost cause

a hateful Twitter account.

and an off shoot of a guy campaigning against the council that doesn’t want anything to do with the rest of you lot.

You’ve made no actual arguments about LTNs here only technicalities on their implication and you seem to have no knowledge of your own neighbourhood. Give it a rest


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> You're going to have to explain that for me, sorry.


Section 122 of the EA and the ECHR give rights to various groups of individuals. The maim argument I was having with Owen Jones at the time was that everyone, however they chose to identify, has a right to their personal and private life under the ECHR. As such, if you then grant rights hitherto ungraded to a group then there is a chance that you undermine the rights of others.  My simple argument was, post me too and having spoken to all the women in my family and a number of friends that they felt very strongly about their personal space away from women who had previously identified as men. My view is that changing rooms (for example) should not be one or another but there should be a third safe space to ensure that the delicate balancing act required under numerous pieces of legislation is respected. Government and local council don’t want to spent the money doing this so they are making society come up with a solution which won’t work for numerous groups of people. This doesn’t seem right or fair.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’re a busted flush. OneLambeth isn’t really anything
> 
> a Facebook group of a couple of hundred active members (most of which prob aren’t in Lambeth)
> 
> ...


I know legal technicalities aren’t important to you but there are to the groups they protect. Not sure why you’ve never agreed with that one


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> to me they looked like some stupid angry tweets that repeated some common racist tropes. I don’t think that makes the person who made them a racist - surely you’d judge them on their behaviour and the way they relate to and treat other people. I can’t see how you could make that sort of judgement without knowing them.
> 
> I could probably make a whole load of baseless judgements about you based on your photo and your job in the (aviation industry?) that might lead me to assume you’re were a posh twat climate change denier. But I’d be an arsehole if I made those sort of assumptions about someone without knowing more about them and their worldview.


Do you know them?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 16, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> How do you know it's anyone who is part of onelambeth and it's many different groups?
> 
> How are your racist friends doing?


Where have I said it is?

But unless you know something we don’t know, it’s more than likely that it’s been done by someone who doesn’t like LTNs isn’t it? And if you’re that way inclined, you’re likely to follow some of the anti ltns on social media and start copying and escalating the vandalism that gets applauded on their channels. 

And I’ve never met Simon Still. I’ve not an LCC member and haven’t been for years. 

Do you want to make any more unfounded allegations?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I know legal technicalities aren’t important to you but there are to the groups they protect. Not sure why you’ve never agreed with that one



Like I say you’ve never actually expressed an opinion on LTNs just looking to get rid of them anyway you can - nothing constructive.

How about actually engaging with the community. Have you ever spoken to our councillors?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Like I say you’ve never actually expressed an opinion on LTNs just looking to get rid of them anyway you can - nothing constructive.


If they are implemented properly and following the law then they are a political decision. That way they will have been put in properly. No point in putting them in unlawfully as you undermine their credibility. I’ve said a number of times that I live in one and there is less traffic


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> If they are implemented properly and following the law then they are a political decision. That way they will have been put in properly. No point in putting them in unlawfully as you undermine their credibility. I’ve said a number of times that I live in one and there is less traffic



But no actual opinion or solution to the problems of traffic?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Section 122 of the EA and the ECHR give rights to various groups of individuals. The maim argument I was having with Owen Jones at the time was that everyone, however they chose to identify, has a right to their personal and private life under the ECHR. As such, if you then grant rights hitherto ungraded to a group then there is a chance that you undermine the rights of others. My simple argument was, post me too and having spoken to all the women in my family and a number of friends that they felt very strongly about their personal space away from women who had previously identified as men. My view is that changing rooms (for example) should not be one or another but there should be a third safe space to ensure that the delicate balancing act required under numerous pieces of legislation is respected. Government and local council don’t want to spent the money doing this so they are making society come up with a solution which won’t work for numerous groups of people. This doesn’t seem right or fair.


This is just bigotry, however you dress it up in faux concern.

You retweeted someone baldly stating that trans people are mentally ill. If you believe that Simon Still was right to resign from his campaigning position for racist statements on Twitter, then it's time for you to fall on your sword. I didn't make these rules, you and your friends did.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But no actual opinion or solution to the problems of traffic?


I think that moving it from one place to another doesn’t work. My road is very quiet now but there are so many people whose lives consist of having more traffic. I was told it would evaporate by now. Real investment in public transport seems to me to be the best solution and true investment in hydrogen planes, cars buses and the infra that surrounds it. I’ve done a lot of work in electric and hydrogen aircraft and what is holding it back it real investment rather than the odd couple of mil here and there


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 16, 2021)

I realise that this is getting wildly off topic, but I think this is important. chowce5382's post above looks kinda reasonable on the face of it, but there is no "delicate balancing act" here. Trans women are not a threat to cis women, and the idea that predators would be able to use self-ID to infiltrate women's spaces is not borne out at all by the evidence. Mermaids has a good article on this and I suggest, chowce5382, that you read it. I don't care how keen you are to disagree with Owen bloody Jones. It doesn't excuse this.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I think that moving it from one place to another doesn’t work. My road is very quiet now but there are so many people whose lives consist of having more traffic. I was told it would evaporate by now. Real investment in public transport seems to me to be the best solution and true investment in hydrogen planes, cars buses and the infra that surrounds it. I’ve done a lot of work in electric and hydrogen aircraft and what is holding it back it real investment rather than the odd couple of mil here and there



Not sure what planes have to do with LTNs but it’s really not the availability of public transport that makes people drive in London and arguing that shows how little you know about the subject.

The vast majority of people manage very well without using cars for day to day transport.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 17, 2021)

This has been a very interesting thread to watch.  It seems to have gone beyond the arguments. this is culture wars!!!


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2021)

Someone definitely wants to turn it into a culture war…



Even more convinced that OneLambeth isn’t really anything, the person that runs this Twitter account is just deranged.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I realise that this is getting wildly off topic, but I think this is important. chowce5382's post above looks kinda reasonable on the face of it, but there is no "delicate balancing act" here. Trans women are not a threat to cis women, and the idea that predators would be able to use self-ID to infiltrate women's spaces is not borne out at all by the evidence. Mermaids has a good article on this and I suggest, chowce5382, that you read it. I don't care how keen you are to disagree with Owen bloody Jones. It doesn't excuse this.





liquidindian said:


> I realise that this is getting wildly off topic, but I think this is important. chowce5382's post above looks kinda reasonable on the face of it, but there is no "delicate balancing act" here. Trans women are not a threat to cis women, and the idea that predators would be able to use self-ID to infiltrate women's spaces is not borne out at all by the evidence. Mermaids has a good article on this and I suggest, chowce5382, that you read it. I don't care how keen you are to disagree with Owen bloody Jones. It doesn't excuse this.


I ageee that this is not the place. If you read above I wasn’t talking about the women not being attacked (which is the at one end of the scale). I was talking about general comfort including the diverse groups of women we're talking about here from different cultures, backgrounds and religions. There is a balancing act (under the law) and by its nature the Gender Recognition Act will change that balance


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I ageee that this is not the place. If you read above I wasn’t talking about the women not being attacked (which is the at one end of the scale). I was talking about general comfort including the diverse groups of women we're talking about here from different cultures, backgrounds and religions. There is a balancing act (under the law) and by its nature the Gender Recognition Act will change that balance


What people don’t seem to understand on this group (and it’s not unsurprising given most aren’t lawyers) is that law isn’t just one side or the other. You can’t just google an act and then point to it and say “there look at what it says” as the interpretation of the act is the vital point. There will be 100s of critical pieces of case law which actually define where boundaries are and it’s the definition of these grey areas which why the law is so important. This is not meant to be a criticism of anyone here but I’m starting to think that online spaces aren’t really suitable to have legal debates such as this. If we were sitting around a table, the ability to question quickly, clarify the small detail of what someone is saying with respect to a legal argument would lead to a better understanding of the position of each person. This is critical in debate and it’s why it is impossible to do justice to a subject like this. Probably a topic for another thread


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 17, 2021)

I'm not interested in debating the finer points of the law. I'm interested in when you'll resign your position as part of a campaigning group. Simon Still had to do it. When will you?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'm not interested in debating the finer points of the law. I'm interested in when you'll resign your position as part of a campaigning group. Simon Still had to do it. When will you?


Nice try


----------



## alex_ (Jul 17, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Classic deflection tactics. Absolutely indefensible vandalism but instead of saying, yes it is, there’s a series of bizarre posts, where the truth is probably in there somewhere but when that fails and it has as it’s all over more mainstream social media, we’ll change it to, oh but you’re all racists. You’ve lost the argument, you’ve lost the legal challenge. I’m actually embarrassed for you. No-one wins when you are happy to trash your own community.



Suspect the people doing the trashing aren’t locals, but seeing as there have been arrests - we will see.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You’re a busted flush. OneLambeth isn’t really anything
> 
> a Facebook group of a couple of hundred active members (most of which prob aren’t in Lambeth)
> 
> ...



how convinced are you, you aren’t arguing with a russian bot farm ?


----------



## alex_ (Jul 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Someone definitely wants to turn it into a culture war…
> 
> 
> 
> Even more convinced that OneLambeth isn’t really anything, the person that runs this Twitter account is just deranged.




i can’t keep up is that onelambeth, twolambeth or threelambeth ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So flimsy it’s at the court of appeal on suggestion of the judge who presided over the case.


If the judge thought your case had any merits he would have found for you, he didn't in any way.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> If the judge thought your case had any merits he would have found for you, he didn't in any way.


He granted leave to appeal against his own decision straight away. Very rate indeed. Normally you’d have to ask a different judge to make that decision. He acknowledged the serious issues and impact this could have across the nation and effectively asked for a second opinion from a higher court. I know you don’t want to argue legal details but do try and keep up


----------



## Winot (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> He granted leave to appeal against his own decision straight away. Very rate indeed. Normally you’d have to ask a different judge to make that decision. He acknowledged the serious issues and impact this could have across the nation and effectively asked for a second opinion from a higher court. I know you don’t want to argue legal details but do try and keep up


Are you going to lodge an appeal? When‘s the deadline?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 17, 2021)

alex_ said:


> i can’t keep up is that onelambeth, twolambeth or threelambeth ?


Three Lambeth technically (the CAB had it first, then Guy and others who are now campaigning for more representative local government).

But this is the One Lambeth account of the legal appeal and campaign that has Charles Jenkins as Treasurer.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> If the judge thought your case had any merits he would have found for you, he didn't in any way.


Here’s the firms interpretation- not quite the same spin as chowce





__





						Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the Public Sector Equality Duty | Rook Irwin Sweeney - Public Law. Human Rights.
					






					rookirwinsweeney.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2021)

Probably not as much of an artistic statement but quite like the blue.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 17, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Where have I said it is?
> 
> But unless you know something we don’t know, it’s more than likely that it’s been done by someone who doesn’t like LTNs isn’t it? And if you’re that way inclined, you’re likely to follow some of the anti ltns on social media and start copying and escalating the vandalism that gets applauded on their channels.
> 
> ...



and likewise I don't think the vandals are friends of chowce nor should he answer to every act by those against the LTNs. I'm pretty sure the racism was someone who likes LTNs and i'm 100% sure is a cyclist. 

You're lashing at one person who is a treasurer of a courst case. 

Other people have been reasonable. You seem to be giddy that you have found someone, anyone and now want to tar him with the actions of others and make him answer for each act


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> and likewise I don't think the vandals are friends of chowce nor should he answer to every act by those against the LTNs. I'm pretty sure the racism was someone who likes LTNs and i'm 100% sure is a cyclist.
> 
> You're lashing at one person who is a treasurer of a courst case.
> 
> Other people have been reasonable. You seem to be giddy that you have found someone, anyone and now want to tar him with the actions of others and make him answer for each act


Only asking him to answer for the actions of his “organisation” that he is “treasurer” of. He could just be honest and admit there is no organisation really.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Only asking him to answer for the actions of his “organisation” that he is “treasurer” of. He could just be honest and admit there is no organisation really.



I told people pages ago there is no organisation it took me months to work out tht you have a ~admitted~ cesspit facebook group, separate groups for each area (oval, railton, etc), tens of smaller groups which are not even on the radar like my residents group, landor residents, etc, a group taking lambeth to court, a group trying to change the way the council operates, a group sorting out signs and stickers......and god knows what else is going on.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2021)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


>



The arseholes won’t win. They might slow things down a bit, but they’re on the losing side and know it


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The arseholes won’t win. They might slow things down a bit, but they’re on the losing side and know it


It’s really backfired - so many people stopped this morning to say how they hated the vandalism and glad it was being repaired.

It would be such an easy thing to condemn but chowce5382 and the nutter that runs his Twitter account chose not to.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> He granted leave to appeal against his own decision straight away. Very rate indeed. Normally you’d have to ask a different judge to make that decision. He acknowledged the serious issues and impact this could have across the nation and effectively asked for a second opinion from a higher court.



You would have gotten leave to appeal anyway. He found nothing in your arguments and probably took pity on you.



chowce5382 said:


> I know you don’t want to argue legal details but do try and keep up


Fucking hell, this from the guy who refused to argue the case a few weeks ago, probably because it was a load of rubbish.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You would have gotten leave to appeal anyway. He found nothing in your arguments and probably took pity on you.



Not always. in the taxi case the judge was so sure of their decision they denied appeal


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s really backfired - so many people stopped this morning to say how they hated the vandalism and glad it was being repaired.
> 
> It would be such an easy thing to condemn but chowce5382 and the nutter that runs his Twitter account chose not to.


Already condemned it. Go back and have a read, challenge yourself 👍


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You would have gotten leave to appeal anyway. He found nothing in your arguments and probably took pity on you.
> 
> Fucking hell, this from the guy who refused to argue the case a few weeks ago, probably because it was a load of rubbish.


You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, but it’s sweet to see that you have the courage of your convictions. I didn’t argue the case whilst it was being decided out of respect for the judiciary. You wouldn’t understand that. But do carry on writing rubbish, it’s diverting 👍


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Already condemned it. Go back and have a read, challenge yourself 👍


 You mean the one after the 15 or so claiming it was an art installation? It’s all just a joke/game/way to fill time to you isn’t it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, but it’s sweet to see that you have the courage of your convictions. I didn’t argue the case whilst it was being decided out of respect for the judiciary. You wouldn’t understand that. But do carry on writing rubbish, it’s diverting 👍


Of course you did.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You mean the one after the 15 or so claiming it was an art installation? It’s all just a joke/game/way to fill time to you isn’t it.


Didn’t claim it was an art installation. I think I said that I had been told. One day you’ll understand nuance of language. Keep on trying


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Of course you did.


Yup, that’s what I said. You’ve passed your stage 1 reading and comprehension exam. Have a badge


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, that’s what I said. You’ve passed your stage 1 reading and comprehension exam. Have a badge


Like I said earlier, it's no mystery how the 35k was burned now, but it does affect Lambeth tax payers and that's the bit I'm pissed off about.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Like I said earlier, it's no mystery how the 35k was burned now, but it does affect Lambeth tax payers and that's the bit I'm pissed off about.


1. Why do you say burned?
2. Explain the bit about tax payers money.
BTW, interested to hear why you are so pissed off as I’m also pissed off about wasting taxpayers money on this and, frankly, never wanted or even thought we’d have to go to this extent


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Didn’t claim it was an art installation. I think I said that I had been told. One day you’ll understand nuance of language. Keep on trying



You could have just condemned it but you decided to troll.

Do something constructive for our community rather than funnel money to lawyers in a vague hope on keeping the status quo.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> 1. Why do you say burned?
> 2. Explain the bit about tax payers money.
> BTW, interested to hear why you are so pissed off as I’m also pissed off about wasting taxpayers money on this and, frankly, never wanted or even thought we’d have to go to this extent


1 I say burned because I read the judges summing up and there's not a lot there at all. 

2 I'm presuming that Lambeths costs are coming out of their budget.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You could have just condemned it but you decided to troll.
> 
> Do something constructive for our community rather than funnel money to lawyers in a vague hope on keeping the status quo.


I did condemn it. You can hardly call me out on trolling given that you don’t think it is legitimate to have a view on LTNs which says that “whilst they are policy of the council, they must be implemented within the rule of law”. I think that this an legitimate (in the absolute sense of the word) position. I’m am not for one side or the other. In ANY DECISION made by the executive my position will always be that it must be within the confines of legislation. The reason why? Legislation was implemented to uphold the rule of law and protect people. It’s my view on life. I’m sorry if you don’t think it’s good enough but I’m pretty sure that no one has been on the wrong has side on history by fighting for the rights of those groups who are protected under legislation. If you don’t want to believe me, fine. However, if you do actually want to talk about our positions, and I don’t think they are actually as polemic as you think, DM me and let’s talk and this back and forth it obviously not getting our respective points across. The offer is there and I am willing to discuss. Are you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I did condemn it. You can hardly call me out on trolling given that you don’t think it is legitimate to have a view on LTNs which says that “whilst they are policy of the council, they must be implemented within the rule of law”. I think that this an legitimate (in the absolute sense of the word) position. I’m am not for one side or the other. In ANY DECISION made by the executive my position will always be that it must be within the confines of legislation. The reason why? Legislation was implemented to uphold the rule of law and protect people. It’s my view on life. I’m sorry if you don’t think it’s good enough but I’m pretty sure that no one has been on the wrong has side on history by fighting for the rights of those groups who are protected under legislation. If you don’t want to believe me, fine. However, if you do actually want to talk about our positions, and I don’t think they are actually as polemic as you think, DM me and let’s talk and this back and forth it obviously not getting our respective points across. The offer is there and I am willing to discuss. Are you?


It's not like the law has ever been used to persecute or marginalise groups either ffs.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I did condemn it. You can hardly call me out on trolling given that you don’t think it is legitimate to have a view on LTNs which says that “whilst they are policy of the council, they must be implemented within the rule of law”. I think that this an legitimate (in the absolute sense of the word) position. I’m am not for one side or the other. In ANY DECISION made by the executive my position will always be that it must be within the confines of legislation. The reason why? Legislation was implemented to uphold the rule of law and protect people. It’s my view on life. I’m sorry if you don’t think it’s good enough but I’m pretty sure that no one has been on the wrong has side on history by fighting for the rights of those groups who are protected under legislation. If you don’t want to believe me, fine. However, if you do actually want to talk about our positions, and I don’t think they are actually as polemic as you think, DM me and let’s talk and this back and forth it obviously not getting our respective points across. The offer is there and I am willing to discuss. Are you?



I was calling you out on trolling for your “art installation” comments.

You’re welcome to DM me anytime.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> It's not like the law has ever been used to persecute or marginalise groups either ffs.


Ok, please give examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people and, after the Supreme Court has ruled, that persecution is still ongoing. (Btw I mention the Supreme Court because, after they rule, it is law, the rule of law and whether anyone likes it or not, that’s it.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I was calling you out on trolling for your “art installation” comments.
> 
> You’re welcome to DM me anytime.


Just send you a DM 👍


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, please give examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people and, after the Supreme Court has ruled, that persecution is still ongoing. (Btw I mention the Supreme Court because, after they rule, it is law, the rule of law and whether anyone likes it or not, that’s it.


Also, if you think I fit in this category, give me an exmple of how the current case is doing what you mentioned


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, please give examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people and, after the Supreme Court has ruled, that persecution is still ongoing. (Btw I mention the Supreme Court because, after they rule, it is law, the rule of law and whether anyone likes it or not, that’s it.


A good example from the past is the treatment of homosexual people. 

Nowadays, the laws Pritti Patel is bringing in around immigration.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> A good example from the past is the treatment of homosexual people.
> 
> Nowadays, the laws Pritti Patel is bringing in around immigration.



Stop and Search: s60 Stop and Search power upheld by UKSC - KBW Chambers s60 S&S powers upheld by supreme court sometime post 2010. S&S is disproportionately used against BAME people. The law says it must be exercised without discrimination but, in Birmingham at least, it's certainly not felt that way, and here's a Guardian article from 2019 that has some stats that back up that feeling: 'More BAME people likely to be targeted' under relaxed stop-and-search rules

edit: there's also the workfare case which affected unemployed and disabled people. JSA claimants forced to work for their benefits took the govt. to court and won, all the way to the supreme court. Then Parliament stepped in and IDS created retroactive legislation to, legally speaking, go back in time and change the rules which the courts found had been broken, so that they had not been broken: Reilly and Wilson v Secretary of State | Disability Rights UK

Now technically here it's not the supreme court and as far as I can see they didn't make an actual ruling because by the time it got to them, the retroactive legislation had been put in place so now the schemes "complied" even though in reality they hadn't at the time, but they agreed with the previous courts that rules as originally written had been broken in a "case comment": Case Comment: R (Reilly & Anor) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] UKSC 68

Had parliament not changed the legislation, iirc £120m in benefit sanctions that the courts found were illegally placed - because the DWP had not been following its own procedures properly (a situation very, very analagous to the LTN Lambeth claim here I think) - would have been returned to JSA and ESA claimants sanctioned in the various workfare schemes run under the legislation. Workfare schemes continue afaik. 
Parliament being a higher legal power than the SC I think it's fair to talk about this here. There was certainly no legal route to challenging the retroactive legislation that was put in place.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> A good example from the past is the treatment of homosexual people.
> 
> Nowadays, the laws Pritti Patel is bringing in around immigration.


But the laws around homosexuality are not ongoing. That’s my point. Very much like the laws about it being legal to rape your wife. Once a change in the law has occurred the government and society has found it illegal to commit that persecution.
As for Priti Patel, she is possibly the most right wing HS we have had in a very long time. Unfortunately, if she brings gets those laws onto the statue book then they are law and there is very little that can be done apart from voting this government out. Judges will of course be able to interpret but that is the concept of the rule of law


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Stop and Search: s60 Stop and Search power upheld by UKSC - KBW Chambers s60 S&S powers upheld by supreme court sometime post 2010. S&S is disproportionately used against BAME people. The law says it must be exercised without discrimination but, in Birmingham at least, it's certainly not felt that way, and here's a Guardian article from 2019 that has some stats that back up that feeling: 'More BAME people likely to be targeted' under relaxed stop-and-search rules


Yup, that is a very fair point. I’m still not quite sure though how our actions in taking Lambeth to court fit into this (as per my question above). If anything we are the trying to stop the exexutive making a decision which unfairly puts a group of people at a disadvantage/curtails their rights.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> But the laws around homosexuality are not ongoing. That’s my point. Very much like the laws about it being legal to rape your wife. Once a change in the law has occurred the government and society has found it illegal to commit that persecution.
> As for Priti Patel, she is possibly the most right wing HS we have had in a very long time. Unfortunately, if she brings gets those laws onto the statue book then they are law and there is very little that can be done apart from voting this government out. Judges will of course be able to interpret but that is the concept of the rule of law


You asked for examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people, of course it has and is. Really bizarre to think otherwise or that it's your "view on life"


----------



## BigTom (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, that is a very fair point. I’m still not quite sure though how our actions in taking Lambeth to court fit into this (as per my question above). If anything we are the trying to stop the exexutive making a decision which unfairly puts a group of people at a disadvantage/curtails their rights.



Just for clarity, I've edited my post above to add another example of a different situation. It took me a while but I honestly didn't think anyone else would be around this early in the morning so it wouldn't matter 
You posted this whilst I was editing my post so anyone reading this should know you haven't ignored my other example, it wasn't there when you replied, and if I'd realised how long it would have taken to post or that others were around I would have made a separate post.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You asked for examples where the law has been used to persecute vulnerable groups of people, of course it has and is. Really bizarre to think otherwise or that it's your "view on life"


Yup, that’s why I asked. We are asking for the law not to be used in that way. I wanted an example to try and put it in a form of context and we are asking for that not to be done. I can see now I didn’t ask in the best way but I couldn’t  think off the top on my head of current examples (rather than historic which is always a bit easier). We can disagree on this but I’m coming from the position on asking the people with the power, to ensure that they don’t use it in a way which takes away rights from a group of people.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 18, 2021)

and as sleaterkinney said the S&S example wasn't meant as a parallel to the LTN case - although I have drawn a parallel to it with my other example - it was an example of a time where the SC has upheld laws used to persecute vulnerable groups of people.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, that’s why I asked. We are asking for the law not to be used in that way. I wanted an example to try and put it in a form of context and we are asking for that not to be done. I can see now I didn’t ask in the best way but I couldn’t  think off the top on my head of current examples (rather than historic which is always a bit easier). We can disagree on this but I’m coming from the position on asking the people with the power, to ensure that they don’t use it in a way which takes away rights from a group of people.



I'd ask you to look back at my edited post and see my example of workfare challenges then, as these affected unemployed and disabled people. edit: very recently and ongoing


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Just for clarity, I've edited my post above to add another example of a different situation. It took me a while but I honestly didn't think anyone else would be around this early in the morning so it wouldn't matter
> You posted this whilst I was editing my post so anyone reading this should know you haven't ignored my other example, it wasn't there when you replied, and if I'd realised how long it would have taken to post or that others were around I would have made a separate post.


Yup, looking back at my post above it doesn’t read well as I couldn’t think of a current example to use as context. It’s why debating online is so frustrating and results in constant misunderstandings


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, looking back at my post above it doesn’t read well as I couldn’t think of a current example to use as context. It’s why debating online is so frustrating and results in constant misunderstandings


For someone who asks others to look at the details your own posts are all over the place.

Or the other explanation is that your argument didn't stack up - so it's a misunderstanding.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, looking back at my post above it doesn’t read well as I couldn’t think of a current example to use as context. It’s why debating online is so frustrating and results in constant misunderstandings



No one is here to debate. Just point score and nit pick.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> For someone who asks others to look at the details your own posts are all over the place.
> 
> Or the other explanation is that your argument didn't stack up - so it's a misunderstanding.


Yup, I ask you to look at legal details. You don’t have the time and/or willingness so we go back to this. I say things like “legislative balance to ensure vulnerable people are protected”, you think that I’m just making it up. In the end, I’m spending my time trying to protect the rights of a disabled friend in Lambeth who is reprsentative of many others. You want me to fail in my endeavour. I’m pretty comfortable in my decision


----------



## edcraw (Jul 18, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> No one is here to debate. Just point score and nit pick.


Ive asked chowce5382 a number of times for his opinion but he says he doesn’t have one. tbh I’ve realised there’s very little genuine debate online about LTNs and more productive to do other things eg. our group have been door knocking in Tulse Hill and that’s been v productive and informative.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Ive asked chowce5382 a number of times for his opinion but he says he doesn’t have one. tbh I’ve realised there’s very little genuine debate online about LTNs and more productive to do other things eg. our group have been door knocking in Tulse Hill and that’s been v productive and informative.


To be fair, I think it is a fair position to ask that, whatever is implemented, is done so within the confines of the law the therefore, legally.
I don’t understand why people don’t think this is a position. After all, the other side of the coin is that the executive are voted in, and they can then do what they want without having to obey the law. I am still utterly puzzled that people think this is not an acceptable position to take.
After all if it was a loved one or friend of yours and you thought that the executive were curtailing their freedom, I’m sure you would want to do something about it.
BTW I’m replying to Ed but his is not directed at him at all. I’m just trying to understand why it is only acceptable to be pro or anti and but a position whereby you want the rule of law to prevail is disingenuous


----------



## edcraw (Jul 18, 2021)

Charlie, you don’t need to be pro or anti to have an opinion & no one has said that the law shouldn’t be followed.

Jeanette Moo was saying that there’s no debate going on here and I’m pointing out that includes you.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 18, 2021)

I used to think that homosexuality was bad until 1967, and then I thought it was fine.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Charlie, you don’t need to be pro or anti to have an opinion & no one has said that the law shouldn’t be followed.
> 
> Jeanette Moo was saying that there’s no debate going on here and I’m pointing out that includes you.


My point of debate is that this hasn’t been done within the confines of the law. You may think that is an acceptable position but there are huge numbers of people on here who think it’s a waste of time and money. If the appeal court, and it is an “if” find in our favour, I wonder whether those people who said it is flimsy, a waste of time
and money will still say that if it is found that the council have acted unlawfully. Or, will they say the judiciary are wrong.

To state I’m not debating is incorrect. I am debating on the point that, whatever is implemented, has to be lawful. The lawfulness of the implementation of LTNs, as found in the court, could have profound implications on the nature of their implementation. The nature of their implementation could change and thererfore this is a relevant position and therefore  a source of debate. If people can’t see this because I’m not saying exactly what I want the LTN landscape to look like right now then they are, to some extent, part of the issue in terms of having to come down on one side of the other at the very beginning of the debate.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Charlie, you don’t need to be pro or anti to have an opinion & no one has said that the law shouldn’t be followed.
> 
> Jeanette Moo was saying that there’s no debate going on here and I’m pointing out that includes you.


And to be fair, a number of people have said on here that the case is a waste of time and money. They don’t know that until we have the final decision but they still said that is stupid, silly, a waste etc. By saying these things they are taking the position that we shouldn’t challenge the council and therefore petition the courts. Until we have a final decision we don’t know whether the law has been followed. However, by saying it’s a waste of money and time those people are are putting themselves in a position where they are saying we should challenge the council, we shouldn’t ask the courts to give judgement that they are comfortable to have a decision made by the executive whether it is lawful or not. They are comfortable with this because it fits in with their view point. Personally I don’t think this is right because it means that the rule of law becomes a tool of the executive rather than being the constitutional tool that keeps the executive (and therefore politicians) in their place.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, I ask you to look at legal details. You don’t have the time and/or willingness so we go back to this. I say things like “legislative balance to ensure vulnerable people are protected”, you think that I’m just making it up. In the end, I’m spending my time trying to protect the rights of a disabled friend in Lambeth who is reprsentative of many others. You want me to fail in my endeavour. I’m pretty comfortable in my decision


That’s simply not true, I read the judge’s summing up of the case because you wouldn’t go into it here. The judge found against you in all your arguments, and found that the Lambeth did have regard for disabled people’s rights. 

I want you to fail in your endeavour because the LTNs are part of making London a more pleasant and less polluted place and we need to give people an alternative to the car, this will benefit people who actually have no other option than to use the car as there will be less congestion. 
Covid has made a lot of people reluctant to use public transport, if you oppose stuff like LTNs and you want to increase the amount of traffic then you need to be arguing for knocking down houses and building roads.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> That’s simply not true, I read the judge’s summing up of the case because you wouldn’t go into it here. The judge found against you in all your arguments, and found that the Lambeth did have regard for disabled people’s rights.
> 
> I want you to fail in your endeavour because the LTNs are part of making London a more pleasant and less polluted place and we need to give people an alternative to the car, this will benefit people who actually have no other option than to use the car as there will be less congestion.
> Covid has made a lot of people reluctant to use public transport, if you oppose stuff like LTNs and you want to increase the amount of traffic then you need to be arguing for knocking down houses and building roads.



Let’s outlaw cul-de-sacs as well!


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> That’s simply not true, I read the judge’s summing up of the case because you wouldn’t go into it here. The judge found against you in all your arguments, and found that the Lambeth did have regard for disabled people’s rights.
> 
> I want you to fail in your endeavour because the LTNs are part of making London a more pleasant and less polluted place and we need to give people an alternative to the car, this will benefit people who actually have no other option than to use the car as there will be less congestion.
> Covid has made a lot of people reluctant to use public transport, if you oppose stuff like LTNs and you want to increase the amount of traffic then you need to be arguing for knocking down houses and building roads.


Did you read the bit where he granted leave to appeal, gave us the grounds and stated why the appeal was important and why the Court of Appeal should hear it?
LTNs may be part of making London a “more pleasant and less polluted place”. That is your opinion. If the court finds that the result of their implementation is to discriminate and diminish the rights of vulnerable people them you’ll have to ask yourself whether you are willing to sacrifice their rights. If you are, then that is your choice. Should you find yourself on the other side of the fence in a similar conceptual matter in future then you’ve already made your decision


----------



## edcraw (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Did you read the bit where he granted leave to appeal, gave us the grounds and stated why the appeal was important and why the Court of Appeal should hear it?



Actually, I don’t think I have seen this, do you have a link?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Did you read the bit where he granted leave to appeal, gave us the grounds and stated why the appeal was important and why the Court of Appeal should hear it?
> LTNs may be part of making London a “more pleasant and less polluted place”. That is your opinion. If the court finds that the result of their implementation is to discriminate and diminish the rights of vulnerable people them you’ll have to ask yourself whether you are willing to sacrifice their rights. If you are, then that is your choice. Should you find yourself on the other side of the fence in a similar conceptual matter in future then you’ve already made your decision


I also read the bit where he said that even if he had found against Lambeth it wouldn't have resulted in the LTNs being ripped out - but you've left that out of your statements. 
Without LTNs and other measures, we'll just have congestion and pollution which will affect everyone, are you ok with that?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Actually, I don’t think I have seen this, do you have a link?


I’ll see if i can find it. It wasn’t in the published judgement as a judge giving appeal against his own decision isn’t contained in the publish judgement. I will need to check whether it’s in the form of a side letter and whether it can be released as there might be an issue of who it is addressed to. I’ll check. In any event, we’ve been given leave to appeal by J Kerr which means that, on the appeal grounds, we’re back to debating the issues in court once again.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’ll see if i can find it. It wasn’t in the published judgement as a judge giving appeal against his own decision isn’t contained in the publish judgement. I will need to check whether it’s in the form of a side letter and whether it can be released as there might be an issue of who it is addressed to. I’ll check. In any event, we’ve been given leave to appeal by J Kerr which means that, on the appeal grounds, we’re back to debating the issues in court once again.


You asked sleaterkinney if he’d read it? Confused.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I also read the bit where he said that even if he had found against Lambeth it wouldn't have resulted in the LTNs being ripped out - but you've left that out of your statements.
> Without LTNs and other measures, we'll just have congestion and pollution which will affect everyone, are you ok with that?


Again, if a judge says this, they have the state on what grounds they wouldn’t grant the “normal relief” in these situations. There is then a process where they have to go back to the relevant case law and state exactly which exception they rely on as the standard normal position is that “relief will be granted”. To not state these reasons is grounds for appeal in itself. This was a matter of opinion, which is fine, but not law.
As to your last questions, I want a outcome which ensures that vulnerable people are protected. There is a way of achieving both


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You asked sleaterkinney if he’d read it? Confused.


I don't know if it has been leaked. Someone on Twitter said they had seen it and I’m not entirely sure how. In any event, I’m not going to be the person to leak something.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 18, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I used to think that homosexuality was bad until 1967, and then I thought it was fine.


Apologies for the laughing emoji, but a lot of your posts are quite amusing in a dark way but provocative as well...


----------



## edcraw (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I don't know if it has been leaked. Someone on Twitter said they had seen it and I’m not entirely sure how. In any event, I’m not going to be the person to leak something.


So you asked if they’d read it knowing they couldn’t have? And you reference it and we have to take your word about what it said?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So you asked if they’d read it knowing they couldn’t have? And you reference it and we have to take your word about what it said?


As I said, it was leaked on Twitter, you guys knew about the judgement at exactly the same time I did, that was released on Twitter so I assumed he might have seen it. Not difficult to understand


----------



## edcraw (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> As I said, it was leaked on Twitter, you guys knew about the judgement at exactly the same time I did, that was released on Twitter so I assumed he might have seen it. Not difficult to understand


It’d be great if you could share.


----------



## Winot (Jul 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’ll see if i can find it. It wasn’t in the published judgement as a judge giving appeal against his own decision isn’t contained in the publish judgement. I will need to check whether it’s in the form of a side letter and whether it can be released as there might be an issue of who it is addressed to. I’ll check. In any event, we’ve been given leave to appeal by J Kerr which means that, on the appeal grounds, we’re back to debating the issues in court once again.


So can you confirm that you are definitely filing an appeal?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’d be great if you could share.


Yup, of course. I’ll check if it is subject to some form of legal privilege. I’m being cautious as Lambeth didn’t mention the right to appeal in their press release so it just makes me think that there might be a legal reason (I.e. that the judge was addressing the respective legal teams directly and not the general public)


----------



## CH1 (Jul 18, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> A good example from the past is the treatment of homosexual people.
> 
> Nowadays, the laws Pritti Patel is bringing in around immigration.


I must comment on  this.
In church history buggery was associated with heresy - a capital offence.
So its not quite disabled people on this issue - its people wilfully turning their back on God's teaching etc etc.
There is a notorious case in the Church of Ireland whereby the Bishop of Waterford and his steward were executed for this vice.








						John Atherton - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




it took fifty years of campaigning to change the law on this. And it was not an easy ride.

Police prosecutrions for gay sex offences INCREASED massively after homosexuality was legalised.
Not only that Mary Whitehouse used the Blasphemy laws to close down the newspaper Gay News.

Sometimes legalising something doesn't;t work when prejudices are deeply ingrained - particularly in the police force.

As regards the LTN measures, for and against - there is surely a case for seeing this issue as and act of faith.
Rather like a religious dogma the pro lobby on here are in for the kill.

Mind you I dislike gratuitous damage to public property.
This anti-authoritarian Brixton businessman from Coldharbour Lane had a better way of getting his point across


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 18, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I must comment on  this.
> In church history buggery was associated with heresy - a capital offence.
> So its not quite disabled people on this issue - its people wilfully turning their back on God's teaching etc etc.
> There is a notorious case in the Church of Ireland whereby the Bishop of Waterford and his steward were executed for this vice.
> ...


thank you for this CH1, a much needed injection of context and humour on this sorry thread.


----------



## Winot (Jul 18, 2021)

Winot said:


> So can you confirm that you are definitely filing an appeal?


This is the second time I have asked the question chowce5382 and you haven’t replied. You are under no obligation to do so of course but I assume from your silence that there is a possibility you will not be filing an appeal. You have already said that you will accept the final decision of the court and so that will be that.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 18, 2021)

Winot said:


> This is the second time I have asked the question chowce5382 and you haven’t replied. You are under no obligation to do so of course but I assume from your silence that there is a possibility you will not be filing an appeal. You have already said that you will accept the final decision of the court and so that will be that.



I don't think it's his call. Sofia has said she wants to and there is already a gofundme for the appeal on the FB page


----------



## Winot (Jul 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I don't think it's his call. Sofia has said she wants to and there is already a gofundme for the appeal on the FB page


I see that they are some way off the funding target which may ultimately decide the issue:









						OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

OneLambeth Anti-LTN Court Appeal Fundraiser  On Tuesday 5th April 2022 the Appeal Court j… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge



					www.gofundme.com


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2021)

Lambeth LTN update Lambeth Council issues statement about ongoing vandalism around Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes


----------



## edcraw (Jul 19, 2021)

editor said:


> Lambeth LTN update Lambeth Council issues statement about ongoing vandalism around Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes


 Looking forward to the drug taking and sex at the planters - is David organising?


----------



## editor (Jul 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Looking forward to the drug taking and sex at the planters - is David organising?
> 
> View attachment 279399


I didn't realise that I didn't realise that they were that exciting. _Now _I know where to go when I get out of self isolation!


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 19, 2021)

The Police will do noting -


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Looking forward to the drug taking and sex at the planters - is David organising?
> 
> View attachment 279399


These idiots are utterly deranged.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 19, 2021)

There's a comment on that article about a 'mile long' queue on Norwood Rd of 'several dozen buses'. That's obviously a massive exaggeration as that would imply the entire stretch between Herne Hill and Tulse Hill and beyond at a complete standstill. But where are the roads that are currently claimed to be significantly more congested than "before"? And at what times?

When I am walking about I take a look at the various roads that I've seen claimed as experiencing problems. I regularly look at Coldharbour Lane - and haven't seen significant queues there for some time. Haven't seen anything particular on Dulwich Rd. Last week, walked along Croxted Rd and it wasn't busy at all, with a queue of maybe 5-10 cars at the bottom for each red light cycle. Norwood Road was not backed up to the Croxted Rd junction.

If anyone reading this can tell me where the problems are, and at what times, I would likely go along and have a look for myself some time. I'm sure there are a few problem areas but for now I'm mostly assuming that the claims I see are generally very much exaggerated.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There's a comment on that article about a 'mile long' queue on Norwood Rd of 'several dozen buses'. That's obviously a massive exaggeration as that would imply the entire stretch between Herne Hill and Tulse Hill and beyond at a complete standstill. But where are the roads that are currently claimed to be significantly more congested than "before"? And at what times?
> 
> When I am walking about I take a look at the various roads that I've seen claimed as experiencing problems. I regularly look at Coldharbour Lane - and haven't seen significant queues there for some time. Haven't seen anything particular on Dulwich Rd. Last week, walked along Croxted Rd and it wasn't busy at all, with a queue of maybe 5-10 cars at the bottom for each red light cycle. Norwood Road was not backed up to the Croxted Rd junction.
> 
> If anyone reading this can tell me where the problems are, and at what times, I would likely go along and have a look for myself some time. I'm sure there are a few problem areas but for now I'm mostly assuming that the claims I see are generally very much exaggerated.


Totally this - I really haven't seen this huge congestion increase people claim. OneLambeth keep referencimg SCOOT (?) data to say congestion has increased but that also says traffic volumes has decreased, how are LTNs responsible for that? It's bullshit.

Everyone I know who supports LTNs is extremely concerned about air pollution. If the Onesies really are how about they stop f***ing driving everywhere.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Everyone I know who supports LTNs is extremely concerned about air pollution. If the Onesies really are how about they stop f***ing driving everywhere.


Don’t be silly, it’s _other people’s_ pollution that’s the problem, not theirs.


----------



## colacubes (Jul 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There's a comment on that article about a 'mile long' queue on Norwood Rd of 'several dozen buses'. That's obviously a massive exaggeration as that would imply the entire stretch between Herne Hill and Tulse Hill and beyond at a complete standstill. But where are the roads that are currently claimed to be significantly more congested than "before"? And at what times?
> 
> When I am walking about I take a look at the various roads that I've seen claimed as experiencing problems. I regularly look at Coldharbour Lane - and haven't seen significant queues there for some time. Haven't seen anything particular on Dulwich Rd. Last week, walked along Croxted Rd and it wasn't busy at all, with a queue of maybe 5-10 cars at the bottom for each red light cycle. Norwood Road was not backed up to the Croxted Rd junction.
> 
> If anyone reading this can tell me where the problems are, and at what times, I would likely go along and have a look for myself some time. I'm sure there are a few problem areas but for now I'm mostly assuming that the claims I see are generally very much exaggerated.


Norwood Road is sometimes backed up, particularly from Tulse Hill towards West Norwood. But as far as I can tell it's because of the various Thames Water digging on the road and temp traffic lights rather than anything to do with LTNs,


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 19, 2021)

London of course being famous for its free flowing traffic before LTN’s arrived


----------



## BigTom (Jul 19, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> London of course being famous for its free flowing traffic before LTN’s arrived



Just like Kings Heath high street!
(this is an area in Birmingham which has had an LTN put in, the high street has been a traffic jam for as long as I've lived here, 23 years, but nowadays anytime traffic is backed up along the high street it's the LTN that did it).


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 19, 2021)

Saw this on FB. The same traffic engineers who gave evidence at the Hackney trial have written a report on Lambeth:


----------



## teuchter (Jul 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Saw this on FB. The same traffic engineers who gave evidence at the Hackney trial have written a report on Lambeth:



Their conclusion is that the Systra report commissioned by Lambeth could be better, and I agree with them. They recommend that Lambeth provide a more detailed report and I too would like to see that.

They also say that their review does not attempt to draw any conclusions on whether or not the LTNs are successful.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Their conclusion is that the Systra report commissioned by Lambeth could be better, and I agree with them. They recommend that Lambeth provide a more detailed report and I too would like to see that.
> 
> They also say that their review does not attempt to draw any conclusions on whether or not the LTNs are successful.


and they also say that congestion has risen on some boundary roads despite lower traffic volumes. I can't see how that can be blamed on LTNs and goes against the _constant_ claims of increased traffic volumes.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Saw this on FB. The same traffic engineers who gave evidence at the Hackney trial have written a report on Lambeth:






Jeanette Moo said:


> I told people pages ago there is no organisation it took me months to work out tht you have a ~admitted~ cesspit facebook group, separate groups for each area (oval, railton, etc), tens of smaller groups which are not even on the radar like my residents group, landor residents, etc, a group taking lambeth to court, a group trying to change the way the council operates, a group sorting out signs and stickers......and god knows what else is going on.



Intriguing to know which 'we' is referred to by that tweet as I'm sure the traffic engineers wouldn't have done this out of charity so who funded it?   I can't see that it has any relevance to the legal case, which is what the crowdfunding was meant to be for. Whoever posted it has redacted the name of the commissioning person or group which is odd...

The original 'onelambeth' seem completely focussed on their petition to get a referendum on a shift to a committee system. (which is looking like a lost cause as it's got less than 600 signatures after  c3 months, which means they haven't even managed to get everyone who donated to the legal crowdfund to sign yet). And the legal group crowdfunding was meant to be spent on the court case, which obviously wasn't relevant for as it's been delivered afterwards (the appeal will be on the evidence presented at the case, and won't consider new evidence).  

Interesting to note some of the statements that they've not chosen to highlight - 
- the intention off a ETO is to provide an opportunity for a greater scope of data collection without the need for costly and potentially uncertain model forecasting.  (which recognises the big advantage of the ETO and trial scheme over a purely theoretical paper consultation before anything is done)


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 19, 2021)

Also, with regard to the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the Public Sector Equality Duty | Rook Irwin Sweeney - Public Law. Human Rights. statement this section seems to cover what can be appealed - 



> _She had asked the Court to decide whether, when making the experimental traffic orders, the Local Authority had complied with s.149 of the Equality Act 2010, or “the public sector equality duty.” She argued that the Local Authority _*had failed to consider the impact on disabled people prior to creating the LTNs*_, and as such had failed to discharge this duty.
> 
> In his judgment, Mr Justice Kerr decided that *it was lawful for the Local Authority to perform its public sector equality duty on a “rolling” basis*, that is, by monitoring the impact on disabled people and those with other protected characteristics, during the roll-out and operation of the LTNs._


So it sounds like the appeal is solely about the bits in bold - ie does the LA have to complete its considerations under the equality act up front or can it do so on a rolling basis (much like the comment in the onesies traffic report - you may actually get much better information if you do it on a 'rolling basis' rather than up front).

The equalities act itself is a process duty, not an outcome duty - which this case recognises.  If something disadvantages a protected group the LA can still do it, they just have to understand the impact. So if the council believes there is a need to reduce traffic volumes overall, or just through one neighbourhood, in order to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions, they can do so even if it does impact on disabled people who drive.  

So the case is still about the minutiae of process - nothing at all to do with whether the LTNs stay in place or not.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> and they also say that congestion has risen on some boundary roads despite lower traffic volumes. I can't see how that can be blamed on LTNs and goes against the _constant_ claims of increased traffic volumes.


I think they actually say "recorded lower traffic volumes" which I assume is deliberate wording.

The point that lower traffic volumes doesn't necessarily mean lesser congestion is a valid one I think. And I think that I agree in principle with the point that ideally you want to get an idea of how quickly vehicles are passing along a stretch of road as well as the number of them. I would prefer the Systra/Lambeth report to have gone into some more detail on this.

None of that necessarily means that there are major problems that are being ignored. As per my earlier post I like to go and have a look at reality for myself. This is not an entirely scientific method but it is a quick way of getting some idea of whether certain claims are very much exaggerated.

For me one piece of data that seems to be missing is direct measurements of air quality (before and after, at a wide spread of locations). I don't know if that's because of cost or because it's so much subject to external factors such as weather that it's difficult to compare it meaningfully over anything except quite long timescales.

At the moment, traffic volume/congestion is being used as a kind of proxy for air pollution. To the antis, if you can show increased congestion somewhere, you then can automatically claim increased pollution. I don't think that's valid though. The points made about volume not being the same as congestion don't necessarily work in the anti-LTN arguments' favour because, for example you can imagine two relatively swiftly moving but constant lanes of traffic (high volume, low congestion) vs one lane of slowly moving traffic (low volume, higher congestion). In that case, from the point of view of someone living by the road, you are comparing two lanes of constant traffic presence with one lane of constant traffic presence. I don't think you can say that the latter means higher air pollution just because things are moving slowly.

It would be much better to have direct measurements of air quality. We do seem to have those for very limited locations, and I've posted up comparisons of those twice now, where there doesn't seem to be indication of things getting any worse. But I've received no comment on them.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> For me one piece of data that seems to be missing is direct measurements of air quality (before and after, at a wide spread of locations). I don't know if that's because of cost or because it's so much subject to external factors such as weather that it's difficult to compare it meaningfully over anything except quite long timescales.



There’s ongoing monitoring across the borough and is detailed here: https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/de...eth-air-quality-annual-status-report-2019.pdf

But as you say, there are other factors, particularly weather, that make any short term comparison difficult to know if LTNs would have an effect. The monitoring is more useful to see long term trends I believe.

The council is carrying out air pollution modelling and have said they’ll included this in their future reports.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 19, 2021)

Winot said:


> I see that they are some way off the funding target which may ultimately decide the issue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Only 300 quid donated in the last week.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 19, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> London of course being famous for its free flowing traffic before LTN’s arrived



pretty sure it was all fields around here until Lambeth built the LTNs


----------



## alex_ (Jul 19, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> The Police will do noting -


And I think a sign posy looks like this


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 19, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Intriguing to know which 'we' is referred to by that tweet as I'm sure the traffic engineers wouldn't have done this out of charity so who funded it?   I can't see that it has any relevance to the legal case, which is what the crowdfunding was meant to be for. Whoever posted it has redacted the name of the commissioning person or group which is odd...



I don't think its odd. All the stuff flying around and vendettas you'd be mad to do anything in yuor own name


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 19, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Only 300 quid donated in the last week.



I don't think it is even been up that long at all

The question is how long until the funds are needed for appeal? Is it a month? four? Six+? I dont doubt they will raise the money.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 19, 2021)

I mean, I would believe this is true, unfortunately after reading retweets from a group called "One Lambeth Justice", I now think these sorts of things are just random attacks and nothing to do with LTNs, or are actually false flag attacks.



(Maybe there's more to come, but if there's vandalised signs and slashed tyres, why is this the damning evidence?)


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 19, 2021)

Agree. I mean thats a screw in a tyre. What is someone going around with a power drill and drilling tyres?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 19, 2021)

__





						Sheakh, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 1745 (Admin) (28 June 2021)
					





					www.bailii.org
				




Had a first look at the judgement.

As I've some experience of Lambeth in court re housing I know what its like. Law in this country is adversarial. This is not conducive to dealing with issues around LAs and residents.

The winner takes all is not imo the way to learn in case of public law.

The Judge made clear he was not going to say whether LTNs are good idea or not.

Reasonable position. He was looking at consultation and Equality.

My experience in court taught me that the Judge one gets is either pro LA or pro resident. In this case looks like the Judge leant towards being pro authority-Lambeth.

This was a difficult case due to the extra ordinary circumstances of pandemic.

The judgement was more nuanced than Cllr Holland said.

He accepted that Lambeth was acting in good faith on rolling EIA. He didn't give Lambeth a carte blanche on this. How they deal with mitigation of for example the case of the disabled person like Sofia he left to the rolling EIA and hoped  Lambeth would use adequate mitigation.

He did say on the specific case of Sofia her particular disability was shown to be affected.

He did say that use of rolling EIA was not a given and had to be justified.

What he thought was that given the extra ordinary circumstances the what he termed the more leisurely consultation that Lambeth had planned were justified in being shelved.

So my reading is that the Judge accepted that the Council was working in difficult circumstances, that central Government was directing them too do this and the Due Regard to equality had to be considered in these circumstances.

In other circumstances he would not have taken this position.

So my reading is that this is not satisfactory but the best in a pandemic. He trusts the Council in future will mitigate.

Here's hoping. Fairly generous judgement imo.

So its a judgement call in a unique situation.

Where I do find issue is when he supports Council in saying the ETOs are genuinely experimental. I dont think they are.

My first thoughts on the judgement.

Given what he says about the Sofia case itself I'm still wondering why Lambeth haven't after this judgement come out and promised Blue Badge holders and disabled people like her who need to use cars some kind of mitigation instead of sounding triumphant that they won.

I also note the officers justification for LTNs is about stopping through traffic and rat runs. They don't go on about making it difficult for people inside LTNs.

To add I don't think local residents are always opposed to stopping specific rat runs. 

I don't think many would necessarily oppose reducing through traffic that has no relation to the area. Ie just goes through without stopping.

The other thing is LJ. Whilst the Council insist they had to do this LJ has been left out. Arguably the through traffic problem is the same as Railton. Pavement widening in LJ has been quietly dropped with no reason.


----------



## madolesance (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I mean, I would believe this is true, unfortunately after reading retweets from a group called "One Lambeth Justice", I now think these sorts of things are just random attacks and nothing to do with LTNs, or are actually false flag attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> (Maybe there's more to come, but if there's vandalised signs and slashed tyres, why is this the damning evidence?)



Also there are not many signs being displayed on the outer roads that claim to be congested and practically none with in the rat runs.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

__





						Sheakh, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth (Rev1) [2021] EWHC 1745 (Admin) (28 June 2021)
					





					www.bailii.org
				




On consultation.

I'm quite surprised to learn that under law Councils don't really have to do much to comply.

For example surprise surprise the Council only actively consulted disabled groups that would agree with they wanted to do. DASL was not included. Under the law the Council can pick and choose which groups it wants to consult prior to  implementation.

The rest can  use the channels  that the  Council set up  afterwards. Charming.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I mean, I would believe this is true, unfortunately after reading retweets from a group called "One Lambeth Justice", I now think these sorts of things are just random attacks and nothing to do with LTNs, or are actually false flag attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> (Maybe there's more to come, but if there's vandalised signs and slashed tyres, why is this the damning evidence?)




Like you say they’ve got zero credibility after all their tweets but this will get traction. Cristo’s retweeted and bound to mention it on its show so loads will just take it as fact.

Of course I’d condemn any of these attacks but really can’t see how it’d be true, 

Maybe it’s time chowce5382 had a word with the person running that account to calm things down.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Like you say they’ve got zero credibility after all their tweets but this will get traction. Cristo’s retweeted and bound to mention it on its show so loads will just take it as fact.
> 
> Of course I’d condemn any of these attacks but really can’t see how it’d be true,
> 
> Maybe it’s time chowce5382 had a word with the person running that account to calm things down.


Unfortunately we’re at a point where no-one on either side believes anyone on the other side. The people mentioned in the tweets are all in the group who originally set this up, they are also the ones who have been vocal, public with their opposition and this seemed to happen over a 24-36 hour period on the weekend. Having said that, there is much more construction going on at the moment but one set of tyres were slashed.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Unfortunately we’re at a point where no-one on either side believes anyone on the other side.


Gosh, how did that ever come to happen? Just One of those things I guess.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Gosh, how did that ever come to happen? Just One of those things I guess.


Yup, neither side listening to the other from the start


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

I dunno, you've listened carefully enough to lock your Twitter account and add a panicky "retweets are not endorsements" disclaimer.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I dunno, you've listened carefully enough to lock your Twitter account and add a panicky "retweets are not endorsements" disclaimer.


Yup, stalkers are a nightmare


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Do you think the person who wrote them was racist or that those tweets were racist?


Yeah, imagine someone digging up old tweets and going on and on and on about them. Enough to make you regret setting a certain standard. Resigning yet?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Yeah, imagine someone digging up old tweets and going on and on and on about them. Enough to make you regret setting a certain standard. Resigning yet?


I didn’t dig anything up, as you well know. I was replying to a post which had already mentioned them.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

Got it, so you'll resign if someone else demands it, just not the person who originally mentioned your appalling bigotry?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I didn’t dig anything up, as you well know. I was replying to a post which had already mentioned them.


Irony being is that this is exactly what you did and I didn’t do. Petard comes to mind


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I mean, I would believe this is true, unfortunately after reading retweets from a group called "One Lambeth Justice", I now think these sorts of things are just random attacks and nothing to do with LTNs, or are actually false flag attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> (Maybe there's more to come, but if there's vandalised signs and slashed tyres, why is this the damning evidence?)



Bit of a coincidence it happened after the oil dumped outside a school thing a few days ago….


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

yup


sleaterkinney said:


> Bit of a coincidence it happened after the oil dumped outside a school thing a few days ago….


there are people taking this way beyond what anyone would think is acceptable behaviour, on both sides I afraid. I’ve had DMs from recently set up Twitter accounts telling me that it would be easy to find out my house number


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

You've had threats to your locked account that someone's going to look up publicly available information on Companies House?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

Love how people try and "both sides" everything. I have seen no mention of vandalism or targeting individuals among any local LTNs supporters, quite the opposite in fact. It would be horrible and achieve nothing. One supposedly local supportive Twitter account named someone they suspect of the vandalism with no evidence, LTN supporters called this out and reported.

OneLambeth Facebook group have actively encouraged, endorsed and downplayed vandalism:

I'm sure there are some trolls but doubt they're actually local and sorry if you've been targeted chowce5382.

Bu the way the council repaired the Upper Tulse Hill signs yesterday with temporary stickers - they were ripped down overnight….


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> You've had threats to your locked account that someone's going to look up publicly available information on Companies House?


Yup, about a month ago before it was locked. I’m well aware that my info is on CH. I think, what I’m trying to point out, and seems like you don’t think this is an issue, going through the process of finding my name, going on to CH, then setting up a one time account (no followers etc) and then sending me a message basically trying to tell me ‘I know where you live’ is really not acceptable. Proper stalker behaviour


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

You do know that open DMs, where anyone can message you, need to be switched on and is not enabled by default?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> You do know that open DMs, where anyone can message you, need to be switched on and is not enabled by default?


I get it. This my fault  🤦🙄


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

Your tales might need a little more workshopping, that's all.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

No-one should have to have people threatening them and I think chowce5382 should be given some credit for allowing himself to be identifiable. I also don't really think it's on for people on either side to be digging up past tweets and using them for smear purposes unless they are expressing a position that's actually relevant to the discussion about LTNs.

How about we all try and stick to stuff that's directly relevant to the subject.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Your tales might need a little more workshopping, that's all.


Again, it’s my fault obviously.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I get it. This my fault  🤦🙄


I mean, you were up on stage ranting about lycra clad cyclists on the payroll of Lambeth and stuff.... so you have fed this yourself.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I mean, you were up on stage ranting about lycra clad cyclists on the payroll of Lambeth and stuff.... so you have fed this yourself.


That’s strange, as I would have thought it was the fault of the person(s) who sent the messages. We obviously look at these things in a slightly different way. Each to their own I suppose


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've just had a read through of the judgement. This is just my lay interpretation of what it all means. Some of it is quite technical, but it seems to me that those technical bits aren't really the important bits. By that I mean that I don't think Lambeth have got away on technicalities.
> 
> He doesn't really criticise Lambeth - essentially he says that the way they have implemented the schemes is lawful, and that includes the questions of whether they carried out their equalities assessments adequately and whether they consulted adequately. In both cases he seems to have decided that yes they did, in the context of these particular schemes and the times in which they were implemented. He says that the decision might have been different in a different context - but he's looked at in the context that actually existed. That includes of course the Covid crisis and the direction from central government to implement changes very rapidly. So he is examining a process that starts with Lambeth considering various schemes to be brought in over a 3 year period, that is suddenly accelerated and results in various things being brought in very quickly using a different method than originally envisaged.
> 
> As part of this he talks quite a bit of things being assessed and adjusted on a rolling basis. This includes the equality considerations. He seems to think that Lambeth are genuinely considering issues on this "rolling" basis. That means that he does not necessarily criticise them for not having made mitigations so far - but this certainly doesn't mean that he considers this process complete. In other words there seems to be an expectation that various mitigations will be adopted in due course, and based on the outcome of ongoing monitoring and consultation. He talks about the decision having been made to exempt SEND vehicles - even though this has not yet actually been done. It seems to be OK that it has not yet been done but it would not be OK if they fail to do it in a reasonable time. So - I don't see anything in the judgement that tells Lambeth they shouldn't or don't need to consider a blue badge exemption.



I agree with this post. Now I've read the judgement.

Your second one I'm not so sure about.

My impression was that as LTNs are a political minefield he decided to focus on the process.

Or this is what JR are for. They aren't for judiciary to "interfere" in politics.

My take is that he is saying there are dangers in using a rolling equalities assessment.

My take also is that this potentially leaves door open for a further JR if someone considers the mitigation and/or rolling EIA not good enough at a later date.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> My impression was that as LTNs are a political minefield he decided to focus on the process.


I think it's more that the case brought to him was about the process. The case that was brought to him was not (as far as I can see) trying to present any evidence that LTNs don't 'work' when measured against their stated aims.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That’s strange, as I would have thought it was the fault of the person(s) who sent the messages. We obviously look at these things in a slightly different way. Each to their own I suppose



Agree that it’s completely the responsibility of the person sending the messages and it’s unacceptable.

You also have responsibility for the Tweets sent out from your organisation.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think it's more that the case brought to him was about the process. The case that was brought to him was not (as far as I can see) trying to present any evidence that LTNs don't 'work' when measured against their stated aims.



My understanding is that JRs are always about the process and whether it has been followed properly:






						Judicial review - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
					

How does a judge review the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body




					www.judiciary.uk
				





> Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
> 
> In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.



edit: so they cannot bring a case to a JR about whether the LTNs work or not, only about the processes that were followed to implement them.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think it's more that the case brought to him was about the process. The case that was brought to him was not (as far as I can see) trying to present any evidence that LTNs don't 'work' when measured against their stated aims.


That’s correct. It’s very difficult to go down the ‘don’t work’ route as effectively you just get a number of diffferent “experts” with polarised views points and you’re then asking a judge (who is not a traffic expert) to say who is right.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That’s correct. It’s very difficult to go down the ‘don’t work’ route as effectively you just get a number of diffferent “experts” with polarised views points and you’re then asking a judge (who is not a traffic expert) to say who is right.


and a JR is not for a judge to decide the rights and wrongs of a decision reached, only to see that due process was followed, right?
Is there a different legal route you could have gone down to get a court decision on the rights and wrongs of the LTNs and whether they achieve what they were meant to?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Agree that it’s completely the responsibility of the person sending the messages and it’s unacceptable.
> 
> You also have responsibility for the Tweets sent out from your organisation.


I don’t I’m afraid, as I don’t send them out, I don’t compose them and I have absolutely no part in that process and have made a conscious decision. That is different from a person sending me direct messages and they are in total control of their actions. Whilst I understand that, as treasurer (and I only took the position as no one else seemed able to open a bank account and understand the bills and the legal process) that I am linked to the account I am not responsible for it in the same way that someone sending me messages directly is. We can carry on going round and round on this one but I do not see it as being analogous.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 20, 2021)

I see a new very big parklet thing has just been installed where Fujiyama used to be.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 20, 2021)

I mean outside obviously not where the restaurant was


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

BigTom said:


> and a JR is not for a judge to decide the rights and wrongs of a decision reached, only to see that due process was followed, right?
> Is there a different legal route you could have gone down to get a court decision on the rights and wrongs of the LTNs and whether they achieve what they were meant to?


Yes, we could have gone down another route but I’ll explain why it didn’t seem sensible:
1. What I said above re the judge and experts. It always reminds me of the bit in The Thick if It where malcom shouts at someone telling them the following:
“_My expert would totally disprove that.
Who is your expert?
I don’t know, but I can get one by this afternoon. The thing is, you’ve been listening to the wrong expert. You need to listen to the right expert. And you need to know what an expert is going to advise you before he advises you.”_
2. LTNs and their implementation is a political decision. I don’t really think a court is the right place for that argument. My personal view is that whether they are achieving their stated aim will ultimately be decided at the ballot box, just like all other policy decisions.
3. My position, and it won’t  change, is that this has always been about the process. We have complex legislation and case law in place to ensure vulnerable people are protected. When elected officials decide that they can cut corners, that has a direct impact on those people. I saw an EQIA which was done pre-Covid and it said LTNs would be positive for all disabled people. It was linked to a study but the study only looked at people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. By definition, this study can’t be used to say that the impact would be positive for all disabled people. That is just anecdotal and I don’t want to dwell on it here. The point is that at the heart of legislation like this there is always a delicate balancing act. My rights start where yours end and that is the same for groups of people. I saw a direct and ongoing impact (possibly 18-24 months whilst the order is in place) on sofia and a number of other people and thought that, if the process had been carried out properly then this impact would not be so severe or there would be recognition and therefore mitigation.
That is why this seems like the most appropriate route. I hope that helps to clear up or explain


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes, we could have gone down another route but I’ll explain why it didn’t seem sensible:
> 1. What I said above re the judge and experts. It always reminds me of the bit in The Thick if It where malcom shouts at someone telling them the following:
> “_My expert would totally disprove that.
> Who is your expert?
> ...



I think it’d be fair to say your position has evolved since last Sept. You’ve always said your objections are about process but your original concerns were that they would cause congestion elsewhere rather EQIA’s.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think it’d be fair to say your position has evolved since last Sept. You’ve always said your objections are about process but your original concerns were that they would cause congestion elsewhere rather EQIA’s.


Yup, and my worry was that the congestion caused would make it harder for disabled people to get around to appointments and I knew how that would impact them. The reason I say “my” position is that I was not there at the very beginning of this, far from it. . I joined later on when a decision was made that a legal route would be the most pertinent and then helped to direct that having looked at the process and drawn on previous EQIAs I’d had to review and ensure were adapted on cases I’d looked at previously


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I saw an EQIA which was done pre-Covid and it said LTNs would be positive for all disabled people. It was linked to a study but the study only looked at people with mild to moderate learning difficulties.


Please stop misrepresenting this. It was a reference to back up the suggestion that _"disabled people may suffer from higher mortality rates than the general population, potentially reflecting exclusion from active travel / lifestyles"_.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

One thing I don't quite understand is why, if the JR is all about process rather than examining the impact on an individual, there has to be a specific 'client' who is part of an affected group.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Please stop misrepresenting this. It was a reference to back up the suggestion that _"disabled people may suffer from higher mortality rates than the general population, potentially reflecting exclusion from active travel / lifestyles"_.


Which group of disabled people? The finding in the EQIA said that ltns would be positive for all disabled people. Could have said positive and negative but just said positive. That was the only academic study used to back up the “positive” claim. Why no studies on those who are physically disabled?
As I said, I do t want to dwell on it but it’s was questions such as that which got me asking why the there wasn’t a more balance position of positive and negative to the finding in that EQIA. It’s the wholesale finding that they would be positive for all disabled people with no data to back it up which is what made me started thinking about it.
Anyway, we’re just going through old arguments now


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> One thing I don't quite understand is why, if the JR is all about process rather than examining the impact on an individual, there has to be a specific 'client' who is part of an affected group.


That’s the way the court works. You couldn’t really go in and say, “this will impact ex group” and then have no witness statements etc to back it up. It has to come from a position of an identifiable person which can be extrapolated. Otherwise I suppose people could use JR for vexatious claims so it’s an understandable rule I would suggest


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That’s the way the court works. You couldn’t really go in and say, “this will impact ex group” and then have no witness statements etc to back it up. It has to come from a position of an identifiable person which can be extrapolated. Otherwise I suppose people could use JR for vexatious claims so it’s an understandable rule I would suggest


If part of the case was presenting witness statements to demonstrate impact - then it wasn't purely about process. That implies that the judge had to decide whether the claimed impact is real, but I don't recall anything about that in the judgement.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The finding in the EQIA said that ltns would be positive for all disabled people.


Did it? Because I believe you're referring to the EQIA for the Transport Strategy and Implementation Plan, and LTNs are just a part of that.



The study you're referring to is footnote 10, and a pretty uncontroversial point IMO. You made a point about finding the right experts earlier, but good luck finding someone who will say there's no link between inactivity and mortality, and no link between disability and access to active travel.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If part of the case was presenting witness statements to demonstrate impact - then it wasn't purely about process. That implies that the judge had to decide whether the claimed impact is real, but I don't recall anything about that in the judgement.


The witness statements etc go towards the initial hearing which decides whether the case should go ahead. The argument being that the process wasn’t followed and, by no following that process, it’s is having a real impact on a group of people protected under the act and Sofia is an example of that. If there was no group then a judge would probably just give some direction to do better next time in the knowledge that it wasn’t having an impact on any vulnerable groups


----------



## alex_ (Jul 20, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I don't think it is even been up that long at all
> 
> The question is how long until the funds are needed for appeal? Is it a month? four? Six+? I dont doubt they will raise the money.



the first donation is listed as 14 days ago….


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Did it? Because I believe you're referring to the EQIA for the Transport Strategy and Implementation Plan, and LTNs are just a part of that.
> 
> View attachment 279587
> 
> The study you're referring to is footnote 10, and a pretty uncontroversial point IMO. You made a point about finding the right experts earlier, but good luck finding someone who will say there's no link between inactivity and mortality, and no link between disability and access to active travel.


Note that it refers to “disabled people”. That means all disabled people from the facts of the statement. When you look at the footnote you find that it’s a study from 20 years ago, in the northeast of England and only relates to people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. The statement should be specific that the study in which it is relying effectively excludes physically disabled people and therefore the statement I’m not correct. If anything, the authors of the document are misrepresenting the position.
Again, when you look at the outcome it says that it’s positive for all but does not even go into sub-sets. You might expect this given the nature of the policy. This point is also outlined in the Lambeth transport strategy document where it specifically says that there is not one homogeneous disabled group and there is a vast difference between the needs and requirements of one group vs another. As I said, Lambeth we could have said it was positive and negative in their findings. They just said it would be positive for all disabled people.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Did it? Because I believe you're referring to the EQIA for the Transport Strategy and Implementation Plan, and LTNs are just a part of that.
> 
> View attachment 279587
> 
> The study you're referring to is footnote 10, and a pretty uncontroversial point IMO. You made a point about finding the right experts earlier, but good luck finding someone who will say there's no link between inactivity and mortality, and no link between disability and access to active travel.


This is why I said there was not much point dwelling on it, but it was the lack of detail, the lack of a process of looking at different groups of disabled people and working out how these might impact those distinct and different groups which took me to the position of looking at the equalities position rather than a case which would focus on whether LTNs were doing what the council said they were going to do. That is the question I was answering above.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Note that it refers to “disabled people”. That means all disabled people from the facts of the statement. When you look at the footnote you find that it’s a study from 20 years ago, in the northeast of England and only relates to people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. The statement should be specific that the study in which it is relying effectively excludes physically disabled people and therefore the statement I’m not correct. If anything, the authors of the document are misrepresenting the position.
> Again, when you look at the outcome it says that it’s positive for all but does not even go into sub-sets. You might expect this given the nature of the policy. This point is also outlined in the Lambeth transport strategy document where it specifically says that there is not one homogeneous disabled group and there is a vast difference between the needs and requirements of one group vs another. As I said, Lambeth we could have said it was positive and negative in their findings. They just said it would be positive for all disabled people.


Are you talking about a different bit of text from the one posted by liquidindian above?

Because I can't match what you're saying with that text at all.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If part of the case was presenting witness statements to demonstrate impact - then it wasn't purely about process. That implies that the judge had to decide whether the claimed impact is real, but I don't recall anything about that in the judgement.



From reading judgement the Judge did say he accepted that Sofia herself had been adversely affected.

How I read the judgement is that the Judge at this point in time gave Lambeth the benefit of the doubt that they would in near future bring in appropriate mitigations from info obtained from rolling EIA.

He did this due to unique circumstances of the pandemic.

So and this is how I read it he's allowing rolling EIA in this particular instance.

This would make up for any deficiencies in previous EIA I assume.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> 20 years ago


And? Not really relevant to the point being made.


chowce5382 said:


> in the northeast of England


Ditto.


chowce5382 said:


> only relates to people with mild to moderate learning difficulties


Well, quite. Do you think people with mobility issues find accessing active travel easier, or harder?


chowce5382 said:


> effectively excludes physically disabled people


See above. I can see why you don't want to dwell on it.


The thing is, the EQIA does go on to talk about potential negative consequences re mobility, but it's under "age" rather than "disability". I suppose this is understandable as car ownership tends to increase with age, but disabled people are way less likely to own a car.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, and my worry was that the congestion caused would make it harder for disabled people to get around to appointments and I knew how that would impact them.


Can you give me any examples of where significant congestion is currently being experienced - and where you think it's worse than it would have been without the LTNs? I guess in relation to the railton or Ferndale ones?

I just haven't seen it anywhere recently. I'm in Herne hill just now, and traffic is not even really backing up on any of the roads leading to the main junction. I know it's not rush hour but Herne hill (pre Covid and LTN) was always one of the bad spots for traffic.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Are you talking about a different bit of text from the one posted by liquidindian above?
> 
> Because I can't match what you're saying with that text at all.


I’m focusing on the sentence which starts “this is particular priority as disabled people”

Having looked at a considerable number of EQIAs both professionally otherwise, you can’t take overarching statements which include all of the group you are taking about and then use a study which only applies to a very small proportion on that group. You also shouldn’t just put all people in that group together and treat them the same. As I mentioned, it was the first thing which looked at and then went down the road on the Equalities Act rather than whether LTNs were doing what they said they would do.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> And? Not really relevant to the point being made.
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> ...


On your last paragraph, each different vulnerable group has its own section. The bit which says negative on age only applies to age and not the other vulnerable and protected groups under the EA. The very fact that it’s says that there may be negative consequences for the elderly means that the lack of that finding in the section on disability means that they don’t find any negatives consequences for disabled people. That’s how these things work. You take each group in turn and show whether the impacts will be positive or negative (or neutral N/A). You can’t say that, because they said it was negative for the elderly that this applies to the different section on disabled people.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’m focusing on the sentence which starts “this is particular priority as disabled people”
> 
> Having looked at a considerable number of EQIAs both professionally otherwise, you can’t take overarching statements which include all of the group you are taking about and then use a study which only applies to a very small proportion on that group. You also shouldn’t just put all people in that group together and treat them the same. As I mentioned, it was the first thing which looked at and then went down the road on the Equalities Act rather than whether LTNs were doing what they said they would do.


But previously you were making it out like it was saying that no disabled people would suffer adverse effects from the LTNs. That there would only be positive effects, for all disabled people.

But as liquidindian points out, that's not what this text is about. It's addressing the question of whether those with disabilities tend to find out hard to access certain types of transport. Different question. The example in their footnote is not controversial in that context.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> But previously you were making it out like it was saying that no disabled people would suffer adverse effects from the LTNs. That there would only be positive effects, for all disabled people.
> 
> But as liquidindian points out, that's not what this text is about. It's addressing the question of whether those with disabilities tend to find out hard to access certain types of transport. Different question. The example in their footnote is not controversial in that context.


Look at the top of the text. The finding states that the implementation will be positive. That is the finding of the authors. The text is saying the peope with disabilities tend to find it hard to access certian types of transport. As this, and other EQIAs relate to implementing the LTNs the positive finding is saying that the implementation of LTNs will be positive for disabled people. Not positive and negative but positive.
That’s how these documents work. You state your findings at the top in the section relating to the relevant protected group and then you effectively show your workings as to how you got there.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

But you're saying that Lambeth looked at one study and decided LTNs were good, when the study was to support a single statement on access to active travel and the document wasn't focused on LTNs but the whole transport plan.

I understand how the document works, it's fairly self-evident. And it's clear you do too. So please stop misrepresenting it.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Look at the top of the text. The finding states that the implementation will be positive. That is the finding of the authors. The text is saying the peope with disabilities tend to find it hard to access certian types of transport. As this, and other EQIAs relate to implementing the LTNs the positive finding is saying that the implementation of LTNs will be positive for disabled people. Not positive and negative but positive.
> That’s how these documents work. You state your findings at the top in the section relating to the relevant protected group and then you effectively show your workings as to how you got there.


So, if one of these reports states positive or negative for a certain group ... The conventional reading of that is that "every single element of this broad ranging policy will lead to only positive outcomes for every single member of the group"?

I'd have thought it's more along the lines of "on balance it has a net positive effect". That would seem more in accordance with how the real world and real policy making works.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> But you're saying that Lambeth looked at one study and decided LTNs were good, when the study was to support a single statement on access to active travel and the document wasn't focused on LTNs but the whole transport plan.
> 
> I understand how the document works, it's fairly self-evident. And it's clear you do too. So please stop misrepresenting it.


Which formed the basis for the EQIA for every single LTN. This was argued in court and was once of the points made by their QC, that there was a direct link through from the TP through to the decision made to implement the LTNs and that therefore that work for the impact assessment had been done which was why they didn’t need to do it for each individual LTN.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> This was argued in court


This is the case you lost, aye?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Can you give me any examples of where significant congestion is currently being experienced - and where you think it's worse than it would have been without the LTNs? I guess in relation to the railton or Ferndale ones?
> 
> I just haven't seen it anywhere recently. I'm in Herne hill just now, and traffic is not even really backing up on any of the roads leading to the main junction. I know it's not rush hour but Herne hill (pre Covid and LTN) was always one of the bad spots for traffic.



This is the main point really - they haven’t led to any huge increase in congestion, everyone can see this, so all else is moot except if you are really pissed of about your car journey taking a few minutes longer.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So, if one of these reports states positive or negative for a certain group ... The conventional reading of that is that "every single element of this broad ranging policy will lead to only positive outcomes for every single member of the group"?
> 
> I'd have thought it's more along the lines of "on balance it has a net positive effect". That would seem more in accordance with how the real world and real policy making works.


But you would expect how they got to the net impact. There are these positives, however there are these negatives which will need to be mitigated with respect to these different sub-sets if disabled people to ensure that are not unduly impacted. With the correct mitigations in place we then find that, on the balance, the impact will be net positive overall


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jul 20, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> And? Not really relevant to the point being made.
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> ...



Honestly im probably the one having the most trouble keeping up but even I can see that a report on people with learning difficulties, in the north of England, does not refer to all disabled people and does not mean that the LTNs would have only a positive affect on disabled people.

These are supposed to be 'all over the UK' and 'actually planned for some time'. Also many years to prepare since LJ....and this is the best Lambeth can come up with? You'd think this would be step 1. 'OK  we wanna do these things how will they impact people'

Sounds like someone was hitting copy and paste from a form relating removing a railing or such.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> This is the main point really - they haven’t led to any huge increase in congestion, everyone can see this, so all else is moot except if you are really pissed of about your car journey taking a few minutes longer.


chowce5382 & Gramsci - you both argue about the process byt which they were bought in which is a fair argument and much more palatable & believable than any of the other arguments, but for them to be made permanent they will need to be fully consulted on. I hope if & when this happens (& it might be before the appeal is heard) it will be enough for you both to accept them then.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> a report on people with learning difficulties, in the north of England, does not refer to all disabled people and does not mean that the LTNs would


The report does not say that LTNs have only a positive effect on disabled people. The statement where the report is referred to as a footnote does not say that LTNs have only a positive effect on disabled people. This is a misrepresentation by chowce5382 and the fact that you think that means that it's doing it's job. Maybe he hoped no one would actually check.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> But you would expect how they got to the net impact. There are these positives, however there are these negatives which will need to be mitigated with respect to these different sub-sets if disabled people to ensure that are not unduly impacted. With the correct mitigations in place we then find that, on the balance, the impact will be net positive overall



Ok. Maybe I would like to see it go into a bit more detail too. But my understanding is that the judge decided it was ok to monitor the detailed impacts of specific measures on a rolling basis.

But in any case, what you said was:

"The finding in the EQIA said that ltns would be positive for all disabled people."

Well - no it did not.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Honestly im probably the one having the most trouble keeping up but even I can see that a report on people with learning difficulties, in the north of England, does not refer to all disabled people and does not mean that the LTNs would have only a positive affect on disabled people.
> 
> These are supposed to be 'all over the UK' and 'actually planned for some time'. Also many years to prepare since LJ....and this is the best Lambeth can come up with? You'd think this would be step 1. 'OK  we wanna do these things how will they impact people'
> 
> Sounds like someone was hitting copy and paste from a form relating removing a railing or such.


TfL have a fairly extensive bunch of documents providing an evidence base that are publicly accessible. Have you looked at them? As I understand it, this is the evidence base for LTNs as proposed in London, and it's there for councils to refer to and use. This has been prepared over years. Remember that this was initially a TfL initiative - before the unexpected intervention from central govt.

It's not like this has all appeared out of the blue and no-one has thought through these problems before. Note that the basis of chowce5382 's objections seems to be all around congestion. The LTNs are implemented in the expectation that they do not significantly increase congestion on surrounding roads once bedded in. And people have already spent decades arguing about this. The real world evidence is there if a bit patchy. It's patchy partly because it's so hard to get these things implemented. I hope that in time, all the stuff that has been put in over the past year or two will add to that evidence.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

The 


teuchter said:


> Ok. Maybe I would like to see it go into a bit more detail too. But my understanding is that the judge decided it was ok to monitor the detailed impacts of specific measures on a rolling basis.
> 
> But in any case, what you said was:
> 
> ...


This section relates to disabled people.
The finding of the author is that the impact of implementing the road changes would be Positive (as we can see from the finding at the top).
So, how do we know it will be positive (rather than positive and negative). We look at the text which refers to current issues in the road network and how that impacts disabled people. That sentence is then linked to a study.
The only study I see relates to one sub-set and not any others. There are no other studies. The text is referring to issues currently or previously faced (hence the use of an historical study to back up that point). The positive finding is saying that these issues will be alleviated by the LTN.
There is nothing in legislation or case law which says that you can substitute undertaking the initial impact assessment with a rolling assessment at a later date. The reason being is that if you don’t do the work upfront then you could be curtailing the rights of various groups without having thought about them.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> This section relates to disabled people.
> The finding of the author is that the impact of implementing the road changes would be Positive (as we can see from the finding at the top).


No it isn't. It's about the transport strategy in general. Not about road changes.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No it isn't. It's about the transport strategy in general. Not about road changes.


Which contemplates road changes at its core. This is exactly what Lambeth said at the case. All the work was effectively done by the Transport Strategy plan and so doesn’t need to be replicated. This is the exact point (alongside others) which the judge gave appeal on.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Which contemplates road changes at its core. This is exactly what Lambeth said at the case. All the work was effectively done by the Transport Strategy plan and so doesn’t need to be replicated. This is the exact point (alongside others) which the judge gave appeal on.



So what still puzzles me is what the appeal hopes to achieve.  There _are_ now EQIAs for each individual scheme - you might not think they are good enough, or agree with their findings, but those are not questions that would covered by the appeal. 

As noted here - it appears that if there is a negative impact on some disabled people doesn't mean that the council have failed in their duty, so long as they understand what those impacts are. 


thebackrow said:


> The equalities act itself is a process duty, not an outcome duty - which this case recognises. If something disadvantages a protected group the LA can still do it, they just have to understand the impact. So if the council believes there is a need to reduce traffic volumes overall, or just through one neighbourhood, in order to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions, they can do so even if it does impact on disabled people who drive.


so at best your appeal would establish that in future Lambeth, and other councils, would not be able to rely on an overarching EQIA for their transport strategy.  it's not going to stop more LTNs being implemented, to remove the current schemes, or even lead to them being modified as that's not what is being determined.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> chowce5382 & Gramsci - you both argue about the process byt which they were bought in which is a fair argument and much more palatable & believable than any of the other arguments, but for them to be made permanent they will need to be fully consulted on. I hope if & when this happens (& it might be before the appeal is heard) it will be enough for you both to accept them then.



I don't see what the point of this post is.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> chowce5382 & Gramsci - you both argue about the process byt which they were bought in which is a fair argument and much more palatable & believable than any of the other arguments, but for them to be made permanent they will need to be fully consulted on. I hope if & when this happens (& it might be before the appeal is heard) it will be enough for you both to accept them then.



Your saying in same post that they need to be fully consulted on and also saying they will be made permanent.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Which formed the basis for the EQIA for every single LTN. This was argued in court and was once of the points made by their QC, that there was a direct link through from the TP through to the decision made to implement the LTNs and that therefore that work for the impact assessment had been done which was why they didn’t need to do it for each individual LTN.



I noticed that. That did surprise me. Its like due to speed that the LTNs were put in place a generic template EQIA was made.

I can see that the Judge thought pandemic meant he needed to give Lambeth leeway.

But in his judgement he's also saying that using rolling EQIA is done at Lambeth's peril. 

Is this one issue that needs clarification in possible appeal? Use of rolling EQIA?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I noticed that. That did surprise me. Its like due to speed that the LTNs were put in place a generic template EQIA was made.
> 
> I can see that the Judge thought pandemic meant he needed to give Lambeth leeway.
> 
> ...


Yes, I haven't seen the concept of a rolling EQIA used before, either in legislation or case law. Very much up to the appeal courts though in terms of what they decide to focus on


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Your saying in same post that they need to be fully consulted on and also saying they will be made permanent.


For them to be made permenant they need to go through consultation.

The point of the post is surely if and when they go through consultation you and chowce5382 will have what you want, I can't see why waiting a few months isn't possible. They just aren't causing the carnage everyone claims.


----------



## BakeRecords (Jul 20, 2021)

The concept of a 'rolling' EIA seems reasonable to me. The impact of a policy change may be unknown when designing the policy. The evidence doesn't necessarily exist, and the only way to gather that evidence is to pilot the change and evaluate its impact.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The
> 
> This section relates to disabled people.
> The finding of the author is that the impact of implementing the road changes would be Positive (as we can see from the finding at the top).
> ...



Anyone can look at the ruling here and decide for themselves to what extent they agree with the above account of things.

Section 30 onwards (under "facts") sets out the various considerations that were given - not just the TSIP but in various documents and reports that were produced after that. I don't think it's true to imply that throughout the process, all types of disabilities were umped together, nor is it true to imply that potential negative effects were never taken into account. For example, section 51 quotes from a "draft EQIA" produced in August 2020 prior to the Railton LTN being implemented, and specifically looking at its potential impacts. The bit of tet quoted in the judge's ruling is:

_"Much of current public realm / road network has the effect of excluding disabled people and the proposal seeks to address this by creating a more inclusive street environment. Reducing road danger also has the potential to enable more people to participate in active travel. For example, cycles can improve mobility and access for disabled people, many of whom do not have access to motor vehicles. For those that do have access to a car, in some cases journey times may be increased for some trips. All areas will remain accessible, however, and reduced traffic on the local streets is expected to result in a safer, less stressful and more convenient trip making for local journeys by car for those that need to drive."_

The sequence of events, and multiple documents and reports, involved in this whole story is pretty complex. In fact the court ruling has done a lot of hard work in pulling everything together in a comprehensible summary. I would recommend anyone who feels completely confused about everything, and who wants to try and understand it, to read the ruling, particularly the "facts" bit from section 30 onwards. I would pay more attention to that than what anyone on here writes.

Maybe I should thank the funders of the court action for helping make this rather useful document appear.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Honestly im probably the one having the most trouble keeping up


At the risk of being annoying, let me lay it all out.


chowce5382 said _I saw an EQIA which was done pre-Covid and it said LTNs would be positive for all disabled people. It was linked to a study but the study only looked at people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. _This makes it sound like the study led Lambeth council to say LTNs could only be positive for disabled people. But this isn't true.
The EQIA wasn't about just LTNs, but about a transport plan that would encourage more active travel. It includes things like longer times to cross the road, step free access to stations, and electric vehicles.
Here are two sentences from the EQIA on disability: "The strategy includes targeted services and campaigns to increase participation in sustainable travel by people with disabilities, including bus ridership and inclusive cycling initiatives. This is a particular priority as disabled people may suffer from higher mortality rates than the general population, potentially reflectiing exclusion from active travel / lifestyles"
Inactivity means, generally speaking, people die more quickly and they suffer from more chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Getting more people to make activity like walking and cycling part of their everyday lives is good! This whole "active travel" thing isn't just about congestion and pollution. In fact some people (like me) think it's the most important thing. Careful or I'll get on my soapbox about this.
All the study does is back up the point that disabled people can find it difficult to access active travel. Even disabilities that do not limit mobility can have an impact. It's not used for anything beyond that. Just that simple, uncontroversial, fairly obvious (I think) point.
It _does not _draw a direct line between the experiences of the subjects of this research and the impact of LTNs on people.
This doesn't mean that the EQIA can't be criticised at all. For example it recognises how people with mobility issues might be affected but under the topic of "age" rather than "disability". I personally think it should be addressed as part of both but I understand the thinking--there is also research referenced that shows that disabled people tend not to own cars, and older people with mobility issues do tend to own cars
I'm labouring the point a bit but I think this is important because it's not always easy to look stuff up. If someone says "Lambeth council did this in a 2019 equality assessment" it's easy to accept it. If we're being kind chowce5382 may have skimmed the report and misunderstood this... but it's been explained a couple of times and he keeps doubling down.

(Edit: or just read the post above and ignore this one tbh)


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)

Lambeth don't help themselves by having a totally impenetrable website which makes it very difficult to track down reports etc and link them to a timescale.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 20, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> These are supposed to be 'all over the UK' and 'actually planned for some time'. Also many years to prepare since LJ....and this is the best Lambeth can come up with? You'd think this would be step 1. 'OK  we wanna do these things how will they impact people'
> 
> Sounds like someone was hitting copy and paste from a form relating removing a railing or such.


They are actually all over Lambeth already, for example Railton rd used to come out at the bridge. 
Nobody notices because they have had time to bed in. The mistake Lambeth made was trying to present this as a "new" thing.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> They are actually all over Lambeth already, for example Railton rd used to come out at the bridge.
> Nobody notices because they have had time to bed in. The mistake Lambeth made was trying to present this as a "new" thing.


Josephone Avenue
High Trees
Strathleven Rd
Palace Road
Crescent Lane
Pretty much all postwar housing....


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Josephone Avenue
> High Trees
> Strathleven Rd
> Palace Road
> ...


I guess that why some choose to argue about the process as they have been shown to massively improve areas and are popular - who would rip any of those out?


----------



## Winot (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Josephone Avenue
> High Trees
> Strathleven Rd
> Palace Road
> ...


You could also argue that any one way street introduces an LTN eg Sudbourne Rd, Hayter Rd.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 20, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes, I haven't seen the concept of a rolling EQIA used before, either in legislation or case law. Very much up to the appeal courts though in terms of what they decide to focus on


I’m sure this has been mentioned before but Ultimately it's a bit of a moot point isn't it?

"This briefing also provides an overview of Equality Impact Assessments. These are assessments that public authorities *often* carry out prior to implementing policies, with a view to predicting their impact on equality. *The Equality Act 2010 does not specifically require them to be carried out*, although they are a way of facilitating and evidencing compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty."

The document/report just makes it easier to demonstrate you've considered the impacts. Which is why the "that's not a proper EQIA" or "it doesn't look like other ones I've seen" are also a bit of a dead end and likely why the judge found as he did.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2021)




----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> For them to be made permenant they need to go through consultation.
> 
> The point of the post is surely if and when they go through consultation you and chowce5382 will have what you want, I can't see why waiting a few months isn't possible. They just aren't causing the carnage everyone claims.



I've been avoiding some of this thread as I'm repeating myself.

We fundamentally disagree on what constitutes consultation.

These aren't "experimental" LTNs. At best consultation is for a few tweaks. That imo is not consultation. Nor is it "experimental".

The Council took decision to go about it this way and I don't support it.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 279640


They're all f**king crazy


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2021)

This is a very strange line of reasoning (from Buzz comments):

Anti LTN bloke: 

Maybe you should read the text rather than firing off missives: I said “affluent car owners” not all vehicle owners in the borough. Case in point: I took a walk down Railton one evening last week and as a Maserati cruised pass me near the Hamilton I spotted a brand new 5.0 litre Ford Mustang parked up at the Herne Hill end. After that I thought blimey, has Clarkson moved into the neighbourhood! You can’t make this stuff up.


Me: 
I’m just dropping into this interesting debate, but could you explain the relationship between an expensive sports car driving past you in the street and the pros and cons of LTNs?

I walk around Brixton a lot and see expensive cars parked up in all sorts of areas, including the Moorlands Estate and am curious as to what their relevance is to the argument.

Anti LTN bloke:

there seems to be no move within the LTN barriers from motor car ownership. These type of vehicles must be most embarrassing to the pro-LTN cause. Remember that their MO is all the owners of filthy, gas-guzzling, polluting cars live the outside the barriers, whereas if you believe the stuff they churn out they cycle, skateboard and land yacht everywhere.
These specific cars I used as good examples simply because they are not exactly electric/biofuel/green are they?

Me: 

I’m confused how can a passing sports car and a nice car parked near Herne Hill be “most embarrassing to the pro-LTN cause.”

What relationship are you seeing between pro-LTN campaigners and passing cars?

Anti LTN bloke: 

To reiterate: pro-LTNers seem to be in denial that cars exist within the barrier schemes – and they certainly display no interest in actively reducing car ownership within them.
Therefore, how will their blessed miracle of “traffic evaporation” ever occur if they are still driving about?









						Lambeth Council issues statement about ongoing vandalism around Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes
					

With some anti-Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) campaigners continuing their campaign of vandalising and destroying the planters, signs and cameras used to control traffic, Lambeth Council has issue…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

It's true. I thought I'd able to cycle to work via Railton Road and Shakespeare Road but I keep smacking straight into cars I don't believe are there.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 20, 2021)

editor that belongs to one of the mechanics behind Norwood Road. I’ve never seen it in the new LTN but it’s often in the old LTN by the station.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

editor said:


> This is a very strange line of reasoning (from Buzz comments):
> 
> Anti LTN bloke:
> 
> ...


They're all f**king crazy!


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 20, 2021)

It’s also a classic stage of the Bridges model of change management- we’ve gone from denial to bargaining (“if we can’t drive on these roads why should anyone else” - when the roads are still all accessible just not for through routes.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

I mean it was installed on council property - not sure removing something erected on someone’s property without permission is quite vandalism.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 20, 2021)

Fifteen quid a sign, apparently. I'd be checking the signmaker's alibi.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I mean it was installed on council property - not sure removing something erected on someone’s property without permission is quite vandalism.




Not condoning anyone else removing it but it’s not private property and the council removes estate agent signs from there.

Anyway, good to see the Sth Circular between 2 LTNs nice and clear in the pics!


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

My reading of the judgement is that the extraordinary circumstances led him to favour Lambeth:



> Here, it was acceptable because of unusual factual features: the urgency expressed in the statutory guidance, the near stasis of public transport and the need to restrain vehicle traffic in residential areas to allow walking and cycling to flourish. Those factors (all caused by the prevalence of the virus) propelled Lambeth to curtail its research and truncate the timescale, using ETOs. Had* those factors been absent, Mr Dosunmu's approach to equality assessment might well not have passed the "due regard" test.*



Also he is saying that more should be done in the future:



> For those brief reasons, I prefer Lambeth's submissions to those of the claimant. She has demonstrated that her particular problem of dependence on car transport with increased journey times and stress, was not identified until after the operative decision in October 2020; but she has not demonstrated that Lambeth thereby, or at all, breached the public sector equality duty.
> 
> 
> I therefore dismiss that ground of challenge. If I had found a breach of the duty, I would have considered making a declaration to that effect but I would not, in all the circumstances, have been willing to condemn outright and quash the relevant ETOs*. They are not yet set in stone and consideration of them is, or should be, ongoing and subject to further assessment, over and above the EQIAs that have been carried out since the decision in October 2020*.


Further assessment should be done over and above past EQIAs

That is why I say he is giving Lambeth the benefit of the doubt.

If they don't do this they could be subject to further challenge.

He  says this:



> However, a decision maker who decides to proceed with equality impact assessment on a rolling basis, does so at their peril. The legislation and case law does not preclude rolling assessment as a matter of law; but neither do they legitimise it for all cases



So imo the judgement is setting a standard for the future. In that way its was useful to do a JR.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> My reading of the judgement is that the extraordinary circumstances led him to favour Lambeth:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My understanding was that he allowed the appeal as he didn’t want to set a precedent for rolling assessments which seems fair. Still can’t see how if the appeal was won any LTNs would actually be removed which is why the majority are donating.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

To add the Judge did find that Sofia was right.



> For those brief reasons, I prefer Lambeth's submissions to those of the claimant.* She has demonstrated that her particular problem of dependence on car transport with increased journey times and stress, was not identified until after the operative decision in October 2020*; but she has not demonstrated that Lambeth thereby, or at all, breached the public sector equality duty.



He agrees her problem was not identified.

Which is why I'm  wondering why Lambeth hasn't said publicly  how its going to deal with this problem.

After all he is giving Lambeth time to show it will mitigate specific problems. The judgement supports this one by Sofia.

But I've heard nothing from Council about how it will mitigate this.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> My understanding was that he allowed the appeal as he didn’t want to set a precedent for rolling assessments which seems fair. Still can’t see how if the appeal was won any LTNs would actually be removed which is why the majority are donating.



Which is all you care about.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Which is all you care about.



It’s what the people donating care about.

The assessment isn’t about making sure no one is affected by the changes but that the impacts are recognised and decisions made on that basis. An expensive court case doesn’t seem a good way to resolve any issues, and seems to have been taker very early rather than exhausting other avenues. Apparently local councillors weren’t even contacted first.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s what the people donating care about.
> 
> The assessment isn’t about making sure no one is affected by the changes but that the impacts are recognised and decisions made on that basis. An expensive court case doesn’t seem a good way to resolve any issues, and seems to have been taker very early rather than exhausting other avenues. Apparently local councillors weren’t even contacted first.



I'm a bit tired of this thread. So thought Id actually read up the judgement and give my view of it.

This is democracy. As Ive said previously it does not come cheap. You cannot do a JR if it does not meet the right conditions.

If you think cases like this are illegitimate perhaps you should support idea of  making  it  more difficult to bring  these cases against a local authority and restricting  legal aid to them.

Set the bar higher to  make it more difficult for disabled person to bring a case against Lambeth.

If a disabled person brings a case like this have it so that those who are part funding it are questioned to see if its a legitimate case.

Set more hurdles about how the money is raised. Etc. 

Just ideas as you are so set against this JR.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm a bit tired of this thread. So thought Id actually read up the judgement and give my view of it.
> 
> This is democracy. As Ive said previously it does not come cheap. You cannot do a JR if it does not meet the right conditions.
> 
> ...



Never said it’s illegitimate and corrected you on this several times, making the point that it might not be the best course of action, after all the JR did find (heavily) in Lambeth’s favour.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Never said it’s illegitimate and corrected you on this several times, making the point that it might not be the best course of action, after all the JR did find (heavily) in Lambeth’s favour.



Its exactly what you are saying. 

You're just winding me up.

I've tried to post up based on reading the actual judgement and your giving me stuff like this. 

Its a total annoying wind up.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Never said it’s illegitimate and corrected you on this several times, making the point that it might not be the best course of action, after all the JR did find (heavily) in Lambeth’s favour.



Your saying its an expensive court case. So what? That is democracy. People have right to do this.

By saying this you are saying its illegitimate.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Its exactly what you are saying.
> 
> You're just winding me up.
> 
> ...



Not trying to wind you up, just correcting you when you constantly seem to deliberately misconstrue and ignore what people say.

What’s weird is people only wanting to argue about process rather than the pros and cons of the schemes. There’s a wider view and bigger concepts to be discussed eg. how we actually want our local areas to work and we tackle a very real & incredible scary climate crisis.

You have an obvious  dislike for the council and I’m not here to defend them, but this really isn’t about them.


----------



## editor (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I mean it was installed on council property - not sure removing something erected on someone’s property without permission is quite vandalism.



I wonder if they have any evidence at all that people have actually gone around inserting rusty screws into tyres.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not trying to wind you up, just correcting you when you constantly seem to deliberately misconstrue and ignore what people say.
> 
> What’s weird is people only wanting to argue about process rather than the pros and cons of the schemes. There’s a wider view and bigger concepts to be discussed eg. how we actually want our local areas to work and we tackle a very real & incredible scary climate crisis.
> 
> You have an obvious  dislike for the council and I’m not here to defend them, but this really isn’t about them.



I'm posting up my reading of the judgement.

Now you are questioning my motives and purporting to lump me together with other people.

So me reading the actual judgement and posting up about it means I'm weird.

I'm trying not to get involved in the nastiness on this thread.

This post is insulting and makes me so angry. I've tried to actually read stuff up and comment on it.

Why are you doing this?

You say your aren't trying to wind me up then do whole post designed to wind me up.

Your actually saying this to me someone whose spent years on how my local areas work , engaging with the Council.

I'm incensed.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm posting up my reading of the judgement.
> 
> Now you are questioning my motives and purporting to lump me together with other people.
> 
> ...



I’ve been trying to engage in a wider discussion with you but you’re not interested, fair enough but don’t accuse me of wanting to make court cases harder or calling them illegitimate.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2021)

Won’t it be more valuable to discuss the pros & cons of these schemes here than the ins and out of a legal case?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 21, 2021)

For those that are interested the consultation for Southwark’s Walworth LTN is now open.

It’s now a great route to cycle between Brixton and Elephant & Castle avoiding the A3 and also a really nice area:





__





						Our Healthy Walworth Review              - London Borough of Southwark             - Citizen Space
					

Find and participate in consultations run by Southwark London Borough Council



					consultations.southwark.gov.uk


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 21, 2021)

The lack engagement that OL is getting on Twitter seems to be making them more extreme in their posts. 

This morning has included “Labour rich white elite in their gentrified enclaves” and references to “the creation of ghettoes, pogroms and death camps”.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 21, 2021)

Is it known if OLJ is run by communists, or just endorsed communists a few times?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 21, 2021)

New seating planters at the bottom end of Railton Road were being filled with soil and plants this morning.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 21, 2021)

Definitely a lot of OneLambeth supporters who are really confused about the court case and what it might achieve....

"please donate to overturn this undemocratic imposition of road closures that benefit the few to the detriment of the many."


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 21, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> The lack engagement that OL is getting on Twitter seems to be making them more extreme in their posts.
> 
> This morning has included “Labour rich white elite in their gentrified enclaves” and references to “the creation of ghettoes, pogroms and death camps”.


as a strategy it really does seem to be backfiring


----------



## edcraw (Jul 21, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> as a strategy it really does seem to be backfiring




It just bizarre - like the vandalism what do they think these tweets are going to achieve? Maybe it’s just to stir up their base to get them to donate again.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 21, 2021)

The more reasonable OneLambeth has condemned the batshit crazy one. Will you as well chowce5382?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 21, 2021)

I imagine as one of that original OL is a lawyer and can’t seem to be associated with that sort of thing?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 21, 2021)

Suffering fuck, these people are utterly unhinged.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 21, 2021)

Also horseshoe theory in practice. This is the poster that the people’s front of OL originally tweeted:

 ""


----------



## ash (Jul 21, 2021)

They posted this. Apparently  people are concerned that LTN’s will stop people fleeing terrorist attacks.


----------



## nick (Jul 21, 2021)

ash said:


> They posted this. Apparently  people are concerned that LTN’s will stop people fleeing terrorist attacks.



Can you imagine the distress of  having to drive at speed through an LTN barrier in order to avoid a terrorist atrocity in progress, only to subsequently get a £65 bill from Lambeth?.

This alone is justification of replacing all LTNs with 3 lane motorways so as to facilitate rapid escape from such things


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 21, 2021)

ash said:


> They posted this. Apparently  people are concerned that LTN’s will stop people fleeing terrorist attacks.


Wow


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 21, 2021)

Another argument being vomited up is that apparently quiet LTN streets are _more_ dangerous for kids, because they lull them into a false sense of security and they won’t know how to cross a road safely anymore.

I’m not making this up.


----------



## ash (Jul 21, 2021)

nick said:


> Can you imagine the distress of  having to drive at speed through an LTN barrier in order to avoid a terrorist atrocity in progress, only to subsequently get a £65 bill from Lambeth?.
> 
> This alone is justification of replacing all LTNs with 3 lane motorways so as to facilitate rapid escape from such things



Excellent 👍 I hope the drivers will pick up some pedestrians as they flee an attack on Ferndale Rd or are they collateral damage 🤣🤣. Serves them right for not having a car. What the hell will we do when the aliens arrive 😂


----------



## edcraw (Jul 21, 2021)

There was a pro LTN deputation and an anti one at council this evening, democracy in action. The anti one had to be removed for constantly interrupting Cllr Danny Adilypour’s response 🙄.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’ve been trying to engage in a wider discussion with you but you’re not interested, fair enough but don’t accuse me of wanting to make court cases harder or calling them illegitimate.



Its clearly what you've been doing.

I don't see what me posting up my reading of the judgement has to do with a wider discussion as you put it.

This stuff about me and wider discussion is about trying to discredit me. 

I'm not going to play your game.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> There was a pro LTN deputation and an anti one at council this evening, democracy in action. The anti one had to be removed for constantly interrupting Cllr Danny Adilypour’s response 🙄.




You can see the deputations with the link below from 7:50.









						Join conversation
					






					bit.ly
				




You can also see a terribly patronising response to the youth council from Cllr Tim Brigs at 47:00 if interested.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 22, 2021)

Join conversation
					






					teams.microsoft.com
				




I get an invalid file name message through that link.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 22, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Join conversation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Ah, working for me but only through the Teams app.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 22, 2021)

Thanks for the link. Interesting to hear Cllr Adilypour saying that if the vandalism of the filters doesn't stop, they would think about putting in barriers.
And Cllr Briggs.... I didn't even get what he was trying to say?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 22, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> And Cllr Briggs.... I didn't even get what he was trying to say?



Not sure he knew what he was trying to say. I suspect he wanted to call them woke (as he likes to do) but even he realised that wouldn’t be a good look.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 22, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Interesting to hear Cllr Adilypour saying that if the vandalism of the filters doesn't stop, they would think about putting in barriers.



clearly why the pro ltn types and foxes are doing it


----------



## Crispy (Jul 22, 2021)

The areshole son of the house 2 doors down from us has finally moved out. He has moved 8 minutes' walk away. His new place is on the way to school so I see him regularly and I recognise his car. He drives it back and forth, acclerating like it's a race up our 100m long dead-end street to (as far as I can tell) shout at his mother, leaving the car in the middle of the road with the sound system cranked up. Even with his reckless driving, it's slower to drive all the way round the LTN than to walk the same journey. No wonder he's always angry.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2021)

Crispy said:


> The areshole son of the house 2 doors down from us has finally moved out. He has moved 8 minutes' walk away. His new place is on the way to school so I see him regularly and I recognise his car. He drives it back and forth, acclerating like it's a race up our 100m long dead-end street to (as far as I can tell) shout at his mother, leaving the car in the middle of the road with the sound system cranked up. Even with his reckless driving, it's slower to drive all the way round the LTN than to walk the same journey. No wonder he's always angry.


Sounds a bit like the guy who regularly appears at the motor mechanics' near me.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 22, 2021)

Hardly any traffic on Croxted yesterday or this morning during the rush hour, it's all the school run.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 22, 2021)

Dunno if this will be worth watching.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Dunno if this will be worth watching.


This looks utterly unbearable. There's Jeopardy on Netflix, you don't need a true or false quiz as basic as this.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 22, 2021)

That youth council panel was really strong. Made Cllr Briggs look a little bit more out of date and irrelevant to his constituents.

The OL thing - one of them was a lawyer, but unlike the youth panel they couldn’t stick to time or hadn’t rehearsed what their key messages were. Massive missed opportunity for them.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 22, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Hardly any traffic on Croxted yesterday or this morning during the rush hour, it's all the school run.


As was the case pre-pandemic. There was a big drop in traffic at peak time the last time I was on the No 3, when the private schools were apparently off, but before the rest of the schools. Not so many videos from the Croxted Road accounts for the last wee while for some reason, and the fact that kids being driven to posh schools seems to be causing a lot of congestion hasn't been picked up by those who bang on about "social injustice", oddly.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 22, 2021)

Brixton water lane is the same, really busy for a really short while to coincide with the school run, particularly if it’s raining because we all know, people melt when it rains


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 22, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> As was the case pre-pandemic. There was a big drop in traffic at peak time the last time I was on the No 3, when the private schools were apparently off, but before the rest of the schools. Not so many videos from the Croxted Road accounts for the last wee while for some reason, and the fact that kids being driven to posh schools seems to be causing a lot of congestion hasn't been picked up by those who bang on about "social injustice", oddly.



...that is a great bit of anecdata there my friend, it would be interesting to know the reality because my personal experience living in north Brixton tells me that the people who’d be making that trip would often be the same ones who’d be gagging to live inside an ltn.... 🤔


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 23, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> That youth council panel was really strong. Made Cllr Briggs look a little bit more out of date and irrelevant to his constituents.
> 
> The OL thing - one of them was a lawyer, but unlike the youth panel they couldn’t stick to time or hadn’t rehearsed what their key messages were. Massive missed opportunity for them.



On "Shakespeare was a racist".

I didn't really get what Cllrs Briggs was going on about. Perhaps to late at night for me.

Listening to the Youth Council  I was reminded of film of the great Caribbean Marxist CLR James disagreeing with some younger Black radicals on the this exact issue years ago.

Looked this up and here is what I think is fair summary of why CLR James did think Shakespeare and other great European writers were relevant. Even if it is Unherd which appears to be offshoot of Furedi. The title of the article is unnessarily provacative. The article does try to give fair summary of his thought imo.

Channel Four did series of lecture by him one of which was about Shakespeare. Frustratingly they don't seem to be available.









						CLR James Lectures
					

CLR James Lectures: Lectures 2 and 3 – ‘The Caribbean’ and ‘Africa’, a film produced by H O Nazareth in 1983/1985.




					v2.nl
				












						CLR James rejected the posturing of identity politics
					

He railed against the superficial nonsense that masquerades as 'anti-racism'




					unherd.com
				




So imo there is a debate to be had about Shakespeare and the relevance of others in the European canon.

For him he did not reject the European Canon. I read his great work the Black Jacobins years ago. Think I should give it a re read. The slaves of Haiti saw that the ideals of the French Revolution should apply to them. For James the European Enlightenment was unfinished universal project.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 23, 2021)

Lots of OneLambeth people seem to be claiming that their deputation wasn’t removed from council and that it was LTN supporters that were heckling, also claims that they were being censored!?

Quite Trumpian to try and claim something when there’s freely available evidence against it and would make you question other claims that they make.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 23, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On "Shakespeare was a racist".
> 
> I didn't really get what Cllrs Briggs was going on about. Perhaps to late at night for me.
> 
> Listening to the Youth Council  I was reminded of film of the great Caribbean Marxist CLR James disagreeing with some younger Black radicals on the this exact issue years



I don’t think he did either, but he wasn’t going be spoken to by articulate young people so had to contradict one of them just as a point of principle - I suspect on racism as it fits his usual talking points and he would have been afraid to talk about period poverty.

Will take a read through those links, thanks.


----------



## Brian Taylor (Jul 23, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On "Shakespeare was a racist".
> 
> I didn't really get what Cllrs Briggs was going on about. Perhaps to late at night for me.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the links.

Here's one that someone sent me a while back




__





						Every Cook Can Govern by C L R James
					





					www.marxists.org


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 23, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ...that is a great bit of anecdata there my friend, it would be interesting to know the reality because my personal experience living in north Brixton tells me that the people who’d be making that trip would often be the same ones who’d be gagging to live inside an ltn.... 🤔


Sorry for linking to twitter but x2 Southwark councillors* saying that TFL data shows a reduction in traffic numbers / volume on croxted road with jams caused by TfL tinkering with the traffic lights to manage the Herne Hill railway works; 



*theyre pro LTN - so a caveat there.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 23, 2021)

Impacts of 2020 Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London on Road Traffic Injuries | Published in Findings
					

By Anna Goodman, Jamie Furlong & 3 more. Injuries inside Low Traffic Neighbourhoods halved relative to the rest of London.




					findingspress.org
				






> Abstract​
> We assessed the impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) implemented in 2020 on road traffic injuries. We used police data from October-December 2018/2019 (pre) compared with the same period in 2020 (post). We found absolute numbers of injuries inside LTNs halved relative to the rest of London (ratio 0.51, p<0.001). Considering changes in background travel patterns, our results indicate substantial reductions in pedestrian injury risk. Risks to other road users may also have fallen, but by a more modest amount. We found no evidence of changes in injury numbers or risk on LTN boundary roads.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 23, 2021)

This is going to make people cross









						Low-traffic schemes halve number of road injuries, study shows
					

Research on police data for London neighbourhoods finds greatest reduction in injury rates among pedestrians and people in cars




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 23, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> TFL data shows a reduction in traffic numbers / volume on croxted road with jams caused by TfL tinkering with the traffic lights to manage the Herne Hill railway works;



The problem now is that you have people who have been furious for months at the wrong thing, and good luck trying to change that.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 23, 2021)

The claimant in the court case is currently trying to justify OL’s Holocaust comments.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 23, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> The claimant in the court case is currently trying to justify OL’s Holocaust comments.



One of the people that regularly plugs the fundraiser on Nextdoor said “it wasn’t language he would use”…


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 23, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ...that is a great bit of anecdata there my friend, it would be interesting to know the reality because my personal experience living in north Brixton tells me that the people who’d be making that trip would often be the same ones who’d be gagging to live inside an ltn.... 🤔


I've tried to parse this a few times. I don't really get it because I use one LTN for a cycle route and another as a walking route, as do lots of others. But even when I was school age I couldn't exactly turn up for class at Dollar Academy because it existed and had been paid for. You don't have to live in an LTN to benefit from one.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 23, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I've tried to parse this a few times. I don't really get it because I use one LTN for a cycle route and another as a walking route, as do lots of others. But even when I was school age I couldn't exactly turn up for class at Dollar Academy because it existed and had been paid for. You don't have to live in an LTN to benefit from one.


But it helps if you do according to recent research


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> But it helps if you do according to recent research


You mean fewer people are being killed and injured in LTNs? I'm not sure that giving cars fewer opportunities to maim people means that they maim fewer people is a compelling argument against LTNs, might want to workshop that one a bit.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 23, 2021)

"We looked into these new fangled NO ANKLE-HEIGHT SPINNING BLADE ZONES and it turned out more people have their feet attached in these areas than outside, so we're campaigning for their removal. Everyone should have an equal chance of having their feet ripped off by spinning blades, no exceptions."


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 23, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> You mean fewer people are being killed and injured in LTNs? I'm not sure that giving cars fewer opportunities to maim people means that they maim fewer people is a compelling argument against LTNs, might want to workshop that one a bit.


Just saying that the recent research was LTN focussed.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 23, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> "We looked into these new fangled NO ANKLE-HEIGHT SPINNING BLADE ZONES and it turned out more people have their feet attached in these areas than outside, so we're campaigning for their removal. Everyone should have an equal chance of having their feet ripped off by spinning blades, no exceptions."


On the sauce?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Just saying that the recent research was LTN focussed.



The research on LTNs was LTN focussed?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The research on LTNs was LTN focussed?


Yup. Focussed on what happens inside LTNs.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

"The research, which examined police data on casualties for 72 low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) put in place in London between March and September last year, also showed no apparent increase in danger on roads at their outer boundaries."


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> "The research, which examined police data on casualties for 72 low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) put in place in London between March and September last year, also showed no apparent increase in danger on roads at their outer boundaries."


Yup, but not all boundary roads. Eg in Lee Green 3 of 4 boundary roads weren’t included in the data and that’s not the only strain London. I’m all for data and keen to get as much as we can but will never understand why we don’t just do a comprehensive study. It’s a bit like the car counters which were put next to the planter near where I am. Let’s just do this properly. Not much to ask. It’s a bit like the council saying they are consulting disabled groups but only asking cycling focused charities. This is probably my main beef with LTNs. If they are going to be permanent, let’s make sure it’s done on proper data


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> "The research, which examined police data on casualties for 72 low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) put in place in London between March and September last year, also showed no apparent increase in danger on roads at their outer boundaries."


Sobered up now?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

The data and research is always just short of being convincing, isn't it? Oh, if only the researchers had looked into these other things, if only they'd gathered this extra data, then we might be convinced. Tomorrow we go back to comparing filtered roads to the Holocaust, but today we are reasonable people, chipping away at the edges of some research and declaring it Not Quite Enough, Sorry.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> The data and research is always just short of being convincing, isn't it? Oh, if only the researchers had looked into these other things, if only they'd gathered this extra data, then we might be convinced. Tomorrow we go back to comparing filtered roads to the Holocaust, but today we are reasonable people, chipping away at the edges of some research and declaring it Not Quite Enough, Sorry.


No, just always surprised that they miss boundary roads from the data set.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> The data and research is always just short of being convincing, isn't it? Oh, if only the researchers had looked into these other things, if only they'd gathered this extra data, then we might be convinced. Tomorrow we go back to comparing filtered roads to the Holocaust, but today we are reasonable people, chipping away at the edges of some research and declaring it Not Quite Enough, Sorry.


Obviously still pissed 😂


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Obviously still pissed 😂


Absolutely hammered. I almost retweeted a ton of transphobes and claimed I was receiving threats by twitter DM. But I wasn't quite that far gone.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Absolutely hammered. I almost retweeted a ton of transphobes and claimed I was receiving threats by twitter DM. But I wasn't quite that far gone.


Nice reply. No answer to the question though. Classic from you


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

What's the question? Why didn't the research do everything you need it to be convinced? I'd say it's because they're not funded with infinite money and blessed with infinite time to produce the all-encompassing uber-research it would take for you to go "hmm, maybe".


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Just saying that the recent research was LTN focussed.


_We aggregated the point locations of all injuries into three mutually-exclusive groups:_


_Injuries inside the LTN, defined as injuries at least 25m inside the LTN boundary._
_Injuries on LTN boundary roads, defined being located less than 25m from an LTN boundary road._
_All other injuries elsewhere in London (our comparison group)._
Is your complaint that you think they’ve somehow missed one or two specific boundary roads snd that the injury stats on those are so dire they’re going to change the London wide aggregates?  That sounds…unlikely.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> _We aggregated the point locations of all injuries into three mutually-exclusive groups:_
> 
> 
> _Injuries inside the LTN, defined as injuries at least 25m inside the LTN boundary._
> ...


Well, we won’t know will we until it is done will we. You say unlikely, I say do the research. The two academics who focus on this generally always focus on what happens inside an LTN.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> What's the question? Why didn't the research do everything you need it to be convinced? I'd say it's because they're not funded with infinite money and blessed with infinite time to produce the all-encompassing uber-research it would take for you to go "hmm, maybe".


No. Why does the research generally always miss out what happens outside an LTN. It’s a fair question but you’ll contest that. Just say you don’t care. It’s ok to admit it


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No, just always surprised that they miss boundary roads from the data set.


Come on. The data in that study makes it clear that LTNs reduce deaths and injuries.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No. Why does the research generally always miss out what happens outside an LTN. It’s a fair question but you’ll contest that. *Just say you don’t care. It’s ok to admit it*



I've been trying to continue treating you as someone arguing in good faith but maybe it's a waste of time.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> Come on. The data in that study makes it clear that LTNs reduce deaths and injuries.


Inside LTNs. Agreed.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Inside LTNs. Agreed.


And no worse outside


liquidindian said:


> "We looked into these new fangled NO ANKLE-HEIGHT SPINNING BLADE ZONES and it turned out more people have their feet attached in these areas than outside, so we're campaigning for their removal. Everyone should have an equal chance of having their feet ripped off by spinning blades, no exceptions."


So more ltns and expanded safer areas or fewer ltns and bring back the road danger..,,


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Inside LTNs. Agreed.


Are you about to argue that the death and injury rates increase by a corresponding outside the LTNs then?

In which case: please produce your data.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've been trying to continue treating you as someone arguing in good faith but maybe it's a waste of time.


The feeling is probably mutual. I ask a question as to why research generally only focuses on what happens inside LTNs. You say that it’s not a genuine observation. It’s like talking to my councillors. They always say how their life has improved due to being inside a LTN. I ask about people outside LTNs, I get told I’m being disingenuous and don’t get an answer to my question.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> Are you about to argue that the death and injury rates increase by a corresponding outside the LTNs then?
> 
> In which case: please produce your data.


No, I’m saying that we don’t have any data as the data set used always focuses on what happens inside. I’m asking why the focus is always on what happens inside given that the LTNs displace traffic by their very definition. On that basis why is the research not focused on the displaced traffic and boundary roads. It’s just a question. I’ll drop it you don’t think it’s valid but it would be helpful to know why


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The feeling is probably mutual. I ask a question as to why research generally only focuses on what happens inside LTNs. You say that it’s not a genuine observation. It’s like talking to my councillors. They always say how their life has improved due to being inside a LTN. I ask about people outside LTNs, I get told I’m being disingenuous and don’t get an answer to my question.


The answer to you is that research _does_ look at what happens outside of LTNs. You can argue against that sure, and try and provide examples to support what you're saying, but instead you move to an accusation that someone simply doesn't care what happens outside of them.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No, I’m saying that we don’t have any data as the data set used always focuses on what happens inside. I’m asking why the focus is always on what happens inside given that the LTNs displace traffic by their very definition. On that basis why is the research not focused on the displaced traffic and boundary roads. It’s just a question. I’ll drop it you don’t think it’s valid but it would be helpful to know why


So seeing as you have zero evidence that there was any corresponding rise in injuries and deaths outside LTNs, how can you possibly oppose them if they are saving the lives of people in your community?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The answer to you is that research _does_ look at what happens outside of LTNs. You can argue against that sure, and try and provide examples to support what you're saying, but instead you move to an accusation that someone simply doesn't care what happens outside of them.


I ask why you wanted to dismiss the question, I assumed you don’t care. You obviously do care but I’m still not getting an answer


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

Chaos theory, man. A butterfly flaps its wings, a hurricane destroys a town. You filter a road in Brixton, a car goes flying off a cliff in Aberdour.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> So seeing as you have zero evidence that there was any corresponding rise in injuries and deaths outside LTNs, how can you possibly oppose them if they are saving the lives of people in your community?


Re-read what I said. I am not questioning the data of what happens inside LTNs. There is data to back that up. I’m comfortable with that data. I’m asking why the data set generally used doesn’t focus on what happens outside. Do you know why?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Chaos theory, man. A butterfly flaps its wings, a hurricane destroys a town. You filter a road in Brixton, a car goes flying off a cliff in Aberdour.


So still no answer.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

Ah, hang on, this is one of your clever wind ups, like the art thing. Good work.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Ah, hang on, this is one of your clever wind ups, like the art thing. Good work.


Again, can’t/won’t answer the question. Good obfuscation


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Re-read what I said. I am not questioning the data of what happens inside LTNs. There is data to back that up. I’m comfortable with that data. I’m asking why the data set generally used doesn’t focus on what happens outside. Do you know why?


Because they already know what happens outside LTNs as they have decades of road accident statistics. Those statistics will still be recorded but as LTNs are new it makes sense to see how they alter the safety of the community.   
But now you know that LTNs are saving the lives of people in your community, on what grounds can you oppose them?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Again, can’t/won’t answer the question. Good obfuscation


Your question is "what about outside LTNs" and the answer is "the research does look at what's happening outside LTNs". The problem is not answering your question but how many times it needs to be answered.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> Because they already know what happens outside LTNs as they have decades of road accident statistics. Those statistics will still be recorded but as LTNs are new it makes sense to see how they alter the safety of the community.
> But now you know that LTNs are saving the lives of people in your community, on what grounds can you oppose them?


I agree that it is sensible to see how they alter the safety of the community inside them. The road data you’re referring to is historical and pre-dates the implementation of LTNs. I’m asking why, when the current research on LTNs is being done, why that research doesn’t extend to outside the LTNs. That is my question and I don’t understand why no one will answer it.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That is my question and I don’t understand why no one will answer it.


This really is performance art now. I can't say I like it, but I admire the commitment.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> This really is performance art now. I can't say I like it, but I admire the commitment.


Yup, your inability to answer a simple question is quite impressive.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Re-read what I said. I am not questioning the data of what happens inside LTNs. There is data to back that up. I’m comfortable with that data. I’m asking why the data set generally used doesn’t focus on what happens outside. Do you know why?





thebackrow said:


> _We aggregated the point locations of all injuries into three mutually-exclusive groups:_
> 
> 
> _Injuries inside the LTN, defined as injuries at least 25m inside the LTN boundary._
> ...


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 24, 2021)

The one Lambeth justice Twitter feed has had a bit of a makeover and now no longer mentions Sofia specifically


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> The one Lambeth justice Twitter feed has had a bit of a makeover and now no longer mentions Sofia specifically


Yup, she has been getting grief/targeted.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 24, 2021)

He’ll troll until he gets the reaction he wants, gets a ban and then can run back to his friends saying he’s been censored and cancelled which he’ll use to vindicate his position.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I've tried to parse this a few times. I don't really get it because I use one LTN for a cycle route and another as a walking route, as do lots of others. But even when I was school age I couldn't exactly turn up for class at Dollar Academy because it existed and had been paid for. You don't have to live in an LTN to benefit from one.



Apologies if my post wasn’t clear. i was saying that in my experience the yummy mummy’s and dapper dads I encountered when my kid was at school had high principles on the surface but were quick to put the drawbridge up if there was any danger of their offspring having to mix with ‘ the wrong type’ going to private schools was one option buying a little buy to let if it got them a place in a nice school another.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> He’ll troll until he gets the reaction he wants, gets a ban and then can run back to his friends saying he’s been censored and cancelled which he’ll use to vindicate his position.


So you get banned for asking questions on here?  Still, no on answering it. Backrow points back to a bit of research to which I’ve already printed out that 75% of boundary roads in a number of areas weren’t monitored. Still, no one answering the question


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I agree that it is sensible to see how they alter the safety of the community inside them. The road data you’re referring to is historical and pre-dates the implementation of LTNs. I’m asking why, when the current research on LTNs is being done, why that research doesn’t extend to outside the LTNs. That is my question and I don’t understand why no one will answer it.


I have answered it. They already have decades of data of what happened before LTNs were introduced and those statistics will still be compiled now as all accidents are recorded. 

But with absolutely zero evidence of any rise in accidents and deaths outside LTNs - but clear evidence of a huge drop inside LTNs - I'm curious as to what grounds you can now possibly 1. oppose LTNs and 2. oppose the wider roll out of LTNs.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So you get banned for asking questions on here?  Still, no on answering it. Backrow points back to a bit of research to which I’ve already printed out that 75% of boundary roads in a number of areas weren’t monitored. Still, no one answering the question


No you don't.  And I've answered your question twice now, so perhaps you can now answer mine: if all the evidence points to LTNs creating a dramatic reduction in injuries and deaths, and no evidence that those accidents are displaced elsewhere, surely you must fully support LTNs? 

Or do you think that the right to drive wherever you want comes first, and the health and safety of the community comes second?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> I have answered it. They already have decades of data of what happened before LTNs were introduced and those statistics will still be compiled now as all accidents are recorded.
> 
> But with absolutely zero evidence of any rise in accidents and deaths outside LTNs - but clear evidence of a huge drop inside LTNs - I'm curious as to what grounds you can now possibly 1. oppose LTNs and 2. oppose the wider roll out of LTNs.


The data was before LTNs were introduced? Yes? So, once they have been introduced then it is fair to see what the data says both inside and outside the relevant area after implementation. I’m asking why the data set doesn’t look at what happens outside.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> No you don't.  And I've answered your question twice now, so perhaps you can now answer mine: if all the evidence points to LTNs creating a dramatic reduction in injuries and deaths, and no evidence that those accidents are displaced elsewhere, surely you must fully support LTNs?
> 
> Or do you think that the right to drive wherever you want comes first, and the health and safety of the community comes second?


You’ve just pointed to data which doesn’t include what happens outside. Of course I support a lowering in crime, I welcome it and am delighted that we have data to show it is lowered inside LTNs. I am asking why the data set doesn’t extend to outside LTNs after their implementation


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The data was before LTNs were introduced? Yes? So, once they have been introduced then it is fair to see what the data says both inside and outside the relevant area after implementation. I’m asking why the data set doesn’t look at what happens outside.


You can go online and search the data yourself FFS. It's not some big mystery.








__





						CrashMap - UK Road Safety Map
					

UK Road Safety Map




					www.crashmap.co.uk
				




And now answer my question please.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> Apologies if my post wasn’t clear. i was saying that in my experience the yummy mummy’s and dapper dads I encountered when my kid was at school had high principles on the surface but were quick to put the drawbridge up if there was any danger of their offspring having to mix with ‘ the wrong type’ going to private schools was one option buying a little buy to let if it got them a place in a nice school another.


And then selfishly drive their offspring to school every day. Seems about right.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> You can go online and search the data yourself FFS. It's not some big mystery.
> 
> View attachment 280293
> 
> ...


Does it cover all crime and just screening shotting something isn’t research is it. By you logic, because LTNs reduce crime, we should make every road, every area into one. I’m asking why extant contemporaneous research doesn’t extend to areas outside LTNs


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Does it cover all crime and just screening shotting something isn’t research is it. By you logic, because LTNs reduce crime, we should make every road, every area into one. I’m asking why extant contemporaneous research doesn’t extend to areas outside LTNs


Instead of firing endless caveats, questions and excuses my way, could you please extend me the courtesy of answering my question: 

If all the evidence points to LTNs creating a dramatic reduction in injuries and deaths, and no evidence that those accidents are displaced elsewhere, surely you must now fully support LTNs?


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> By you logic, because LTNs reduce crime, we should make every road, every area into one. I’m asking why extant contemporaneous research doesn’t extend to areas outside LTNs



I have never stated that LTNs reduce crime. However the data from this study strongly suggests that they dramatically reduce car accidents, injuries and deaths.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> Instead of firing endless caveats, questions and excuses my way, could you please extend me the courtesy of answering my question:
> 
> If all the evidence points to LTNs creating a dramatic reduction in injuries and deaths, and no evidence that those accidents are displaced elsewhere, surely you must now fully support LTNs?


Yes, inside LTNs. My question was where is the contemporary research as to what happens outside? You do t have any and can’t explain why research doesn’t cover that data set. Of course I support reduction in crime, I’m pretty sure everyone does. I also think that they have had a detrimental impact of disabled people which is why is asking for thorough research on the impacts both inside and outside.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> Instead of firing endless caveats, questions and excuses my way, could you please extend me the courtesy of answering my question:
> 
> If all the evidence points to LTNs creating a dramatic reduction in injuries and deaths, and no evidence that those accidents are displaced elsewhere, surely you must now fully support LTNs?


No evidence because the research h hasn’t been done. That’s my point. I’m asking why it doesn’t extend to outside LTNs. We aren’t going to agree on this are we. I’m just asking why this research isn’t/hasn’t been conducted


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 24, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> The one Lambeth justice Twitter feed has had a bit of a makeover and now no longer mentions Sofia specifically


And now explicitly states it’s not the other OL - which feels a bit like they were forced to make that distinction. 

What did it say before ‘community run account’ or something which implies it’s no longer a community run account.

All a bit embarrassing when the founders of your campaign publicly disassociate themselves from you in that way, criticise your campaigning language and then report your tweets to twitter as harmful.

Isn't there a Buzz article where they say there was no split a few months ago and it was the same people with different priorities? How things change.

That OL (Democracy Lambeth?) is now an organisation with a constitution. A set of rules, standards and behaviours. I bet they change their name soon.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No evidence because the research h hasn’t been done. That’s my point. I’m asking why it doesn’t extend to outside LTNs. We aren’t going to agree on this are we. I’m just asking why this research isn’t/hasn’t been conducted


Well let's just say - for the sake of argument  - that there is zero evidence that the drastic reduction in of injuries and deaths in LTNs has not led to an increase elsewhere.

Upon learning that LTNs were saving members of your own community from death and injury would you then fully support LTNs, and if not, why not?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes, inside LTNs. My question was where is the contemporary research as to what happens outside? You do t have any and can’t explain why research doesn’t cover that data set. Of course I support reduction in crime, I’m pretty sure everyone does. I also think that they have had a detrimental impact of disabled people which is why is asking for thorough research on the impacts both inside and outside.


you’ve got it. But you’re claiming, without providing evidence, that it’s invalid because, while looking at 72 LTNs and boundary roads it’s supposedly missed a couple (conspiracy!).

we must therefore assume that no data or research is valid unless it has a 100% population sample. Invalidating every bit of medical research, consultation, opinion poll and election ever.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> Well let's just say - for the sake of argument  - that there is zero evidence that the drastic reduction in of injuries and deaths in LTNs has not led to an increase elsewhere.
> 
> Upon learning that LTNs were saving members of your own community from death and injury would you then fully support LTNs, and if not, why not?


Of course, as long as their implementation is in line with the obligations of the council under the Equalities Act.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 24, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> And now explicitly states it’s not the other OL - which feels a bit like they were forced to make that distinction.
> 
> What did it say before ‘community run account’ or something which implies it’s no longer a community run account.



I see it’s now claiming to be the “official account” of the campaign which kind of contradicts what the onesies had been saying on here.  Odd that it’s changed given I thought it was nothing to do with the campaign at all.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Of course, as long as their implementation is in line with the obligations of the council under the Equalities Act.


That's great. So as soon as you've done your research using the link I provided for you, you will switch your support to LTNs if you find no evidence of road injuries doubling outside the LTNs (which I think we both know is highly unlikely).


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I ask why you wanted to dismiss the question, I assumed you don’t care. You obviously do care but I’m still not getting an answer


I don't know what you're on about - I haven't dismissed the question. If you are talking about the recent report on change in casualties etc, I posted that report some pages ago, and the report looks at figures inside LTNs as well as on LTN boundary roads and London in general. And it looks at pre and post data for each of those categories.

Do the numbers show a reduction in casualties within LTNs? Yes.
Do they show an increase in casualties on LTN boundary roads? No.

What's the data that's missing?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> That's great. So as soon as you've done your research using the link I provided for you, you will switch your support to LTNs if you find no evidence of road injuries doubling outside the LTNs (which I think we both know is highly unlikely).


Read the bit about legislation I mentioned


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Read the bit about legislation I mentioned


Yes you got that caveat in. And assuming that the council adhere to the Equalities Act you will switch your full support to LTNs, yes?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't know what you're on about - I haven't dismissed the question. If you are talking about the recent report on change in casualties etc, I posted that report some pages ago, and the report looks at figures inside LTNs as well as on LTN boundary roads and London in general. And it looks at pre and post data for each of those categories.
> 
> Do the numbers show a reduction in casualties within LTNs? Yes.
> Do they show an increase in casualties on LTN boundary roads? No.
> ...


Over 50% of boundary roads weren’t included. 75% in some areas. I was just asking at the beginning why this is a common feature of the research into LTNs in general.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 24, 2021)

Think you have enough now Ed for a buzz article? I’m expecting some supportive comments from the council about how refreshing it is to see the treasurer of the anti LTN campaign now in favour of LTNs, caveats not withstanding


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> Yes you got that caveat in. And assuming that the council adhere to the Equalities Act you will switch your full support to LTNs, yes?


If they are implemented in line with legislation then that’s fine. That’s what I’ve been asking for since the beginning and it’s all I care about. I’m not going to be massively pro but then I also won’t be anti.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> If they are implemented in line with legislation then that’s fine. That’s what I’ve been asking for since the beginning and it’s all I care about. I’m not going to be massively pro but then I also won’t be anti.


Well that's strange because the focus on the one disabled woman only happened long after the campaign had started.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> Well that's strange because the focus on the one disabled woman only happened long after the campaign had started.


And it coincided with the time I joined…


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Over 50% of boundary roads weren’t included. 75% in some areas. I was just asking at the beginning why this is a common feature of the research into LTNs in general.


Woah there. So this claim has now expanded again. Can you show what you mean - still seen no evidence that this report misses 50-75% of boundary roads. (Which of course would be in the non LTN areas where casualties haven’t increased anyway)


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> And it coincided with the time I joined…


So what happens if it turns out she unfortunately has to be inconvenienced*, but this means that a large number of people escape injury and death? Because that seems to be the way you're presenting your argument here. 

*perhaps some of the thousands that have been crowdfunded could be used to alleviate any inconvenience she may suffer


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> So what happens if it turns out she unfortunately has to be inconvenienced*, but this means that a large number of people escape injury and death? Because that seems to be the way you're presenting your argument here.
> 
> *perhaps some of the thousands that have been crowdfunded could be used to alleviate any inconvenience she may suffer


This is the whole balancing act that is required under the law. It’s the basis of a court case at the moment.


----------



## editor (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> This is the whole balancing act that is required under the law. It’s the basis of a court case at the moment.


And what's your opinion?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Over 50% of boundary roads weren’t included. 75% in some areas. I was just asking at the beginning why this is a common feature of the research into LTNs in general.


It's normal in any kind of study like this to take a sample of data rather than to try and record everything. Usually because the latter is impossible. Obviously you have to try and make sure the sample is representative. Are you saying they cherry-picked the locations?


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> And then selfishly drive their offspring to school every day. Seems about right.



yes, so my point was that these monied types might well be supporters of LTNs because they tick two boxes, environmental awareness and keeping out the riff raff ( not necessarily in that order)  This explains why people resent the implementation without consultation. Just to clarify I am not pointing the finger at anyone on this thread. My time bringing up a kid was a real eye opener, I could tell you some cringeworthy examples...one regarding a proto LTN comes to mind....


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2021)

How do they tick a "keeping out the riff raff" box?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

It's the old "leafy gated communities" riff phrased a different way, I think. Again there's a study that shows this broadly isn't true but academic studies don't seem to count for much these days.

If there's ever another Open Our Roads protest in Crystal Palace, I recommend if only to hear "for the many not the few" said in the poshest accents you've ever witnessed.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 24, 2021)

Seeing as the only people that are 'kept out' are people who are both (a) driving and (b) not heading for somewhere within the LTN it implies that the "riff raff" are people who want to drive through without getting out of their car. Which is kind of the aim.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 24, 2021)

editor said:


> I have answered it. They already have decades of data of what happened before LTNs were introduced and those statistics will still be compiled now as all accidents are recorded.
> 
> But with absolutely zero evidence of any rise in accidents and deaths outside LTNs - but clear evidence of a huge drop inside LTNs - I'm curious as to what grounds you can now possibly 1. oppose LTNs and 2. oppose the wider roll out of LTNs.



i think he is talking about Schrödinger's boundary road - where traffic is simultaneously gridlocked and travelling so fast that accidents are off the charts.

Alex


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, she has been getting grief/targeted.


I'm really sorry to hear that - not in any way fair or justified for anyone, whatever their views on LTNs. I hope she's OK


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I agree that it is sensible to see how they alter the safety of the community inside them. The road data you’re referring to is historical and pre-dates the implementation of LTNs. I’m asking why, when the current research on LTNs is being done, why that research doesn’t extend to outside the LTNs. That is my question and I don’t understand why no one will answer it.


How can it predate the introduction of LTNs given they have been around for decades?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 24, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> He’ll troll until he gets the reaction he wants, gets a ban and then can run back to his friends saying he’s been censored and cancelled which he’ll use to vindicate his position.



To call someone a Troll is serious allegation.

The poster ( naively imo let it be known what his real identity is) real identity is known. Not something a Troll does. 

Whatever you think of his posts he's not a Troll.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> To call someone a Troll is serious allegation.
> 
> The poster ( naively imo let it be known what his real identity is) real identity is known. Not something a Troll does.
> 
> Whatever you think of his posts he's not a Troll.


Yup, didn’t realise that it was all anon on here but was done in good faith to answer questions. Now someone on here is referring to conversations on here on his Twitter account. I thought that these conversations were supposed to stay on here.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, didn’t realise that it was all anon on here but was done in good faith to answer questions. Now someone on here is referring to conversations on here on his Twitter account. I thought that these conversations were supposed to stay on here.



Yes they are.

As long  time  poster here have  been finding some of the  references to you under your real name distasteful.

Ive also had someone here post they had reported my twitter account. This appeared to be a misunderstanding. They were sorry they had got the wrong person. Not that they had posted here about my alleged twitter account.

However its not etiquette here to do that kind of thing.

Why I've put my account here as private now.

As it appears my real identity may be sought on this thread.


----------



## cuppa tee (Jul 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> How do they tick a "keeping out the riff raff" box?



wel I am just using that term as it was put that way to me, one thing about the school parents scene is that you might get access to certain social events normally not for the likes of me.... the vino is flowing and the old ’ in vino veritas’ comes into play 🤣 im not saying that all supporters of traffic reduction schemes  think like that but some definitely do, like the gentleman in the Cambria pub who I engaged over a impressive cheese board a few years back,..and that’s just one example,.. a mild one at that....


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> The poster ( naively imo let it be known what his real identity is) real identity is known. Not something a Troll does.


A troll posts stuff just to get a reaction. Like refusing to acknowledge that question has been answered when it very obviously has been answered, or suggesting that vandalism is an art installation.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Over 50% of boundary roads weren’t included. 75% in some areas. I was just asking at the beginning why this is a common feature of the research into LTNs in general.



Do you know where to find the base data set for which roads to include? The journal article looked to lead to another piece of research for its data set on which roads to look at but that didn't have a list of roads. It looks like they had tried to get all the recent and still continuing London LTNs in it from the text of the journal article:



> We focused on LTNs introduced between March and September 2020 and still present at the end of October 2020. Having generated datasets representing* these new LTN locations and their boundary roads*


(my emphasis)


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> A troll posts stuff just to get a reaction. Like refusing to acknowledge that question has been answered when it very obviously has been answered, or suggesting that vandalism is an art installation.


I don’t post thing to get a reaction. I follow up my position to the extent that we’re going to the court of appeal. Not something a Troll does. On the other hand, why are you talking about what goes on here on Twitter. I thought this was supposed to be a decent forum. I’m not sure what the rules are exactly but pretty sure that this isn’t ok for this forum.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> A troll posts stuff just to get a reaction. Like refusing to acknowledge that question has been answered when it very obviously has been answered, or suggesting that vandalism is an art installation.



So don't react to it.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I don’t post thing to get a reaction. I follow up my position to the extent that we’re going to the court of appeal. Not something a Troll does. On the other hand, why are you talking about what goes on here on Twitter. I thought this was supposed to be a decent forum. I’m not sure what the rules are exactly but pretty sure that this isn’t ok for this forum.


We can discuss it over there if you want.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> We can discuss it over there if you want.


I thought this wasn’t form on here…?


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 24, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> To call someone a Troll is serious allegation.
> 
> The poster ( naively imo let it be known what his real identity is) real identity is known. Not something a Troll does.
> 
> Whatever you think of his posts he's not a Troll.


It’s editor ‘s forum and rules - all transparently covered here:

Terms and rules and Forum Visibility & Privacy

- report my post and he can moderate it.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2021)

There seems to be no shortage of bonkers interpretations of what that study shows. For this guy it's not just insufficient data but somehow actually demonstrates that boundary roads have become more dangerous.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 25, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> It’s editor ‘s forum and rules - all transparently covered here:
> 
> Terms and rules and Forum Visibility & Privacy
> 
> - report my post and he can moderate it.



I was talking to you. Not the Editor. 

I had no intention of reporting your post. Nor did my post imply I was going to. 

I stand by my comment on your post.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 25, 2021)

This is a particularly nasty thread.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 25, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> This is a particularly nasty thread.


LTNs don't seem to make for happy discussion online. One of my local Facebook groups fully banned discussion of it because it caused so many arguments, very similar ones to ones on here (although there's no suggestion i know if that Birmingham city council didn't follow due process in their implementation here so we don't have arguments about that)


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 25, 2021)




----------



## BigTom (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> View attachment 280436


What's that from? A link or reference or something would be helpful.
Does it have an actual list of roads included and not included?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> View attachment 280436


There was no definition of boundary roads in Goldman’s paper so I followed the hyperlink to “equity in new active travel” which resulted in this finding


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2021)

Isn't that simply saying that they were excluding boundary roads from their definition of what's 'in' an LTN? Which is the whole point of the exercise?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 25, 2021)

BigTom said:


> What's that from? A link or reference or something would be helpful.
> Does it have an actual list of roads included and not included?


Yup, it’s only the roads inside LTNs. Boundary roads are removed


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Isn't that simply saying that they were excluding boundary roads from their definition of what's 'in' an LTN? Which is the whole point of the exercise?


It just backs up what I was saying yesterday which people seemed to take issue with. Just thought I’d provide some more info so that people can take stock


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It just backs up what I was saying yesterday which people seemed to take issue with.


No it doesn't.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No it doesn't.


I was saying that boundary roads and areas outside LTNs were generally excluded from studies. I was asking why this was. People told me it wasn’t the case so I’ve provided the above.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> View attachment 280436


Well done, now what does the next sentence say?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I was saying that boundary roads and areas outside LTNs were generally excluded from studies.


The boundary roads are excluded from the definition of an LTN in this study because this is looking at who lives inside an LTN and comparing it to who lives outside an LTN. If the boundary roads had been included in this definition then it would not be able to do that.

It then says that they "generated a separate set of LTN boundary roads" to be part of the analysis. This doesn't say that boundary roads were excluded from the study. It says they were included in the study.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, it’s only the roads inside LTNs. Boundary roads are removed



Please can you tell me what document that is from - a link would be great if you have it but even if you could just give me a reference for where the screen shot was from that would be fine. I would really like to be able to have a look at the list of roads for myself. A screenshot of something isn't really helpful and your reply is as if you've read what someone else posted and replied to me by mistake.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 25, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Please can you tell me what document that is from - a link would be great if you have it but even if you could just give me a reference for where the screen shot was from that would be fine. I would really like to be able to have a look at the list of roads for myself. A screenshot of something isn't really helpful and your reply is as if you've read what someone else posted and replied to me by mistake.


I think I mentioned the study it’s taken from above. That will give you the full picture and the background data


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 25, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Please can you tell me what document that is from





			https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/
		


Also: Low-traffic schemes benefit most-deprived Londoners, study finds


----------



## DaphneM (Jul 25, 2021)

Cant believe people are against LTNs


----------



## BigTom (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I think I mentioned the study it’s taken from above. That will give you the full picture and the background data


Right Sorry i missed that part.

That journal article is the one i lined to and as far as i can see it doesn't give a list of roads they included.

A couple of sentences after the one you highlighted they say that they included boundary roads in a separate set which they didn't need to look at for that study because it was about who lives in an LTN.

However as the study on injuries explicitly says it includes boundary roads, they must have used the boundary roads as well as the ltn ones.
How do you know which roads have been excluded?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jul 25, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Right Sorry i missed that part.
> 
> That journal article is the one i lined to and as far as i can see it doesn't give a list of roads they included.
> 
> ...


From what I can see, that study refers back to the “equity” study and that is where the definition of boundary roads comes from.

In more general terms, I don’t really get why boundary roads aren’t generally included. LTNs decrease traffic inside LTNs. That seems pretty self explanatory. On that basis, their impact on surrounding roads seems to be the most pertinent issue and goes to the heart of the division in the community. The reason why some people are so upset about this is that they don’t get the benefit but have to deal with the downside. I think it is this lack of equity which people find most frustrating.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 25, 2021)

Anyone been up The Strand llately. Seems they are getting an LTN with knobs on - something Lambeth could only dream of








						Strand to be part-pedestrianised from late August
					

Anyone who has visited the area over the past few months can't have missed the huge amount of street works going on, as part of plans to revamp the road layout around Aldwych and Strand.



					www.ianvisits.co.uk


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 25, 2021)

I may have figured this out.



chowce5382 said:


> Eg in Lee Green 3 of 4 boundary roads weren’t included in the data



I believe the complaint orginates from One Lewisham. Their complaint is not that this research has ignored certain roads, but that the council measurements have missed certain roads.




This is, I believe, relevant to this part of the study.



> Analyses of injuries on LTN boundary roads identified no changes in absolute injury numbers (e.g. ratio 1.05, p=0.35 for injuries among all travel modes compared with the rest of London). Risk per trip is likely also to have changed little, given that monitoring reports indicate that changes on boundary roads in cycling and motor vehicle traffic were relatively similar to the background trend.



So there's very little change in the number of injuries in absolute terms, on boundary roads. And using the data from Lewisham council, the risk per trip is about the same, because the number of cars passing is about the same. But if they're right, and the council is wrong, and the number of vehicles has gone up dramatically, then the risk per trip is _lower. _[Maths experts please check this]


----------



## Winot (Jul 25, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Anyone been up The Strand llately. Seems they are getting an LTN with knobs on - something Lambeth could only dream of
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a great idea* but in no sense is it an LTN.

(*for pedestrians - cycling provision seems poor)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> From what I can see, that study refers back to the “equity” study and that is where the definition of boundary roads comes from.
> 
> In more general terms, I don’t really get why boundary roads aren’t generally included. LTNs decrease traffic inside LTNs. That seems pretty self explanatory. On that basis, their impact on surrounding roads seems to be the most pertinent issue and goes to the heart of the division in the community. The reason why some people are so upset about this is that they don’t get the benefit but have to deal with the downside. I think it is this lack of equity which people find most frustrating.


Do you have any research yourself about what happens on surrounding roads?.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 25, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> From what I can see, that study refers back to the “equity” study and that is where the definition of boundary roads comes from.
> 
> In more general terms, I don’t really get why boundary roads aren’t generally included. LTNs decrease traffic inside LTNs. That seems pretty self explanatory. On that basis, their impact on surrounding roads seems to be the most pertinent issue and goes to the heart of the division in the community. The reason why some people are so upset about this is that they don’t get the benefit but have to deal with the downside. I think it is this lack of equity which people find most frustrating.



So my reading of it all is this:

The equity study mapped out areas of London which had had LTNs put in between, from memory, March to Sept 2020 and were still in place in Oct 2020 (I stand to be corrected on those dates but essentially they look to find all the ones recently implemented that hadn't been removed by the time they did that study, then excluded LTNs which did not have pre-pandemic data to compare to).
They created three sets of roads:
1) Inside LTNs
2) LTN Boundary Roads
3) Roads unconnected to an LTN

The equity study sought to answer the question "who lives inside the new LTN areas?" and as such it's obvious why they wouldn't need to consider boundary roads or unconnected roads and excluded them.

The safety study took all three sets of roads and examined all of them to see how road safety has been affected.
The tweet liquidindian has found refers to the data they used on traffic levels, which that guy says excluded certain roads. Looking at the table in the supplemental information he obviously knows where those numbers come from and that they aren't complete.
Thing is that it doesn't matter to their main claim which is about absolute numbers, not risk per trip. In their methodology they are clear about how they do this:



> 2. Methods​We used police injury data, which gives information on the travel mode and injury severity of road traffic injuries, plus detailed geographical coordinates for the crash location. [2] Our primary outcome was number of injuries of any severity, both in total and by mode of travel. We present secondary analyses examining killed or seriously injured (KSI).
> 
> We used information from a range of official sources to map all new modal filters implemented from March-September 2020 in London and still in place at the end of October 2020.[3] Based on these we manually mapped 72 LTNs and surrounding boundary roads (details in Aldred et al., n.d.: see Figures 1 and 2). We aggregated the point locations of all injuries into three mutually-exclusive groups:
> 
> ...



So what that says to me is that to get the number of injuries, they have used all three sets of roads from the equity study. This is not the same set of roads that was used for the traffic data. There is no evidence that any LTN boundary roads are excluded from this data set, in fact the equity study says it includes all roads within 25m of an LTN implementation.

The numbers they give, from which the headline is derived, takes these roads and uses GPS data to identify which injuries happened on which roads. This is the only hard data they give.

Then they give their estimations on risk per trip, which uses the traffic data set and judges by LTN as a whole. Now the guy in the tweet knows where this traffic data came from and that it excluded certain roads and traffic is higher on those roads than this study thinks it is. I agree with liquidindian that means risk per trip has actually decreased, since the absolute number has remained the same.

Now I agree that all boundary roads should be included in a study which includes any boundary roads (unless it's look at a very specific situation obviously) and as far as I can see, this one did when it looked at the absolute number of injuries.
(for the set of LTNs that were in place recently, still in place and had comparable data from pre-pandemic times). The traffic data they used to make an estimation of risk per trip didn't and it obviously should have, assuming they have data from pre-pandemic times to use as a baseline anyway. But that doesn't make any difference to the absolute numbers which the headline refers to.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 25, 2021)

BigTom said:


> The equity study sought to answer the question "who lives inside the new LTN areas?" and as such it's obvious why they wouldn't need to consider boundary roads or unconnected roads and excluded them.


Just to be clear here (I may be repeating what you're saying) they did consider the boundary roads in this previous report, they were just careful to make sure that they were included as boundary roads and not as inside an LTN. This is what the methodology says, but a misreading has meant the meme (original Dawkins meaning) has evolved on Twitter and I assume various FB groups into "they don't consider boundary roads". I expect to see this along "she lives in an LTN, she's biased", "she's a cycling campaigner, she's biased" and "this is TFL marking its own work" as ways to dismiss studies from the Active Travel Academy. (Did you know that the Active Travel Academy is made up of people interested in active travel? I know, outrageous."


----------



## teuchter (Jul 25, 2021)

Here is what they actually say about injuries on boundary roads:



> Analyses of injuries on LTN boundary roads identified no changes in absolute injury numbers (e.g. ratio 1.05, p=0.35 for injuries among all travel modes compared with the rest of London). Risk per trip is likely also to have changed little, given that monitoring reports indicate that changes on boundary roads in cycling and motor vehicle traffic were relatively similar to the background trend.[5]



The report doesn't seem to be making a claim about the situation on boundary roads that is pretending to have the full data that would allow a completely accurate 'risk' calculation to be made. Their suggestion that risk per trip is "likely also to have changed little" is based on accepting the "indication" in general monitoring data that changes on boundary roads have tended to follow the background trend for traffic across London.

Of course, that is contentious to anyone who suspects that those "monitoring reports" have not captured the true situation on boundary roads. And maybe they haven't. But even the fact that that data does not cover every single boundary road - whether the data covers 10% or 50% or 75% of boundary roads, what really matters is whether it's based on a representative sample, surely. You don't have to record the situation at every point to get an idea of the general trend. There are few situations where that is possible anyway.

So if anyone is doubting that "monitoring reports" data - then the issue is not really how many roads are missing from it, but whether the roads that haven't been monitored are disproportionately the "worst" roads that have seen increases in traffic. And that would have to come about by biased selection of monitoring locations, and it would seem to me to have to be quite deliberate.

By the way, I couldn't work out where the "supplemental tables" were, that are mentioned through the report.

But they are here (accessed via "data sets/files" link at the top of the report).

And here is the relevant explanation and table -


----------



## edcraw (Jul 26, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> The data and research is always just short of being convincing, isn't it? Oh, if only the researchers had looked into these other things, if only they'd gathered this extra data, then we might be convinced. Tomorrow we go back to comparing filtered roads to the Holocaust, but today we are reasonable people, chipping away at the edges of some research and declaring it Not Quite Enough, Sorry.


Comment of the thread!!!!


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2021)

Now they are seeing if they can shoehorn this into somehow being relevant to LTNs.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 28, 2021)

...and a Birmingham equivalent wants in on the action too


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2021)

They seem a bit discombobulated at the moment 



From the article:

“The driver involved in the collision pleaded guilty to a charge of driving without due care and attention, receiving six points on their licence a fine of £394 and court costs of £139.”


----------



## edcraw (Jul 28, 2021)

I love how these accounts always @ tons of other accounts in their tweets and still get no interaction.


----------



## lblres (Jul 28, 2021)

I'm convinced OLJ is just run by a lunatic at this point, first the holocaust now child sexual abuse, not to mention the sort of posts they like in their pathetic FB group


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 28, 2021)

I don't get why the OLJ twitter account is sharing LTN consultations from areas way outside of Lambeth?
I was pleased to hear in the latest online Q and A that Lambeth will decide if the LTNs are to stay based on how well they meet their targets of traffic reduction, rather than the volume of requests to keep them vs remove them. They said quite clearly, it is not a referendum.


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I love how these accounts always @ tons of other accounts in their tweets and still get no interaction.


One was asking Kier Starmer to DM him for info on how UK Labour was failing the borough. High on his ‘’must reply’ list I’m sure.  

“I’m struggling to run my own political party against one of the worst governments we’ve had, so what I need is strategic advice from a FirstNameLotsofNumbers twitter account”


----------



## BigTom (Jul 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> ...and a Birmingham equivalent wants in on the action too
> 
> View attachment 280944


Lol, that's where i live. Ridiculous.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 28, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Lol, that's where i live. Ridiculous











						Motor City Of Birmingham To Throttle Short Car Journeys
					

Bold traffic circulation plan for Birmingham, U.K., will see car journeys made longer and more inconvenient in order to meet the city's carbon targets.




					www.forbes.com
				




Looks like interesting things heading your way.

(And, sorry, but the Birmingham antis are possibly the dimmest of the lot against some tough competition. Not the most unhinged, to be fair.)


----------



## BigTom (Jul 28, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Motor City Of Birmingham To Throttle Short Car Journeys
> 
> 
> Bold traffic circulation plan for Birmingham, U.K., will see car journeys made longer and more inconvenient in order to meet the city's carbon targets.
> ...



Yeah, the council are pretty committed to cutting car journeys, especially in the city centre where the air quality is really bad.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Now they are seeing if they can shoehorn this into somehow being relevant to LTNs.
> 
> 
> View attachment 280938


I doubt OneLambeth Justice will agree with the letter to the Guardian from Joan Twelves lambasting Boris's current Let it Rip Covid policy.








						‘Pingdemic’ is the result of a criminal Covid policy | Letters
					

Letters: One emergency worker says the NHS is already at breaking point. Plus letters by Joan Twelves, Prof Claire Anderson and Linda Wright




					www.theguardian.com
				




More evidence of Joan's bully boy tactics?

Personally I;m glad to see she can still write a good letter well into her seventies.
Her blog is interesting too Joan Twelves


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 29, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> I don't get why the OLJ twitter account is sharing LTN consultations from areas way outside of Lambeth?
> I was pleased to hear in the latest online Q and A that Lambeth will decide if the LTNs are to stay based on how well they meet their targets of traffic reduction, rather than the volume of requests to keep them vs remove them. They said quite clearly, it is not a referendum.



I don't quite follow this. If this is what Lambeth are saying then what was the point of asking people to comment on the Commonplace websites, email concerns and go through the usual democratic channels?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Now they are seeing if they can shoehorn this into somehow being relevant to LTNs.
> 
> 
> View attachment 280938



On shoe Horning the gossip I've heard is that the Labour right in Lambeth are using this scandel as another reason why the left in Labour Party should be either got rid of or shoved back in their box.

More than one group is trying to use this for their own political ends.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 29, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I don't quite follow this. If this is what Lambeth are saying then what was the point of asking people to comment on the Commonplace websites, email concerns and go through the usual democratic channels?


I imagine the comments relate to issues on the ground that they can fix to make the LTNs work better/deal with problems eg in Streatham Hill residents flagged up the need for some extra filters to stop additional rat running, and others asked for changes to the CPZ to make it easier to park. Or suggestions for other related improvements like cycle parking etc. Comment saying 'i hate LTNs and want them removed' or 'i love LTNs let's keep them' isn't really any adding anything helpful since it's not a referendum as they said.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 29, 2021)

There was initially the thing where TfL said they'd only fund schemes where the LA could show there was general support locally (or something like that). But has that basically been superceded by the fact that funding now can come from central govt?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 29, 2021)

A good example is the Upper Norwood LTN, which when it returns, as mostly ANPR, will have its bus gate moved to outside the doctors' surgery, so that people can access it without going through the gate. People flagged up a problem, a solution was found.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> A good example is the Upper Norwood LTN, which when it returns, as mostly ANPR, will have its bus gate moved to outside the doctors' surgery, so that people can access it without going through the gate. People flagged up a problem, a solution was found.


Exactly. This is what I understand as consultation, tweaking the initial designs so they work better on the ground and local people are best placed to provide this feedback


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jul 30, 2021)

More central government momentum for traffic interventions in the news today.









						Pedestrians get priority as UK unveils changes to Highway Code
					

Plans to create ‘road user hierarchy’ are part of £338m package to boost cycling and walking across Britain




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Hastily abandoned low-traffic schemes could cost councils funding
					

Transport minister warns local authorities not to remove cycle lanes or other reduction measures without evidence of their failure




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Jul 30, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> More central government momentum for traffic interventions in the news today.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Suspect Johnson didn't write this but it's a great quote:

“Of course some journeys by car are essential, but traffic is not a force of nature. It is a product of people’s choices. If you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, more people choose to walk and cycle instead of driving, and the traffic falls overall.”


----------



## snowy_again (Jul 30, 2021)

Not so immediately related to Brixton, but the DfT additional £30m of funds for active travel today, sets a hierarchy of road users (with the most vulnerable - pedestrians at the top). 

Motor lobby having a bit of a nightmare over it. This is Howard Cox who was very active in the Loughborough Junction anti protests a few years back, despite living in Chislehurst.  He's also the Association of British Drivers and FairFuelUK.

"This anti-car government continues to pander to a massive minority of non tax paying road users" 



It's already been retweeted by the OLJ cliques.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2021)

What an idiot.


----------



## spitfire (Jul 30, 2021)

WTF is a massive minority and how do they get away without paying any tax? Do they not buy things and earn wages and stuff?

What a plonker.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Not so immediately related to Brixton, but the DfT additional £30m of funds for active travel today, sets a hierarchy of road users (with the most vulnerable - pedestrians at the top).
> 
> Motor lobby having a bit of a nightmare over it. This is Howard Cox who was very active in the Loughborough Junction anti protests a few years back, despite living in Chislehurst.  He's also the Association of British Drivers and FairFuelUK.
> 
> ...



Complains about £338m and then crows about depirving the treasury of *£100bn *from scrapping fuel duty increases.

I'm glad most people seem to be seeing through these idiots now.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Complains about £338m and then crows about depirving the treasury of *£100bn *from scrapping fuel duty increases.
> 
> I'm glad most people seem to be seeing through these idiots now.



what a muppet.

“Roads should be funded from general taxation” also “motorists pay for these roads!”

That’s why you have to be suspicious of some of these guys - they cannot really be this thick.

also if cyclists are middle class Lycra clad whatever’s, then they probably pay more general taxation than most of the population and so pay more than an average share of “road taxes” 

alex


----------



## edcraw (Jul 30, 2021)

The cycling Gestapo! Love it!


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 30, 2021)

I thought the end of this article on challenges to 5G was pretty interesting.









						Anti-5G campaigners vow to fight on after legal setback
					

The case raises questions about crowdfunded legal actions as well as putting 5G in the spotlight.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				






> One experienced barrister warns that legal crowdfunding is unregulated.
> Barbara Rich says its importance has grown because there is little or no legal aid for many types of case. But she says there is a lack of transparency: "Contributors do not have a right to any information about a case - its prospects of success, or what its real outcome might be if it does succeed, or even what the lawyers engaged are charging - beyond what its promoter chooses to tell them."


----------



## Jesterburger (Jul 30, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Not so immediately related to Brixton, but the DfT additional £30m of funds for active travel today, sets a hierarchy of road users (with the most vulnerable - pedestrians at the top).
> 
> Motor lobby having a bit of a nightmare over it. This is Howard Cox who was very active in the Loughborough Junction anti protests a few years back, despite living in Chislehurst.  He's also the Association of British Drivers and FairFuelUK.
> 
> ...



Yes the government is so anti motorist that it's spending £27bn on new roads (vs the £338m on cycling & walking)


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I thought the end of this article on challenges to 5G was pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_In her ruling, Mrs Justice Foster said: "The real issue is that the claimants disagree with a large body of international opinion as to the safety of 5G."_










						Anya Martin: Not all social housing campaigners are in favour of social housing - OnLondon
					

In London, almost 250,000 households are on waiting lists for social housing. Stuck for space to build and with Londoners increasingly concerned about worsening housing costs, public authorities are increasingly looking at how they can make better use of the land they have. Many have large...




					www.onlondon.co.uk
				




This case is interesting and seems to have a lot of parallels - a group claiming to be in favour of the thing it's campaigning against, continually shifting criticisms, an expensive Judicial Review - successful on a technicality - that results in the scheme going ahead regardless.


----------



## CH1 (Jul 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I thought the end of this article on challenges to 5G was pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As an aside many people have 5g WiFi routers.
I've got one, but I don't use it because most of my devices can't use the signal. Roku stick, PC with a WiFi dongle, or the iffy Chinese smart tv. The only device I have which works on 5g WiFi is a knackered old Chromebook.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 30, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> This case is interesting and seems to have a lot of parallels - a group claiming to be in favour of the thing it's campaigning against, continually shifting criticisms, an expensive Judicial Review - successful on a technicality - that results in the scheme going ahead regardless.



seems a really easy grift

tell the marks they’ll get what they want - the pounds roll in, when it doesn’t get them to do it again


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 30, 2021)

CH1 said:


> As an aside many people have 5g WiFi routers.
> I've got one, but I don't use it because most of my devices can't use the signal. Roku stick, PC with a WiFi dongle, or the iffy Chinese smart tv. The only device I have which works on 5g WiFi is a knackered old Chromebook.



Boy this is quite a tangent but "5G WiFi routers" could mean a number of things and it's all really confusing.

I've got a 5G router that connects to the Three network. It uses a 5G mobile signal, the same kind of 5G that new phones can use.
But here's where it's confusing. The WiFi it puts all around my flat uses the 802.11ax or "WiFi 6". Many use 802.11ac, or "WiFi 5" which is the fifth generation of WiFi. So 5G and WiFi 5/6 are different.
But here's where it's more confusing. The 802.11ac/WiFi 5 standards (they mean the same thing afaik) introduced 5GHz WiFi. Before this you had 2.4GHz WiFi which is still most WiFi. 5GHz is faster but has less range. Lots of new routers have 2.4GHz and 5GHz WiFi so you can still use older devices.
But here's where it's a bit more confusing. Some WiFi providers will use the term "5G" on their default names for the 5GHz band, so you'll get "MyHomeWiFi" and "MyHomeWiFi-5G". Unless you're already an expert or had to actually dig into this it's a fair assumption that this is the same as 5G mobile, because it's faster. But it's not!


----------



## alex_ (Jul 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Boy this is quite a tangent but "5G WiFi routers" could mean a number of things and it's all really confusing.
> 
> I've got a 5G router that connects to the Three network. It uses a 5G mobile signal, the same kind of 5G that new phones can use.
> But here's where it's confusing. The WiFi it puts all around my flat uses the 802.11ax or "WiFi 6". Many use 802.11ac, or "WiFi 5" which is the fifth generation of WiFi. So 5G and WiFi 5/6 are different.
> ...


5G is the 5th generation of mobile cellular standard - it’s not 5ghz.

 Most of the 5G frequencies were in use before for other things.

5ghz is wifi and weather radar - and has been in use for years.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> _In her ruling, Mrs Justice Foster said: "The real issue is that the claimants disagree with a large body of international opinion as to the safety of 5G."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reading this and don't see how this is relevant. 

Housing campaigners get a lot of stick and your buying into it.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2021)

I see this Tory government is getting some support here for telling Councils to get on with LTNs and active travel.

The same Tory government that is forcing price rises on TFL fares with the so called deal it did wh the Mayor.

I fail to see how this constitutes a fair transition to less car use.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 30, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I see this Tory government is getting some support here for telling Councils to get on with LTNs and active travel.
> 
> The same Tory government that is forcing price rises on TFL fares with the so called deal it did wh the Mayor.
> 
> I fail to see how this constitutes a fair transition to less car use.


If we opposed LTNs and active travel would it lead to the TfL fare rises being abandoned?


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If we opposed LTNs and active travel would it lead to the TfL fare rises being abandoned?





teuchter said:


> If we opposed LTNs and active travel would it lead to the TfL fare rises being abandoned?



I've just read several pages of posts making out anyone who opposes LTNs is on the far right lunatic fringe. Or trying to link opposition to LTNs to housing campaigners. Etc

Posts that are supporting this Tory government telling Councils to get on with it are completely uncritical of the fact that the same Tory government is doing fuck all for public transport.

So its OK to support a very right wing Tory government. Anti woke , hard line on asylum seekers etc. But anyone who might object to LTNs? Apparently they are loony right. 

FFS


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 30, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So its OK to support a very right wing Tory government. Anti woke , hard line on asylum seekers etc. But anyone who might object to LTNs? Apparently they are loony right.



I like to think I'm not so unsophisticated that I have to put everything from a government I don't generally approve of into a big bucket marked BAD STUFF.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I like to think I'm not so unsophisticated that I have to put everything from a government I don't generally approve of into a big bucket marked BAD STUFF.



It is what you do with anti LTN people.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I like to think I'm not so unsophisticated that I have to put everything from a government I don't generally approve of into a big bucket marked BAD STUFF.



Actually reading your posts here I do think your unsophisticated.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 30, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> It is what you do with anti LTN people.


I've got several buckets. Just moved you to RUDE.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I've got several buckets. Just moved you to RUDE.



Whatever. Let's just say we have mutual contempt for each other and leave it at that.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 30, 2021)

Okay: We have mutual contempt for each other.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 31, 2021)

.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 31, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I like to think I'm not so unsophisticated that I have to put everything from a government I don't generally approve of into a big bucket marked BAD STUFF.




In separate comments, Boris Johnson warned councils that he was serious about boosting active travel, saying that “trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work”.

“I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use,” the prime minister said. “And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is.”

bloke is a cunt, but he’s dead right about this.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 31, 2021)

alex_ said:


> In separate comments, Boris Johnson warned councils that he was serious about boosting active travel, saying that “trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work”.
> 
> “I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use,” the prime minister said. “And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is.”
> 
> bloke is a cunt, but he’s dead right about this.



Agree - pretty sure it’s Andrew Gilligan’s words who I’ve got a fair bit of time for.


----------



## nagapie (Jul 31, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I like to think I'm not so unsophisticated that I have to put everything from a government I don't generally approve of into a big bucket marked BAD STUFF.


Everything from this government is bad. If it doesn't look so on the surface, dig deeper for the ulterior motive.

Still waiting for my blue badge access...taps fingers...


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Jul 31, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So its OK to support a very right wing Tory government.


 
Yeh, they suck.  But its possible, simple even, to support action on pollution, congestion, and improving the environment without supporting them.  

the planet is clearly in even more dire shape than we thought at the start of this thread.


----------



## Winot (Jul 31, 2021)

Not sure if anyone linked to the actual government publication up-thread but here it is just in case.



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007619/gear-change-one-year-on.pdf


----------



## edcraw (Jul 31, 2021)

Sometimes you happen to agree with people who are despicable.

However, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Nigel Farage on anything.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 31, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sometimes you happen to agree with people who are despicable.
> 
> However, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Nigel Farage on anything.


Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 31, 2021)

Did the tories follow through with letting people with blue badges park for free outside hospitals? I agree with that one too. Not enough to, like, vote for them or anything, because of everything else.

It's weird to be told that I'm unthinkingly supporting the Tories by agreeing with a few policies, when that fact made me think about it quite a bit.


----------



## Gramsci (Jul 31, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Yeh, they suck.  But its possible, simple even, to support action on pollution, congestion, and improving the environment without supporting them.
> 
> the planet is clearly in even more dire shape than we thought at the start of this thread.



This is a broader topic.

{One parallel is that the Tories proposed reform of planning is like the way they appear now to want local Councils to implement LTNs. Top down and removing right to object to in meaningful way as this holds things up. }

On Climate change I'm a reader of Sci Fi and this genre has been dealing with possible scenarios.

One is a capitalist one. Rich in future will live in Eco Towers with water / fresh food and the rest will make do in the dust bowl ( The Water Knife by Paolo Bacigalupi ).

Earth will be ecologically rebuilt by Green dictatorship whilst those who can't stomach that go to build various utopian societies on asteroids. ( Paul McAuley novels The Quiet War and Gardens of the Sun-lot of stuff about environmentalism}

Kim Stanley Robinson Mars Trilogy touches on all these areas. Well worth a read if your into Green issues. Whole debate in it between faction who want to keep Mars unspoilt and those on other extreme who want to make it a new Earth through terraforming. And those stuck in the middle. Seems more relevant now. 

So I wouldn't agree it was simple. As Climate change will affect all societies the question is how to adjust to it. There is more than one way.

Humans will adapt. Its at what cost and suffering. Also whether democracy will be set aside to do this.

This is a digression.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> Earth will be ecologically rebuilt by Green dictatorship whilst those who can't stomach that go to build various utopian societies on asteroids.


Sorry to be flippant but this reads a bit like a OneLambethJustice tweet.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So I wouldn't agree it was simple. As Climate change will affect all societies the question is how to adjust to it. There is more than one way.
> 
> Humans will adapt. Its at what cost and suffering. Also whether democracy will be set aside to do this.



Adjusting means billions of deaths and seems to be the new climate change denial. It’s a frankly terrifying idea and incredibly flippant.

We need to minimise the impact and slow this down through radical action now. The fact that LTNs get this much backlash is really really depressing.


----------



## BusLanes (Aug 1, 2021)

Big fan of the Mars Trilogy. I met the author at a signing a few years back too


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

I cannot actually believe that people think the Tories are doing this for the good of the people. They do nothing for that reason. They don't care about imposing LTNRs because they are largely untouched by them. Do you think Boris or Jacob Reese Moggs etc care about the good or bad they bring to regular London people when they are barely touched by these measures.
Meanwhile they would not bat an eyelid to sign any trade deals with dodgy environmental implications, continue to trade with the biggest industrial polluters of the world and generally take a back seat on climate atrocities like rainforest deforestation, loss of species and the destruction of the polar ice caps.

Please, defend LTNRs for what you believe but once you defend this vile collection of self-interested criminals, you"re on shifting moral ground


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2021)

Whose defending Tories on here and what’s an LTNR?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 1, 2021)

OLJ now liking Freemam of the Land accounts (or freedom of the road in this case)


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I cannot actually believe that people think the Tories are doing this for the good of the people.


I don't believe that. I do think that they're faced with three things that are incompatible: They have pledged not to raise taxes; EVs and fuel efficiency means declining revenue from roads; and people live longer lives and have more "unhealthy" years thanks to inactivity and that's incredibly expensive. If all you're thinking about is money then interventions like this still makes sense.

But maybe this is just unsophisticated talk and we should be planning to live on asteroids instead.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I don't believe that. I do think that they're faced with three things that are incompatible: They have pledged not to raise taxes; EVs and fuel efficiency means declining revenue from roads; and people live longer lives and have more "unhealthy" years thanks to inactivity and that's incredibly expensive. If all you're thinking about is money then interventions like this still makes sense.
> 
> But maybe this is just unsophisticated talk and we should be planning to live on asteroids instead.


So they're doing it because they don't want to pay for care and pensions in the future, that sounds more like a Tory reason.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Whose defending Tories on here and what’s an LTNR?


I don't post on this thread often any more, apologies for getting the acronym wrong.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Whose defending Tories on here and what’s an LTNR?


There's plenty of comments defending the Tories, giving them the benefit of the doubt in introducing the LTNs for reasons for the benefit of humanity. As if.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

I don't get what the line of argument is supposed to be. There's other stuff the Tories are doing like, I dunno, not introducing capital punishment. So does this mean I'm supposed to start being in favour of capital punishment in case someone thinks I'm in favour of all the current government's policies?

The introduction of LTNs is, in principle, something all the main parties pretty much agree on. Why's that I wonder?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sometimes you happen to agree with people who are despicable.
> 
> However, I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Nigel Farage on anything.


There's yours. I don't agree with despicable people such as the Tories. Do you think Farage is worse than Patel?
Your answer has ignored my comments on how the Tories clearly show they couldn't care less about the environment.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't get what the line of argument is supposed to be. There's other stuff the Tories are doing like, I dunno, not introducing capital punishment. So does this mean I'm supposed to start being in favour of capital punishment in case someone thinks I'm in favour of all the current government's policies?
> 
> The introduction of LTNs is, in principle, something all the main parties pretty much agree on. Why's that I wonder?


So now we're judging them on what they don't do? What about all the shit they constantly do?
I don't think capital punishment is a good example, our society as a whole has moved so far from that.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> There's yours. I don't agree with despicable people such as the Tories. Do you think Farage is worse than Patel?
> Your answer has ignored my comments on how the Tories clearly show they couldn't care less about the environment.


The Lambeth LTNs were bought in by Labour councillors - the one Tory councillor opposes them (and calls them eugenics).

I support LTNs despite the Tory government not because of it. I suspect they’re supporting them as a kind on green washing tbh, its minimal cost and something they can point to, it doesn’t make them wrong however.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The Lambeth LTNs were bought in by Labour councillors - the one Tory councillor opposes them (and calls them eugenics).
> 
> I support LTNs despite the Tory government not because of it. I suspect they’re supporting them as a kind on green washing tbh, its minimal cost and something they can point to, it doesn’t make them wrong however.


I'm not sure you read my responses properly.
I've been posting about the Tory government always being wrong, I didn't say LTNs are wrong because that's not what I believe.
Your answer above is a lot more intelligent than the one where you mumbled on about sometimes agreeing with despicable people, in support of the Tories, because it actually demonstrates better than my post that the Tories don't support the green aims of LTNs.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

Isn't this just "sure it's good for the environment, but do you know who else was a vegetarian?" in a new form?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> So now we're judging them on what they don't do? What about all the shit they constantly do?
> I don't think capital punishment is a good example, our society as a whole has moved so far from that.


I'm happy to judge them on everything they do and don't do. What's your point?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

The Tories brought in same sex marriage, is that a bad thing now?.

You say Tory I say scum etc etc.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Adjusting means billions of deaths and seems to be the new climate change denial. It’s a frankly terrifying idea and incredibly flippant.



I never said that.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2021)

I made mistake of assuming using references to a popular form of literature would be taken seriously. Sci Fi has always been about looking at social and political questions. It's also always been looked down as not serious literature.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> The Tories brought in same sex marriage, is that a bad thing now?.
> 
> You say Tory I say scum etc etc.


They are scum, through and through. 

You mean the same Tories who brought in Section 28. Just because they bow to public pressure and pass a few vote winning measures doesn't make them any less awful.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm happy to judge them on everything they do and don't do. What's your point?


My point is that they are busy passing so many damaging laws that I think it's ridiculous to say they're ok because they haven't got round to doing something more awful.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> My point is that they are busy passing so many damaging laws that I think it's ridiculous to say they're ok because they haven't got round to doing something more awful.



no one is saying they are ok


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> My point is that they are busy passing so many damaging laws that I think it's ridiculous to say they're ok because they haven't got round to doing something more awful.


Who's said they are ok?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> They are scum, through and through.
> 
> You mean the same Tories who brought in Section 28. Just because they bow to public pressure and pass a few vote winning measures doesn't make them any less awful.


It’s perfectly possible to acknowledge something being a good thing, even if those doing it are on the wrong side elsewhere.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It’s perfectly possible to acknowledge something being a good thing, even if those doing it are on the wrong side elsewhere.


But they're not doing it because they want to do a good thing, that is what I am acknowledging.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Who's said they are ok?


" sometimes we agree with despicable people"
"even a stopped clock tells the right time twice"
"When I say Tory you say scum, etc etc"
The thread is full of this shit.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I made mistake of assuming using references to a popular form of literature would be taken seriously. Sci Fi has always been about looking at social and political questions. It's also always been looked down as not serious literature.


The examples you give seem to deal with variations on the kind of world where a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia that is only accessible to the rich while the remainder of the population bear the brunt of devastating climate change, which I'd agree is a real danger and it's something we could end up with. Well, that's how some of the opposition to LTNs is trying to present them - exclusive areas for the rich to enjoy quite pollution free streets while everyone else deals with the pollution. I think that's nonsense but the fact that you offer these dystopian scifi worlds as relevant to the LTN debate suggests that you buy into some of that.

So is that the case - do you now buy into this version of what LTNs really are? You're often saying that you aren't against them in principle and you just want more consultation (whatever that actually means) but it feels like you are being drawn closer to some of the more extreme claims about what is fundamentally problematic about the LTN principle - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> no one is saying they are ok


What was said is that we can think they're not completely awful because they haven't passed every awful law in the land such as capital punishment.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> " sometimes we agree with despicable people"
> "even a stopped clock tells the right time twice"
> "When I say Tory you say scum, etc etc"
> The thread is full of this shit.


So... no-one's said they are "ok". Or does "despicable" actually mean "ok"?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> What was said is that we can think they're not completely awful because they haven't passed every awful law in the land such as capital punishment.


No, that's not what was said at all.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The examples you give seem to deal with variations on the kind of world where a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia that is only accessible to the rich while the remainder of the population bear the brunt of devastating climate change, which I'd agree is a real danger and it's something we could end up with. Well, that's how some of the opposition to LTNs is trying to present them - exclusive areas for the rich to enjoy quite pollution free streets while everyone else deals with the pollution. I think that's nonsense but the fact that you offer these dystopian scifi worlds as relevant to the LTN debate suggests that you buy into some of that.
> 
> So is that the case - do you now buy into this version of what LTNs really are? You're often saying that you aren't against them in principle and you just want more consultation (whatever that actually means) but it feels like you are being drawn closer to some of the more extreme claims about what is fundamentally problematic about the LTN principle - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?


Regardless of what OneLambeth are saying, the idea that "world wehre a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia...brunt of devestating climae change" isn't a real danger or something we could end up with,  it's already a reality all over the world.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> They are scum, through and through.
> 
> You mean the same Tories who brought in Section 28. Just because they bow to public pressure and pass a few vote winning measures doesn't make them any less awful.



Do you think that people should have avoided supporting same sex marriage, because of other stuff the Tories do/did?

Do you think "but it's the Tories who are pushing this through" would be a relevant point when discussing whether same sex marriage is a good thing in principle?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So... no-one's said they are "ok". Or does "despicable" actually mean "ok"?


It does if you go on to say you agree with despicable people, yes.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Do you think that people should have avoided supporting same sex marriage, because of other stuff the Tories do/did?
> 
> Do you think "but it's the Tories who are pushing this through" would be a relevant point when discussing whether same sex marriage is a good thing in principle?


I haven't said that people should be against LTNs, once again you fail to understand my point as you can only see yours. I am talking about not thinking that any Tory policies are passed for the greater good, which was where the discussion was at when I waded in.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Regardless of what OneLambeth are saying, the idea that "world wehre a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia...brunt of devestating climae change" isn't a real danger or something we could end up with,  it's already a reality all over the world.


Yes, this is true, and we are looking at decisions in light of whether they make this even worse or go some way to making it less bad.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I haven't said that people should be against LTNs, once again you fail to understand my point as you can only see yours. I am talking about not thinking that any Tory policies are passed for the greater good, which was where the discussion was at when I waded in.


I don't see where anyone was even saying that Tory policies are passed for the greater good.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

alex_ said:


> In separate comments, Boris Johnson warned councils that he was serious about boosting active travel, saying that “trying to squeeze more cars and delivery vans on the same roads and hoping for the best is not going to work”.
> 
> “I support councils, of all parties, which are trying to promote cycling and bus use,” the prime minister said. “And if you are going to oppose these schemes, you must tell us what your alternative is.”
> 
> bloke is a cunt, but he’s dead right about this.


I mean how can anyone seriously quote Boris Johnson as a moral voice without recognising the absolute hypocrisy of a government that has caused the needless deaths of thousands in so many ways and without seriously considering the actual endgame of this government and what they hope to gain from LTNs for themselves.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I mean how can anyone seriously quote Boris Johnson as a moral voice without recognising the absolute hypocrisy of a government that has caused the needless deaths of thousands in so many ways and without seriously considering the actual endgame of this government and what they hope to gain from LTNs for themselves.


Seems to me like the c-word in that quote might be an indication of the extent to which alex_ considers BJ a "moral voice".


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> how can anyone seriously quote Boris Johnson as a moral voice without recognising the absolute hypocrisy


Alex does this, in a pretty blunt way.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't see where anyone was even saying that Tory policies are passed for the greater good.


I have posted enough quotes supporting the Tories on this. I was merely stepping in to say that this is no reason to consider they have done something good because good is not good if for altruistic versions. I have even reposted a person making fun of the idea of the Tories as scum, like it's some outdated laugh at the Lefties. I honestly can't say any more if you've missed that.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Seems to me like the c-word in that quote might be an indication of the extent to which alex_ considers BJ a "moral voice".


Quoting him and calling him right negates this.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes, this is true, and we are looking at decisions in light of whether they make this even worse or go some way to making it less bad.


I am not against the LTNs as a way of reducing pollution, I was just pointing out that Gramsci's views are not dystopian, they are a reality for most of the developing world.


----------



## Winot (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I mean how can anyone seriously quote Boris Johnson as a moral voice without recognising the absolute hypocrisy of a government that has caused the needless deaths of thousands in so many ways and without seriously considering the actual endgame of this government and what they hope to gain from LTNs for themselves.


That quote is absolutely relevant to the thread topic though isn’t it? I’m really confused here - are you saying Alex shouldn’t have quoted BJ, should have done so but not said he was right, or should have done so but with more caveats about BJ’s motivations?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I am not against the LTNs as a way of reducing pollution,


It's quite shocking that you legitimise the Tories as a "moral voice" by agreeing with their claim that LTNs can reduce pollution.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

Winot said:


> That quote is absolutely relevant to the thread topic though isn’t it? I’m really confused here - are you saying Alex shouldn’t have quoted BJ, should have done so but not said he was right, or should have done so but with more caveats about BJ’s motivations?


I'm saying that in the greater context of this thread and how it developed thereafter, see the other quotes I have put forward, yes, it needed more caveats or no quoting at all.  Because it became part of a greater narrative for the Tories doing the right thing and I don't believe that.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It's quite shocking that you legitimise the Tories as a "moral voice" by agreeing with their claim that LTNs can reduce pollution.


Now you're just being a dick to score points. 
I don't legitimise them as a moral voice for pretending to support action on climate change, which I've said quite clearly already.


----------



## Winot (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I'm saying that in the greater context of this thread and how it developed thereafter, see the other quotes I have put forward, yes, it needed more caveats or no quoting at all.  Because it became part of a greater narrative for the Tories doing the right thing and I don't believe that.


I don’t think anyone here is likely to be hoodwinked into thinking the Tories are generally great just by reading a (caveated) quote about LTNs.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

Winot said:


> I don’t think anyone here is likely to be hoodwinked into thinking the Tories are generally great just by reading a (caveated) quote about LTNs.


I've already reposted 3 other things people said in support of the Tories. I'm not saying they're saying they're generally great, these are your words and a far cry from what I have highlighted, I am objecting to them thinking the Tories are doing anything for the greater good by way of looking at the rest of their record on climate change or generally at taking care of the general population.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The examples you give seem to deal with variations on the kind of world where a minority live in a kind of greenwash utopia that is only accessible to the rich while the remainder of the population bear the brunt of devastating climate change, which I'd agree is a real danger and it's something we could end up with. Well, that's how some of the opposition to LTNs is trying to present them - exclusive areas for the rich to enjoy quite pollution free streets while everyone else deals with the pollution. I think that's nonsense but the fact that you offer these dystopian scifi worlds as relevant to the LTN debate suggests that you buy into some of that.
> 
> So is that the case - do you now buy into this version of what LTNs really are? You're often saying that you aren't against them in principle and you just want more consultation (whatever that actually means) but it feels like you are being drawn closer to some of the more extreme claims about what is fundamentally problematic about the LTN principle - or have I got the wrong end of the stick?



Everything gets linked here to whether one is on one side or the other.

The hard line LTN side or One Lambeth.  I don't belong to either.

My post was to show that dealing with climate change is political.

Sci Fi demonstrates possible scenarios. With nuanced look at them.

As the bigger picture keeps coming up here, I've resisted posting up on it before, I thought I'd post up how it's dealt with in fiction.

My view is that the original Brixton Liveable neighbourhood in depth promised consultation should have gone ahead. Any measures in pandemic should have been really temporary.

That hasn't happened and this is end result.

Its not the way to get people to support Green measures in the future. The Brixton Liveable neighbourhod concept was about building up support.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I am objecting to them thinking the Tories are doing anything for the greater good


Who gives a shit? I don't think they okayed gay marriage because they're suddenly enlightened and inclusive, I think they did it because today things have shifted and it's net vote loser not to do it. But I care more that it happened, than that it happened for mercenary reasons.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Who gives a shit? I don't think they okayed gay marriage because they're suddenly enlightened and inclusive, I think they did it because today things have shifted and it's net vote loser not to do it. But I care more that it happened, than that it happened for mercenary reasons.


I give a shit. When people start saying the Tories have done something ok. They don't, ever, and we forget that at our peril. 
You actually posted something thoughtful earlier about it making you think when you supported a Tory policy but you fail to understand why I was making my points. It does matter why people do things without taking away from the actual action. And I won't read a thread where people are saying the Tories have done a good thing, even if they're recognising it as the only good thing, without raising that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I've already reposted 3 other things people said in support of the Tories. I'm not saying they're saying they're generally great, these are your words and a far cry from what I have highlighted, I am objecting to them thinking the Tories are doing anything for the greater good by way of looking at the rest of their record on climate change or generally at taking care of the general population.


I don't support the tories and I would never vote for them, but I also wouldn't say that everything they do is wrong - just because its the tories.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I give a shit. When people start saying the Tories have done something ok. They don't, ever, and we forget that at our peril.
> You actually posted something thoughtful earlier about it making you think when you supported a Tory policy but you fail to understand why I was making my points. It does matter why people do things without taking away from the actual action. And I won't read a thread where people are saying the Tories have done a good thing, even if they're recognising it as the only good thing, without raising that.


They get voted in time after time without ever doing something ok??. That’s ridiculous.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't support the tories and I would never vote for them, but I also wouldn't say that everything they do is wrong - just because its the tories.


Well you and I are clearly of a different political view. But maybe you don't want to throw out the sort of mockery of Leftist views you did earlier because it makes you sound pretty reactionary.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I don't support the tories and I would never vote for them, but I also wouldn't say that everything they do is wrong - just because its the tories.
> 
> 
> sleaterkinney said:
> ...


Are you saying the Tories get voted in time after time because they have some good policies?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

To be clear, I give a shit when it comes to, say, voting or what party I'm a member of (it's not the Tory party). 

I still don't really understand your point, or if I do, it's so obvious a point I'm not sure it's worth making. I don't think that Johnson's views on active travel goes any way to redeeming him, neither does the fact that he seems to like dogs. But I still like dogs too.

I think we're in a weird position that this is a pretty mainstream policy for transport policymakers but not yet the public. And it's not really a Tory policy, not when Manchester and Lambeth are so keen.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> To be clear, I give a shit when it comes to, say, voting or what party I'm a member of (it's not the Tory party).
> 
> I still don't really understand your point, or if I do, it's so obvious a point I'm not sure it's worth making. I don't think that Johnson's views on active travel goes any way to redeeming him, neither does the fact that he seems to like dogs. But I still like dogs too.
> 
> I think we're in a weird position that this is a pretty mainstream policy for transport policymakers but not yet the public. And it's not really a Tory policy, not when Manchester and Lambeth are so keen.


I don't think my point is so obvious that it doesn't need making, quite the opposite on what is often a far more conservative thread than you would expect, but thanks for your view on that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Well you and I are clearly of a different political view. But maybe you don't want to throw out the sort of mockery of Leftist views you did earlier because it makes you sound pretty reactionary.


You think I sound reactionary??


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You think I sound reactionary??


yes


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

The only out Tory on this thread that I'm aware of is the moneyman for the legal case against the policy. Meanwhile the OLJ social media bigs up the Workers Party, who seem to be literal communists.

Maybe it does need to be said that agreeing with around three minor policies and a foreword does not make me a BJ superfan. 

Does it help if I say that I like the hire bikes but always make sure to call them "hire bikes" or "Santander bikes" and never "Boris bikes"? Or am I still impure?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> The only out Tory on this thread that I'm aware of is the moneyman for the legal case against the policy. Meanwhile the OLJ social media bigs up the Workers Party, who seem to be literal communists.
> 
> Maybe it does need to be said that agreeing with around three minor policies and a foreword does not make me a BJ superfan.
> 
> Does it help if I say that I like the hire bikes but always make sure to call them "hire bikes" or "Santander bikes" and never "Boris bikes"? Or am I still impure?


Missing the point again. If I thought people on here were Tories, I wouldn't bother to point out the issues in what they are saying. It's when the anti Tories think it's not important to question the motives of theTories, say they've done one good thing or quote them as credible sources that I feel to say something. Oh yeah, and denigrade Lefties.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> yes


 I'm not, I do think you are though.

Aren't LTNs supported by Sadiq Khan and several Labour councils anyway?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You say Tory I say scum etc etc.


This is what made you sound reactionary, making fun of Leftist politics. 

What about me do you find reactionary?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

I'm reminded of the Rangers fans in Larkhall that smash up everything green, from branches of Subway to green traffic lights.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> This is what made you sound reactionary, making fun of Leftist politics.
> 
> What about me do you find reactionary?


I made fun of the "because the tories are doing it, it's bad" position, to me that is reactionary.


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I made fun of the "because the tories are doing it, it's bad" position, to me that is reactionary.


You're misinterpreting me. I didn't say if the Tories are doing it, it's bad. I said that if the Tories are doing it they have an ulterior motive that is not for the greater good or to better/progress green or social issues, etc. Just to be clear.
But if you ever think the Tories have a good motive, then yes, we totally disagree on that and if that makes me reactionary then that's something I can definitely live with.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> You're misinterpreting me. I didn't say if the Tories are doing it, it's bad. I said that if the Tories are doing it they have an ulterior motive that is not for the greater good or to better/progress green or social issues, etc. Just to be clear.
> But if you ever think the Tories have a good motive, then yes, we totally disagree on that and if that makes me reactionary then that's something I can definitely live with.


You said:


> When people start saying the Tories have done something ok. They don't, ever, and we forget that at our peril.



Ok, so you're not saying the Tories are bad, just that they never do anything ok - and this isn't reactionary?


----------



## nagapie (Aug 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're not saying the Tories are bad, just that they never do anything ok - and this isn't reactionary?


As I said and you have recognised, I have over a number of posts explained and elucidated on my opinion. So for example and to restate the obvious, I don't think gay marriage is bad because the Tories passed it but I don't think they passed it because they are wanting a more inclusive and less prejudiced society; particularly in light of their other views on equality.
However, and I've just said this in my last post, I will never ever consider an action taken by the Tories to be fuelled by justice or even goodwill. The fact that I even have to state that in a Tory context of thousands killed by Tory policies on welfare, Covid, immigration, aid, etc makes me frustrated.  But I'll say it again: I will never ever ever consider a policy passed by the Tories to be one that's motive seeks for progress in social justice and societal well-being, in the UK or internationally.  And if that's reactionary, I wear it happily.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> As I said and you have recognised, I have over a number of posts explained and elucidated on my opinion. So for example and to restate the obvious, I don't think gay marriage is bad because the Tories passed it but I don't think they passed it because they are wanting a more inclusive and less prejudiced society; particularly in light of their other views on equality.
> However, and I've just said this in my last post, I will never ever consider an action taken by the Tories to be fuelled by justice or even goodwill. The fact that I even have to state that in a Tory context of thousands killed by Tory policies on welfare, Covid, immigration, aid, etc makes me frustrated.  But I'll say it again: I will never ever ever consider a policy passed by the Tories to be one that's motive seeks for progress in social justice and societal well-being, in the UK or internationally.  And if that's reactionary, I wear it happily.


I don't want to chuck names about, but for me I can think that the tories are doing the wrong thing on immigration but are doing the right thing on active travel and ltns.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2021)

There have been a lot of posts here trying to discredit those who oppose LTNs as being on the right. Which is meant to devalue any views they have of LTNs.

Yet Boris government, which is very right wing on lot of issues, gets let off the hook because Boris supports "active travel".


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> There have been a lot of posts here trying to discredit those who oppose LTNs as being on the right. Which is meant to devalue any views they have of LTNs.
> 
> Yet Boris government, which is very right wing on lot of issues, gets let off the hook because Boris supports "active travel".



I’ve often pointed out the awful people that oppose LTNs, there are lots, but not all right wing - Claire Fox, the Workers Party. Quite rightly you’ve pointed out that that doesn’t make LTNs good but neither does this government supporting make them bad. I struggle to find anyone decent of note opposing LTNs though.

No one’s letting this government of the hook though.

ps. please don’t use “Boris” we don’t do that for any other politicians and is a deliberate ploy to soften the edges of, as you point out, a very right wing politician.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> There have been a lot of posts here trying to discredit those who oppose LTNs as being on the right. Which is meant to devalue any views they have of LTNs.
> 
> Yet Boris government, which is very right wing on lot of issues, gets let off the hook because Boris supports "active travel".



Of course this is not a new thing, the quote below is from Jonathan  Porritt


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2021)

You could actually make a right-wing argument for active travel. London doesn’t have the road capacity or parking to cope if 10 or even 5% of the people who used public transport switched to cars, the city would grind to a halt, so it’s actually needed from an economic point of view too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 1, 2021)

nagapie said:


> But they're not doing it because they want to do a good thing, that is what I am acknowledging.


I couldn’t care less _why_ they did it. Shit people can occasionally do good things, regardless of their intention. LTN’s in this case being one such example.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’ve often pointed out the awful people that oppose LTNs, there are lots, but not all right wing - Claire Fox, the Workers Party. Quite rightly you’ve pointed out that that doesn’t make LTNs good but neither does this government supporting make them bad. I struggle to find anyone decent of note opposing LTNs though.
> 
> No one’s letting this government of the hook though.
> 
> ps. please don’t use “Boris” we don’t do that for any other politicians and is a deliberate ploy to soften the edges of, as you point out, a very right wing politician.



I'm not the one here softening the edges of Boris.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You could actually make a right-wing argument for active travel.



You don't have to make one, the right wing government has been making these arguments for _years. _In 2014 they were saying that inactivity was costing the country £7.4 billion a year and set up a national framework to address the "inactivity epidemic". As I said before, if all you want to do is save money and avoid raising taxes, there are really compelling arguments for fewer cars on the road and more active travel. Like the environmental argument, I can see it, but I don't find it the most compelling argument.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I'm not the one here softening the edges of Boris.


I don't think the c-word is the term of endearment here as it is on the west of Scotland.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’ve often pointed out the awful people that oppose LTNs, there are lots, but not all right wing - Claire Fox, the Workers Party. Quite rightly you’ve pointed out that that doesn’t make LTNs good but neither does this government supporting make them bad. I struggle to find anyone decent of note opposing LTNs though.
> 
> No one’s letting this government of the hook though.
> 
> ps. please don’t use “Boris” we don’t do that for any other politicians and is a deliberate ploy to soften the edges of, as you point out, a very right wing politician.



So its not about left /right. Its that anyone who opposes LTNs is not a "decent" person.

I think you should spend less time looking at Twitter and go out to talk to real people.

I know of plenty people who are decent who aren't happy with LTNs.

I would say that locally Sofia the disabled lady is one of them.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> I would say that locally Sofia the disabled lady is one of them.


She defended One Lambeth Justice's comparison of LTNs to the Holocaust.




I'm sure there are very fine people of both sides, though


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> She defended One Lambeth Justice's comparison of LTNs to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I wondered how long it would take to go through her twitter.

So now she can be officially classified as non decent person.

Thanks for that. Really helpful.

A disabled person who has gone through a lot to take Lambeth on and at first opportunity you decide to have a go at her not Lambeth.

Nice. Your such a decent human being. Good to see you posting here.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> She defended One Lambeth Justice's comparison of LTNs to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




and of course you would never stoop so low that you would  construct a false equivalence to make the opposition look like wrong ‘uns 🤔


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> and of course you would never stoop so low that you would construct a false equivalence to make the opposition look like wrong ‘uns


Cheers, appreciate it.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Cheers, appreciate it.


Thanx...I ❤️🧡💛💚💙 u too !


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 1, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> So now she can be officially classified as non decent person.


I don't think it's that simple. 


Gramsci said:


> A disabled person who has gone through a lot to take Lambeth on and at first opportunity you decide to have a go at her not Lambeth.


I really don't know why being in a wheelchair means someone can't be criticised for the company they keep, the views they share online, or the speech they choose to ignore or defend. It's incredibly patronising for you to keep throwing that around IMO.


Gramsci said:


> Your such a decent human being.


I don't think it's that simple.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I don't think it's that simple.


...true words.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 1, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I don't think it's that simple.
> 
> I really don't know why being in a wheelchair means someone can't be criticised for the company they keep, the views they share online, or the speech they choose to ignore or defend. It's incredibly patronising for you to keep throwing that around IMO.
> 
> I don't think it's that simple.



Its not patronising. Comes across to me as pure nastiness as this person does not agree with you on LTNs. And I do think it takes a lot to stand up to Lambeth. Disabled people are a minority who have had to stand up for their rights. Sofia is doing that through JR. All you can do is search her twitter to try to discredite her stand.

Nasty and unpleasant.

You have just made out she is not a decent person - so don't know what you mean by not simple. You posted it.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 2, 2021)

I don't think you have to compare point closures of roads to the Holocaust to argue against them. I don't think that you have to defend that stance to argue against these schemes.

I don't blame her, tbh. There are closed facebook groups where people complain with increasingly hysterical feedback loop of language, and when that language leaks out to more public spaces some people get a bit of a shock that it's not okay.



Gramsci said:


> Disabled people are a minority who have had to stand up for their rights.


True, and if I believed that was a guiding principle of OLJ then that would be fine. But I don't believe that, because of they way they have operated, the funding they have attracted, and most of all the things they have said.

Long-standing illness means I can tick that little box on monitoring forms too, FYI, though the question is usually whether I "consider" myself to have a disability. If I start ticking it, does that mean you will no longer consider me nasty and unpleasant?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2021)

.


----------



## pave (Aug 2, 2021)

Worth reading article in the Telegraph yesterday:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/31/low-traffic-zone-report-whitewash-says-mother-girl-killed-pollution/


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 2, 2021)

pave said:


> Worth reading article in the Telegraph yesterday:
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/31/low-traffic-zone-report-whitewash-says-mother-girl-killed-pollution/


You can't read it unless you subscribe.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 2, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> You can't read it unless you subscribe.


I'm confident that reading it would give you powerful deja vu.

Here's an interesting bit, though:


> A spokeswoman for OneUK, an umbrella group for campaigners across the country fighting the schemes over concerns they are ill thought out, said it was “appalling” the Government was throwing yet more money at schemes which “undermined” the public transport infrastructure, as well as elderly and disabled residents who cannot walk or cycle.



OneUK is a new one on me. It's not 100% clear if it's a real thing or not.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'm confident that reading it would give you powerful deja vu.
> 
> Here's an interesting bit, though:
> 
> ...



Very Brexity! Brexit Vote

Unless we already have 2 OneUK’s?!


----------



## edcraw (Aug 2, 2021)

Hold one there’s another one: https://twitter.com/oneintheuk?s=21


----------



## pave (Aug 2, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> You can't read it unless you subscribe.


Sorry, didn't realise that.

Low traffic zone report a 'whitewash', says mother of girl killed by pollution​Ella Kissi-Debrah became the first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

BySteve Bird31 July 2021 • 7:16pm






Ella Kissi-Debrah and her mother Rosamund
A Government report praising low traffic neighbourhoods is a “whitewash”, an air quality campaigner whose daughter died from pollution has said.
Rosamund Kissi-Debrah has rounded on a Department for Transport review published one year after ministers launched a “green transport revolution” meant to boost walking and cycling.
The 39-page pamphlet released last week and called ‘Gear Change: One Year On’ claims low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) do not cause congestion and gridlock on other roads.
Ms Kissi-Debrah, a World Health Organisation advocate for improved air quality, said: “The whole thing is a complete whitewash.”
She condemned as “absurd” the report’s insistence that it is false to claim LTNs “displace traffic to other roads”.
Ms Kissi-Debrah’s daughter, Ella, became the first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death after she died in 2013 from an asthma attack caused by air pollution.
Ella was brought up near the South Circular Road in Lewisham in South East London.
Three years before she died aged just nine she suffered multiple seizures and was admitted to hospital 27 times.
Last year a coroner found nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels near her home exceeded World Health Organisation and European guidelines and contributed to her death.




Ella Kissi-Debrah
“When my daughter was alive the congestion on the South Circular was bad,” she said. “But, since the introduction of LTN schemes around the route it has become far worse. The congestion is terrible. This Government simply doesn’t care.”
The report says the “common claim” LTNs force congestion elsewhere is false, adding how “councils are also reporting reductions in traffic on most (though not yet all) of the roads around the LTNs.”
It also makes no mention of how some councils, including the Tory borough of Wandsworth in South West London, produced reports which established road closures led to pollution on boundary roads.
Levels of toxic car exhaust pollutants actually dropped across a large part of South London after Wandsworth scrapped its LTNs scheme, council officials found.
Analysis of quantities of NO2 at 11 streets showed levels were higher when residential roads were closed, but dropped when seven LTN schemes were dismantled.
The report, which has a foreword by Boris Johnson, claims for every one person opposed to LTNs two are in favour. It adds how “most people do not feel strongly about these schemes” and only a “small minority” are opposed so councils should not allow schemes to be “vetoed” by one group.
The Telegraph analysed 10 council consultations involving 25,000 people which showed three quarters of them were in fact opposed to LTNs.
In Harrow, 6,073 people - 82 per cent of those asked - were against road closures and pop-up cycle lanes forcing the council to scrap its schemes.
Meanwhile, numerous councils around the country have scrapped schemes after widespread public opposition. Cycle lanes and road closure schemes have been withdrawn in London boroughs including Ealing, Hackney and Harrow, as well as West Sussex, Liverpool, Brighton, South Gloucestershire, Trafford, Portsmouth and Surrey.
It also refutes the suggestion LTNs have not increased emergency response times, despite numerous Freedom of Information requests revealing how police, fire and ambulances have reported problems caused by new road closures when responding to 999 calls.
A spokeswoman for OneUK, an umbrella group for campaigners across the country fighting the schemes over concerns they are ill thought out, said it was “appalling” the Government was throwing yet more money at schemes which “undermined” the public transport infrastructure, as well as elderly and disabled residents who cannot walk or cycle.
“LTNs offer a terrible return on investment just at a time when the country is in need of astute and sensible infrastructure investment,” she said.
“There is also no evidence LTNs reduce pollution or congestion and, in actual fact, evidence presented in Judicial Review against Hackney Council has shown congestion has risen significantly in surrounding main roads where many people live, work and attend school and where pollution is already above legal limits."
A Department for Transport spokesperson said the report was "produced based on detailed academic studies, widespread consultation with key stakeholders and surveys of public opinion".


----------



## Winot (Aug 2, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I'm confident that reading it would give you powerful deja vu.


You were right.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 2, 2021)

It leans pretty heavily on the Wandsworth LTNs being taken out...



> It also makes no mention of how some councils, including the Tory borough of Wandsworth in South West London, produced reports which established road closures led to pollution on boundary roads.
> Levels of toxic car exhaust pollutants actually dropped across a large part of South London after Wandsworth scrapped its LTNs scheme, council officials found.



As we know, in Wandsworth the LTNs were only in for a matter of weeks or months before they abandoned them and certainly hadn't been there for a period of time where you'd expect to find initial effects to settle down.

I can't find anywhere the actual report that details the pollution measurements - I end up in a loop of references between Telegraph and Daily Mail articles.

I did find a report here though - presented to the Wansworth meeting where they decided to abandon these schemes. Is this the report they are all referring to? I can't find anything in it about pollution having been measured. In fact searching for the word "pollution" brings up just one result and it's in this paragraph



And here is what the report has to say about data available:


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2021)

A lorryload of fines!

10,000 fines issued for law-breaking motorists in Railton Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 2, 2021)

editor said:


> A lorryload of fines!
> 
> 10,000 fines issued for law-breaking motorists in Railton Road Low Traffic Neighbourhood



...nice to see Winston Churchill subscribes to Buzz.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 2, 2021)

Am I noticing a slight shift in the rhetoric on  twitter and other comments sections, so that they are now "boris backed LTNs" rather than an imposition of communist Kahn the driver's antichrist?


----------



## BusLanes (Aug 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Am I noticing a slight shift in the rhetoric on  twitter and other comments sections, so that they are now "boris backed LTNs" rather than an imposition of communist Kahn the driver's antichrist?



I always felt that was a bit odd but it was playing into the Khan-Bailey competition so I guess not so weird


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2021)

We can add the Khmer Rouge to the LTN comparisons!!!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2021)

Why are they hashtagging football clubs


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 3, 2021)

Costa coffee ?


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ...nice to see Winston Churchill subscribes to Buzz.


There's some right hatstand comments being added most days.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Why are they hashtagging football clubs



Because they're fucking insane?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 3, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Costa coffee ?


Because in Ireland you need a vax passport to go into one apparently.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Because in Ireland you need a vax passport to go into one apparently.


Ah, multidisciplinary woo, the best kind


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2021)

editor said:


> There's some right hatstand comments being added most days.



...funny you should mention “hatstand” I knew a guy who went by that name, a convoy veteran, he designed a water driven power plant based around an old abandoned water mill on the river Avon while doing time fore peddling herbs, when he came out he took it to the local environmentalist group but they wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole cos of his past naughty exploits...


----------



## Winot (Aug 3, 2021)

Streetspace judgement published (haven’t read it). ES report here.

LTDA and UTAG to pay whacking costs. Permission to appeal refused.









						‘Judge wrong to condemn low-traffic scheme’
					

A judge was wrong to describe a scheme that created extra space for cyclists and pedestrians at the start of the pandemic as “extreme” and declare it illegal, the Court of Appeal has ruled.




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 3, 2021)

Some light reading



			https://t.co/SCsw1AlGTx?amp=1


----------



## editor (Aug 3, 2021)

Winot said:


> Streetspace judgement published (haven’t read it). ES report here.
> 
> LTDA and UTAG to pay whacking costs. Permission to appeal refused.
> 
> ...


Funny how that article doesn't keep saying "Boris-backed"...


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2021)

OneLambeth really don’t like e-scooters as well as bikes. You think if they want to get all roads opened up again they'd at least pretend not to be just a pro-car lobby group.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> OneLambeth really don’t like e-scooters as well as bikes. You think if they want to get all roads opened up again they'd at least pretend not to be just a pro-car lobby group.
> 
> View attachment 281882


...what’s your opinion on e-scooters edcraw ?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ...what’s your opinion on e-scooters edcraw ?


I think they can be a great solution to moving people around whilst reducing pollution & freeing up road space along with encouraging cycling and e-bikes. Much better than everyone travelling around in metal boxes with 3 piece suites. Legislation should be changed to make them legal and enforcement of speed restrictions.

If I was campaigning against LTNs I’d be supportive of them to prove I was serious about reducing pollution and wasn’t just fixated on everyone driving everywhere.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think they can be a great solution to moving people around whilst reducing pollution & freeing up road space along with encouraging cycling and e-bikes. Much better than everyone travelling around in metal boxes with 3 piece suites. Legislation should be changed to make them legal and enforcement of speed restrictions.
> 
> If I was campaigning against LTNs I’d be supportive of them to prove I was serious about reducing pollution and wasn’t just fixated on everyone driving everywhere.



...do you think they should be licensed, and that riders should have to take some kind of test to prove they are sufficiently competent and considerate to the other people, notably the very old, the very young and people with visual/auditory issues, also the less mobile ?

e2a, also do you think there should be an lower age cut off for users, and what about the ones who go two up at high speed ?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ...do you think they should be licensed, and that riders should have to take some kind of test to prove they are sufficiently competent and considerate to the other people, notably the very old, the very young and people with visual/auditory issues, also the less mobile ?



I’m not sure to be honest but I hope better qualified people than me are looking at how it can work.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m not sure to be honest but I hope better qualified people than me are looking at how it can work.



😁 that’s a bit of a cop out considering the hard time you have given people on this thread.
i am starting to see more of these things being dumped, what might look good in theory could turn out to be a nightmare,
 I see them as lumps of unrecycleable plastic packed with dodgy electrics and big toxic batteries.
they're a bit like lily allens £99 vibrator, ie consumerist shite...the next big thing but a load of landfill in a year or two.once the batteries/wheels are paggered....and they are not active travel either...


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> 😁 that’s a bit of a cop out considering the hard time you have given people on this thread.


If this was a thread about e-scooters I’d agree with you 😀

I don’t know the figures but they must be levels of magnitude more efficient than cars.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2021)

You're not asking me but:

 - Having shared cycle lanes and roads like Railton Road with them, they seem perfectly safe on cycle infrastructure and filtered roads. On busy roads, I'm not so sure, and they're definitely not suitable on pavements. So if you want safe escooter routes (for everyone) they'll look a lot like safe cycle routes.
 - Dockless escooters that can be dumped anywhere are a disaster, especially for wheelchair users and anyone partially sighted or blind. You need docks or specified parking areas.
 - They need to be regulated, and have a top speed. I can't see why the same sort of regulations as ebikes can't work. Over a certain power limit and speed, it becomes a different category of vehicle and you need insurance, license etc.
 - It's not active travel, so it's not going to solve the problems of inactivity.
 - The way people look at risk is WEIRD. I think one big problem self-driving cars will face, if they ever work, is that we simply won't accept anything new on our roads that's even a fraction as dangerous as cars. But we're seeing this effect in action now with escooters. Five road deaths a day are fine, but new and novel escooter injuries and deaths at a much lower rate are unacceptable.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> If this was a thread about e-scooters I’d agree with you 😀
> 
> I don’t know the figures but they must be levels of magnitude more efficient than cars.



sorry, but you said you saw them as a good thing in terms of mass transit so I think some examination of the pros and cons is , valid on this thread. Anecdotally I know a lot of pedestrians who have issues with them, all you offer is a vague hope they will be regulated, bput I can’t see enforcement happening any time soon...


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> You're not asking me but:
> 
> - Having shared cycle lanes and roads like Railton Road with them, they seem perfectly safe on cycle infrastructure and filtered roads. On busy roads, I'm not so sure, and they're definitely not suitable on pavements. So if you want safe escooter routes (for everyone) they'll look a lot like safe cycle routes.
> - Dockless escooters that can be dumped anywhere are a disaster, especially for wheelchair users and anyone partially sighted or blind. You need docks or specified parking areas.
> ...


Apologies liquidindian , I was not leaving you out intentionally, the more the merrier as ever, you make some good points.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 3, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> sorry, but you said you saw them as a good thing in terms of mass transit so I think some examination of the pros and cons is , valid on this thread. Anecdotally I know a lot of pedestrians who have issues with them, all you offer is a vague hope they will be regulated, bput I can’t see enforcement happening any time soon...


My thinkings along the same lines as liquidindian if that helps.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> I can’t see enforcement happening any time soon...


Enforcement of current regulation has been happening, and I think has ramped up recently with the trial schemes in certain boroughs going live. The police were confiscating them just before Blackfriars Bridge at 8am a few weeks back, which must have been pretty successful.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> My thinkings along the same lines as liquidindian if that helps.



thanks, see that was not difficult but I appreciate you may not have the time to reply at length so I won’t press you or liquidindian  on my theory that Escooters are basically problematic in the long run along with other examples of modish consumerist fetishes.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 3, 2021)

I mean we had "5GHz is different from 5G" so who's to say "capitalism isn't great" is off limits?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2021)

As long as they are speed limited, there's really no reason to treat escooters differently from bikes. I don't see they are fundamentally more dangerous to pedestrians than bikes. Neither should be tearing around on pavements.

Cycling can have an image problem that means certain demographics are put off it. It's very noticeable that the demographic starting to use escooters is a bit different. They offer a cheap way for people to have mobility without a car. They can use the same infrastructure as bikes. They aren't quite active travel perhaps, but i don't think that matters. A journey on an escooter is massively less harmful than a journey in a car.

I think calls for them to be licensed, etc etc should be resisted for the same reason that calls to have pedal bikes licensed should be resisted. They give people affordable low impact mobility and they extent that outside of the stereotypical cyclist demographic. More escooters means more demand for the same infrastructure that makes cycling safer too.

These arguments have all been had out on the escooter thread though.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> As long as they are speed limited, there's really no reason to treat escooters differently from bikes. I don't see they are fundamentally more dangerous to pedestrians than bikes. Neither should be tearing around on pavements.
> 
> Cycling can have an image problem that means certain demographics are put off it. It's very noticeable that the demographic starting to use escooters is a bit different. They offer a cheap way for people to have mobility without a car. They can use the same infrastructure as bikes. They aren't quite active travel perhaps, but i don't think that matters. A journey on an escooter is massively less harmful than a journey in a car.
> 
> ...



I tried to find the e scooter thread earlier so edcraw and liquidindian  could have a look, there is a lot going on the boards outside this thread that they might enjoy....could you post a link plz..


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2021)

Electric scooters
					

Well this is a thread for everything E Scooter related. They are becoming more and more common. The govt are reviewing the law and are likely to liberalise it.   Plus....  Lidl got them in from Thursday 04 April 2019.  £179 with a full two year warranty.  24 KMH 30 KM range Lights front and...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## teuchter (Aug 3, 2021)

The thing about pedestrians (esp elderly, partially sighted, etc) being unnerved by escooters shouldn't be ignored by the way. People riding them need to be conscious of this and I would support enforcement and fines for people misusing them on pavements and so on (and confiscating ones that have been modded to go very fast) just like I'd support any enforcement of 20mph speed limits for cars. In the longer term it should be wrapped up within cycling proficiency lessons at school (do they still exist?) What is crap is people who've bought an escooter in Halfords, used it to go to work or something and found it confiscated just because they are not technically legal yet - while we see basically no enforcement of 20 limits.

And I'm pretty sure that some of the "concern about pedestrian safety" is just a cover for people who don't like them because they get in the way of their car and they "aren't paying road tax". Certainly that'll be the motivation behind some of the accounts you see One Lambeth Justice retweeting. I'd like to see more of them getting in the way of people's cars, by which I don't mean weaving all over the place causing accidents, I mean a general reclamation of street space alongside bikes and pedestrians. At the moment I am seeing road space being reclaimed by people who are not middle aged, middle class white male commuters and I think it's great.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In the longer term it should be wrapped up within cycling proficiency lessons at school (do they still exist?)


Yes although "cycling proficiency" was scrapped about 20 years ago and replaced with a national standard for cycle training which is taught in schools as "Bikeability".

iirc DfT provide enough funding nationally for about 50% of children to have lessons but it's often hard to get schools to want to take part and the take-up is not even that high in many areas. Some schools (and parents) have the attitude that cycling is too dangerous and children should not be cycling to school so they refuse to arrange (or have their kids take part in) Bikeability classes.

Personally i think that all children (who can ride a bike or adapted bike) should be trained at school, like we do pedestrian training with all children. Over time this means everyone is trained and there is no need for licencing.

I would include scooters and e-scooters in this. I think the way you should use roads on them is very similar to bikes and as others have said i think they should be treated essentially as e-bikes (speed limited, cycle lanes/roads/shared pavements only).


----------



## alex_ (Aug 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Cycling can have an image problem that means certain demographics are put off it. It's very noticeable that the demographic starting to use escooters is a bit different.



Any bets as to why the met is becoming more interested in escooters ?


----------



## Winot (Aug 4, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Any bets as to why the met is becoming more interested in escooters ?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2021)

If only there was a way to make the roads safer for pedestrians, cyclists, scooters and well, _everybody_


----------



## teuchter (Aug 4, 2021)

This account is full of anti-LTN tweets, of course.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2021)

Yeah, London was famous for having zero muggings until these scooters appeared on the scene. Such a shame.


----------



## editor (Aug 4, 2021)

Judging by the comments on the Buzz article, the latest tactic by the anti-LTN mob is to suggest that the "Boris backed" LTNs are "Tory plans" designed to create 'create middle class gentrified enclaves and are inherently anti-working class.

I do believe this response from a reader nails it:



> Here we have it – straight out of the Farage rulebook. Knowing that Lambeth is a staunch Labour-voting borough, and knowing that most people reading these comments will do so in a hurry and won’t have time to check what they read, “Sandy” is now trolling all of us.
> 
> Spot the vague allusion to LTNs being “in the Tory 2019 election manifesto to ‘make side streets nicer to live on’ I believe.” There’s no such thing in the 2019 Tory election manifesto. The main problem with that manifesto was the £28 billion – yes, billion – that it proposed for “strategic road building”. It says nothing about LTNs. Or active travel. Or reducing car use.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 4, 2021)

On E Scooters.

Police have been cracking down on them.  This mysteriously Coincided with the so called legit hire versions coming out. Funny that.

I have mixed feelings about the scooters. I've seen some appaling behaviour from E Scooter riders. Going full pelt on the pavement then jumping in the road in front of me.

The same kind of behaviour I regularly get from Deliveroo riders on electric bikes.

I just wish people would behave a bit more reasonably.

As a cyclist my main problems re other road users are,

Mopeds. They cut and weave all over the place.
Deliveroo electric bikes.
Cyclists trying to overtake in inside as I'm  trying to turn left.

Ive noticed as more two wheels on the roads the comaraderie has decreased. To many two wheelers just intent on getting where they want and not caring about others. I don't get into being a stickler for the rules but a certain amount of courtesy and etiquette on the road with other two wheel users is something I feel has gone a bit.  

Cars are down on the list.


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 4, 2021)

To add articulated lorries.

Went past the accident on Southampton Way / Bloomsbury Way crossroad this morning.

Medics trying to save person. Air Ambulance waiting. Read later she died on the scene.

I do think large articulated lorries with no escort shouldn't be allowed in Central London in daytime.

To add.  Haven't read much. But when I saw this large articulated lorry and bike assumed this was the classic bike under articulated lorry scenerio. Artics of that size are deceptive they move right to then turn left. That size artic IMO needs escort like on motorways.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 4, 2021)

editor said:


> LTNs are "Tory plans" designed to create 'create middle class gentrified enclaves and are inherently anti-working class


(A difficult question at any time but) How do you explain Tim Briggs?

Also Sir Keir Starmer backs LTNs and segregated cycle lanes: ‘There’s always pushback but then they settle down’


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 4, 2021)

On E scooters / e bikes and so called active travel.

An argument put forward for LTNs is that it gets people out of cars and exercising more.

E Scooters and E Bikes are getting better and better. To the point where the active travel argument won't work.

Im not criticising this. Just pointing out that alternatives will be found.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 4, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On E scooters / e bikes and so called active travel.
> 
> An argument put forward for LTNs is that it gets people out of cars and exercising more.
> 
> ...


Yeah, e-scooters aren’t active travel but e-bikes are as you need to pedal for the motor to work (though some modify this to bypass that which I think is illegal).


----------



## Gramsci (Aug 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah, e-scooters aren’t active travel but e-bikes are as you need to pedal for the motor to work (though some modify this to bypass that which I think is illegal).



Problem with bypass is that it eats up the battery.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 4, 2021)

editor said:


> Judging by the comments on the Buzz article, the latest tactic by the anti-LTN mob is to suggest that the "Boris backed" LTNs are "Tory plans" designed to create 'create middle class gentrified enclaves and are inherently anti-working class.
> 
> I do believe this response from a reader nails it:



Errr....


----------



## BigTom (Aug 5, 2021)

Gramsci said:


> On E scooters / e bikes and so called active travel.
> 
> An argument put forward for LTNs is that it gets people out of cars and exercising more.
> 
> ...


E bikes are hugely helpful for active travel, especially for elderly people or people who live in hilly areas.

There's a substantial group of people for whom the pedal assist will make the difference between driving and cycling, for instance people who are commuting and concerned about arriving sweaty because of hills on their route.

They are still undertaking physical activity doing these journeys and since they wouldn't be using a standard push bike, this means increased physical activity, not decreased.

If it runs battery only, legally it's not an e bike, it's a moped.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2021)

Presumably any regulations & enforcement of e-scooters would be inline with that of drivers - in which case I can’t see the point.

Drunk, speeding & without insurance in a police chase - 1 year ban!









						Drink driver led police on 80mph chase after nipping to shop for cigarettes
					

Louie Cheetham has avoided a prison sentence




					www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk


----------



## Ol Nick (Aug 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Drunk, speeding & without insurance in a police chase - 1 year ban!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Imagine the havoc he would have caused had he had an e-scooter instead.


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 5, 2021)

I went to Brockwell park recently for a short walk. We are often carrying our baby (8 months) in a sling, so are extra safety conscious.

The were prominent signs saying e-scooters are both illegal and banned at every entrance. But we had three escooter riders whizz past us anyway.

Reasons why I dislike them relative to bikes:
1) riders seem a lot less safety conscious and often don't have a bell to warn pedestrians
2) downhill they end up going ridiculously fast, don't think the speed limiting works
3) I see them ridden almost exclusively on pavements
4) riders are almost never wearing helmets
5) how many toddlers have been hospitalised recently by bike riders?
6) having traveled in other European cities e.g. France, Netherlands, Sweden the hire scooters are a plague that end up blocking pavements everywhere. We are just starting to experience that now in London









						Girl, 3, left with ‘life-changing’ injuries after being hit by e-scooter in London
					

Police appeal for rider, who stopped and apologised to girl’s mother after incident, to come forward




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Winot (Aug 5, 2021)

_thread police klaxon_

e-scooter thread thataway >>> 








						Electric scooters
					

I can't help but feel people's reaction to E-Scooters is blinkered. We can't see a world outside our own. E-scooters are zipping around dozens of other European capitals no problem. As has been the case for so long our media turns a blind eye to Europe and takes the easy spoon fed news, in...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2021)

Two people have been arrested for vandalism of LTN signs.









						Love Lambeth
					

Two arrests follow Lambeth Council's new measures to tackle criminal vandalism at the emergency Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes




					love.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## a_chap (Aug 5, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> hire scooters are a plague that end up blocking pavements everywhere. We are just starting to experience that now in London




e scooters block pavements, you say?


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Two people have been arrested for vandalism of LTN signs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Hillside road entrance to Streatham Hill LTN seems to be permanently vandalised. Lots of no to road closures signs on houses there as well.


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 5, 2021)

a_chap said:


> e scooters block pavements, you say?
> 
> 
> View attachment 282173


If you read my original post clearly you will see that I was comparing scooters to bikes. I am very sympathetic to having less cars around.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Two people have been arrested for vandalism of LTN signs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Arrests were made on 31st July - who hasn’t been seen since then 🤔


----------



## alex_ (Aug 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Arrests were made on 31st July - who hasn’t been seen since then 🤔


At what point do we find out who they are and where they are from ?

If/when they are charged ?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2021)

alex_ said:


> At what point do we find out who they are and where they are from ?
> 
> If/when they are charged ?


Yeah, when charged I think. 

Antis seem to be making a big deal out of Cllr Danny Adilypour calling the people arrested criminals, but without names I can't see what the issue is. Some just like to muddy the waters and distract from the actual issue I guess.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Arrests were made on 31st July - who hasn’t been seen since then 🤔



blimey if I am reading this insinuation right that’s a low punch even by the standards set previously on this thread.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 5, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> blimey if I am reading this insinuation right that’s a low punch even by the standards set previously on this thread.


I think this might trounce it


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2021)

More info  Two people arrested as Lambeth council pledge ‘zero tolerance over LTN vandalism’


----------



## editor (Aug 5, 2021)

This is top drawer stuff too:


----------



## Jimbeau (Aug 5, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> The Hillside road entrance to Streatham Hill LTN seems to be permanently vandalised. Lots of no to road closures signs on houses there as well.



Vandals had been extremely busy on Leander last night too.


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 5, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I think this might trounce it




thank you, but I’m talking about this thread, I don’t do Twitter cos it’s a well known sewer of anger spite and barely concealed aggression.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> blimey if I am reading this insinuation right that’s a low punch even by the standards set previously on this thread.


it's a joke but hey 🤷‍♂️


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> it's a joke but hey 🤷‍♂️



apologies for misreading, maybe using a more jokey emoticon would have made the post less ambiguous.


----------



## Tron Cruise (Aug 5, 2021)

editor said:


> This is top drawer stuff too:



I'm staggered at these hysterical adult babies. Maybe get a hobby or get a job instead of faffing about all day online?


----------



## BigTom (Aug 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yeah, when charged I think.
> 
> Antis seem to be making a big deal out of Cllr Danny Adilypour calling the people arrested criminals, but without names I can't see what the issue is. Some just like to muddy the waters and distract from the actual issue I guess.



They are innocent until proven guilty so are not criminals at this point. Actually people do need to be careful about the language they use until the trial is done so as not to prejudice the trial, although I'm not suggesting that boundary has been overstepped in this particular tweet here, it's definitely close to the line at best. It doesn't matter if people aren't named as judge/jury can still be influenced by these things into presuming guilt as the defendants are proclaimed as criminals at this point.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2021)

BigTom said:


> They are innocent until proven guilty so are not criminals at this point. Actually people do need to be careful about the language they use until the trial is done so as not to prejudice the trial, although I'm not suggesting that boundary has been overstepped in this particular tweet here, it's definitely close to the line at best. It doesn't matter if people aren't named as judge/jury can still be influenced by these things into presuming guilt as the defendants are proclaimed as criminals at this point.


Yeah, you're right. Just amused about what people choose to be outraged by.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Aug 5, 2021)

When we look back to the last century we can see that the people who loudly supported smokers rights were just misguided, but the people who funded and distributed bogus or misleading research were criminals, often hiding behind layers of corporate indemnity.  

it will be the same when we look back to this period and reflect on the aggrieved misled people clinging to the polluting customs of the last century, and the really nasty corporate criminals behind the messages.  

hey Gramsci on the speculative fiction topic i just finished “hummingbird salamander” by vandermeer which is set in a beginning-of-the-collapse milieu.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> When we look back to the last century we can see that the people who loudly supported smokers rights were just misguided, but the people who funded and distributed bogus or misleading research were criminals, often hiding behind layers of corporate indemnity.


Good analogy - remeber the arguments about freedoms and how it would effect businesses, the opposite seems the case for most pubs.

These guys still seem to be banging the drum: Freedom2Choose | “Personal Freedom, Personal Choice” - a vision of OneLambeth in 10 years time?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 5, 2021)

OneLambeth say how much they care about air pollution but oh look they want to campaign to keep polluting vehicles on our streets.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2021)

If they are retweeting direct links to ABD stuff then I'm happy to write them off altogether as straight up motor lobby. Although it seems a bit like the Twitter account is run by a lone entity that chowce5382 doesn't especially want to be associated with.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If they are retweeting direct links to ABD stuff then I'm happy to write them off altogether as straight up motor lobby. Although it seems a bit like the Twitter account is run by a lone entity that chowce5382 doesn't especially want to be associated with.


Oh, I just looked at who that guy is, head of policy for a bunch of climate change deniers, well that’s nice!





__





						Who We Are - Net Zero Watch
					

Net Zero Watch will scrutinise policies, establish what they really cost, determine who will have to pay, and explore affordable alternatives.




					www.thegwpf.com


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If they are retweeting direct links to ABD stuff then I'm happy to write them off altogether as straight up motor lobby. Although it seems a bit like the Twitter account is run by a lone entity that chowce5382 doesn't especially want to be associated with.


Quick question, what is ABD? Also, how can it both be a lone entity and also part of a lobby?


----------



## cogito (Aug 6, 2021)

Alliance of British Drivers


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 6, 2021)

I'm new to this thread. Curious if there was any discussion of the Streatham Hill LTN stats when they came out?









						Analysis
					

An overview of the initial traffic analysis undertaken.




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk
				




The report showed car travel up significantly on boundary roads. And for some reason they didn't include the TFL managed boundary roads in their stats. If you then go to the appendix, traffic was up on the boundary roads as well, including up by 3,824 daily on Christchurch Road.

I'm only interested in the stats really. Why do we think this LTN has failed to reduce car journeys? Or will traffic start to evaporate if we give it more time?

Detailed stats including boundary roads here:


			https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/Streatham%20Hill%20LTN%20Monitoring%20Stage%201%20Report%20Appendices_SYSTRA_FINALV2.pdf


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 6, 2021)

ABD are Climate Change deniers.









						Understanding our Constantly Changing Climate - ABD
					

The cycle of carbon dioxide, oxygen and water vapour.




					www.abd.org.uk


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2021)

By lone entity i mean it looks like the scattergun postings of an individual rather than a carefully controlled account representing a group with the specific aim of representing disabled people in the context of LTNs.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2021)

cogito said:


> Alliance of British Drivers


Ah, always thought the b was for bad.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 6, 2021)

There’s a few desmog summaries









						Alliance of British Drivers
					

Alliance of British Drivers Category: Motoring Pressure Group The Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) is a voluntary motoring pressure group “owned and controlled by its members”, who it describes as “representative of the mass of road users in the UK”. The ABD has frequently cast doubt on the...




					www.desmog.com
				




“The ABD has frequently cast doubt on the health impacts of air pollution and rejected the scientific consensus on climate change. It opposes emissions charging zones, designed to improve air quality, and has called for the removal of government support for electric vehicles.”






						Fair Fuel UK
					

Fair Fuel UK Fair Fuel UK is an industry-funded lobby group that campaigns against charges and taxes on UK motorists. Its website claims it has “fought off £100bn in FUEL TAX hikes since 2011” and that “pump prices would be 16 to 20 pence more if it was not for the Fair Fuel UK Campaign”. Its...




					www.desmog.com


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 6, 2021)

They also happily seem to deny that Ella Adoo Kissi Debrah could have died from vehicle related air pollution: 

“Toxic air is usually judged to be based on the level of particulates (dust) in the air and the level of nitrous oxides (NOX), although there is some debate as to whether NOX (mainly NO2) is actually damaging to health. Particulates, namely PM 2.5, are the major concern and to quote from the report in Reference 1 below “Road transport accounts for around a quarter of PM2.5 in London, with a large proportion also coming from construction, wood burning and commercial cooking”.

The ABD covered the issue of the contribution of vehicles to air quality in a report we published two years ago – see Reference 2. The Conclusion in that report said this:

“In conclusion, let it be clear that the ABD is supportive of improving air quality in the UK, particularly in urban areas and on particular roads where transport is a major generator of emissions. But there is no *public health crisis and measures to improve air quality should be both reasonable and moderate*. According to a recent report from Defra, since 1970 NOx emissions have fallen by 72% and Particulates (PM2.5) by 79%. *The hysteria about air pollution is wrongly being used to generate tax revenues to local government (e.g. the ULEZ in London and similar proposals for other UK cities)* without any justification in terms of cost/benefits. The likely improvement in air quality that will result will be unlikely to be noticed by residents because it will simply be too small and it will have no significant long-term impact on health”.











						Air Pollution – Freedom for Drivers Foundation
					

Posts about Air Pollution written by Freedom for Drivers Foundation




					freedomfordrivers.blog
				



​


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2021)

That freedom for drivers thing appears to be run by Howard Cox who it looks like has split off from ABD...or something. Either way, as well as all the climate change denial stuff, they are constantly going on about drivers being overtaxed, road space being given over to cyclists and so on. They are fully fighting against the 'war on the motorist' and don't pretend to be much else... At least they are pretty transparent about their aims.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 6, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I'm new to this thread. Curious if there was any discussion of the Streatham Hill LTN stats when they came out?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I haven't been following that one closely but yes the hope would be that you see it settle down over time. With the railton LTN i was a little surprised that it already saw reductions on most of the boundary roads at the first review because it's always expected that there will be distribution at first.

The numbers being collected by Lambeth are a bit sketchy unfortunately, which isn't helpful and it's confounded at present by all the background changes in travel patterns.

My subjective anecdata observations of the problem roads around the other LTNs is that things have settled down a lot compared to a few months ago. If course not everyone will agree with that.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 6, 2021)

cogito said:


> Alliance of British Drivers


Thanks 👍


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2021)

Vandalism to Upper Tulse Hill, Elm Park Rd, Shakespere Rd & Railton Rd overnight. Really depressing.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 6, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I'm new to this thread. Curious if there was any discussion of the Streatham Hill LTN stats when they came out?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think I recall Lambeth saying that traffic on TfL roads (A205 and A23) is influenced by much more than just an LTN which makes it difficult to attribute increases or decreases of volumes just to the LTN. I have no idea what the answer is to monitoring these roads.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 6, 2021)

.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That freedom for drivers thing appears to be run by Howard Cox who it looks like has split off from ABD...or something. Either way, as well as all the climate change denial stuff, they are constantly going on about drivers being overtaxed, road space being given over to cyclists and so on. They are fully fighting against the 'war on the motorist' and don't pretend to be much else... At least they are pretty transparent about their aims.


I used to comment on the blog posts but now they've blocked me.  

In response the latest one which included
"Gear Change promotes a negative, downward move to local transport that will be opposed by many. It’s basically a propaganda piece exhorting us to change our way of life rather than the Government tackling the underlying causes of traffic congestion."
I asked what they thought the underlying causes of traffic congestion were - since to taking them, we need to know.
Comment didn't get approved - could be that the underlying cause of traffic congestion is TOO MUCH TRAFFIC???


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2021)

Caught in the act!


----------



## BusLanes (Aug 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Vandalism to Upper Tulse Hill, Elm Park Rd, Shakespere Rd & Railton Rd overnight. Really depressing.
> 
> View attachment 282340
> 
> View attachment 282341



I guess the arrests elsewhere haven't had a deterrent effect as yet


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Vandalism to Upper Tulse Hill, Elm Park Rd, Shakespere Rd & Railton Rd overnight. Really depressing.
> 
> View attachment 282340
> 
> View attachment 282341


Have you got any more pics of these?


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 6, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> I think I recall Lambeth saying that traffic on TfL roads (A205 and A23) is influenced by much more than just an LTN which makes it difficult to attribute increases or decreases of volumes just to the LTN. I have no idea what the answer is to monitoring these roads.


IMO it's a bit sneaky to divert traffic onto TFL roads and then wash their hands of it completely.

Yes, there could be other factors but maybe it's worth having a dialogue with TFL and trying to control for those factors in the report rather than just ignoring the increased numbers?


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Caught in the act!



Isn't that someone vandalising an anti LTN sign? Does that mean vandals on both sides? It's really heating up


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Have you got any more pics of these?


Here’s one of Roupell Rd


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Isn't that someone vandalising an anti LTN sign? Does that mean vandals on both sides? It's really heating up


Yep, it shouldn’t be done but I imagine would be treated less harshly than pouring motor oil onto planters and smearing tar on benches.


----------



## Not a Vet (Aug 6, 2021)

Shakespeare been done over again, how depressing


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 6, 2021)

editor said:


> Caught in the act!



In Southwark I think - that YouTube account holder shared them on the East Dulwich forum and subsequently got banned for having multiple sock puppet accounts and making some very strange allegations against local councillors.

Not condoning the act though.


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 6, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> In Southwark I think - that YouTube account holder shared them on the East Dulwich forum and subsequently got banned for having multiple sock puppet accounts and making some very strange allegations against local councillors.
> 
> Not condoning the act though.


Alleged act. Who knows, could be staged.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 6, 2021)

Those signs cost fifteen quid. Let me know when another 3,332 signs have been vandalised.


----------



## editor (Aug 6, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Here’s one of Roupell Rd
> 
> View attachment 282359


Cheers - I've buzzed them here - Anti LTN campaigners continue to vandalise street signs in Lambeth

*awaits more comments about Boris


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 6, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Alleged act. Who knows, could be staged.



I don’t know what to believe anymore 😨


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 6, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> IMO it's a bit sneaky to divert traffic onto TFL roads and then wash their hands of it completely.
> 
> Yes, there could be other factors but maybe it's worth having a dialogue with TFL and trying to control for those factors in the report rather than just ignoring the increased numbers?


I don't think there's anything sneaky about it - traffic on main A roads in London has fallen over the last 10 years or so and almost doubled on unclassified roads (ie many of the roads in LTNs), so traffic is just going back to where it should be/used to be before the sat navs took hold, sending drivers though 'short cuts' to save all of 1 minute. I do agree that this can't be the final word on it and I think Lambeth are in contact with TfL about numbers, but as I said, falls or rises in traffic on A roads such as the A23 and A205 are due to multiple factors so how you  extract the LTN impact will be complicated.


----------



## ash (Aug 8, 2021)

editor you are mentioned on one Lambeth’s 
Face book page:

Write to Brixton Buzz and ask Mike Urban to write an article about “Pro LTN campaigners vandalising signs”


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2021)

ash said:


> editor you are mentioned on one Lambeth’s
> Face book page:
> 
> Write to Brixton Buzz and ask Mike Urban to write an article about “Pro LTN campaigners vandalising signs”


Seeing as I'm not allowed on their shitty Facebook group, they can go fuck themselves if they think I'm going to take time out to write an article at their behest.

You can post that up, if you like.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 8, 2021)

ash said:


> editor you are mentioned on one Lambeth’s
> Face book page:
> 
> Write to Brixton Buzz and ask Mike Urban to write an article about “Pro LTN campaigners vandalising signs”



“very fine people on both sides”


----------



## BusLanes (Aug 8, 2021)

Looks like someone has purchased one of those roller paintbrushes and some brown paint. Or at least that's what it looks like having walked past some of the LTN planters/signs in Tulse Hill today


----------



## Tron Cruise (Aug 9, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Alleged act. Who knows, could be staged.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

Consultations on Oval & Railton LTNs will start on 6th Sept - there’s links to pre-register for both on this page.









						Love Lambeth
					

Lambeth Council has announced the start of its Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTNs) consultation programme where residents can have their say.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## alex_ (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Consultations on Oval & Railton LTNs will start on 6th Sept - there’s links to pre-register for both on this page.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Any news on Brixton hill ltn?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Any news on Brixton hill ltn?


I haven't seen anything. I imagine a lot of council officers' time will be taken up with the consultaions and I guess the court cases have also taken time.

Presumably if the ones already implementent have positive consultations that will also spur the council on.


----------



## toblerone3 (Aug 9, 2021)

Five new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are going in in Stoke Newington in Hackney in September.









						Reimagined Church Street gets go ahead
					

A funding bid by Hackney Council to close Stoke Newington Church Street to polluting through-traffic during the daytime has been approved by Transport for London. The move is part of the Council’s plans to rebuild a greener Hackney in the aftermath of the pandemic, improve air quality, and help...




					news.hackney.gov.uk


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 9, 2021)

BusLanes said:


> Looks like someone has purchased one of those roller paintbrushes and some brown paint. Or at least that's what it looks like having walked past some of the LTN planters/signs in Tulse Hill today


Yeah, all the ones in Streatham Hill have been painted over and the cameras have been vandalised as well.

To their credit a lot of people still turn around and don't drive through.


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 9, 2021)

Tron Cruise said:


>


Well, it's best not to believe everything you see on the internet these days. But also at the end of the day it's just one cardboard sign, vs vandalising the LTN signs, cameras and planters which actually costs the council i.e. us, the taxpayers, money to fix.


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Consultations on Oval & Railton LTNs will start on 6th Sept - there’s links to pre-register for both on this page.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting that they started with the LTNs that worked in reducing traffic first, not the Streatham Hill one that didn't work.

Reminds me of their strategy for estate regeneration, always targeting the softer ones with less opposition first.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 9, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Well, it's best not to believe everything you see on the internet these days. But also at the end of the day it's just one cardboard sign, vs vandalising the LTN signs, cameras and planters which actually costs the council i.e. us, the taxpayers, money to fix.



the end state of this will be concrete bollards.

minimum maintainance - maximum impact.


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 9, 2021)

alex_ said:


> the end state of this will be concrete bollards.
> 
> minimum maintainance - maximum impact.


They need to be able to let emergency services and buses through


----------



## teuchter (Aug 9, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Interesting that they started with the LTNs that worked in reducing traffic first, not the Streatham Hill one that didn't work.
> 
> Reminds me of their strategy for estate regeneration, always targeting the softer ones with less opposition first.


Isn't it that the consultations are starting on the LTNs that have been in longest, and it's the ones that have been in longest where traffic reduction is clearest to see, and it's generally expected that traffic reductions take a little while to become apparent?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 10, 2021)

toblerone3 said:


> Five new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are going in in Stoke Newington in Hackney in September.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lee Hurst’s not a fan…


----------



## alex_ (Aug 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Lee Hurst’s not a fan…



He’s wrong though, it’s because Londoners think he is a has been.


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Isn't it that the consultations are starting on the LTNs that have been in longest, and it's the ones that have been in longest where traffic reduction is clearest to see, and it's generally expected that traffic reductions take a little while to become apparent?


On the contrary, enforcement started on the Streatham Hill one earlier. You can see the dates in the reports here.

I'm not against LTNs, but neither do I trust the council not to be sneaky and selective in the order they consult on things.









						Low traffic neighbourhood monitoring reports
					

Low traffic neighbourhoods are being monitored as part of our low traffic neighbourhoods monitoring strategy and assessed in up to three discrete stages to understand how they are performing and to make improvements.




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Aug 10, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> On the contrary, enforcement started on the Streatham Hill one earlier. You can see the dates in the reports here.
> 
> I'm not against LTNs, but neither do I trust the council not to be sneaky and selective in the order they consult on things.
> 
> ...



Streatham Hill has had 2 new filters added recently on Mount Nod & Rosedene Ave and has had consistent vandalism - those might be reasons why the consultation isn’t happening there yet.


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 10, 2021)

Shakespeare and Railton signs have been cleaned again


----------



## alex_ (Aug 10, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> They need to be able to let emergency services and buses through



If they continue to be vandalised - I suspect the council will take the low cost option.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> On the contrary, enforcement started on the Streatham Hill one earlier. You can see the dates in the reports here.
> 
> I'm not against LTNs, but neither do I trust the council not to be sneaky and selective in the order they consult on things.
> 
> ...


Implementation dates:

Oval - June 2020
Railton - June 2020
Streatham Hill - August 2020


----------



## edcraw (Aug 10, 2021)

toblerone3 said:


> Five new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are going in in Stoke Newington in Hackney in September.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the councillor behind it is now getting vile abuse.


----------



## Cat Fan (Aug 10, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Implementation dates:
> 
> Oval - June 2020
> Railton - June 2020
> Streatham Hill - August 2020


Yes, but enforcement date was the other way around.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 10, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Yes, but enforcement date was the other way around.


I would imagine that pre-enforcement, 75% of drivers obey the signs and post-enforcement 95%. Or something like that. The day the scheme is put in place and driver behaviour starts changing seems the more significant.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Shakespeare and Railton signs have been cleaned again


It doesn't look like they've been cleaned, more that a new sign has been placed over the old one like a big sticker. Makes sense to go for the low cost option until you've caught the vandal(s).


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2021)

Buzz article on the consultations:









						Lambeth to launch Low Traffic Neighbourhoods consultation
					

Lambeth Council has announced the start of its Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTNs) consultation programme, which will see residents given the chance to shape the future of each of the five LTNs that c…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Buzz article on the consultations:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



article by ’contributor‘


----------



## editor (Aug 12, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> article by ’contributor‘


He's a busy chap!


----------



## cuppa tee (Aug 12, 2021)

editor said:


> He's a busy chap!



couldnt ’contributor’ be any gender ?


----------



## snowy_again (Aug 12, 2021)

Totally normal:


----------



## spitfire (Aug 12, 2021)

Our local loon is at it again, posting up pictures of Kevin Brady our local LTN champion who has been singled out for special treatment by these pricks.

If anyone would like to assist in reporting the tweet for Targeted Harassment I would be eternally grateful.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 13, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Totally normal



Trivialising the abuse of hundreds of children so they can have a wee pop at the council. If there was justice this would be the last we'd ever hear of this hateful little campaign.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

Just always amazing how restrictions on driving is what it takes for some people to give a shit about anything, glad I don't have a car as seems to have a habit of turning people into idiots.

Anyway, just off to pick up a hire car and enjoy sticking to the 20mph speed limit to piss people off.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 13, 2021)

Sticking to speed limits is great. It makes idiots very angry indeed.


----------



## editor (Aug 13, 2021)

From the comments section:

David: 
It’s interesting that The Ella Roberta Family Foundation are against LTNs.
Sadly Ella was the first/only to have “air pollution significantly caused and significantly contributed to the death” on her death certificate. If LTNs did what it said on the tin surely they would be in favour of LTN’s?

Mike if you want some facts around LTNs contact The Ella Roberta Family Foundation, im sure thay will provide you with the evidence you need to run a story on the unreported detrimental effects of LTNs on the communities that live out side of the LTN enclaves.

Mandy:
Ella’s death was absolutely tragic, but it was caused by vehicle emissions, not LTNs. To weaponise the death of an innocent child to forward the argument to drive MORE is utterly revolting. Shame on you.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 13, 2021)

They really can’t get enough of their totalitarian comparisons!


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 13, 2021)

editor said:


> From the comments section:
> 
> David:
> It’s interesting that The Ella Roberta Family Foundation are against LTNs.
> ...


I think what they are trying to point out is that more congestion creates more pollution, on the roads very close to where she lived.
Until we get a decent amount of data we wont know I suspect.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I think what they are trying to point out is that more congestion creates more pollution, on the roads very close to where she lived.
> Until we get a decent amount of data we wont know I suspect.


But the ONLY way things will ever improve for everyone is if people stop using their fucking cars all the time. It really is simple as that.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> They really can’t get enough of their totalitarian comparisons!




I mean my understanding is that if someone from outside the LTN tries to enter the LTN, then they get shot by machine gun nests run by Lambeth Council, who are also spying on everyone within the LTN to ensure that they are all on message with supporting the LTN, otherwise it's to the HS2 tunnel mines with them.

So I think the comparison is fair. What's your issue with it? 
[scribbles notes on the unbeliever to report to the stasi-council worker]


----------



## Tron Cruise (Aug 14, 2021)

Not sure there's anything more _snowflake_ than this lot - moaning and crying because they can't get their own way.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 14, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I think what they are trying to point out is that more congestion creates more pollution, on the roads very close to where she lived.
> Until we get a decent amount of data we wont know I suspect.


Cars cause pollution.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Cars cause pollution.


Agreed. We should just get rid of everything that causes pollution, that is by far the best answer to all of this. Cars and Shipping make up 86% of the carbon footprint of of the transportation sector in the uk. Aviation is 12%. To seriously combat climate change we have to stop importing everything that comes in via containers as well.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Agreed. We should just get rid of everything that causes pollution, that is by far the best answer to all of this. Cars and Shipping make up 86% of the carbon footprint of of the transportation sector in the uk. Aviation is 12%. To seriously combat climate change we have to stop importing everything that comes in via containers as well.


You're mixing up carbon emissions and local air pollution again.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You're mixing up carbon emissions and local air pollution again.


In the end, it all ends up contributing to the same problem.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> In the end, it all ends up contributing to the same problem.


No, they are two separate issues.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, they are two separate issues.


So it doesn’t contribute. Thanks for clearing that up


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2021)

We were talking about air pollution next to busy roads causing health issues. The movement of containers by sea does not contribute to this problem. Vehicles, driven locally, cause the vast majority of this problem.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We were talking about air pollution next to busy roads causing health issues. The movement of containers by sea does not contribute to this problem. Vehicles, driven locally, cause the vast majority of this problem.


So why are we routing more cars through certain roads and increasing this problem?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So why are we routing more cars through certain roads and increasing this problem?


You know the answer to this.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You know the answer to this.


So that we increase pollution on those roads?


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So that we increase pollution on those roads?


Quit trolling.  It’s not a good look.  Especially for someone complicit with the very vilest of Twitter trolls.  Maybe spend the energy getting your mates out of their fucking cars instead?

Re containers there are low emission solutions for shipping and the industry is not doing a good job adopting them, but the shipping industry as a whole is responsible for less than 3% of emissions.  









						Shipping industry emissions keep sailing upward | Greenbiz
					

International shipping's CO2 emissions grew by 5.6 percent from 2012 to 2018.




					www.greenbiz.com


----------



## alex_ (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Agreed. We should just get rid of everything that causes pollution, that is by far the best answer to all of this. Cars and Shipping make up 86% of the carbon footprint of of the transportation sector in the uk. Aviation is 12%. To seriously combat climate change we have to stop importing everything that comes in via containers as well.



Hypocrisy of the anti’s right here - on the signs - “cars everywhere”, here “cars nowhere”


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Quit trolling.  It’s not a good look.  Especially for someone complicit with the very vilest of Twitter trolls.  Maybe spend the energy getting your mates out of their fucking cars instead?
> 
> Re containers there are low emission solutions for shipping and the industry is not doing a good job adopting them, but the shipping industry as a whole is responsible for less than 3% of emissions.
> 
> ...


I don’t have mates who own cars. Please supply proof that I’m complicit. Unless you do then you’re just trolling. It’s not a good look…


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Please supply proof that I’m complicit.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 283714


Not sure how that makes me complicit with tweets that I haven’t seen, haven’t composed and have no knowledge of


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Not sure how that makes me complicit with tweets that I haven’t seen, haven’t composed and have no knowledge of


I'm sure you can figure it out, given some time.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

I’d need to know about the tweets first…


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 15, 2021)

"I see no tweets."


----------



## alex_ (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I’d need to know about the tweets first…



Here is your organisation comparing LTNs to the Holocaust



you can start with this one


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Here is your organisation comparing LTNs to the Holocaust



Again, I had nothing to do with this. Probably saw it the same time as you did.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Again, I had nothing to do with this. Probably saw it the same time as you did.



you are the treasurer of one Lambeth, you don’t get this pass.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

alex_ said:


> you are the treasurer of one Lambeth, you don’t get this pass.


Thanks for making up some rules.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Thanks for making up some rules.


I take back what I said about you before about you probably being well intentioned.  You are a sad troll. And judging by your incessant trolling and selective lack Of accountability, like as not the actual source of those tweets.as had been previously speculated on here.

[edited to remove the obscenity cause it ain’t worth it]


----------



## alex_ (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Thanks for making up some rules.



are you ok with the above post which equates LTNs with the Holocaust ?

bearing in mind you raise funds for onelambeth and the posts above are from onelambeth - can you outline how you avoid any responsibility for what your org says ?


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I take back what I said about you before about you probably being well intentioned.  You are a wanker. And judging by your incessant trolling and selective lack Of accountability, like as not the actual source of those tweets.as had been previously speculated on here.


As you rightly say, speculation. All I can see if people speculating about my intentions and about an account I have no control over rather than looking at what is actually being done. That of trying to protect the rights of an individual and a protected group in general. People always seem keen to speculate rather than look at the actual issues.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

alex_ said:


> are you ok with the above post which equates LTNs with the Holocaust ?
> 
> bearing in mind you raise funds for onelambeth and the posts above are from onelambeth - can you outline how you avoid any responsibility for what your org says ?


It’s not a defined organisation. Is a group of peope trying to raise some money for a disabled woman. I also don’t think that LTNs are in any way analogous to the Holocaust


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s not a defined organisation. Is a group of peope trying to raise some money for a disabled woman. I also don’t think that LTNs are in any way analogous to the Holocaust


So you're going to condemn it and disown the author and refuse any funds they contribute?


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

editor said:


> So you're going to condemn it and disown the author and refuse any funds they contribute?


I dont have the ability to reject funds. I’ve said it’s not analogous in any way.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So that we increase pollution on those roads?


We disagree on the extent to which pollution is displaced. Quite happy to have that discussion with you, and you'd be able to present the case that it is being ignored or underestimated. But if you just want to continue to imply that there's actually a deliberate intention to move pollution to specific locations, then I don't see any point trying to engage.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

teuchter said:


> We disagree on the extent to which pollution is displaced. Quite happy to have that discussion with you, and you'd be able to present the case that it is being ignored or underestimated. But if you just want to continue to imply that there's actually a deliberate intention to move pollution to specific locations, then I don't see any point trying to engage.


Surely it must be deliberate given that the intention is to move traffic to specific roads and therefore pollution and that the council is very clear exactly which roads will take this extra traffic/pollution


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I dont have the ability to reject funds. I’ve said it’s not analogous in any way.


So who is accepting the funds? Someone must be responsible. Would you agree that it  would be morally wrong to accept funding from such an offensive organisation, and if so, what steps have you made to block their further involvement?


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

editor said:


> So who is accepting the funds? Someone must be responsible. Would you agree that it  would be morally wrong to accept funding from such an offensive organisation, and if so, what steps have you made to block their further involvement?


It’s not an organisation, it’s one person. I’m not in charge of accepting funds and don’t actually know how that works. I look at the legal bills and then pay them as they fall due


----------



## edcraw (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s not an organisation, it’s one person. I’m not in charge of accepting funds and don’t actually know how that works. I look at the legal bills and then pay them as they fall due


We’ll drop the OneLambeth tag then and just raise donations for the individual - although she has backed the Holocaust comparison so….


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> We’ll drop the OneLambeth tag then and just raise donations for the individual - although she has backed the Holocaust comparison so….


I don’t know if he has donated. I don’t think he has


----------



## edcraw (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I don’t know if he has donated. I don’t think he has


Not sure whether the person tweeting has donated or not matters m, their tweeting on your behalf, if you cared you’d drop all associations if you can’t stop them representing you.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not sure whether the person tweeting has donated or not matters m, their tweeting on your behalf, if you cared you’d drop all associations if you can’t stop them representing you.



...but how?! Its a twitter handle which he already said he doesnt have any dealings with isnt it? Take out a full page letter in the papers every time someone says something offenesive?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Aug 15, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I take back what I said about you before about you probably being well intentioned.  You are a sad troll. And judging by your incessant trolling and selective lack Of accountability, like as not the actual source of those tweets.as had been previously speculated on here.
> 
> [edited to remove the obscenity cause it ain’t worth it]



I've found him to be very open and interesting. People have constantly nit picked at him for things he is responsbile for and constantly attacked him for things that have nothing to do with him.

Hey everyone, here is someone who admitted they have something to do with the campaign, lets make him answer for everything.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 15, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Hey everyone, here is someone who admitted they have something to do with the campaign, lets make him answer for everything.



Seeing as what you’ve done with everyone even remotely associated with racist cycling guy - yes lets.


----------



## editor (Aug 15, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> ...but how?! Its a twitter handle which he already said he doesnt have any dealings with isnt it? Take out a full page letter in the papers every time someone says something offenesive?


Let's put it another way. If I was running a campaign and someone was posting up offensive shit like this and associating themselves with this cause I would_ immediately_ make it very VERY clear that I don't agree with his comments and I don't want him to have anything to do with the campaign, ever, in any capacity. 

No full page letter needed, just a clear and unequivocal response to any crap he posts.

Has OneLambeth done any of these things? And if not, why not?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 15, 2021)

I would like to make clear I am nothing to do with the poster with the username "liquidindian", and I just spend his money.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 15, 2021)

editor said:


> Let's put it another way. If I was running a campaign and someone was posting up offensive shit like this and associating themselves with this cause I would_ immediately_ make it very VERY clear that I don't agree with his comments and I don't want him to have anything to do with the campaign, ever, in any capacity.
> 
> No full page letter needed, just a clear and unequivocal response to any crap he posts.
> 
> Has OneLambeth done any of these things? And if not, why not?


maybe those comments appeal to potential donors?


----------



## alex_ (Aug 15, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I would like to make clear I am nothing to do with the poster with the username "liquidindian", and I just spend his money.



and fundraise for the various individuals who operate as liquidindian, here-forth known as “the liquidindians”


----------



## edcraw (Aug 15, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> maybe those comments appeal to potential donors?



Only 76 donated so far so could be putting people off though.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 15, 2021)

Can't say I'm too bothered whether the one Lambeth justice fundraising operation wants to dissociate itself with the one Lambeth justice Twitter account. I'd be bothered if something that i supported was associating itself with the comments but it doesn't even look like the fundraising efforts are going to lead to anything happening. Don't see much point in haranguing chowce5382 further about it.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not sure whether the person tweeting has donated or not matters m, their tweeting on your behalf, if you cared you’d drop all associations if you can’t stop them representing you.


Especially given they claim to be the “official account” of the campaign and seems very plugged in to everything. Seems inconceivable he doesn’t know exactly who’s posting on that account. It’s not like OneLambeth  have many active residents at all.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So why are we routing more cars through certain roads and increasing this problem?


LTNs provide a safer environment so people will be more comfortable with other forms of transport like walking and cycling. They are not 100% of the solution, only part of it.

A third of car journeys in London are less than 2k.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Surely it must be deliberate given that the intention is to move traffic to specific roads and therefore pollution and that the council is very clear exactly which roads will take this extra traffic/pollution


The council has clearly said there will be extra traffic and pollution?. Where?


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 16, 2021)

__





						LTN consultations | LTN consultations | Ealing Council
					

Results of the recent consultations




					www.ealing.gov.uk


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 16, 2021)

So the one that they took out, LTN21 was popular... I wonder how views might shift when the rest are removed.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> So the one that they took out, LTN21 was popular... I wonder how views might shift when the rest are removed.


22% in favour, 77% against?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There’s a helpful forum rule here:


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> 22% in favour, 77% against?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 16, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 283976



They’ve included that huge number of non-residents in the total? Bizarre.

Fortunately Lambeth have been v straight in saying consultations aren’t referendums. They’re never going to reflect true public sentiment and elected politicians should have the balls to make tough decisions.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> There’s a helpful forum rule here:
> 
> View attachment 283975


Thanks. It’s the results of a consultation


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 16, 2021)

"CPZ style consultations" is how Ealing council described them. They refer to the new govt guidelines but... seem to have just ignored them?

I don't know how much effort was made to elicit responses, but I do know that when Croydon ran a consultation on the Upper Norwood LTN, the overwhelming majority of residents didn't respond, and those that did respond in no way reflected the demographics of the area.

Anyone who's worked in customer services can see the problem with putting this to a simple vote straight away.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

Good support from Lambeth councillors. 98 per cent of schools on London have illegal air pollution, we need drastic action not delay & keeping the status quo.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> "CPZ style consultations" is how Ealing council described them. They refer to the new govt guidelines but... seem to have just ignored them?
> 
> I don't know how much effort was made to elicit responses, but I do know that when Croydon ran a consultation on the Upper Norwood LTN, the overwhelming majority of residents didn't respond, and those that did respond in no way reflected the demographics of the area.
> 
> Anyone who's worked in customer services can see the problem with putting this to a simple vote straight away.



Support from respondents is just one part of consultations and up to councils to weigh up the merits of concerns (a general dislike of the schemes seems to be the top concern for most here). Ealing have made it the absolute focus and the reports mostly don’t even attempt to explain the monitoring. Very poor.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 283976



is it content free to say “hahaha” ?

looks like a 55/45 split in favour amongst affected residents ?


----------



## alex_ (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Thanks. It’s the results of a consultation



a consultation which shows that residents of boundary roads and LTNs support LTNs


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)




----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> View attachment 283991


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 17, 2021)

“What the residents think” really shouldn’t be the deciding - if any - factor in this.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 17, 2021)

6.7% response rate, apparently, but weirdly that's not "anti-democratic".


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2021)

You can look at the reports for each LTN at the bottom of this page.

There's a fairly consistent pattern in what the main concerns of objectors are: air pollution, congestion, and access being made more difficult and journeys being made longer.

I looked at the reports for the seven LTNs that are not "supported by residents". Four of them show a clear decrease in traffic not only within the LTN but on the boundary roads too. One shows a clear decrease within, and a very marginal (2%) increase on boundary roads. Then there are two (Acton central and Bowes Road) that show increases on boundary roads. One of these appears to be complicated by a new housing development having been built.

The reports also show measurements of congestion (via bus journey times) and air pollution (although they seem to state it's raw data that hasn't been corrected). In pretty much all of them, there's little or no change to the bus times, and the recorded air pollution appears to have decreased.

If Ealing decides to throw in the towel on these schemes then at least they provide additional data that confirms what we already know - that generally, LTN type interventions reduce traffic within the areas, and they generally do not cause significant increases in traffic volume or congestion on boundary roads. And none of these reports provide any evidence that air pollution is worsened. They also show that despite all this, the primary objections are from people claiming to be worried about air pollution and congestion.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 17, 2021)

This Twitter thread is a worthwhile analysis of the Ealing thing -



I'm not sure why chowce5382 is so animated about it - it doesn't seem to have anything to do with "protecting the rights of an individual and a protected group in general" which I thought was his only interest in LTNs.  You'd hope public policy decisions were made on the basis of evidence, which seems to show in Ealing that the LTNs were doing what they were meant to do.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> This Twitter thread is a worthwhile analysis of the Ealing thing -
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why chowce5382 is so animated about it - it doesn't seem to have anything to do with "protecting the rights of an individual and a protected group in general" which I thought was his only interest in LTNs.  You'd hope public policy decisions were made on the basis of evidence, which seems to show in Ealing that the LTNs were doing what they were meant to do.



Not exactly animated. Saw it so thought I’d post it. Then just took a screen shot. Didn’t even comment to any great extent. My position is, and has always been, about the rights under the act. Slightly worried that you think this implies that I am “so animated” 😊. The bloke who wrote those racist tweets, now he was very animated when he wrote them. Real heart on sleeve saying what he thought type stuff, wouldn’t you say…


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Not exactly animated. Saw it so thought I’d post it. Then just took a screen shot. Didn’t even comment to any great extent. My position is, and has always been, about the rights under the act. Slightly worried that you think this implies that I am “so animated” 😊. The bloke who wrote those racist tweets, now he was very animated when he wrote them. Real heart on sleeve saying what he thought type stuff, wouldn’t you say…


It is odd that every time you get challenged on the weaknesses or inconsistencies in your position you bring up the same old dirt as if it's in any way relevant.  Based on what someone posted here it seems you've some pretty questionable views but while they might show you're a bigoted arsehole I can't see that they've got anything to do with your position on transport schemes.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> It is odd that every time you get challenged on the weaknesses or inconsistencies in your position you bring up the same old dirt as if it's in any way relevant.  Based on what someone posted here it seems you've some pretty questionable views but while they might show you're a bigoted arsehole I can't see that they've got anything to do with your position on transport schemes.


I’ve said almost nothing on these consultations, in fact I just posted the original link with no commentary. I was just giving you an example of someone being animated. The big difference between retweeting something and actually tweeting it is huge, especially given the tweets I referred to were about…transport from a person who was involved in…transport. The person who dragged up that retweet also jokes about wife beating in tweets he writes. Might as well leave it there. As I said, it haven’t commented on this properly yet so not sure how you know what my position on this consultation is yet.

For further example, your response above is a good example of someone getting animated. Hope that helps for future reference.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The person who dragged up that retweet also jokes about wife beating in tweets he writes.





Nice try, though.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 283999
> View attachment 284001
> 
> Nice try, though.


Ahh, so you’re really being flippant. That’s obviously ok then


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 283999
> View attachment 284001
> 
> Nice try, though.


Always funny when the type of people that use the words snowflake & woke try and be outraged.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ahh, so you’re really being flippant. That’s obviously ok then


Correct, it is okay then.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Correct, it is okay then.


Well, let’s just disagree on that. I’ve done a some pro Bono work with abused women and don’t think it’s a subject that translates into flippant comments that well. Never mind, back to consultation.
If it is only 6.7% then it probably needs to be re-run as any consultation needs to try and include as much of the community as possible.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Well, let’s just disagree on that. I’ve done a some pro Bono work with abused women and don’t think it’s a subject that translates into flippant comments that well. Never mind, back to consultation.
> If it is only 6.7% then it probably needs to be re-run as any consultation needs to try and include as much of the community as possible.


Based on the evidence it looks like Ealing have a good case to make the schemes permanent as they seem to have achieved their objectives.  Consultations are not referendums and the fact that a small number of people don't like the change (and many of their justifications for disliking it appear to be disproved by the evidence gathered)  should not lead to them being pulling them out.

It's always useful to post some interpretation when posting a link so that people understand what you're taking from it - otherwise people will make assumptions.  Just posting some context free %ages could have been taken to show that you thought those figures were the most important takeaway from it.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Well, let’s just disagree on that. I’ve done a some pro Bono work with abused women and don’t think it’s a subject that translates into flippant comments that well.


Nah, I'm not letting you off with that. I (slightly mis)quoted a very famous example of a loaded question in answer to a loaded question. Shove your concern trolling up your arse.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Nah, I'm not letting you off with that. I (slightly mis)quoted a very famous example of a loaded question in answer to a loaded question. Shove your concern trolling up your arse.


another example of someone getting animated.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> another example of someone getting animated.


And all you had to do anger me was suggest I was okay with domestic abuse. LOL what a prankster.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Surely it must be deliberate given that the intention is to move traffic to specific roads and therefore pollution and that the council is very clear exactly which roads will take this extra traffic/pollution


Any chance of you backing up this statement chowce5382 ?


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Any chance of you backing up this statement chowce5382 ?


If a body decides to change routes and makes it harder for traffic to go down certain roads and therefore prescribes that the traffic most go down x or y road and that leads to higher pollution and/or traffic density then there was a conscious decision by that body to make that decision. I’m not saying that they are trying to target a specific class or group of people but that it is a consequence of an action. As such it becomes deliberate especially if no mitigation’s are out in place. It’s not a comment on this council specifically but more generally about the decision process and saying that those bodies must be aware of the resultant consequences of actions, both intended and unintended


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> If a body decides to change routes and makes it harder for traffic to go down certain roads and therefore prescribes that the traffic most go down x or y road and that leads to higher pollution and/or traffic density then there was a conscious decision by that body to make that decision. I’m not saying that they are trying to target a specific class or group of people but that it is a consequence of an action. As such it becomes deliberate especially if no mitigation’s are out in place. It’s not a comment on this council specifically but more generally about the decision process and saying that those bodies must be aware of the resultant consequences of actions, both intended and unintended



I’m loathed to quote the prime minister again but he’s bang on the money here:

"I know many people think that cycling and walking schemes simply increase car traffic on other roads.

"But there is now increasing evidence that they do not.

"We sometimes think of traffic as like water: if you block a stream in one place, it will find the next easiest way.

"Of course some journeys by car are essential, but traffic is not a force of nature. It is a product of people’s choices. If you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, more people choose to walk and cycle instead of driving, and the traffic falls overall."


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 17, 2021)

*Lambeth *
The stated aims of the Lambeth Transport Strategy, of which LTNs are a part - is pretty clear - 
_"We are radically reshaping our borough’s transport to clean up our toxic air, make it safer to walk and cycle and reduce emissions."_








						Transport Strategy
					






					www.lambeth.gov.uk
				




*London*




__





						The Mayor's Transport Strategy
					

The Mayor's Transport Strategy lays out Mayor Sadiq Khan's vision for transport in London




					tfl.gov.uk
				



_"At its heart is a bold aim for 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041._

Those are just top line statements from the front page of what came back on a search for the transport strategy.  Obviously if you fundamentally disagree that any trips by car can be taken by any other means (which all the evidence contradicts) then yes,  maybe you're going to believe that pollution is going to increase but ultimately pollution is not restricted to the street a vehicle is on - if you want to improve the air across London then you need to reduce motor vehicle use.  LTNs enable people to choose other ways to travel.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> If a body decides to change routes and makes it harder for traffic to go down certain roads and therefore prescribes that the traffic most go down x or y road and that leads to higher pollution and/or traffic density then there was a conscious decision by that body to make that decision. I’m not saying that they are trying to target a specific class or group of people but that it is a consequence of an action. As such it becomes deliberate especially if no mitigation’s are out in place. It’s not a comment on this council specifically but more generally about the decision process and saying that those bodies must be aware of the resultant consequences of actions, both intended and unintended


No, I'm not asking what you think might happen.

You have said that the council have been clear that there would be extra traffic/pollution, where did they make this statement?


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, I'm not asking what you think might happen.
> 
> You have said that the council have been clear that there would be extra traffic/pollution, where did they make this statement?


No, I said that the council said traffic would move to other roads. It was my assertion then that if traffic moved to other roads those roads would ultimately take more traffic than before as a result of this movement. I think in one of the assessments of the overall scheme they say that this will happen by that it will evaporate later.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

I can see from your changing statements in this thread why you didn’t carry on as a lawyer.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2021)

Shall we rewind a bit to where this started: a comment which clearly implies that the reason cars are rerouted is so that we increase pollution on certain roads.



This is completely different to



> It was my assertion then that if traffic moved to other roads those roads would ultimately take more traffic than before as a result of this movement.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No, I said that the council said traffic would move to other roads. It was my assertion then that if traffic moved to other roads those roads would ultimately take more traffic than before as a result of this movement. I think in one of the assessments of the overall scheme they say that this will happen by that it will evaporate later.


So what the council actually said is that there would be no extra traffic/pollution - the opposite of what you posted.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> So what the council actually said is that there would be no extra traffic/pollution - the opposite of what you posted.


No, that there would be, on the roads to which it would be displaced but the assumption was that it would evaporate at some point


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No, that there would be, on the roads to which it would be displaced but the assumption was that it would evaporate at some point


So there wouldn't, in other words.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2021)

A wee reminder to everyone from One Lambeth Justice (nb not connected to One Lambeth Justice) that there's no need for consultations to be actually representative of people in the area affected! Isn't consultation great?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 ’s mate has gone full on conspiracy nut now.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> chowce5382 ’s mate has gone full on conspiracy nut now.
> 
> View attachment 284026


🙄


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> 🙄


That's how I feel about One Lambeth Justice too, with a bit more 😬.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 19, 2021)

Just for variety - and stimulated by the fact that the only topic guaranteed to get Nick Ferrari off the Taliban is LTNs in Dulwich - I tuned into the East Dulwich Forum
The East Dulwich Forum - original since 2006

As you see they are on page 211 now, albeit with more primitve software.
A cursory sample shows much less specifity on particular LTNs or roads - and indeed a certian naivité from posts:
eg - "you mean they don't build flat without underground car parks nowadays?"

We know the Brixton forum has a reach to Peckham and New York.
Maybe the East Dulwich Forum majors on Alicante?
Oh - and the posts certainly lack Mr Ferrari's vehemnt intensity on the matter.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 19, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I tuned into the East Dulwich Forum





> _From the forum referenced above and to be clear not CH1, hence the separate quote, hope that's clear enough:_
> Just walked past the “square”. There are nearly as many people with hi vis jackets (I assume volunteers preventing cycle/ pedestrian collisions) as there are other attendees, and I’m including patrons of au ciel and those heading into the bookshop. Complete and utter waste of council funds at at time when they’re not exactly flush with money.



Fascinating to see the fury about people enjoying the LTN, including the lie above. The event in the LTN was rammed when I was there, but there was jazz so I scarpered as soon as the nice Dr Bike man had fixed my attempted fix of my brakes. Where's the One Jazz Justice campaign, that's what I want to know.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 19, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Fascinating to see the fury about people enjoying the LTN, including the lie above. The event in the LTN was rammed when I was there, but there was jazz so I scarpered as soon as the nice Dr Bike man had fixed my attempted fix of my brakes. Where's the One Jazz Justice campaign, that's what I want to know.


Just watch it.
I posted the bit about East Dulwich LTN thread.

The 2nd para which you say is a "lie above" is nothing to do with me. Please source it properly - not to me.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 19, 2021)

That's why it's a separate quote not sourced to you. I'll edit it to make it clearer.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 19, 2021)

Lambeth man fined £300 after failed attempt to steal LTN road block sign
					

It comes as the council crackdown on LTN incidents




					www.mylondon.news


----------



## edcraw (Aug 20, 2021)

On the Ealing “consultations” - Survey Monkey? They weren’t even trying FFS! Glad the govt making sure councils don’t just waste the funding for these schemes and base them on actual evidence.

“ The council's move is based on a Survey Monkey poll carried out last month. Between 1% to 6% of Ealing's population completed the survey. The exact numbers are unknown as the council didn't ask for names, and people could vote more than once.”









						Government halts council plans to pull LTNs
					

Ealing Council announced on 16 August that it wants to remove seven of the COVID-19 trial low-traffic neighbourhoods and make only two perma...




					www.ealingcycling.org.uk


----------



## alex_ (Aug 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> “ The council's move is based on a Survey Monkey poll carried out last month. Between 1% to 6% of Ealing's population completed the survey. The exact numbers are unknown as the council didn't ask for names, and people could vote more than once.”



so between 0% and 6% then !


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> “ The council's move is based on a Survey Monkey poll carried out last month. Between 1% to 6% of Ealing's population completed the survey. The exact numbers are unknown as the council didn't ask for names, and people could vote more than once.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the sort of thing that should be challenged..


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 20, 2021)

Not WhatsApp, but New Scientist on how adding roads leads to more congestion. 









						Why adding a road can increase traffic and other modelling delights
					

Katy Börner's Atlas of Forecasts is packed full of interesting ways to model our world and predict what will happen. The question is, will people accept their wisdom?




					www.newscientist.com


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 20, 2021)

The Braess Paradox explained for anyone who's interested. As I understand it it's not a universal phonemenon but it shows you don't even need induced traffic for increased capacity to be Not Good.


----------



## Rushy (Aug 20, 2021)

Peppa Pig verdict on increasing road capacity in Mr Bull's New Road at about 3.55.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 20, 2021)

Rushy said:


> Peppa Pig verdict on increasing road capacity in Mr Bull's New Road at about 3.55.


A truth so obvious even a child can understand it


----------



## a_chap (Aug 22, 2021)

Twitter thread shows that the claim LTNs affect 999 response times is bollocks after all.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 23, 2021)

Here's quite a good article about transport policy that actually does divide communities. Not by making car drivers go a slightly longer route whilst retaining full access for everyone else, but by physically destroying and dividing a neighbourhood to build a massive highway that encourages even more traffic.



			Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
		


This of course nearly happened in Brixton a few decades ago.


----------



## cogito (Aug 23, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not WhatsApp, but New Scientist on how adding roads leads to more congestion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a book review not a peer reviewed scientific study,
New Scientist isn't the Lancet either.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 23, 2021)

cogito said:


> This is a book review not a peer reviewed scientific study,
> New Scientist isn't the Lancet either.


Plenty of science here if you want it. 






						Braess's paradox - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




I presume you have some studies to post up yourself?


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 24, 2021)

cogito said:


> This is a book review not a peer reviewed scientific study,
> New Scientist isn't the Lancet either.


You want Lancet content? You'll find lots of papers supporting reducing car use and increasing active travel there...
Scaling up urban infrastructure for physical activity in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond - active transportation systems and active urban design have been recognised as among the best investments for encouraging physical activity at scale
Increased walking and cycling in urban areas and reduced use of private cars could reduce costs to the NHS, permitting decreased government expenditure on health or releasing resources to fund additional health care.
Incorporation of increased levels of physical activity as part of the commute to work could reduce obesity among middle-aged adults in the UK
Regular use of a bicycle as personal transport (instead of motorised vehicles) has many advantages for human health and a clean sustainable environmenthttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01599-3/fulltext?rss=yes
People who walk, cycle and travel by train to work are at reduced risk of early death or illness compared with those who commute by car.


----------



## cogito (Aug 24, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Plenty of science here if you want it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It wasn't meant to criticise your post and only pointed out that the scientific relevance of the link wouldn't really cut it as it was only a book review.


----------



## cogito (Aug 24, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> You want Lancet content? You'll find lots of papers supporting reducing car use and increasing active travel there...
> Scaling up urban infrastructure for physical activity in the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond - active transportation systems and active urban design have been recognised as among the best investments for encouraging physical activity at scale
> Increased walking and cycling in urban areas and reduced use of private cars could reduce costs to the NHS, permitting decreased government expenditure on health or releasing resources to fund additional health care.
> Incorporation of increased levels of physical activity as part of the commute to work could reduce obesity among middle-aged adults in the UK
> ...


Thanks and no I didn't ask for references from Lancet to support the case for LTNs

I only pointed out that the link was referencing a book review rather than an original article/research paper. I can understand how it would be attractive to use a reference from New Scientist rather than relying on WhatsApp if you're anti LTN. Using Lancet would be even better from an impact factor point of view.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 24, 2021)

cogito said:


> Thanks and no I didn't ask for references from Lancet to support the case for LTNs
> 
> I only pointed out that the link was referencing a book review rather than an original article/research paper. I can understand how it would be attractive to use a reference from New Scientist rather than relying on WhatsApp if you're anti LTN. Using Lancet would be even better from an impact factor point of view.


what about Instagram ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 24, 2021)

cogito said:


> Thanks and no I didn't ask for references from Lancet to support the case for LTNs
> 
> I only pointed out that the link was referencing a book review rather than an original article/research paper. I can understand how it would be attractive to use a reference from New Scientist rather than relying on WhatsApp if you're anti LTN. Using Lancet would be even better from an impact factor point of view.


 I’m not sure antis would be swayed by Lancet or New scientist.…


----------



## edcraw (Aug 24, 2021)

Shock as councillors live in local areas!


----------



## teuchter (Aug 24, 2021)

That means there are 47 Lambeth councillors who have imposed dictatorship divided-community tyranny on LTN residents because they don't have to live in one themselves, presumably.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 26, 2021)

Someone shares a petition to bring hire bikes to Herne Hill and it brings out the nutters. It does seem best to just ignore these prats tbh:


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Shock as councillors live in local areas!



Hmm. How many cabinet members? They’re the only ones who matter.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Hmm. How many cabinet members? They’re the only ones who matter.



Yeah - all a big conspiracy…


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

So, how many?


----------



## CH1 (Aug 28, 2021)

Should there come a day when all cars are electric, will LTNs be scrapped?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 28, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Should there come a day when all cars are electric, will LTNs be scrapped?


No, because pollution is only one part of why LTN’s are needed.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> So, how many?



Have you not got the figures of cabinet members that want to increase crime in their areas? Isn’t that what LTNs do?


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

A straight question, and a straight answer would have been welcome. Why all the squirming?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> A straight question, and a straight answer would have been welcome. Why all the squirming?



I can’t be arsed to work it out as it seems pointless - you’re welcome to and let us all know.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I can’t be arsed to work it out as it seems pointless - you’re welcome to and let us all know.


Kind of lazy, for anyone who wants to know how political power operates in their community, if you ask me … which you won’t, because I don’t echo you. It seems like a fair question: how many Lambeth Council cabinet members are benefiting from the LTNs?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Kind of lazy, for anyone who wants to know how political power operates in their community, if you ask me … which you won’t, because I don’t echo you. It seems like a fair question: how many Lambeth Council cabinet members are benefiting from the LTNs?


Everyone benefits from the LTNs.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Everyone benefits from the LTNs.


The people on my road don’t. The LTN has ruined it.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Kind of lazy, for anyone who wants to know how political power operates in their community, if you ask me … which you won’t, because I don’t echo you. It seems like a fair question: how many Lambeth Council cabinet members are benefiting from the LTNs?



Man, you’re the one trying to make the accusations, very lazy of you to not back it up, why should I do your research?

I was making the point that people claim that LTNs increase crime in those areas whilst also increasing house prices - pretty deranged.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Man, you’re the one trying to make the accusations, very lazy of you to not back it up, why should I do your research?
> 
> I was making the point that people claim that LTNs increase crime in those areas whilst also increasing house prices - pretty deranged.


Deranged, yes. I don’t think I said anything about crime or house prices. The question was about Lambeth cabinet members living in LTNs. Shouldn’t that information be publicly available, as in a declaration of interest when speaking in a debate?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Deranged, yes. I don’t think I said anything about crime or house prices. The question was about Lambeth cabinet members living in LTNs. Shouldn’t that information be publicly available, as in a declaration of interest when speaking in a debate?


Do an FOI then or something- the figures above show that councillors are generally as likely to live in an LTN as not but you are just trying to shit stir by talking about cabinet members.

How many members of OneLambeth are paid by the oil industry? I think we really should be told!?


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

I think it’s rather less likely that a member of OneLambeth is getting a cheque from Shell or BP than that a cabinet member is getting some benefit from a recently created LTN. Don’t you?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> I think it’s rather less likely that a member of OneLambeth is getting a cheque from Shell or BP than that a cabinet member is getting some benefit from a recently created LTN. Don’t you?


How about all the historical LTNs, should cabinet members live in those?


----------



## Winot (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> I think it’s rather less likely than that a member of OneLambeth is getting a cheque from Shell or BP than that a cabinet member is getting some benefit from a recently created LTN. Don’t you?


Do you think Lambeth councillors are favouring LTNs because of their personal circumstances?

And do you think LTNs are, on balance, a bad idea?

If so, how do you propose to address the issues of congestion, pollution, and public health.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> I think it’s rather less likely that a member of OneLambeth is getting a cheque from Shell or BP than that a cabinet member is getting some benefit from a recently created LTN. Don’t you?



I think you’re tying to make baseless insinuations  as you don’t want to see any restrictions on cars but hey ho. At least you agree that LTNs are a benefit - it’d be weird if councillors weren’t  pushing for them then surely.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

Winot said:


> Do you think Lambeth councillors are favouring LTNs because of their personal circumstances?
> 
> And do you think LTNs are, on balance, a bad idea?
> 
> If so, how do you propose to address the issues of congestion, pollution, and public health.


I think it’s very possible that they’re favouring the LTNs because of their personal circumstances, and that that’s a question deserving of investigation. Don’t you? On balance, low traffic is good, as long as you’re not shifting the traffic somewhere else, which is what is happening with this scheme.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think you’re tying to make baseless insinuations  as you don’t want to see any restrictions on cars but hey ho. At least you agree that LTNs are a benefit - it’d be weird if councillors weren’t  pushing for them then surely.


I wouldn’t care if cars were banned entirely in London. The LTN in my area is ruining my quality of life. May I ask if the people making the decisions on the LTNs are gaining from them? Hey ho.


----------



## Winot (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> On balance, low traffic is good, as long as you’re not shifting the traffic somewhere else, which is what is happening with this scheme.


Suggest you read the thread.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

Isn’t this supposed to be a sort of anti-establishment chat room? Why are you arguing against some transparency in this local government decision-making process?


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

Winot said:


> Suggest you read the thread.


Will I find an answer to my question to you above? “I think it’s very possible that they’re favouring the LTNs because of their personal circumstances, and that that’s a question deserving of investigation. Don’t you?”


----------



## Winot (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Will I find an answer to my question to you above? “I think it’s very possible that they’re favouring the LTNs because of their personal circumstances, and that that’s a question deserving of investigation. Don’t you?”


I don’t know whether they are and no, I don’t think that’s worthy of investigation. All I care about is whether objectively LTNs are a good idea or not.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 28, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Should there come a day when all cars are electric, will LTNs be scrapped?


No because tailpipe emmisions are only part of the problem. Particulate pollution from road, brake and tyre wear is also pretty nasty.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2021)

Collateral Dama do I remember correctly that you yourself live within an LTN?


----------



## Collateral Dama (Aug 28, 2021)

Winot said:


> I don’t know whether they are and no, I don’t think that’s worthy of investigation. All I care about is whether objectively LTNs are a good idea or not.


So you don’t think it’s worth investigating whether the people we elect to represent us are gaining from the decisions they make. Okay. I’m learning something about this chat room. “Objectively” is a big word. I can say that the LTN where I live has, subjectively, made my life shit for the past 13 months.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> Isn’t this supposed to be a sort of anti-establishment chat room? Why are you arguing against some transparency in this local government decision-making process?



Personally I’d say LTNs are pretty anti-establishment, they’ve certainly riled Daily Mail & talk radio types.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 29, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> How about all the historical LTNs, should cabinet members live in those?



Do you mean the ones going back to the 1970s ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 29, 2021)

Collateral Dama said:


> So you don’t think it’s worth investigating whether the people we elect to represent us are gaining from the decisions they make. Okay. I’m learning something about this chat room. “Objectively” is a big word. I can say that the LTN where I live has, subjectively, made my life shit for the past 13 months.


How are they gaining?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 29, 2021)

Just south of me the argument being made is that LTNs are being imposed by councillors & officers who don't live in the area and couldn't possibly understand the hell they are apparently creating.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Just south of me the argument being made is that LTNs are being imposed by councillors & officers who don't live in the area and couldn't possibly understand the hell they are apparently creating.



It’s almost like people are using whatever arguments they can think of to use against these rather than just be honest and admit it’s because they want to be able to drive wherever they want.


----------



## Winot (Aug 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s almost like people are using whatever arguments they can think of to use against these rather than just be honest and admit it’s because they want to be able to drive wherever they want.


Schrödinger’s LTNs.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 29, 2021)

Winot said:


> Schrödinger’s LTNs.


It's not just this argument either. They're leafy enclaves for the rich, and also ghettos cut off from the rest of the world. They were never busy with traffic, and also all that traffic has been displaced. And so on.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> It's not just this argument either. They're leafy enclaves for the rich, and also ghettos cut off from the rest of the world. They were never busy with traffic, and also all that traffic has been displaced. And so on.



They’re money making schemes that are a waste of money!


----------



## CH1 (Aug 29, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> It's not just this argument either. They're leafy enclaves for the rich, and also ghettos cut off from the rest of the world. They were never busy with traffic, and also all that traffic has been displaced. And so on.


That is obviously true - apart from Railton Road itself.
Can't speak for the Ferndale LTN. Post up a map why don't you?


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 29, 2021)

CH1 said:


> That is obviously true - apart from Railton Road itself.
> Can't speak for the Ferndale LTN. Post up a map why don't you?





			https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/


----------



## CH1 (Aug 29, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 285860
> 
> 
> https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/


Commendable detail in the stats - but how to interpret?
No map of Ferndale LTN however.

What IS clear from this data is Lambeth is right at the top of implementing these measures.
This is the politics of today.
We live in a country where Brexiteers have hijacked the media and LTN wallrs have hijacked Lambeth Council.

Since we now have referendums - I think a referendum is required. Not this creeping Stalinism.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 29, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Stalinism


No need for a referendum when the discussion is so sensible.


----------



## chowce5382 (Aug 29, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Personally I’d say LTNs are pretty anti-establishment, they’ve certainly riled Daily Mail & talk radio types.


Yet are supported by local and national government. So they are very much part of the establishment. As are you on this matter…


----------



## edcraw (Aug 30, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yet are supported by local and national government. So they are very much part of the establishment. As are you on this matter…


Are you anti establishment then? What is it your company does again?

I’m not sure defining anything that actually gets implemented as pro establishment is a very useful definition.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are you anti establishment then?


OLJ is the GG Allin of local political campaigns.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 30, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 285860
> 
> 
> https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/


That’s just the new ones though?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 30, 2021)

Anti LTNers seem to be against any road controls or courtesy  - why else would they vandalise 20mph limit signs and warning about school kids?


----------



## alex_ (Aug 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Anti LTNers seem to be against any road controls or courtesy  - why else would they vandalise 20mph limit signs and warning about school kids?



Let me think, maybe they are doing it to help disabled people.

Naah, some of them are just total scumbags.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2021)

A study looking at cargo bikes vs vans in London:



			https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/61091edc3acfda2f4af7d97f/1627987694676/The+Promise+of+Low-Carbon+Freight.pdf


----------



## edcraw (Sep 2, 2021)

He’s got a point:


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 3, 2021)

Yet another judicial review falls on its arse, this time in Hackney. HHRC Ltd   v Hackney Borough Council [2021] EWHC 2440 (Admin) (03 September 2021)


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Yet another judicial review falls on its arse, this time in Hackney. HHRC Ltd   v Hackney Borough Council [2021] EWHC 2440 (Admin) (03 September 2021)


Short version:



    The claimant brings this claim on four grounds. Ground 1 advanced by the claimant is the contention that the defendant failed to discharge its duty under section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 in approving the ETP proposals. Section 16 of the 2004 Act, which is dealt with in greater detail below, creates the network management duty, and it is contended that the defendant failed to properly examine the impact of the ETP proposals upon the movement of traffic not simply on neighbourhood road networks, but also on the busier and more strategic highways surrounding the areas affected by the proposed LTNs. Ground 3, which is allied to these considerations, is the contention that the approval of the ETP failed to properly investigate or have regard to the impact on air quality of the LTN proposals


    Ground 2 of the claimant's application is the submission that the defendant breached its public sector equality duty ("PSED") under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to have due regard in approving the ETP to the impact which its LTN proposals would have upon groups with protected characteristics. Finally, under Ground 4, the claimant submits that there was a failure to undertake any proper consultation on the ETP before it was promulgated in breach of the consultation requirements of the common law. 


Conclusions
    For the reasons set out above, having considered the claimant's case in respect of all four grounds upon which this application for judicial review is advanced, I am not satisfied that there is merit in the substance of the claim. It is therefore not necessary to proceed to evaluate the defendant's contentions in relation to alternative remedy, delay or discretion as, in the result, they do not arise as I am not satisfied that there is any basis upon which the claimant could be entitled to relief. For all of the reasons which have been set out above this claim must be dismissed.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

Only 89 people have donated to OneLambeth's 3rd fundraiser compared to 689 to the 2nd one. Seems to have lost momentum.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

It looks like blue badge holders will be able to nominate a filter to be exempt for and wheelchair accessible taxis will be exempt from filter that buses use if the schemes become permanent.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 3, 2021)

What does a single filter mean?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> What does a single filter mean?


I guess blue badge holders can nominate a filter they are able to go through.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2021)

Good that they are considering such exemptions.

I'm glad they are not giving in and exempting all residents or anything like that.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It looks like blue badge holders will be able to nominate a filter to be exempt for and wheelchair accessible taxis will be exempt from filter that buses use if the schemes become permanent.






edcraw said:


> I guess blue badge holders can nominate a filter they are able to go through.


What does that mean, what is a filter? Do they mean one single blocked off road?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

A filter is the thing with planters and no motor vehicles sign. It’s a modal filter - bikes can go through, motor vehicles can’t.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Only 89 people have donated to OneLambeth's 3rd fundraiser compared to 689 to the 2nd one. Seems to have lost momentum.


Yeah 2500 people in the Facebook group but only 89 people have donated, ouch


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It looks like blue badge holders will be able to nominate a filter to be exempt for and wheelchair accessible taxis will be exempt from filter that buses use if the schemes become permanent.


One Lambeth Justice trying to claim some sort of victory with this announcement.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A filter is the thing with planters and no motor vehicles sign. It’s a modal filter - bikes can go through, motor vehicles can’t.


So my blue badge will allow me through one LTN only i.e one road?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

nagapie said:


> So my blue badge will allow me through one LTN only i.e one road?



That’s how I’m reading it.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s how I’m reading it.


Wow, how lucky for blue badge holders that Lambeth is throwing them a crumb of access.

That's actually fucking disgusting and openly passive aggressive.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> A filter is the thing with planters and no motor vehicles sign. It’s a modal filter - bikes can go through, motor vehicles can’t.


Always worthwhile taking into account that BB are only 45% of the group who are vulnerable in that specific group . This is a start but only relates to the LTN closest to them. The council have all the data on this point. Why are they not looking at the bigger picture for disabled people? I don’t get why this is such a ‘blind spot’ dor

And before you do your usual and ask another question, can you answer the above. You are able bodied, why is the council not allowing this group to travel around freely given the position they are in?

Cue no answers and more questions…


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Why are they not looking at the bigger picture for disabled people?
> 
> why is the council not allowing this group to travel around freely given the position they are in?



I’m not the council so can’t answer for them.

Have I answered your questions?

My opinion is this is a compromise - this will help  people with disabilities that use private cars and taxis to move to and from their addresses more easily.

It’s also important to remember that LTNs are also beneficial to non car using people with disabilities.

EDIT: I admit I’m coming from a position of ignorance on the subject here and want to learn and have looked for info on this, but OneLambeth and most campaigners against LTNs aren’t providing that info as this is not their real concern.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

I doubt this is meant to win over OneLambeth types - nothing will - but does seem to show that the council has listened and made changes as they said they would. Black cabs being able to use LTNs is a big compromise imo.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 3, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Always worthwhile taking into account that BB are only 45% of the group who are vulnerable in that specific group .


I don't understand this sentence.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

Anyway - can I ask a question chowce5382?

How do you see this impacting your court case and have you asked your lawyers what the implications may be?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand this sentence.



I think this comes from here - though unsure why the other 54% don’t have blue badges. It could be because they don’t use cars.



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/953754/blue-badge-scheme-statistics-2020.pdf


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 3, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand this sentence.


Yup. This has been an ongoing issue


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m not the council so can’t answer for them.
> 
> Have I answered your questions?
> 
> ...


Why are you looking to a group of  residents for an answer. It’s the role of the council to supply the information you’re after. Have you asked them? If not, why not? It’s the job of the executive to supply answers, not the the role of populace. Please ask them and them and relay the answers to us.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 3, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Why are you looking to a group of  residents for an answer. It’s the role of the council to supply the information you’re after. Have you asked them? If not, why not? It’s the job of the executive to supply answers, not the the role of populace. Please ask them and them and relay the answers to us.



Sorry but I don’t understand this. Who am I meant to ask and what’s the question?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup. This has been an ongoing issue



What does this mean? Is my answer above wrong?


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Anyway - can I ask a question chowce5382?
> 
> How do you see this impacting your court case and have you asked your lawyers what the implications may be?


Yup, I’ve spoken to our lawyers about this.
If you look at the changes it doesn’t help much. For example, a disabled person on my road would save 30seconds in terms of getting out of the LTN and onto the main road. They would still have to deal with all the same issues once there so it doesn’t really help. Having spoken to charities around here, they haven’t heard anything from or spoken to the council so I’m not sure how they have made this decision.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> For example, a disabled person on my road would save 30seconds in terms of getting out of the LTN and onto the main road.



So the LTN only adds 30s? Most antis usually claim 20mins!



chowce5382 said:


> They would still have to deal with all the same issues once there so it doesn’t really help.



What are these issues?

Also, what did your lawyers say?


----------



## BigTom (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, I’ve spoken to our lawyers about this.
> If you look at the changes it doesn’t help much. For example, a disabled person on my road would save 30seconds in terms of getting out of the LTN and onto the main road. They would still have to deal with all the same issues once there so it doesn’t really help. Having spoken to charities around here, they haven’t heard anything from or spoken to the council so I’m not sure how they have made this decision.



They haven't made a decision, they are putting this out for consultation.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So the LTN only adds 30s? Most antis usually claim 20mins!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Getting out onto brixton hill is the easy but. It’s getting from brixton hill to Tulse hill which is harder for a disabled person as they aren’t able to drive through their own neighbourhood and still won’t be able to. As a result they have to do 3 sides of a square and that’s what takes the time, not the final part of getting from the road block to the house.

Can’t tell you.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 4, 2021)

BigTom said:


> They haven't made a decision, they are putting this out for consultation.


Decision was made a long time ago.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Decision was made a long time ago.


Then why are they putting it out for consultation? Aren't you happy it's being put out for consultation?


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I’m not the council so can’t answer for them.
> 
> Have I answered your questions?
> 
> ...


Giving access to LTNs for those with access to cars does not negate the benefits to disabled people without cars. 
This is some race to the bottom ableist bullshit. I wouldn't be surprised if this is their punishment for Sophia's case.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Then why are they putting it out for consultation? Aren't you happy it's being put out for consultation?


They don't need to consult. They just need to give access to blue badge holders and their carers because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 4, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> One Lambeth Justice trying to claim some sort of victory with this announcement.
> 
> 
> View attachment 286571



It’s a huge fuck up Lambeth didn’t do this originally - or at least say they’d do it


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 4, 2021)

alex_ said:


> It’s a huge fuck up Lambeth didn’t do this originally - or at least say they’d do it


In fact we were told that it “was not possible”.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> In fact we were told that it “was not possible”.



Clearly bullshit then, clearly bullshit now.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> They don't need to consult. They just need to give access to blue badge holders and their carers because it's the right thing to do.



What access should be given?

 Should blue badge holders have access through all LTN filters using ANPR filters around the UK? 

Should all LTN filters be made ANPR, including pre existing ones?

Should carers get to access LTNs filters for roads/areas that don't have anyone they care for living in them?

Should blue badge holders get to use LTN roads they don't live in as through roads because they are blue badge holders?

I'm pretty sure that even though you will find broad agreement that blue badge holders and their carers should be given access through LTN filters to roads they live on, there will be a lot of disagreement about the questions above.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 4, 2021)

BigTom said:


> What access should be given?
> 
> Should blue badge holders have access through all LTN filters using ANPR filters around the UK?
> 
> ...


It’s easy. All LTNs across all boroughs. Carers should also be exempt.

Its the right thing to do.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

BigTom said:


> What access should be given?
> 
> Should blue badge holders have access through all LTN filters using ANPR filters around the UK?
> 
> ...


People with blue badges should have access to all filters. I have to access more than one from where I live and multiple others to get to hospital and therapy appointments. In fact I have to drive all over wider south London to access what our blue badge holder needs. It's not just about where you live, unfortunately services are not dispersed like that in London.
Carers going to work to support sick and disabled people should have access. We already have a carer crisis in this country, difficulty in how their transport and times are organised is a long recorded problem. Of course if the government wants to start ensuring they are all paid properly for their time and effort, that might solve the problem. But I don't see that happening.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s easy. All LTNs across all boroughs. Carers should also be exempt.
> 
> Its the right thing to do.



Rubbish 

What about historic low traffic systems - Should they get a key for those ?

What about the north side of Trafalgar Square - should that be reopened for blue badge holders - what about Covent Garden ?

Alex


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 4, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Rubbish
> 
> What about historic low traffic systems - Should they get a key for those ?
> 
> ...


You guys love talking about historic systems. Let’s just start with access to all LtNs which have been put in as a response to covid. The historic ones we can look at later but that’s a start.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Carers going to work to support sick and disabled people should have access. We already have a carer crisis in this country, difficulty in how their transport and times are organised is a long recorded problem. Of course if the government wants to start ensuring they are all paid properly for their time and effort, that might solve the problem. But I don't see that happening.


The extension of this logic would be that anyone who is badly paid, and needs to travel between appointments, should be given access. But it ignores all those people who are badly paid and need to travel between appointments, and who don't have a car and have to rely on public transport and/or walking and cycling.

Of course, you'll not agree with the second sentence if you don't believe that LTNs can provide an improvement for those not travelling by private car.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Rubbish
> 
> What about historic low traffic systems - Should they get a key for those ?
> 
> ...


If cars are allowed, blue badge holders should be allowed. So they can enjoy historic London like everyone else.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The extension of this logic would be that anyone who is badly paid, and needs to travel between appointments, should be given access. But it ignores all those people who are badly paid and need to travel between appointments, and who don't have a car and have to rely on public transport and/or walking and cycling.
> 
> Of course, you'll not agree with the second sentence if you don't believe that LTNs can provide an improvement for those not travelling by private car.


No, caring for our most vulnerable is a specific area of need that must be prioritized.
I'm sure LTNs can provide benefits for those not traveling by car, I've never said otherwise, but some people with disabilities need cars. Don't try and pit disabilities against each other, that's not where the problems lie.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> No, caring for our most vulnerable is a specific area of need that must be prioritized.
> I'm sure LTNs can provide benefits for those not traveling by car, I've never said otherwise, but some people with disabilities need cars. Don't try and pit disabilities against each other, that's not where the problems lie.


I'm not pitting disabilities against each other any more than you are.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm not pitting disabilities against each other any more than you are.


No, people with access to motability are not taking away from those who don't. That is not where the problem lies. Blue badge holders are few, they're not going to fuck up the LTNs by using them. It's just made up nonsense.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

This is how this thread goes.
People conflate One Lambeth and disabled blue badge holders.
You point out this isn't how it is and everyone says they are all in agreement with blue badge holders having access, you've all said that all over this thread in response to me.
Blue badge holders are denied access and you all jump in to defend it.
So you're all agreeing that some of the most vulnerable people in the country should not be given a reasonable adjustment that improves their lives, reduces hardship and mitigates against the acute isolation these sectors of society face.
Basically you sound like a load of pricks.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Decision was made a long time ago.


Before the court case?.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> People with blue badges should have access to all filters. I have to access more than one from where I live and multiple others to get to hospital and therapy appointments. In fact I have to drive all over wider south London to access what our blue badge holder needs. It's not just about where you live, unfortunately services are not dispersed like that in London.
> Carers going to work to support sick and disabled people should have access. We already have a carer crisis in this country, difficulty in how their transport and times are organised is a long recorded problem. Of course if the government wants to start ensuring they are all paid properly for their time and effort, that might solve the problem. But I don't see that happening.



So clearly you disagree with Lambeth council about what should happen. I don't understand why you seem unhappy that there's consultation. If there wasn't then Lambeth would just proceed with a plan you are not happy with.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

BigTom said:


> So clearly you disagree with Lambeth council about what should happen. I don't understand why you seem unhappy that there's consultation. If there wasn't then Lambeth would just proceed with a plan you are not happy with.


That's not what I said. I pointed out, it shouldn't be necessary to consult on fair access for the disabled.
Especially if consultation is going to be used as a guise to say that offering next to nothing is doing something.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 4, 2021)

Y





chowce5382 said:


> Yup. This has been an ongoing issue


You've been asked plenty of times to back stuff up and you haven't, the fucking cheek of this.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> That's not what I said. I pointed out, it shouldn't be necessary to consult on fair access for the disabled.
> Especially if consultation is going to be used as a guise to say that offering next to nothing is doing something.


This only makes sense if what is "fair" is obvious and indisputable. It isn't.


----------



## Winot (Sep 4, 2021)

Brixton Blog article quotes Danny Adilypour

“We are also working with the NHS to identify which of their services may need an exemption, and have separate proposals for taxis and fully accessible private hire vehicles to be able to travel through bus gates.”

This sounds like taxis and accessible PHVs might be allowed through even if they are not carrying someone with a blue badge. I’m not in favour of that.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 4, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Y
> You've been asked plenty of times to back stuff up and you haven't, the fucking cheek of this.


It was in the court documents we submitted. It was the same a long time ago when someone in the family needed one too. However, I admit that it might not be a well known point in ableist circles


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This only makes sense if what is "fair" is obvious and indisputable. It isn't.


It's very clear that you know very little if anything about disability and inclusion. Yet you feel free to constantly talk about these issues as if you do.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 4, 2021)

Winot said:


> Brixton Blog article quotes Danny Adilypour
> 
> “We are also working with the NHS to identify which of their services may need an exemption, and have separate proposals for taxis and fully accessible private hire vehicles to be able to travel through bus gates.”
> 
> This sounds like taxis and accessible PHVs might be allowed through even if they are not carrying someone with a blue badge. I’m not in favour of that.



Yep, I think that’s the case. I guess it would be v difficult to only allow them when being used by blue badge holders.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It was in the court documents we submitted. It was the same a long time ago when someone in the family needed one too. However, I admit that it might not be a well known point in ableist circles



Isn’t this from the report I shared above? Do you know when 56% of those eligible don’t have blue badges?


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> That's not what I said. I pointed out, it shouldn't be necessary to consult on fair access for the disabled.
> Especially if consultation is going to be used as a guise to say that offering next to nothing is doing something.


so surely on the same logic it should not be necessary to consult on changes to the transport system to increase safety and accessibility, and more equitably allocate street space, for walking and cycling, the most vulnerable road users.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep, I think that’s the case. I guess it would be v difficult to only allow them when being used by blue badge holders.



It's not just that, there are plenty of people who have the same issues as blue badge holders but do not have access to a car and so don't have a blue badge, for whom taxis are a main form of transport - allowing wheelchair accessible taxis through LTN filters gives the same access to the 46% (? from memory of the stat quoted earlier) of people who have a condition that automatically qualifies them for a blue badge but do not have a blue badge.

It would be disproportionate to have taxi drivers prove that their journey involved someone in receipt of disability benefits (I think that's probably inclusive of all people who need this adjustment, including people who don't have a blue badge for lack of access to a car).


----------



## BigTom (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> It's very clear that you know very little if anything about disability and inclusion. Yet you feel free to constantly talk about these issues as if you do.



If it's so obvious, then why has the council not proposed what you propose? To me that says there is disagreement about what is fair/proportionate. If there is broad agreement with what you propose then this should be brought out in the consultation and the proposal should be altered to reflect that.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

BigTom said:


> If it's so obvious, then why has the council not proposed what you propose? To me that says there is disagreement about what is fair/proportionate. If there is broad agreement with what you propose then this should be brought out in the consultation and the proposal should be altered to reflect that.


I've said what I have to say on inclusion and reasonable adjustments.
Lambeth are not exactly models of practice in this area on this matter.
I'm tired of people defending lack of access, especially on nonsense like it's not fair to other disabled people. 
I have 15 years of working with disability and inclusion and I encounter these sorts of excuses and smoke and mirror bullshit all the time. 
You're either for reasonable adjustments and inclusion or you're not.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 4, 2021)

BigTom said:


> It's not just that, there are plenty of people who have the same issues as blue badge holders but do not have access to a car and so don't have a blue badge, for whom taxis are a main form of transport - allowing wheelchair accessible taxis through LTN filters gives the same access to the 46% (? from memory of the stat quoted earlier) of people who have a condition that automatically qualifies them for a blue badge but do not have a blue badge.
> 
> It would be disproportionate to have taxi drivers prove that their journey involved someone in receipt of disability benefits (I think that's probably inclusive of all people who need this adjustment, including people who don't have a blue badge for lack of access to a car).



Agree with this - however black cab users also skew heavily to the very well off so it’s also an exemption for them which isn’t great.


----------



## Winot (Sep 4, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Agree with this - however black cab users also skew heavily to the very well off so it’s also an exemption for them which isn’t great.


Yes the barristers of Dulwich will be happy.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

Winot said:


> Yes the barristers of Dulwich will be happy.


I am not arguing for black cab access but I think that what's muddying the waters is that a lot of disability transport is now contracted out to black cabs by the local authorities.


----------



## Winot (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I am not arguing for black cab access but I think that what's muddying the waters is that a lot of disability transport is now contracted out to black cabs by the local authorities.


Yes I can see the problem.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 4, 2021)

nagapie said:


> It's very clear that you know very little if anything about disability and inclusion.


I see. Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 4, 2021)

One Lambeth’s position is different. They don’t want to just allow certain groups such as disabled people and their carers through the LTN. They are saying that because of the congestion caused by displaced traffic (their words) then that’s just as bad, so they insist in removing the LTNs entirely as this will remove the congestion. I don’t remember it being like that pre LTN.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 ’s mates covering themselves in glory as usual:


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It was in the court documents we submitted. It was the same a long time ago when someone in the family needed one too. However, I admit that it might not be a well known point in ableist circles


It was a general point given your "do your own research" attitude in the past, not backed up by what happened in the court case. And now it turns out Lambeth are willing to tweak their plans, as they said they would all along...


----------



## alex_ (Sep 4, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The extension of this logic would be that anyone who is badly paid, and needs to travel between appointments, should be given access.



Like Uber drivers for example, also couriers and all tradesmen.

Our error here is trying to distill their logic


----------



## alex_ (Sep 4, 2021)

Dupe


----------



## nagapie (Sep 4, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Like Uber drivers for example, also couriers and all tradesmen.
> 
> Our error here is trying to distill their logic


No, not the same. Shortages in staffing social care is the largest and most immediate crisis facing this country, bar maybe Covid.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 4, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> You guys love talking about historic systems. Let’s just start with access to all LtNs which have been put in as a response to covid. The historic ones we can look at later but that’s a start.



Yes, because you cannot logically just be against today’s traffic calming measures


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> It was a general point given your "do your own research" attitude in the past, not backed up by what happened in the court case. And now it turns out Lambeth are willing to tweak their plans, as they said they would all along...


Hence the reason I said that the decision was taken a long time ago.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Yes, because you cannot logically just be against today’s traffic calming measures


Legally you can because they were put in place by different (emergency) legislation.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> That's not what I said. I pointed out, it shouldn't be necessary to consult on fair access for the disabled.
> Especially if consultation is going to be used as a guise to say that offering next to nothing is doing something.


It seems that the council is trying to outsource this decision. There probably won’t be that many people that get involved in consultation and they’ll then use that to back up their position. In the meantime disabled people will suffer. Consultation is a good thing but not if the decision has been made already


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It seems that the council is trying to outsource this decision. There probably won’t be that many people that get involved in consultation and they’ll then use that to back up their position. In the meantime disabled people will suffer. Consultation is a good thing but not if the decision has been made already


Can you link me to the consultation?


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Can you link me to the consultation?


I don’t know if it’s up and running yet tbh. I also don’t know how it’s going to be managed. They did a “consultation” via commonplace which was supposed to be “the” consultation but they didn’t get the answer they wanted so said it wasn’t representative. Hopefully they won’t just do a digital consultation this time but emails have already gone out to supporters with pre-consultation material asking what they would like to see in the consultation


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Like Uber drivers for example, also couriers and all tradesmen.
> 
> Our error here is trying to distill their logic


It seems the logic is that as the shortage of care workers is acute (and I'm not going to dispute that) it's not acceptable to take any measures which might extend the journey times of the portion of them who have private transport available to them. Even if those extensions are relatively marginal. And this has to override the benefits of lower traffic levels that others (including care workers using public transport) could enjoy. Perhaps there should be exemptions from speed limits as well.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I don’t know if it’s up and running yet tbh.



How are you so ignorant about something you’re meant to be so heavily involved in?

The consultations for Oval & Railton start tomorrow links at the bottom of this page to register.









						Love Lambeth
					

Lambeth Council has announced the start of its Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTNs) consultation programme where residents can have their say.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk
				




The council has said the other areas will be consulted on in the next few months.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I don’t know if it’s up and running yet tbh. I also don’t know how it’s going to be managed. They did a “consultation” via commonplace which was supposed to be “the” consultation but they didn’t get the answer they wanted so said it wasn’t representative. Hopefully they won’t just do a digital consultation this time but emails have already gone out to supporters with pre-consultation material asking what they would like to see in the consultation



The commonplace was never a consultation it was for people to raise issues as the council could make changes to the temp scheme.

As for pre consultation material - no idea what this is.

You’re just making spurious claims to make it sound like a great conspiracy- very OneLambeth!


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How are you so ignorant about something you’re meant to be so heavily involved in?
> 
> The consultations for Oval & Railton start tomorrow links at the bottom of this page to register.
> 
> ...


Because I haven’t been approached. That’s the point of consultation, if someone who is involved hasn’t had anything through their door then how far reaching will this consultation be? As mentioned, all the pro groups have had emails telling them when it will start.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The commonplace was never a consultation it was for people to raise issues as the council could make changes to the temp scheme.
> 
> As for pre consultation material - no idea what this is.
> 
> You’re just making spurious claims to make it sound like a great conspiracy- very OneLambeth!


The council told us after the deputation that the consultation would be via common place.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Because I haven’t been approached. That’s the point of consultation, if someone who is involved hasn’t had anything through their door then how far reaching will this consultation be? As mentioned, all the pro groups have had emails telling them when it will start.



It’s been mentioned in at least the following places:

on the email updates for each scheme - have you signed up to these?
in an email from our local councillors - do you not get these?
in Q&A sessions the council have been doing -have you attended any of these?
in the announcement about the proposed exemptions - presumably you read this as you’re aware of the exemptions.
Brixton Buzz & Brixton Blog news articles
Tweeted about by your organisation, OneLambeth Justice.

If you don’t know this you’re not paying attention, but this is probably going to be OneLambeth’s next play, to make out people aren’t aware of it.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s been mentioned in at least the following places:
> 
> on the email updates for each scheme - have you signed up to these?
> in an email from our local councillors - do you not get these?
> ...


I haven’t had any of these. Consultation should be far reaching enough that you don’t have to pro-actively sign up and search it out. Speaking to people on our road WhatsApp group about this, only one person new it was happening.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It seems the logic is that as the shortage of care workers is acute (and I'm not going to dispute that) it's not acceptable to take any measures which might extend the journey times of the portion of them who have private transport available to them. Even if those extensions are relatively marginal. And this has to override the benefits of lower traffic levels that others (including care workers using public transport) could enjoy. Perhaps there should be exemptions from speed limits as well.


Except one of the problems with care work is the number of people who have to be visited and given essential and quality care in a short space of hours, making it difficult to do on public transport. Especially in London when you are travelling around large boroughs. 
Care workers essentially fill the roles of community nurses after decades of cuts to the NHS. They are working medics. I think you are missing the point of LTNs, they're not to get all cars off the road but to reduce significantly the traffic on the road leaving the roads free for those that really need them. Carers who fulfil the role of community nurses are those. 
But perhaps we shouldn't allow those with cars to use them because some might not have cars. Seeing as this is your version of fair. We can then deter even more workers from doing this chronically understaffed role.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I haven’t had any of these. Consultation should be far reaching enough that you don’t have to pro-actively sign up and search it out. Speaking to people on our road WhatsApp group about this, only one person new it was happening.


You haven’t gone to any of the Q&As or signed up to the email updates? It sounds like you’re not really that interested in LTNs at all then.

It’d be great if the council can write to every address but can see that that would be v expensive for the whole of Lambeth. Maybe they’re doing it for the areas being consulted on.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You haven’t gone to any of the Q&As or signed up to the email updates? It sounds like you’re not really that interested in LTNs at all then.
> 
> It’d be great if the council can write to every address but can see that that would be v expensive for the whole of Lambeth. Maybe they’re doing it for the areas being consulted on.


Your level of interest shouldn’t decide whether you are involved or alerted to a consultation. 

People in areas which are being consulted haven’t been contacted, unless they got that pre-consultation email sent out to specific people


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Your level of interest shouldn’t decide whether you are involved or alerted to a consultation.
> 
> People in areas which are being consulted haven’t been contacted, unless they got that pre-consultation email sent out to specific people



No, but if you’re actively interested in it, as you supposedly are, it’s been very easy to stay up to date and ask questions and raise concerns.

The pre-consultation email was sent out to everyone that had left comments on any of the commonplace LTN sites and said they could be contacted, so nothing sinister as you keep trying to make out. It also means that you didn’t even do this. 

Have you ever even contacted your councillors or was it just straight to legal action?


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No, but if you’re actively interested in it, as you supposedly are, it’s been very easy to stay up to date and ask questions and raise concerns.
> 
> The pre-consultation email was sent out to everyone that had left comments on any of the commonplace LTN sites and said they could be contacted, so nothing sinister as you keep trying to make out. It also means that you didn’t even do this.
> 
> Have you ever even contacted your councillors or was it just straight to legal action?


Yes, I spoke to our councillors and also sent a deputation to the council. That was when we were told that it would be impossible to exempt BB holders. I pointed out that in Fulham it was already being done but was told that I was lying. I sent the link through to show I wasn’t but got no reply. That is indicative of the engagement from the counci.

You’ve just proved that you have to be proactive to make sure you stay up to date. Lots of peope didn’t even know about commonplace and most people will not know that this is actually happening.

The emails to which I am referring were not as a result of signing up to Commonplace.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> You’ve just proved that you have to be proactive to make sure you stay up to date. Lots of peope didn’t even know about commonplace and most people will not know that this is actually happening.



No - it shows there have been lots of different outlets to keep people informed and you've (deliberately) disenganged from all.



chowce5382 said:


> The emails to which I am referring were not as a result of signing up to Commonplace.



Okay - what are the ones you're referring to?


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> No - it shows there have been lots of different outlets to keep people informed and you've (deliberately) disenganged from all.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay - what are the ones you're referring to?


No, it shows that you have to be proactive. If you’re not then you won’t know it’s happening.

there was a pre-consultation email sent out by the council telling people to get on the consultation as soon as it came out. A cycling mate of mine showed me


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> there was a pre-consultation email sent out by the council telling people to get on the consultation as soon as it came out. A cycling mate of mine showed me



Can you share it & do you know who it was sent to?

You do have a habit of making claims of conspiracy without anything to back them up.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Can you share it & do you know who it was sent to?
> 
> You do have a habit of making claims of conspiracy without anything to back them up.


Yup, it’s all a grand conspiracy Ed. Well done, you’ve cracked the case.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Can you share it & do you know who it was sent to?
> 
> You do have a habit of making claims of conspiracy without anything to back them up.


I also knew that you’d focus on the email rather than the council lying and the steps we took to engage with them.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I also knew that you’d focus on the email rather than the council lying and the steps we took to engage with them.


So no you don't have any details of the secret email sent out to all cyclists in the borough?

What council lying? That they have supposedly said they couldn't exempt blue badges and that commonplace was the consultation? I've never heard either of these (in fact the opposite) so I'm doubtful they happened and you haven't proved very reliable on a lot of what you've said on here.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> So no you don't have any details of the secret email sent out to all cyclists in the borough?
> 
> What council lying? That they have supposedly said they couldn't exempt blue badges and that commonplace was the consultation? I've never heard either of these (in fact the opposite) so I'm doubtful they happened and you haven't proved very reliable on a lot of what you've said on here.


When they told me it was impossible to do. An FOI showed me that they had discussed it but decided against it. So, they were lying when they said it was impossible


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> When they told me it was impossible to do. An FOI showed me that they had discussed it but decided against it. So, they were lying when they said it was impossible


Have you seen them say this anywhere else?


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Have you seen them say this anywhere else?


After the deputation, we received a reply saying it would be impossible. That’s why I FOI’d it to see whether they had considered. They, had but decided against it.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> After the deputation, we received a reply saying it would be impossible. That’s why I FOI’d it to see whether they had considered. They, had but decided against it.


Can you share the reply then?


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Can you share the reply then?


I’ll ask someone in the group if they have it. Ultimately the proof is in the pudding. They could have done something to help disabled people but they didn’t.
If you can find the video of the deputation you should see it in one of the replies


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

Love how you keep stating facts, offer nothing to back them up & then ask people to do their own research!


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Love how you keep stating facts, offer nothing to back them up & then ask people to do their own research!


Just trying to teach you some critical thinking


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

From the council's minutes: Agenda item - Deputations and Petitions | Lambeth Council 



> · Christian Oakley, Richard Marshall and Gina Attridge stated that a consultation should have been conducted in the spring, before the introduction of LTNs, and that residents and businesses had never been asked if they were in favour of LTNs. Many people had been excluded from the process. An Equalities Impact Assessment had not been completed, no evidence had been provided prior to the introduction of LTNs, and there were only three air pollution monitoring stations in the borough. In the short term, there was increased pollution, congestion and journey times, and in Waltham Forest, the long-term data showed only a 1% reduction in traffic. Traffic was diverted to main roads, increasing pollution for residents of these roads. They wanted to be able to travel efficiently but believed in safe and healthy streets for everyone. Most roads in LTNs were quiet outside of rush hour, and all had pavements for pedestrians. LTNs did not address the climate crisis, were ill-conceived and were anti-vehicle. There were businesses that had lost business as a result of LTNs, and key workers’ journey times were longer. People with disabilities were particularly affected, as Motability vehicles gave them the freedom to leave their homes safely. Increased journey times as a result of LTNs increased stress and anxiety. While the climate crisis was important, those who were not able to use alternative methods of transport needed to be considered and consulted.
> · Councillor Claire Holland, Deputy Leader (Sustainable Transport, Environment and Clean Air) stated that LTNs had been introduced in an unusual way, but that it was in order to support the economic recovery and adjust to changing travel patterns and to meet the requirement to spend the emergency funding by September 2020. Full consultation would be required to make the schemes permanent. There was no evidence showing an increase in pollution. The majority of Lambeth residents did not own a car and air pollution disproportionately affected older people, people on low incomes and the BAME community. LTNs were not benefiting richer areas at the expense of poorer areas; five housing estates were within the Oval LTN. Displacement of traffic was complex and was affected by other changes to the road network. The impact of LTNs was being monitored closely, and Cllr Holland would be willing to meet with residents.


Exemptions don't seem to have been raised by the deputation.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> From the council's minutes: Agenda item - Deputations and Petitions | Lambeth Council
> 
> 
> Exemptions don't seem to have been raised by the deputation.


Yup, we made a complaint about the fact that the minutes didn’t reflect what we had said. We sent them the script so that they could reflect it in the minutes, they decided not to update the minutes.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

Convenient. Suggest you stop making wild claims with nothing to back them up.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Convenient. Suggest you stop making wild claims with nothing to back them up.


Hardly wild but believe what you want to. Of course it’s very likely that we didn’t ask for this at all and just decided to go down the legal route for shits and giggles. For Sofia this is all just a massive jape


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Convenient. Suggest you stop making wild claims with nothing to back them up.


I think it's obvious that Lambeth do not want to give blue badge access. Many councils have already done this - Ealing, Hackney, Southwark - Lambeth are still holding out or offering one filter access.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You haven’t gone to any of the Q&As or signed up to the email updates? It sounds like you’re not really that interested in LTNs at all then.
> 
> It’d be great if the council can write to every address but can see that that would be v expensive for the whole of Lambeth. Maybe they’re doing it for the areas being consulted on.


I thought I’d heard that there were leaflets sent to every home in and around, the LTN areas where consultations are taking place a few weeks ago? But I suspect that, like the multiple letters and notices about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood, and various posted notices about the 2020 LTNs, and the coverage in Lambeth Life (which goes to every household), the council keeps a heavily profiled data base to ensure none of these things are delivered to people pre selected to oppose the schemes.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 5, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> the council keeps a heavily profiled data base to ensure none of these things are delivered to people pre selected to oppose the schemes.



hahahaha


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

Looks like the people that bought the failed Hackney judicial review didn’t raise enough money and so need to ask people to donate now to pay the bills.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Looks like the people that bought the failed Hackney judicial review didn’t raise enough money and so need to ask people to donate now to pay the bills.
> 
> View attachment 286909



The grift goes on.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 5, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I thought I’d heard that there were leaflets sent to every home in and around, the LTN areas where consultations are taking place a few weeks ago? But I suspect that, like the multiple letters and notices about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood, and various posted notices about the 2020 LTNs, and the coverage in Lambeth Life (which goes to every household), the council keeps a heavily profiled data base to ensure none of these things are delivered to people pre selected to oppose the schemes.


Nothing to anyone on my street, and the next door street


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Nothing to anyone on my street, and the next door street



They’re not being consulted on yet.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 5, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Hence the reason I said that the decision was taken a long time ago.


Which decision and how long ago?


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Except one of the problems with care work is the number of people who have to be visited and given essential and quality care in a short space of hours, making it difficult to do on public transport. Especially in London when you are travelling around large boroughs.
> Care workers essentially fill the roles of community nurses after decades of cuts to the NHS. They are working medics. I think you are missing the point of LTNs, they're not to get all cars off the road but to reduce significantly the traffic on the road leaving the roads free for those that really need them. Carers who fulfil the role of community nurses are those.
> But perhaps we shouldn't allow those with cars to use them because some might not have cars. Seeing as this is your version of fair. We can then deter even more workers from doing this chronically understaffed role.


There are probably certain categories of care workers where I would agree an exemption would be reasonable. Where it's genuinely not feasible to do it by public transport or on foot and where negotiating the LTN filters would genuinely add a lot of time. But then 'carers' covers a wide spectrum of people carrying out a wide spectrum of roles, and includes for example people helping out with relatives on an informal basis, and there's nothing to say that all of those kinds of visits have to be done by car, on top of the fact that lots of people who don't have a car also do those kinds of visits. This is why I don't think it's obvious where it's fair or reasonable to draw the line for who does or doesn't get an exemption. I don't think it's as simple as saying all carers should get an exemption. I would hope that some thought is going into all this, with those who ultimately have to decide. If it was me making the decision, which it's not, I'd want to try and understand the numbers involved with each level of exemption - are we talking about putting 2% or 10% or 40% of the traffic back onto the roads concerned. My guess is that a very large proportion of the people who now have to negotiate the filters will believe that there's a good reason it would be 'fair' for them to have an exemption. But in your version of things it's evidently "ableist" for me to suggest that a line needs to be drawn at some place where a balance of benefits is judged to exist, and it's also "ableist" to say that deciding where that line is, is difficult and not obvious.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2021)

And there's another thing relevant to some doing care work for agencies - who are not paid for their travel time, only the time they spend with clients. I know this is a problem and it is not dissimilar to delivery drivers being paid by parcel drop rather than time on the road.

This has come up before in discussions about delivery drivers, with people saying that it's not fair on them to introduce changes which make their routes longer and therefore they make less money per hour. The same could be said for some people doing contracted care work, and various other things too.

But this is basically asking transport policy and also the layout and usage of our streets to fill in for deficiencies in other aspects of policy. The problems that need fixing are to do with the way people are employed.

Also - in anything but the short term, making it easier to get quickly between appointments is not really helping the people doing the work, it's helping the companies that employ them. In the end, the economics that determine the minimum pay the employer can get away with, and the largest proportion of their time the workers will tolerate being effectively unpaid, will remain the same. By allowing the workers to travel further in the same amount of time you are just allowing their employers to cover a wider scatter of deliveries or clients on each run. So this just encourages more traveling around in motor vehicles. It reduces the incentive for routes to be more tightly planned.

I believe we have actually already seen this with some delivery companies - the routes have changes and in some cases also the vehicles. This is policy working as it should. Anecdotally, I've also been told by two small building companies that they have decided to concentrate their jobs in smaller areas. Again, this is good, this is all positive feedback mechanisms which allow an overall reduction in vehicles on the road. It's stupid for some builders from Tottenham to be doing an extension in Streatham while some builders from Brixton are doing another extension in Holloway. In each case they spend the beginning and end of each day sitting in traffic jams crossing London.

As I said there will be certain categories of care or medical work that don't fit with this - where a vehicle is necessary, and where there's already a relatively tightly planned route around a limited area. This is where exemptions would be completely reasonable, just as they are for ambulances or certain types of hospital transport. As we all know, certain bits of the health service have been privatised out and thrown to the free market, the economics of which then determines who travels where and how, and this very often ends up with lots of unnecessary travel (the same is true in the wider logistics sector). Those economics just love things that make it easier for privately owned vehicles to travel around as much as they feel like it. This doesn't in the long term make things better for carers or those who they care for. It creates towns and cities built around motor vehicles instead of people.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> There are probably certain categories of care workers where I would agree an exemption would be reasonable. Where it's genuinely not feasible to do it by public transport or on foot and where negotiating the LTN filters would genuinely add a lot of time. But then 'carers' covers a wide spectrum of people carrying out a wide spectrum of roles, and includes for example people helping out with relatives on an informal basis, and there's nothing to say that all of those kinds of visits have to be done by car, on top of the fact that lots of people who don't have a car also do those kinds of visits. This is why I don't think it's obvious where it's fair or reasonable to draw the line for who does or doesn't get an exemption. I don't think it's as simple as saying all carers should get an exemption. I would hope that some thought is going into all this, with those who ultimately have to decide. If it was me making the decision, which it's not, I'd want to try and understand the numbers involved with each level of exemption - are we talking about putting 2% or 10% or 40% of the traffic back onto the roads concerned. My guess is that a very large proportion of the people who now have to negotiate the filters will believe that there's a good reason it would be 'fair' for them to have an exemption. But in your version of things it's evidently "ableist" for me to suggest that a line needs to be drawn at some place where a balance of benefits is judged to exist, and it's also "ableist" to say that deciding where that line is, is difficult and not obvious.


I am talking about carers who do it as a job and are paid to look after the sick and vulnerable. 

This idea that we have to be equal to everyone is the exact excuse that's always trotted out by people who disagree with reasonable adjustments. Fair is not equal. And you don't make things better for people by making everything harder for everyone.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> And there's another thing relevant to some doing care work for agencies - who are not paid for their travel time, only the time they spend with clients. I know this is a problem and it is not dissimilar to delivery drivers being paid by parcel drop rather than time on the road.
> 
> This has come up before in discussions about delivery drivers, with people saying that it's not fair on them to introduce changes which make their routes longer and therefore they make less money per hour. The same could be said for some people doing contracted care work, and various other things too.
> 
> ...


I am well aware that the issue lies with how we pay people in work and that carers are massively underpaid. But unless LTNs are going to come in in partnership with a bunch of socially targeted economic reforms, that's a pointless argument.
Also stop comparing delivery drivers to carers. While there is an issue there for low paid delivery workers, it's not on a par with caring for people.
Finally you actually agree with me as you've said, there are carers who should get exemptions.


----------



## Winot (Sep 5, 2021)

But if carers get an exemption shouldn't teachers too?


----------



## alex_ (Sep 5, 2021)

Winot said:


> But if carers get an exemption shouldn't teachers too?



NHS workers too


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

And just to add, you are fully ableist. You are ableist because you think the reasonable adjustments to alleviate hardship for people living with illness and disability need to firstly be fair to those who don't have these problems. That's not how inclusion works, you give support to those that need it, even if it appears that they are getting more than others, because they are starting off with less. 
Do you think affirmative action for black people and women is unfair?
Equal doesn't mean fair.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

Winot said:


> But if carers get an exemption shouldn't teachers too?


No, why? I am a teacher, I do not provide daily care to someone who could not look after themself without it.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

alex_ said:


> NHS workers too


They do if they are at work - ambulance service. This is the point, carers going to work to look after the sick and vulnerable, acting as community nurses.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> And just to add, you are fully ableist. You are ableist because you think the reasonable adjustments to alleviate hardship for people living with illness and disability need to firstly be fair to those who don't have these problems.


I absolutely do not think that.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I absolutely do not think that.


Then stop arguing for blue badge holders to not have full access. Stop arguing that this will lead to unfairness. Stop talking about how you would have to measure how many disabled people would have to use the roads to see if it was fair.


----------



## Winot (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> No, why? I am a teacher, I do not provide daily care to someone who could not look after themself without it.


I agree. But I thought we were discussing whether people with disabilities could have access. Now it seems it’s also people looking after people with disabilities - even if they aren’t transporting their charges?

I think if the exemption is extended to those in the ‘caring industry’ then it’s difficult to define who that is.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

Winot said:


> I agree. But I thought we were discussing whether people with disabilities could have access. Now it seems it’s also people looking after people with disabilities - even if they aren’t transporting their charges?
> 
> I think if the exemption is extended to those in the ‘caring industry’ then it’s difficult to define who that is.


I don't want to detract too much from yesterday's arguments, because it was clear that people still are not fully behind full blue badge access. And I think that's disgusting and my main concern.
But yes, I do think that carers who are working and going to people's houses should have access too. Many people rely on those carers for their only meal of the day, their only wash, their only medication. Hard to define isn't impossible.
As I said, I don't think the point of LTNs is to take necessary traffic off roads and I don't see the point of doing things for the greater good  (LTNs) if you negate other supports.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Then stop arguing for blue badge holders to not have full access. Stop arguing that this will lead to unfairness. Stop talking about how you would have to measure how many disabled people would have to use the roads to see if it was fair.


I think you are mixing up what I'm saying about carers with what I've said about blue badge holders, and as a result you are making out that I've said stuff that i haven't.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think you are mixing up what I'm saying about carers with what I've said about blue badge holders, and as a result you are making out that I've said stuff that i haven't.


Yet yesterday you were talking about how giving access to blue badge holders was unfair to disabled people who don't have cars. So you were arguing against full access for blue badge holders and then using some made up bullshit to justify it - people with disabilities do not want others to have less support, that's a made up division and one that would only be used to argue against reasonable adjustments.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Yet yesterday you were talking about how giving access to blue badge holders was unfair to disabled people who don't have cars.


No I wasn't. I didn't even say anything at all about blue badge holders yesterday.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 5, 2021)

Remember - consultations start tomorrow for anyone not aware (chowce5382):


----------



## alex_ (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I don't want to detract too much from yesterday's arguments, because it was clear that people still are not fully behind full blue badge access. And I think that's disgusting and my main concern.
> But yes, I do think that carers who are working and going to people's houses should have access too. Many people rely on those carers for their only meal of the day, their only wash, their only medication. Hard to define isn't impossible.
> As I said, I don't think the point of LTNs is to take necessary traffic off roads and I don't see the point of doing things for the greater good  (LTNs) if you negate other supports.



I don’t really see why a disabled person should be able to drive through a LTN nowhere near their house.

Alex


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I don’t really see why a disabled person should be able to drive through a LTN nowhere near their house.
> 
> I


And that clearly shows how little you understand about disability and reasonable adjustments. 

How dare a disabled person want to or need to leave their area. Maybe they should just learn to walk or whatever the hell is wrong with them like everyone else. 

Are you serious?


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No I wasn't. I didn't even say anything at all about blue badge holders yesterday.


Ok, so I'm reading your contributions wrong yesterday. So you are in favour of full access for blue badge holders?


----------



## alex_ (Sep 5, 2021)

nagapie said:


> And that clearly shows how little you understand about disability and reasonable adjustments.
> 
> How dare a disabled person want to or need to leave their area. Maybe they should just learn to walk or whatever the hell is wrong with them like everyone else.
> 
> Are you serious?



I was the first person in this thread to say  that disabled people should be locally exempt, back in may. But exempting them from all low traffic measures, damages the low traffic measures to much and why would you only except them from 2020 low traffic measures and not all low traffic measures ?


----------



## nagapie (Sep 5, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I was the first person in this thread to say  that disabled people should be locally exempt, back in may. But exempting them from all low traffic measures, damages the low traffic measures to much and why would you only except them from 2020 low traffic measures and not all low traffic measures ?


Disabled people don't suddenly lose their disability when they cross a geographical line, but fine for you to decide this when you get around easily, you won't be isolated and segregated.
Most people in Lambeth don't live near St Thomas' hospital but if you are sick and or disabled, you may still have to travel there multiple times a month.
You don't reduce supports by measuring them against what is fair for those without disabilities. 
You, alex,  don't understand disability and you don't understand inclusion. And  your views reinforce discrimination.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 6, 2021)

New monitoring report on Oval: Traffic

Traffic overall is down
Traffic on boundary roads is overall down
Little impact on bus times
Vast majority of cars fined by ANPR are not local
A couple of issues raised on specific roads that need to be fixed.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 6, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Disabled people don't suddenly lose their disability when they cross a geographical line, but fine for you to decide this when you get around easily, you won't be isolated and segregated.
> Most people in Lambeth don't live near St Thomas' hospital but if you are sick and or disabled, you may still have to travel there multiple times a month.
> You don't reduce supports by measuring them against what is fair for those without disabilities.
> You, alex,  don't understand disability and you don't understand inclusion. And  your views reinforce discrimination.



I’m trying to understand the logic of your position really.

So you are against all traffic calming measures because they make it slower for disabled people to get to hospitals ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2021)

It might be the case that some of the filters would eventually be permanent, I.e not letting any traffic through like the existing ones do.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 6, 2021)

alex_ , I have actually written long posts on this thread detailing some of the difficulties people with disabilities and their carers face during transportation. You were active on the thread at the time, if you couldn't be bothered to understand them then I don't feel you'll bother now.
Really you are displaying a lot of ignorance and thoughtlessness.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Ok, so I'm reading your contributions wrong yesterday. So you are in favour of full access for blue badge holders?


I've been saying for some time on this thread that I think they should have an exemption at least for the LTN that they live in. Whether it should be for all LTNs everywhere - quite possibly.

Would you be in favour of blue badge holders having an exemption from 20mph speed limits?


----------



## nagapie (Sep 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've been saying for some time on this thread that I think they should have an exemption at least for the LTN that they live in. Whether it should be for all LTNs everywhere - quite possibly.
> 
> Would you be in favour of blue badge holders having an exemption from 20mph speed limits?


An exemption for where they live is not enough, as I've pointed out in great detail in recent posts. 

20mph speed limits are not comparable, they are for the immediate safety of everyone so people aren't killed. This sort of silly comparison is another red herring.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

nagapie said:


> An exemption for where they live is not enough, as I've pointed out in great detail in recent posts.
> 
> 20mph speed limits are not comparable, they are for the immediate safety of everyone so people aren't killed. This sort of silly comparison is another red herring.


Classic example of partially agreeing and then asking another question to deflect.
It’s still interesting to see how difficult it is for these guys to agree with the idea that disabled people should get treated in a way that alleviates the problems they face from day to day without some sort of vacuous come back


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> so surely on the same logic it should not be necessary to consult on changes to the transport system to increase safety and accessibility, and more equitably allocate street space, for walking and cycling, the most vulnerable road users.


Road users aren’t a protected group under legislation. You are now trying to say that cyclists  are as vulnerable as disabled people when looking at the legislative protection they should be afforded.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2021)

I would guess that Lambeth's intention is that you would exit the LTN you live in and use main roads to get to your destination, not residential ones.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I thought I’d heard that there were leaflets sent to every home in and around, the LTN areas where consultations are taking place a few weeks ago? But I suspect that, like the multiple letters and notices about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood, and various posted notices about the 2020 LTNs, and the coverage in Lambeth Life (which goes to every household), the council keeps a heavily profiled data base to ensure none of these things are delivered to people pre selected to oppose the schemes.


I don’t know about this. However, I suspect you’ve had more input than most into this process


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2021)

nagapie said:


> 20mph speed limits are not comparable, they are for the immediate safety of everyone so people aren't killed. This sort of silly comparison is another red herring.


In deciding that blue badge holders should not be given an exemption from 20 mph speed limits, you have weighed up two interests - on the one hand, an inconvenience to a blue badge holder in that they may not be able to reach their destination as quickly as they otherwise might, and on the other hand, the general benefit to the safety of everyone, of traffic travelling at a lower speed. And you've decided that the inconvenience to blue badge holders is not great enough that general safety for everyone should be compromised. This is exactly the kind of weighing-up that you are seeing others doing, and then accusing them of being "ableist".

Your reply is written in a kind of way that makes the "immediate safety of everyone" a kind of absolute thing that has obvious priority - "so people aren't killed". But it's not an absolute thing - people are still killed by cars travelling at 20mph, and we also exempt certain things from speed limits - ambulances for example - again as a result of a weighing up of benefits.

Lots of your comments on here treat rights of access for disabled people as an absolute thing, that can't be weighed up against anything. And we are not talking about whether or not someone can get access to a location, we are talking about the level of inconvenience or amount of time involved in getting to that location. If anyone suggests weighing this up against some kind of benefit for someone else, they are "ableist". This is complete nonsense.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I would guess that Lambeth's intention is that you would exit the LTN you live in and use main roads to get to your destination, not residential ones.


Read what nagapie says about this. It’s already been explained why this doesn’t work for disabled people. I’m still not sure why you guys don’t want this change give who it is designed to help and why you are pressing for the minimal amount of assistance possible.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In deciding that blue badge holders should not be given an exemption from 20 mph speed limits, you have weighed up two interests - on the one hand, an inconvenience to a blue badge holder in that they may not be able to reach their destination as quickly as they otherwise might, and on the other hand, the general benefit to the safety of everyone, of traffic travelling at a lower speed. And you've decided that the inconvenience to blue badge holders is not great enough that general safety for everyone should be compromised. This is exactly the kind of weighing-up that you are seeing others doing, and then accusing them of being "ableist".
> 
> Your reply is written in a kind of way that makes the "immediate safety of everyone" a kind of absolute thing that has obvious priority - "so people aren't killed". But it's not an absolute thing - people are still killed by cars travelling at 20mph, and we also exempt certain things from speed limits - ambulances for example - again as a result of a weighing up of benefits.
> 
> Lots of your comments on here treat rights of access for disabled people as an absolute thing, that can't be weighed up against anything. And we are not talking about whether or not someone can get access to a location, we are talking about the level of inconvenience or amount of time involved in getting to that location. If anyone suggests weighing this up against some kind of benefit for someone else, they are "ableist". This is complete nonsense.





teuchter said:


> In deciding that blue badge holders should not be given an exemption from 20 mph speed limits, you have weighed up two interests - on the one hand, an inconvenience to a blue badge holder in that they may not be able to reach their destination as quickly as they otherwise might, and on the other hand, the general benefit to the safety of everyone, of traffic travelling at a lower speed. And you've decided that the inconvenience to blue badge holders is not great enough that general safety for everyone should be compromised. This is exactly the kind of weighing-up that you are seeing others doing, and then accusing them of being "ableist".
> 
> Your reply is written in a kind of way that makes the "immediate safety of everyone" a kind of absolute thing that has obvious priority - "so people aren't killed". But it's not an absolute thing - people are still killed by cars travelling at 20mph, and we also exempt certain things from speed limits - ambulances for example - again as a result of a weighing up of benefits.
> 
> Lots of your comments on here treat rights of access for disabled people as an absolute thing, that can't be weighed up against anything. And we are not talking about whether or not someone can get access to a location, we are talking about the level of inconvenience or amount of time involved in getting to that location. If anyone suggests weighing this up against some kind of benefit for someone else, they are "ableist". This is complete nonsense.


You are now deliberately, and purposefully, mixing up speed of travel and the ability of a disabled person to get from A to B. Worse still you seen to be suggesting that, for disabled people, speed of travel is an important thing. It sort of shows that you haven’t had to look after someone for whom these issues are a serious problem. That’s not your fault but you’re arguing a line which lacks humanity and, for what it’s worth, I think you probably do care about other people but it you seems you are unable to put yourself in their position.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In deciding that blue badge holders should not be given an exemption from 20 mph speed limits, you have weighed up two interests - on the one hand, an inconvenience to a blue badge holder in that they may not be able to reach their destination as quickly as they otherwise might, and on the other hand, the general benefit to the safety of everyone, of traffic travelling at a lower speed. And you've decided that the inconvenience to blue badge holders is not great enough that general safety for everyone should be compromised. This is exactly the kind of weighing-up that you are seeing others doing, and then accusing them of being "ableist".
> 
> Your reply is written in a kind of way that makes the "immediate safety of everyone" a kind of absolute thing that has obvious priority - "so people aren't killed". But it's not an absolute thing - people are still killed by cars travelling at 20mph, and we also exempt certain things from speed limits - ambulances for example - again as a result of a weighing up of benefits.
> 
> Lots of your comments on here treat rights of access for disabled people as an absolute thing, that can't be weighed up against anything. And we are not talking about whether or not someone can get access to a location, we are talking about the level of inconvenience or amount of time involved in getting to that location. If anyone suggests weighing this up against some kind of benefit for someone else, they are "ableist". This is complete nonsense.


Unfortunately you don't understand the vast array of  difficulties facing people with disabilities in actually getting from A to B.
There is a massive benefit to many of these people in being able to use the LTNs, and a benefit that does not negate the benefits gained from them. That last bit is key.
Equipment, seizure disorders, resucitation needs, challenging behaviours, pain - these are what you and Alex call 'inconveniences'.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Read what nagapie says about this. It’s oreads been explained why this doesn’t work for disabled people.
> 
> I’m still not sure why you guys don’t want this change give who it is designed to help and why you are pressing for the minimal amount of assistance possible.


I'm not sure why you don't get it either, Brixton had bad congestion before LTNs and now with covid less people will want to use public transport and congestion will be worse - this affects disabled people too.
Stuff like LTNs are about stopping unnecessary journeys and freeing up road space for people who actually need it.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure why you don't get it either, Brixton had bad congestion before LTNs and now with covid less people will want to use public transport and congestion will be worse - this affects disabled people too.
> Stuff like LTNs are about stopping unnecessary journeys and freeing up road space for people who actually need it.


Exactly. I'm not arguing for access for your average person, I'm arguing for access for those who need it.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Unfortunately you don't understand the vast array of  difficulties facing people with disabilities in actually getting from A to B.
> There is a massive benefit to many of these people in being able to use the LTNs, and a benefit that does not negate the benefits gained from them. That last bit is key.
> Equipment, seizure disorders, resucitation needs, challenging behaviours, pain - these are what you and Alex call 'inconveniences'.


So, you're changing your position then: it's possible to attempt to weigh up the benefits, and not be "ableist".


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Exactly. I'm not arguing for access for your average person, I'm arguing for access for those who need it.


He doesn’t get it


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 6, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Exactly. I'm not arguing for access for your average person, I'm arguing for access for those who need it.


That's not the point I was making. They could use the main roads if there was no congestion.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So, you're changing your position then: it's possible to attempt to weigh up the benefits, and not be "ableist".


I was replying to his stupid point about how fast disabled people will drive if allowed to in a LTN. You guys still aren’t engaging with the real issue here, just asking other questions to dance around the issue


----------



## Winot (Sep 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> You are now deliberately, and purposefully, mixing up speed of travel and the ability of a disabled person to get from A to B. Worse still you seen to be suggesting that, for disabled people, speed of travel is an important thing. It sort of shows that you haven’t had to look after someone for whom these issues are a serious problem. That’s not your fault but you’re arguing a line which lacks humanity and, for what it’s worth, I think you probably do care about other people but it you seems you are unable to put yourself in their position.


Isn’t the problem with LTNs that they force drivers to go the long way round so that the journey takes longer. And this causes particular problems for people with disabilities. So the underlying problem is journey time. Speed of travel is directly relevant therefore - if the disabled person can travel faster they can get to their destination more quickly and offset the longer journey caused by the LTN.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So, you're changing your position then: it's possible to attempt to weigh up the benefits, and not be "ableist".


My position is to give full access to people who have already been assessed as having significant challenges in getting around. That's it. Don't try to change that. I've never believed that access wouldn't benefit everyone, because I'm not ableist and understand that creating the best access possible to society and communities for all people facing obstacles is for the benefit of everyone.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 6, 2021)

Winot said:


> Isn’t the problem with LTNs that they force drivers to go the long way round so that the journey takes longer. And this causes particular problems for people with disabilities. So the underlying problem is journey time. Speed of travel is directly relevant therefore - if the disabled person can travel faster they can get to their destination more quickly and offset the longer journey caused by the LTN.


Except it's immediately dangerous to both the disabled people and others to not have speed limits. There is a link in journey time but that's all, the rest is spurious nonsense.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's not the point I was making. They could use the main roads if there was no congestion.


There is congestion on the main roads. Please read my post which details some of the difficulties blue badge holders face.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's not the point I was making. They could use the main roads if there was no congestion.





Winot said:


> Isn’t the problem with LTNs that they force drivers to go the long way round so that the journey takes longer. And this causes particular problems for people with disabilities. So the underlying problem is journey time. Speed of travel is directly relevant therefore - if the disabled person can travel faster they can get to their destination more quickly and offset the longer journey caused by the LTN.


Yes, but they don’t understand that because all the traffic has evaporated now and there isn’t any congestion. And, if there is, well that’s just a problem for disabled people to deal with or they are just making it up so they can go to court and have some fun


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

Winot said:


> Isn’t the problem with LTNs that they force drivers to go the long way round so that the journey takes longer. And this causes particular problems for people with disabilities. So the underlying problem is journey time. Speed of travel is directly relevant therefore - if the disabled person can travel faster they can get to their destination more quickly and offset the longer journey caused by the LTN.


The disabled peope ive spoken to have all said their journey times have been lengthened considerably. You don’t have to believe this. In fact you can just believe what you want to. However, you’ve got to be pretty inhumane to sit in judgement on a chat room about something on which you know nothing, where you have no experience and just dismiss the reality of what these people go through. This is what I don’t get about you guys, you’re so keen to argue tiny points and speed limits and whether a disabled person should be able to go through X or Y road block rather than think about the reason why they need to go in the first place. You are unaware of your ideological position. I admit, I’m biased towards mine to some extent but my ideological position is fighting for the rights of those in society who need help and need protection. Yours is trying to find ways to question whether those protections are really necessary and, until you’ve actually had to experience these issues as nagapie has pointed out, I suspect you’ll be talking about whether 20mph or 18 is acceptable rather thinking about whether someone can get to hospital before passing out in pain before they get there.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2021)

To be clear, I am not arguing against blue badge holders being given an exemption for access to LTNs.

My argument is with nagapie's assertion that as soon as anyone wants to weigh up benefits for a group of disabled people against benefits for some other group, this is ableist thinking. It's not. 

Taking that kind of position makes the discussion impossible, and it prevents anyone understanding problems that they might not be aware of or familiar with. I am perfectly happy to accept that there are certain disabilities, and the needs related to them, that I am ignorant about. If people want to explain them to me, I am entirely willing to listen to them and let them inform my opinion on things like who should be given exemptions from LTN restrictions.

I'm not willing to be told that I'm ableist for raising questions like this. Plus I'd like to say that perhaps there are types of disability that nagapie or chowce5382 are not directly familiar with, or are not focussed on, the impacts of which on peoples lives are affected greatly by transport policy, transport policy that in this country has long been overwhelmingly focussed on accommodating those with access to cars. All this feeds into the reasons why a lot of people want to support LTNs as part of a bigger picture. 

Of course it is very easy for anyone to become overly pre-occupied with their own areas of interest or experience in trying to improve equality of mobility and access, and end up with many blind spots and I can accept that this inevitably applies to me.

You're not going to persuade people by shouting them down as "ableist". And making part of your rhetoric the idea that LTNs are only for middle class white male cyclists is much the same thing, completely dismissing anyone supporting them as only self interested and with no genuine intention to make a system that serves disadvantaged people in general, better.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To be clear, I am not arguing against blue badge holders being given an exemption for access to LTNs.
> 
> My argument is with nagapie's assertion that as soon as anyone wants to weigh up benefits for a group of disabled people against benefits for some other group, this is ableist thinking. It's not.
> 
> ...


Each time we talk about the inherent issue with LTNs and those people who are disabled you guys always just bring up another issue and have done it again by saying that maybe there are disabilities out here we don’t know about. Again this is deflecting and the same argument you’ve used again and again and again to back up your position which is looking at things from your position and not thinking about those who need the protection of the state and society in general. The question you raised was about speed was pretty nonsensical and, again, deflecting from the issue.

If you actually want to engage, stop asking questions designed to deflect. I’m not going to tell what you could ask as I’d like to see whether you are capable of thinking about what others might be going through. You don’t have to reply to this but you might want to sit down with a blank piece of paper and imagine how different your life would be if you were in the same position as Sofia (for example). Just sit down and start asking yourself questions about how you would live. I’ll start you off with your career (hint: you don’t have one anymore)


----------



## teuchter (Sep 6, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Each time we talk about the inherent issue with LTNs and those people who are disabled you guys always just bring up another issue and have done it again by saying that maybe there are disabilities out here we don’t know about. Again this is deflecting and the same argument you’ve used again and again and again to back up your position which is looking at things from your position and not thinking about those who need the protection of the state and society in general. The question you raised was about speed was pretty nonsensical and, again, deflecting from the issue.
> 
> If you actually want to engage, stop asking questions designed to deflect. I’m not going to tell what you could ask as I’d like to see whether you are capable of thinking about what others might be going through. You don’t have to reply to this but you might want to sit down with a blank piece of paper and imagine how different your life would be if you were in the same position as Sofia (for example). Just sit down and start asking yourself questions about how you would live. I’ll start you off with your career (hint: you don’t have one anymore)


The question I raised about speed limits was a rhetorical one to illustrate a point, not an attempt at deflection. Deflection is calling people "ableist" when they want to talk about a weighing up of benefits.

I'm happy to engage in understanding more about all sides of the argument but not to have you telling me that I'm "not thinking about those who need the protection of the state and society in general" - nor with your patronising assumption that I've never considered what the implications of a severe disability or health condition would be. I expect I'm not alone in this.

Why do people want to question or examine certain claims about negative impacts on disabled people or indeed anyone? Because they are well aware of the fact that there are lots of lobbies out there who have no genuine concern for these issues and use them to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that the issues don't exist, it just means that there's a good reason to question things. It would be a bit easier to take lectures from you if you seemed more willing to distance yourself from certain groups.


----------



## Winot (Sep 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The disabled peope ive spoken to have all said their journey times have been lengthened considerably. You don’t have to believe this. In fact you can just believe what you want to. However, you’ve got to be pretty inhumane to sit in judgement on a chat room about something on which you know nothing, where you have no experience and just dismiss the reality of what these people go through. This is what I don’t get about you guys, you’re so keen to argue tiny points and speed limits and whether a disabled person should be able to go through X or Y road block rather than think about the reason why they need to go in the first place. You are unaware of your ideological position. I admit, I’m biased towards mine to some extent but my ideological position is fighting for the rights of those in society who need help and need protection. Yours is trying to find ways to question whether those protections are really necessary and, until you’ve actually had to experience these issues as nagapie has pointed out, I suspect you’ll be talking about whether 20mph or 18 is acceptable rather thinking about whether someone can get to hospital before passing out in pain before they get there.


You seem to have misunderstood the way the conversation has gone. I’m not going to bother to explain it.

Let’s keep it simple. I am in favour of access to LTNs for blue badge holders.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To be clear, I am not arguing against blue badge holders being given an exemption for access to LTNs.
> 
> My argument is with nagapie's assertion that as soon as anyone wants to weigh up benefits for a group of disabled people against benefits for some other group, this is ableist thinking. It's not.
> 
> ...


I have never said anything about white middle class cyclists.
I have only called you ableist when you have been.
I have not felt from your responses that you understand the day to day difficulties and severities of being severely or profoundly affected on people and their families. I have not felt that you understand that what is being asked of LTNs is a reasonable adjustment for which people have already gone through a rigorous qualification assessment and which is necessary for inclusion on a number of levels. Your arguments continue to pit disability against disability, all can be accommodated with the right will.
In keeping with the simplicity, I am for full access for blue badge holders. You are not. You concede limited use or people having to be disabled enough, when they've already been assessed.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 7, 2021)

Look at this - this is what LTNs do! Burbage Rd in Dulwich.




They may need tweaks but difficult to argue with the concept.


----------



## nick (Sep 7, 2021)

233 pages ago, I was undecided on the pro and cons of the LTNs . I still believe that Lambeth's consultation process was sub-optimal.

However, I am now more and more convinced that LTNs are a good idea (with minor amendments, for blue badge holders for example)

This change in stance is due to a combination of 
1) the arguments on this threat
2) the continued neolithic vandalism by (a minority?) of , what I assume, are antis


----------



## nick (Sep 7, 2021)

By the way - to add to the vandalism of the LTNs themselves - I see that the 20 limit sign on Hillside Rd has also been painted out.

That really isn't helping the cause of the antis - they just paint them selves into a corner of being perceived as a pro-car lobby 

Perhaps their cause would be helped with some clear condemnation of the vandalism, and instructions to their supporters to stop it. I haven't seen any such from choice5382, or others. Apologies if I missed that in the long thread, perhaps you could re-post it if so ?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 7, 2021)

nick said:


> Perhaps their cause would be helped with some clear condemnation of the vandalism, and instructions to their supporters to stop it. I haven't seen any such from choice5382, or others. Apologies if I missed that in the long thread, perhaps you could re-post it if so ?


Quite the opposite - making light of it and claiming the vandalism is an "art installation". The One campaigns have been very good examples of how to lose an argument and alienate people.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> something on which you know nothing, where you have no experience and just dismiss the reality of what these people go through.


Pretty bold. Certainly not true for me.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 7, 2021)

nagapie said:


> In keeping with the simplicity, I am for full access for blue badge holders. You are not. You concede limited use or people having to be disabled enough, when they've already been assessed.



Thanks for continuing to put words in my mouth. Great way to get people on side


----------



## nick (Sep 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Look at this - this is what LTNs do! Burbage Rd in Dulwich.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course Burbage is a lovely road (complete with its own velodrome). suspect that the average income is stratospheric. So an LTN there is obviously a devious  plot to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor - and unrelated to the actual topography of the roads in the area


----------



## Winot (Sep 7, 2021)

The way the debate has gone on here recently prompted me to look up an article I remembered as being relevant. As it’s a broader point than LTNs and so as not to derail this discussion, I’ve started a new thread:



			https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/are-you-a-decoupler.375916/


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 7, 2021)

nagapie said:


> There is congestion on the main roads. Please read my post which details some of the difficulties blue badge holders face.


Yes and there was congestion before LTNs. Active streets is about giving people other options so that congestion is reduced. No one is saying disabled people should have longer journeys.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I don’t know about this. However, I suspect you’ve had more input than most into this process


No, I just happen to know a few people who live in the Railton area one of whom had mentioned it.  Since you're in regular close contact with a number of people there, including the litigant in your court case, and given that the 'official twitter account of the campaign' has been posting about it,  I'd have thought you might be across this stuff more closely than any of us.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 7, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> No, I just happen to know a few people who live in the Railton area one of whom had mentioned it.  Since you're in regular close contact with a number of people there, including the litigant in your court case, and given that the 'official twitter account of the campaign' has been posting about it,  I'd have thought you might be across this stuff more closely than any of us.



He’s just shit stirring again - it’s a favourite of the One groups to make out its some kind of grand conspiracy between the council & the evil Living Streets & London Cycling Campaign groups!

How cycling and pedestrian campaign groups are painted by the pro-car lobby is truly bizarre.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Road users aren’t a protected group under legislation. You are now trying to say that cyclists  are as vulnerable as disabled people when looking at the legislative protection they should be afforded.



Age is a protected characteristic - so presumably something that discriminated against children (who obviously cannot legally drive) would fall into the same category.  So any measure that somebody thinks would improve safety for children should just be done without any discussion or review or consideration of wider impacts.  It's just a duff argument.  Consultation is intended to surface stuff that might have been missed (not be a referendum on whether people like the idea)- it could well be that a well intentioned measure to improve conditions for one group had unforeseen consequences for another and consultation/feedback would uncover that.  It's why even the ETO's have statutory consultation of some bodies and a public feedback process.  This is the weighing up of benefits that @teuchter has been writing about.

And the equalities act is either misunderstood or misrepresented in all of this.  It doesn't mean that nothing can change that disadvantages someone covered by the act in any way (LTNs with no exemptions are fundamentally equal  - the close points to through motor traffic for everyone). But there should be an awareness of the impacts (that may, but doesn't have to be, documented in a written EQIA doc).  It's completely legitimate that the disadvantage to a few may be outweighed by the benefit to the many - (the Onesies seem fond of screeching about 'the greater good' at this point as if it's some totalitarian regime plot) but we've just seen the same discussions and weighing up of benefits over vaccinating under 18's looking at how the risk _from_ vaccinating under 18s' (a small subset of whom may have a negative reaction to the vaccine itself) balances against the benefit to wider society of limiting COVID spread by that group being vaccinated.  



nagapie said:


> My position is to give full access to people who have already been assessed as having significant challenges in getting around. That's it. Don't try to change that. I've never believed that access wouldn't benefit everyone, because I'm not ableist and understand that creating the best access possible to society and communities for all people facing obstacles is for the benefit of everyone.


This is probably the most nuanced argument I've seen in this thread from someone arguing against road changes.  The challenge is how you minimise additional inconvenience for the subset of disabled people for whom changes have created a real problem without negating the benefits that reduced traffic volumes, and opportunities for increased activity and improved health, have created for many others. Personally I'm absolutely certain that's not the 'rip out everything that's changed and kick it into the long grass to discuss what changes to reduce traffic might happen at some point long in the future' which is what a lot of the anti-LTN campaigns call for.   But it might well be some changes to the schemes, or specific exemption for some.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 7, 2021)

There seems to be a bit more information available than there was previously, on Lambeth's constantly shifting website.









						Equality and Accessibility
					

Data about making a scheme that works for all.




					rtstreets.commonplace.is
				




I note this:



> We know everyone experiences changes to the street differently and we have run targeted engagement with specific user groups including a pre-consultation survey. Specifically regarding our Disabled residents, we have commissioned *Transport for All* to give a more detailed breakdown of how people might be impacted by the scheme, taking a pan-impairment approach.
> 
> They are continuing to run engagement during each consultation and the full report will be considered as part of the decision on the LTN.



Transport for All are the organisation which produced the report on LTN impacts that was linked to earlier in the thread:









						Pave The Way » Transport for All
					

The Pave The Way (PTW) report is the only independent and in-depth research into how disabled people have been impacted by Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and the barriers to Active Travel.




					www.transportforall.org.uk
				




This "exemption policy note" seems to give the clearest explanation of the exemptions currently proposed:



			https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/rtstreets/Exemptions%20summary%20lines.pdf
		


It says that a BB holder would be able to nominate two vehicles, which could include the vehicle of someone who visits them regularly. However the exemption would apply to a single filter rather than all LTN filters, as far as I can see.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 7, 2021)

And the link to the Railton consultation is here:





__





						Free Online Survey Software by SurveyMonkey: Closed Survey
					

This survey is currently closed.  Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance.




					www.surveymonkey.co.uk


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 7, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> The disabled peope ive spoken to have all said their journey times have been lengthened considerably. You don’t have to believe this. In fact you can just believe what you want to. However, you’ve got to be pretty inhumane to sit in judgement on a chat room about something on which you know nothing, where you have no experience and just dismiss the reality of what these people go through. This is what I don’t get about you guys, you’re so keen to argue tiny points and speed limits and whether a disabled person should be able to go through X or Y road block rather than think about the reason why they need to go in the first place. You are unaware of your ideological position. I admit, I’m biased towards mine to some extent but my ideological position is fighting for the rights of those in society who need help and need protection. Yours is trying to find ways to question whether those protections are really necessary and, until you’ve actually had to experience these issues as nagapie has pointed out, I suspect you’ll be talking about whether 20mph or 18 is acceptable rather thinking about whether someone can get to hospital before passing out in pain before they get there.


Under the EA I qualify as disabled under a number of counts. I have a specific mobility impairment.

In the last year I’ve been a palliative carer, spent a lot of separate time going to Guy’s hospital for scheduled and emergency appointments and commuted. This has been by public transport, active travel, PHVs and a car (in descending order). The LTNs have helped me in this and _my_ experience is that they have not been a hindrance.

I’ve spent more than 15 years working in social care, co-producing independent living schemes for adults with compound and complex disabilities. I worked in the 15 Minute Care campaign and developed award winning person centred PA programmes with young disabled people.

I find the idea that you think you represent me or my family offensive.


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 7, 2021)

And it’s made me angry having to write that but when he starts throwing ‘ableist’ about having constantly used medical model of disability language, it just reaffirms my thoughts that he’s a charlatan.


----------



## CH1 (Sep 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> It seems the logic is that as the shortage of care workers is acute (and I'm not going to dispute that) it's not acceptable to take any measures which might extend the journey times of the portion of them who have private transport available to them. Even if those extensions are relatively marginal. And this has to override the benefits of lower traffic levels that others (including care workers using public transport) could enjoy. Perhaps there should be exemptions from speed limits as well.


That would be good.
Imagine you have a schedule of fifteen visits lasting fifteen minutes each, with a ten minute allowance for transit between appointments.
It would be a boon to have the speed limit abated for such workers.
Or maybe those OCD sufferers who support these current oppressive measures could man the bedpans themselves?


----------



## nagapie (Sep 7, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Age is a protected characteristic - so presumably something that discriminated against children (who obviously cannot legally drive) would fall into the same category.  So any measure that somebody thinks would improve safety for children should just be done without any discussion or review or consideration of wider impacts.  It's just a duff argument.  Consultation is intended to surface stuff that might have been missed (not be a referendum on whether people like the idea)- it could well be that a well intentioned measure to improve conditions for one group had unforeseen consequences for another and consultation/feedback would uncover that.  It's why even the ETO's have statutory consultation of some bodies and a public feedback process.  This is the weighing up of benefits that @teuchter has been writing about.
> 
> And the equalities act is either misunderstood or misrepresented in all of this.  It doesn't mean that nothing can change that disadvantages someone covered by the act in any way (LTNs with no exemptions are fundamentally equal  - the close points to through motor traffic for everyone). But there should be an awareness of the impacts (that may, but doesn't have to be, documented in a written EQIA doc).  It's completely legitimate that the disadvantage to a few may be outweighed by the benefit to the many - (the Onesies seem fond of screeching about 'the greater good' at this point as if it's some totalitarian regime plot) but we've just seen the same discussions and weighing up of benefits over vaccinating under 18's looking at how the risk _from_ vaccinating under 18s' (a small subset of whom may have a negative reaction to the vaccine itself) balances against the benefit to wider society of limiting COVID spread by that group being vaccinated.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing against road changes, I'm happy for LTNs to stay with access given to blue badge holders.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Thanks for continuing to put words in my mouth. Great way to get people on side


You posted that blue badge holders should have access but only in their area.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 7, 2021)

nagapie said:


> You posted that blue badge holders should have access but only in their area.


No I didn't. Nor have I said anything at all about people "having to be disabled enough, when they've already been assessed".

You already on Sunday accused me of saying something I demonstrably didn't. And no apology for that either.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've been saying for some time on this thread that I think they should have an exemption at least for the LTN that they live in. Whether it should be for all LTNs everywhere - quite possibly.


Quite possibly is not a yes.


----------



## nagapie (Sep 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I am perfectly happy to accept that there are certain disabilities, and the needs related to them, that I am ignorant about. If people want to explain them to me, I am entirely willing to listen to them and let them inform my opinion on things like who should be given exemptions from LTN restrictions.


Except they've been explained more than once by me already yet apparently it still has to be proved to you. Blue badge assessment not withstanding.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 7, 2021)

The Oval report shows decreased response times for inside the Oval LTN and it’s boundary roads. What other lies are the One groups and the right wing media constantly pushing for their pro-car agenda?


----------



## alex_ (Sep 7, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The Oval report shows decreased response times for inside the Oval LTN and it’s boundary roads. What other lies are the One groups and the right wing media constantly pushing for their pro-car agenda?




Do you have any data on trends in anecdotes ?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The Oval report shows decreased response times for inside the Oval LTN and it’s boundary roads. What other lies are the One groups and the right wing media constantly pushing for their pro-car agenda?




I love charts with no dates and no explanations, Really adds credibility


----------



## edcraw (Sep 8, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I love charts with no dates and no explanations, Really adds credibility



Hey Jeanette - it’s a screenshot from the report linked at the top of the thread. Maybe you could check that before dismissing?



			https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-09/Oval%20to%20Stockwell%20Stage%202%20Monitoring%20Report_0.pdf


----------



## BigTom (Sep 8, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I love charts with no dates and no explanations, Really adds credibility



full methodology is in the actual report which is linked to from that twitter account: https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/d... to Stockwell Stage 2 Monitoring Report_0.pdf

for the fire service, the monitoring period was 
• The London Fire Brigade responded to 1637 emergency incidents in Lambeth during our monitoring period October 2020- May 2021, where we could identify the exact location and the response times.
• We compared the monitoring period data with a baseline collected between the period of March 2019 to February 2020.

this is on page 32 of the report.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 8, 2021)

BigTom said:


> full methodology is in the actual report which is linked to from that twitter account: https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-09/Oval to Stockwell Stage 2 Monitoring Report_0.pdf
> 
> for the fire service, the monitoring period was
> • The London Fire Brigade responded to 1637 emergency incidents in Lambeth during our monitoring period October 2020- May 2021, where we could identify the exact location and the response times.
> ...



You're right. It is. Pre-pandemic vs post pandemic

"It is important to recognize other factors that could have led to the reduction in average response times such as traffic levels due to COVID-19"


----------



## BigTom (Sep 8, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> You're right. It is. Pre-pandemic vs post pandemic
> 
> "It is important to recognize other factors that could have led to the reduction in average response times such as traffic levels due to COVID-19"



Yeah, the traffic volume data is normalised by comparing traffic volume changes post-pandemic in areas without LTN treatments in order to isolate the effect of the LTN but the fire response times isn't.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 8, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, the traffic volume data is normalised by comparing traffic volume changes post-pandemic in areas without LTN treatments in order to isolate the effect of the LTN but the fire response times isn't.



I think a chickens are being counted too soon. a good comparison would be from now.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 8, 2021)

"We want data"

"Noooo, not that sort"


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 8, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> "We want data"
> 
> "Noooo, not that sort"



...because ppl really do trust the crap that lambeth put out!


----------



## BigTom (Sep 8, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I think a chickens are being counted too soon. a good comparison would be from now.


You'll get that data in time anyway.

I think you need to compare pre-pandemic, but it's better if you can normalise that against similar areas with LTN treatments.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 8, 2021)

I love the complete faith of the antis - they believe pollution has increased, congestion is terrible & emergency services are delayed despite any evidence and lots that argue against. Keep the faith! The divine right of drivers!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I love the complete faith of the antis - they believe pollution has increased, congestion is terrible & emergency services are delayed despite any evidence and lots that argue against. Keep the faith! The divine right of drivers!



Well it's not like the data is poiting to everything being good.

Lambeths latest pollution report shows only a 7% drop in pollution on Brixton road....during a pandemic.
TFL SCOOT data, which has been monitoring for years and gives a true baseline, shows congestion is up massively and lambeth chose not to use this data in any of their reports.
There has been a 300% increase in incidents of crews being delayed by 'traffic calming measures' in 2020 compared to 2019. Not averages which are had ot pin down because ambulances could come from anywhere AND we have the pandemic.

You cant claim one side is being closed minded and then be close minded yourself.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 9, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Well it's not like the data is poiting to everything being good.
> 
> Lambeths latest pollution report shows only a 7% drop in pollution on Brixton road....during a pandemic.
> TFL SCOOT data, which has been monitoring for years and gives a true baseline, shows congestion is up massively and lambeth chose not to use this data in any of their reports.
> ...



Brilliant! 👏


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Brilliant! 👏



Thanks!


----------



## edcraw (Sep 9, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Thanks!



No problem - credit where it’s due.

Especially love the pollution has decreased so LTNs must be increasing it. Masterful!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 9, 2021)

Oh dear


----------



## BigTom (Sep 9, 2021)

I mean you shouldn't just accept any stats without being critical of them.

The pollution stat is meaningless without a comparison to similar roads which haven't been affected by LTN treatments. I also don't know what dates that 7% drop is measured between. Who knows if 7% is a good or bad drop, if there's been general fall in traffic over the same time period?

There might be good reasons for excluding the SCOOT data but 100% politicians will look for stats that make them look good. That said, it seems to me that statistically speaking it's best to have the same monitoring methodologies for all roads within the LTN area and the SCOOT data will presumably only cover TfL managed roads so using it makes figures which aren't properly comparable with roads that aren't TfL roads. I'm certainly no expert on this though.

Ambulance services generally support LTNs and that 300% figure, you need to look at the detail of that. It might be 1 to 3, and those might have been early on when drivers forget about the changes. Or it might be that they are all around one LTN filter that can be changed to an ANPR controlled filter to remove the issue. Really response times are the best way to look at this, but you need to make at least some attempt to normalise them to control for general background changes in traffic levels - I don't know how possible this is with fire service response times, and it seems the other services are not monitored so closely.

No matter how you try to do this, it's all complicated hugely by the ongoing changes of the pandemic/post-pandemic period. Even the most honest statistical methods are going to have flaws. You need to acknowledge those flaws and take the best evidence available.
For me, in terms of the oval report, that's the traffic drops, which are normalised against other areas, and consistent in their data collection methodology.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 9, 2021)

I recall that one of the problems comparing traffic data on A roads is that volumes are affected by many factors, LTNs being only one of them, so it's nigh on impossible to single out the LTN impact.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Sep 9, 2021)

BigTom said:


> I mean you shouldn't just accept any stats without being critical of them.
> 
> The pollution stat is meaningless without a comparison to similar roads which haven't been affected by LTN treatments. I also don't know what dates that 7% drop is measured between. Who knows if 7% is a good or bad drop, if there's been general fall in traffic over the same time period?
> 
> ...



I don't think even Lambeth knows, or they are just trying to put out happy stats for the consultation

One one hand they say traffic is up 10% on the boundary rds, then they are saying oh look its 2% down actually


----------



## BigTom (Sep 9, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I don't think even Lambeth knows, or they are just trying to put out happy stats for the consultation
> 
> One one hand they say traffic is up 10% on the boundary rds, then they are saying oh look its 2% down actually



I think the first one is just the count from December 2020 whereas the second one is from the oval report includes data from April 2021 (I think it was april but I haven't memory checked the oval report), if that's the case I don't think there's any dishonesty there. In fact I think it shows the LTN is working, and over time as it beds in, you get a reduction in traffic. A short term rise followed by a long term drop is what pro-LTN groups expect to see.


----------



## nick (Sep 9, 2021)

a percentage rise on one road and a percentage decrease in another cannot be subtracted from each other to get the net percentage change.  There may have been / will have been different base line absolute volumes upon which the changes were calculated

edited to change "can" to "cannot" - which is kind of important


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 9, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Well it's not like the data is poiting to everything being good.
> 
> Lambeths latest pollution report shows only a 7% drop in pollution on Brixton road....during a pandemic.
> TFL SCOOT data, which has been monitoring for years and gives a true baseline, shows congestion is up massively and lambeth chose not to use this data in any of their reports.
> ...


I love this idea that because Scoot gives a slightly different picture that must be right and everything else wrong.

Googling "What is Scoot TFL" the first result says

_London .. has an extensive network of SCOOT-controlled traffic lights, which use sensors to detect traffic and adjust the signal timings to manage queues and give buses priority if they are running late._

The second result is a response to an FOI which says:
_Flow data is recorded based upon the number of vehicles recording passing over our on street detectors. The graphs attached show the change in flow during the dates mentioned above, measured from the vehicle detectors near each location, but due to the way the data is collected the absolute flow numbers are approximate. Congestion data is recorded based upon the percentage of time the detector is registering activity without breaks (suggesting a vehicle is stationary upon it)_

so TfL say Scoot data is not a good measure, which might be why it hasn't been used. it's intended to automatically tweak traffic signal timings, not count vehicles. 

And for Emergency service response times this is supposed to be London Fire Brigade response data (for the whole of London I think).  Wrong address is recorded as the cause of  delays as often as traffic calming measures and general traffic/roadworks much more often. From this thread  where the head fo the ambulance service says LTNs are necessary.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 9, 2021)




----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 - any idea why your organisation is against street parties? This was Claverdale Rd yesterday and had absolutely nothing to do with the LTN.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

God, the accounts retweeting really shown what a bunch of nutters OneLambeth is connected to.

The selfish pro-car lobby groups want all streets to be open at all times presumably.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 12, 2021)

They’re dinosaurs, facing extension soon and they know it.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

Just full of hate. That Oxford account judging a Brixton street party that’s been happening for years - really nice - and chowce5382’s mates encouraging it. They don’t represent our communities.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> chowce5382 - any idea why your organisation is against street parties? This was Claverdale Rd yesterday and had absolutely nothing to do with the LTN.



As I’ve said again and again Ed, this is nothing do with me. If you called me a Blairite, I’d be very happy and comfortable with that.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> As I’ve said again and again Ed, this is nothing do with me. If you called me a Blairite, I’d be very happy and comfortable with that.



Is any of it to do with you ?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> As I’ve said again and again Ed, this is nothing do with me. If you called me a Blairite, I’d be very happy and comfortable with that.



You still associate with this and have never condemned it - just said nothing to do with you despite you saying you’re their treasurer. 

As snowy_again says you’re a charlatan. Weird you haven’t responded to their posts. You seem very happy to enable very nasty elements of our community.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Is any of it to do with you ?


Twitter. No. Don’t know how many times I have to say it. I’ll do it again, just so you know. I have nothing to do with the Twitter account.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> You still associate with this and have never condemned it - just said nothing to do with you despite you saying you’re their treasurer.
> 
> As snowy_again says you’re a charlatan. Weird you haven’t responded to their posts. You seem very happy to enable very nasty elements of our community.


CH never condemned the racist cycling tweeter Simon Still. So the head of Lambeth therefore supports racists.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> CH never condemned the racist cycling tweeter Simon Still. So the head of Lambeth therefore supports racists.


She did. You’re happy for your organisation to call your neighbours racist for having a street party. 

Get a fucking grip & grow the fuck up - this isn’t a game.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> CH never condemned the racist cycling tweeter Simon Still. So the head of Lambeth therefore supports racists.


Will you condemn transphobic tweeter Charlie Jenkins?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 12, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Will you condemn transphobic tweeter Charlie Jenkins?



who the f*** is ******* ****** ?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> who the f*** is Charlie Jenkins ?



Apparently he’s OneLambeth’s treasurer but also has nothing to do with them?!


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 12, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> who the f*** is Charlie Jenkins ?


Someone with absolutely nothing to do with One Lambeth Justice beyond taking the money, paying the bills, speaking at their events, posting on forums in support, that sort of thing.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 12, 2021)

I wouldn't really care about the twitter history of campaigners but someone keeps bringing it up and insisting it's important, and that entire campaigns should be defined by the twitter feeds of those involved.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Apparently he’s OneLambeth’s treasurer but also has nothing to do with them?!





liquidindian said:


> I wouldn't really care about the twitter history of campaigners but someone keeps bringing it up and insisting it's important, and that entire campaigns should be defined by the twitter feeds of those involved.



dont think youre meant to use real names on these boards, specially when your slinging round unfounded allegations guys !
mebbe editor can clarify ?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> I wouldn't really care about the twitter history of campaigners but someone keeps bringing it up and insisting it's important, and that entire campaigns should be defined by the twitter feeds of those involved.



Agree, but the main account of a campaign is a different thing. Can’t see how you can be associated with the campaign if you don’t agree with what they say.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> dont think your meant to use real names on these boards, specially when your slinging round unfounded allegations guys !
> mebbe editor can clarify ?



What unfounded allegations? He said who he was in his first post.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What unfounded allegations? He said who he was in his first post.


transphobia and racism, I’ll leave you guys to it, this stuff is too fraught for me, enjoy your evening...


----------



## edcraw (Sep 12, 2021)

I haven’t made allegations but his pinned tweet if certainly questionable. Not sure how this forum can be anonymous is people choose to share who they are.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I haven’t made allegations but his pinned tweet if certainly questionable. Not sure how this forum can be anonymous is people choose to share who they are.


Ok well I quoted your post when I shouldn’t have then I guess, so apologies for that.
as for anonymity I have understood that to be the case here since time....I missed the naming post, I’ll take your word for it...


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> She did. You’re happy for your organisation to call your neighbours racist for having a street party.
> 
> Get a fucking grip & grow the fuck up - this isn’t a game.


Ok, fair enough. I didn’t get to see it. Can you post?


----------



## alex_ (Sep 12, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Someone with absolutely nothing to do with One Lambeth Justice beyond taking the money, paying the bills, speaking at their events, posting on forums in support, that sort of thing.



yes, it’s completely unfair for anyone to assume that he/she/they/them is anything to do with one two three Lambeth.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Will you condemn transphobic tweeter Charlie





cuppa tee said:


> dont think your meant to use real names on these boards, specially when your slinging round unfounded allegations guys !
> mebbe editor can clarify ?


That’s the rule but ed probably won’t.
The weird little stalker has already pointed out that it’s easy to find out where I live and said it’s my own fault for being targeted. Charming people


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I haven’t made allegations but his pinned tweet if certainly questionable. Not sure how this forum can be anonymous is people choose to share who they are.


Pinned tweet? I’d you’re talking about mine then it’s all about where there rights of one group starts then there others end. That’s just law. Happy to debate this with you and see your basis for how this isn’t true


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> it’s my own fault for being targeted.


Actually it's more that I thought your claims of being targeted were bullshit.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Actually it's more that I thought your claims of being targeted were bullshit.


Ok, so you just don’t believe it. Your decision


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> who the f*** is Charlie Jenkins ?


It’s a really difficult set of rules. I said who I was when I joined so everyone knows who I am, mainly to discuss and so that people would realise I wasn’t hiding. Its the opposite to, for example, thebackrow, who didn’t say who he was but most people on here knows it’s [name removed: editor], the guy who wrote the racist tweets and got asked/compelled to leave his job as a result of his racist views. Those are the rules. Its an example of how anonymity works on boards like these.


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s a really difficult set of rules. I said who I was when I joined so everyone knows who I am, mainly to discuss and so that people would realise I wasn’t hiding. Its the opposite to, for example, theBackrow, who didn’t say who he was but most people on here knows it’s =======, the guy who wrote the racist tweets and got asked/compelled to leave his job. Those are the rules. Its an example of how anonymity works on boards like these.



OK well I don’t think anyone knows or cares who I am .....im gonna edit the post you quoted, apologies for naming you at the time I posted I thought that name belonged to some random off twitter not on these boards....


----------



## teuchter (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s a really difficult set of rules.


They are not difficult at all - everyone posts here in the understanding that they and anyone else can remain anonymous if they want. The fact that you choose to give your real life identity doesn't change that.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 12, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> OK well I don’t think anyone knows or cares who I am .....im gonna edit the post you quoted, apologies for naming you at the time I posted I thought that name belonged to some random off twitter not on these boards....


To be fair. You don’t have to. People know who I am. I was just making the point that, whilst everyone knows who I am because I was open about it, there are other people like (thebackrow) or ===========l (he of previous racist fame) where people don’t know who he is. It’s just an example of how things work in general. You can be a racist as you like in your tweets but also be completely anonymous on here. I hope that helps to explain things


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 12, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> hope that helps to explain things


----------



## edcraw (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That’s the rule but ed probably won’t.
> The weird little stalker has already pointed out that it’s easy to find out where I live and said it’s my own fault for being targeted. Charming people



🙄 grow up.

All a joke to you including horrific targeting of our neighbours.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 13, 2021)

.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s a really difficult set of rules. I said who I was when I joined so everyone knows who I am, mainly to discuss and so that people would realise I wasn’t hiding. Its the opposite to, for example, thebackrow, who didn’t say who he was but most people on here knows it’s [name removed: editor], the guy who wrote the racist tweets and got asked/compelled to leave his job as a result of his racist views. Those are the rules. Its an example of how anonymity works on boards like these.


No, it's not OK to name people like this. Don't do it again, please.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

editor said:


> No, it's not OK to name people like this. Don't do it again, please.


Ok, so no naming people from now on.
Do you want to go back and edit the other posts with names on, editor? Or will you leave them up?


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I haven’t made allegations but his pinned tweet if certainly questionable. Not sure how this forum can be anonymous is people choose to share who they are.


My pinned tweet is about balancing the rights of groups of people and that one set of rights starts where another finishes. If that’s questionable then we’ll need to start human rights law from scratch.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Twitter. No. Don’t know how many times I have to say it. I’ll do it again, just so you know. I have nothing to do with the Twitter account.


If that's the case, why is your current fundraiser on the front page? 
The One Lambeth website links to your old fundraiser. Are you promoting the new one anywhere else? You can see surely how it really does look like you are part of One Lambeth Justice since that twitter feed is driving donors to you??!!


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> If that's the case, why is your current fundraiser on the front page?
> The One Lambeth website links to your old fundraiser. Are you promoting the new one anywhere else? You can see surely how it really does look like you are part of One Lambeth Justice since that twitter feed is driving donors to you??!!


Ask the person who runs the Twitter account


----------



## edcraw (Sep 13, 2021)

It’s real attack dog stuff. Have the Twitter account stir up hatred (to help the fundraiser?) but distance yourself from it. You can’t even bring yourself to condemn it here.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s real attack dog stuff. Have the Twitter account stir up hatred (to help the fundraiser?) but distance yourself from it. You can’t even bring yourself to condemn it here.



I'm pretty sure chowce5382 has condemned that account here previously, and the twitter feed which is officially associated with the one lambeth org that he is the treasurer of has a pinned tweet condemning and disassociating themselves from that account (I believe that was over the holocaust comparisons).

I'm not sure if they can do anything about it even through complaining to twitter that this is basically passing off as their official account, would twitter take it down? force a name change? I doubt it.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2021)

anyway, it does more harm than good to the anti-LTN groups. I'm not the only person who might have been persuadable that the LTNs aren't producing overall good outcomes (even though in principle I'm well in favour of them) that is totally turned away from anti-LTN groups by these kinds of statements and comparisons. I'll never see or listen to reasonable arguments from them because I won't stay in those groups or conversations and I'm no longer open to rejoining them.

edit: to expand on the above, the two main facebook groups for the area I live in have both banned LTN discussions because of the heated nature of them and the bullshit lies and comparisons from anti-LTN people, so now there's an anti-LTN fb group which I'm not part of and will never join, so will never see any reasonable arguments against LTNs and neither will anyone else who doesn't like this kind of nonsense.

I mean who the fuck is against street parties??


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ask the person who runs the Twitter account


Ask them what exactly? 
My question to you was, where else are you promoting your new fundraiser (for which you are responsible). Can you answer that?


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 13, 2021)

BigTom said:


> the twitter feed which is officially associated with the one lambeth org that he is the treasurer of


No, it's condemning the campaign where he is the treasurer.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 13, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> No, it's condemning the campaign where he is the treasurer.



I think this is the case. I’m not sure chowce5382 has any thing to do with the other OneLambeth (https://onelambeth.co.uk/).

Good point BigTom - chowce5382 could report the Twitter account for impersonating his org but I suspect he knows who’s running it and doesn’t care.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> No, it's condemning the campaign where he is the treasurer.





edcraw said:


> I think this is the case. I’m not sure chowce5382 has any thing to do with the other OneLambeth (https://onelambeth.co.uk/).
> 
> Good point BigTom - chowce5382 could report the Twitter account for impersonating his org but I suspect he knows who’s running it and doesn’t care.



ah, in which case, my mistake, as I though that onelambeth.co.uk was the org chowce5382 is treasurer of. Perhaps they can clarify exactly what their organisational relationship is to each of those feeds/organisations, because I'm thoroughly confused.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Ask them what exactly?
> My question to you was, where else are you promoting your new fundraiser (for which you are responsible). Can you answer that?


Gofundme, website, some posters (which keep on getting pulled down by pro people) not sure where else


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Gofundme, website, some posters (which keep on getting pulled down by pro people) not sure where else


which website. Can you post a link? The One Lambeth one has the link to your OLD go fund me. The only one I can find with a link to your present one is that OLJ twitter, so you can see why I'm thinking that you are linked to it???


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> which website. Can you post a link? The One Lambeth one has the link to your OLD go fund me. The only one I can find with a link to your present one is that OLJ twitter, so you can see why I'm thinking that you are linked to it???








						Action against Railton LTN | One Railton | Brixton
					

Action against Railton LTN undemocratic road closures imposed without consultation




					www.onerailton.co.uk


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, so no naming people from now on.
> Do you want to go back and edit the other posts with names on, editor? Or will you leave them up?


You can report them if you like.


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Action against Railton LTN | One Railton | Brixton
> 
> 
> Action against Railton LTN undemocratic road closures imposed without consultation
> ...


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

So -

www.onerailton.co.uk is the website for One Lambeth Justice which is pursuing the court case.

https://twitter.com/OneLambeth_Just is the twitter account linked to on onerailton.co.uk and describes itself as "This is the official account of residents fighting the social injustice of LTNs in Lambeth whilst supporting the legal campaign."

However, "One Lambeth Justice" the legal campaign does not recognise "One Lambeth Justice" the twitter account as being connected and has no control over it.

Meanwhile the twitter account https://twitter.com/LambethOne (OneLambeth) is not connected with https://twitter.com/OneLambeth_Just (One Lambeth Justice) and says:

"The @OneLambeth_Just account is not affiliated with, and is run autonomously from, @LambethOne. It is not involved in the campaign to change Lambeth to a committee system. We condemn the inflammatory language repeatedly used by that account, and have reported it to @Twitter."


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So -
> 
> www.onerailton.co.uk is the website for One Lambeth Justice which is pursuing the court case.
> 
> ...


It’s connected, I’ve said that. I just don’t have any control over it. I pay the bills and focus on legal issues.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s connected, I’ve said that. I just don’t have any control over it. I pay the bills and focus on legal issues.


Such a lame position - you're actively choosing to be associated with the account & the person behind it. It says a lot about who you are.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Such a lame position - you're actively choosing to be associated with the account & the person behind it. It says a lot about who you are.


Thanks, I’ll take this on board.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s connected, I’ve said that. I just don’t have any control over it. I pay the bills and focus on legal issues.



right, so the twitter feed is part of the organisation you are part of. You have more collective responsibility for that twitter feed's output than LCC does for the personal feed of an employee, but you refuse to take any responsibility for it, despite attacking LCC for the personal tweets of an employee?

Yeah. There's plenty you could do but you choose not to. You have collective responsibility for what is being said. You could leave the organisation or remove that twitter feed from the website or do all sorts of things but you choose not to. Instead you decide to associate yourself with a feed that actively decides to compare LTNs to the holocaust, east berlin and more. 
I find that absolutely disgusting. No wonder you are failing to raise money for an appeal, I know I would never donate to an organisation with such views, and yes I will judge senior members of that organisation by the views their official twitter feed puts out.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

BigTom said:


> right, so the twitter feed is part of the organisation you are part of. You have more collective responsibility for that twitter feed's output than LCC does for the personal feed of an employee, but you refuse to take any responsibility for it, despite attacking LCC for the personal tweets of an employee?
> 
> Yeah. There's plenty you could do but you choose not to. You have collective responsibility for what is being said. You could leave the organisation or remove that twitter feed from the website or do all sorts of things but you choose not to. Instead you decide to associate yourself with a feed that actively decides to compare LTNs to the holocaust, east berlin and more.
> I find that absolutely disgusting. No wonder you are failing to raise money for an appeal, I know I would never donate to an organisation with such views, and yes I will judge senior members of that organisation by the views their official twitter feed puts out.


Ok


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok



You're really happy with this yeah? Quite content to be tied up with someone reckoning the LTNs are equivalent to the industrial murder of millions of Jews, Gypysies, LGBTQ, disabled people etc?
Fuck you then.
I thought you might be genuine in your concern for how this affects disabled people but clearly you are not. I guess your "middle class white cyclists" comment was the one that really shows how you feel about LTNs. Anything else is just a means to an end.

All this kind of stuff is why I'm closed to the anti-LTN arguments. I know I don't live where you do but I'm exactly the kind of person you need to win over - in theory pro-LTN but willing and open to being shown that they don't work. But with crap like this you lose me completely.
All your arguments about how the LTN has badly affected disabled people - gone. I have no interest in what you've said, I don't believe you on anything any more.
Great work. slow handclap.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

BigTom said:


> You're really happy with this yeah? Quite content to be tied up with someone reckoning the LTNs are equivalent to the industrial murder of millions of Jews, Gypysies, LGBTQ, disabled people etc?
> Fuck you then.
> I thought you might be genuine in your concern for how this affects disabled people but clearly you are not. I guess your "middle class white cyclists" comment was the one that really shows how you feel about LTNs. Anything else is just a means to an end.
> 
> ...


I have said previously that I didn’t agree with those statements but that I didn’t have control over what was written. I did bring it up and mentioned that I didn’t think it correct or remotely analogous and that the focus should be on data and winning the argument rather than ill founded comparisons. No one has yet pointed out that I don’t actually follow the Twitter account


----------



## alex_ (Sep 13, 2021)

BigTom said:


> You're really happy with this yeah? Quite content to be tied up with someone reckoning the LTNs are equivalent to the industrial murder of millions of Jews, Gypysies, LGBTQ, disabled people etc?



He isn’t “tied up with” he’s paying their bills.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> I have said previously that I didn’t agree with those statements but that I didn’t have control over what was written. I did bring it up and mentioned that I didn’t think it correct or remotely analogous and that the focus should be on data and winning the argument rather than ill founded comparisons. No one has yet pointed out that I don’t actually follow the Twitter account



You don't follow the twitter account? Oh no, how crumbled my view is now.
You are the treasurer of the organisation that account is officially associated with. It doesn't matter that you don't have control over exactly what is written. You are in one of the two most senior positions in that organisation. The twitter feed IS your public face. You are intrinsically and deeply linked together. Far more so that the personal account of an LCC employee and the LCC. 
This IS your responsibility. You are the treasurer of the organisation. You know who runs the account and makes those statements. Have you made any moves to have them removed from controlling your social media feed? Have you made any moves to take that feed off your website and dispute it with twitter? Have you left the organisation? 

You answer no to those questions (and you must answer no to two of them) and you are accepting your part in what those tweets say. You are content with them, or you would take action against them and to dissacociate yourself from them and the organisation that supports them.
You are morally bankrupt. I do not believe you, you are ok with those statements if not fully on board with them and your actions tell me this.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

BigTom said:


> You don't follow the twitter account? Oh no, how crumbled my view is now.
> You are the treasurer of the organisation that account is officially associated with. It doesn't matter that you don't have control over exactly what is written. You are in one of the two most senior positions in that organisation. The twitter feed IS your public face. You are intrinsically and deeply linked together. Far more so that the personal account of an LCC employee and the LCC.
> This IS your responsibility. You are the treasurer of the organisation. You know who runs the account and makes those statements. Have you made any moves to have them removed from controlling your social media feed? Have you made any moves to take that feed off your website and dispute it with twitter? Have you left the organisation?
> 
> ...


My actions are that I will continue to support my friend through the legal process and ensure that she has whatever she needs in terms of support during what is a nightmarish time for her. Once the legal process comes to an end, any formal role I have in this will be over as the legal avenues will have been exhausted.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> My actions are that I will continue to support my friend through the legal process and ensure that she has whatever she needs in terms of support during what is a nightmarish time for her. Once the legal process comes to an end, any formal role I have in this will be over as the legal avenues will have been exhausted.



Your friend is the client, not onelambethjustice or railtonjustice or whatever the organisation is called. You don't need to stay part of the organisation for the court case to proceed, nor does the organisation need to tolerate the twitter feed to maintain the court case. You could disconnect and try to raise money without associating yourself with the view that the LTN is equivalent to the industrial murder of millions of people but you choose not to. That speaks volumes about you and your character, and about the organisation you are part of and its character.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 13, 2021)

BigTom said:


> You don't follow the twitter account? Oh no, how crumbled my view is now.
> You are the treasurer of the organisation that account is officially associated with. It doesn't matter that you don't have control over exactly what is written. You are in one of the two most senior positions in that organisation. The twitter feed IS your public face. You are intrinsically and deeply linked together. Far more so that the personal account of an LCC employee and the LCC.
> This IS your responsibility. You are the treasurer of the organisation. You know who runs the account and makes those statements. Have you made any moves to have them removed from controlling your social media feed? Have you made any moves to take that feed off your website and dispute it with twitter? Have you left the organisation?
> 
> ...


I think the reality is that there is no "organisation" as such. There is a gofundme fund raiser, via which an individual is collecting funds for a court case where another individual is the "client".

There is then a jumble of informal organisations, interests, anonymous social media accounts and individuals who encourage donations to that fundraiser.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s connected, I’ve said that. I just don’t have any control over it. I pay the bills and focus on legal issues.


That's fucking bullshit and you know it is. I've been involved in campaigning and fundraising for decades and there is NO WAY I would allow anyone to post up shit like this regardless of how much money they were funnelling my way. Or at the VERY least, Id make a clear and empathic statement condemking the comments and distancing myself from the dodgy fundraiser.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think the reality is that there is no "organisation" as such. There is a gofundme fund raiser, via which an individual is collecting funds for a court case where another individual is the "client".
> 
> There is then a jumble of informal organisations, interests, anonymous social media accounts and individuals who encourage donations to that fundraiser.


There's a One UK group apparently - that just includes groups from London 🙄.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think the reality is that there is no "organisation" as such. There is a gofundme fund raiser, via which an individual is collecting funds for a court case where another individual is the "client".
> 
> There is then a jumble of informal organisations, interests, anonymous social media accounts and individuals who encourage donations to that fundraiser.


This description sums it up. I was never “appointed” as treasurer. I offered to help pay the bills partly because no-one else seemed to be able to open an account quickly. I also didn’t is I’d be named on gofundme, I assumed that it would be the client. The treasurer title was given after a load of pro people wanted more information and asking why there wasn’t a formal treasurer. As my name was up there the person who runs the site put me down as treasurer. Most of the people involved haven’t actually been in the same place together or only met once.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> There's a One UK group apparently - that just includes groups from London 🙄.



There is no weekly meeting.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 13, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I think the reality is that there is no "organisation" as such. There is a gofundme fund raiser, via which an individual is collecting funds for a court case where another individual is the "client".
> 
> There is then a jumble of informal organisations, interests, anonymous social media accounts and individuals who encourage donations to that fundraiser



There must be some kind of organisation for chowce5382 to be the treasurer of. He's already said that the onerailton website is his organisation's, and lists the scummy onelambethjustice twitter feed there. Even if there's nothing formal, like no chair or committee or anything where it was agreed that X person would run the twitter feed for them, they have been put on the website that chowce5382 has named as theirs. It's all one and the same group, even if there's no constitutional arranged organisation. 
They could remove links to that twitter feed from their website, but they choose not to. They could start a twitter feed of their own, but they choose not to.


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Action against Railton LTN | One Railton | Brixton
> 
> 
> Action against Railton LTN undemocratic road closures imposed without consultation
> ...


Thanks. I see it says Follow us at onelambethjustice (the twitter acct) at the bottom. I'm still confused but will leave it at that.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 13, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> There is no weekly meeting.


But there is a OneUk? 

Any relation to these guys? Seems a good match:





__





						Brexit Vote
					

Tactical voting guide for UK General Election to deliver leave parliament




					oneuk.org
				






			https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=ONEUKBA


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But there is a OneUk?
> 
> Any relation to these guys? Seems a good match:
> 
> ...


No-one really knows where the OneUK thing came from.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 14, 2021)

Good article in The Times today from Danny Adilypour.





> The use of low traffic neighbourhoods by local councils across the country has generated lots of attention, with passionate views expressed both for and against such interventions. The noise generated by this debate means the reasons for introducing low traffic neighbourhoods are often lost in the cacophony, when this is something that should matter to us all.
> 
> In the London borough of Lambeth, which I represent, it has been clear for some time that our road network is well beyond capacity. Our main roads are congested and our smaller residential streets without controls such as traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and speed reduction measures are acting as pressure valves, taking significant levels of through traffic.
> 
> ...


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 14, 2021)

Islington's turn to report traffic down overall and no increase on boundary roads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 14, 2021)

But… but… but…


----------



## BigTom (Sep 14, 2021)

For those who are interested in how they normalised the traffic counts, it's in the 6 month report where there's lots of detail in methodology: https://www.islington.gov.uk/-/medi...hash=CC1A1A62A34DAF1858DC451786C11F2D0C4B184D

Essentially they did traffic counts in June 2020 just before installing the measures, and then counts in June 21 for the annual report (and Dec for the 6 monthly one). They compared these to TfL data from monitoring sites around the area for 2019 to see what the differences are and adjust accordingly. So June 2020 had 20% lower traffic than June 2019, as did Dec 2020 compared to Dec 2019, so both are adjusted by that amount. It's always going to be hard to make proper comparisons but it feels like a reasonable way to do this - compare the general trend from 2019 - 2020 and 2021 and use that to normalise the specific counts for each road to take into account the general trend caused by the post-pandemic unlockening.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 14, 2021)

There are plenty of holes in the data for all of these schemes... by which I mean, data that hasn't been recorded rather than data that shows serious adverse effects. And it's all complicated by Covid impacts, of course.

But collectively the amount of monitoring as far as I am aware is fairly much unprecedented, as far as the UK is concerned. Previously when arguing for the benefits of these kinds of schemes, we've had to rely on results from a scattering of relatively small schemes that sit somewhat in isolation from another, plus results from other countries. I'd hope that what's been monitored and recorded in the last couple of years (and which should continue into the next few years) represents a quite significant step up in the evidence base. It should be possible to look at all the schemes together, and it should be possible to identify effects that are particular to specific circumstances rather than inevitable consequences.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 14, 2021)

I know we’ve probably all had enough of what a shit show OneLambeth is but now they’re trying to spin letters about the consultations as some kind of attempt to get people not to respond?!


----------



## BigTom (Sep 14, 2021)

I have to admit I can't think of a time I've had the council post consultation notices to me - is there a standard way to do this?


----------



## liquidindian (Sep 14, 2021)

Isn't it usually a laminated A4 poster ziptied to a lamppost? And maybe an ad in the local paper when we had those?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 14, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Isn't it usually a laminated A4 poster ziptied to a lamppost? And maybe an ad in the local paper when we had those?



TfL delivered letters, prob similar to these, for the A23 consultation in Streatham. Tons of people still claimed they weren’t consulted though.

The same will happen for this I’m sure but pretty sure most people are very aware of the LTNs. 

If they become permanent it’s going be really depressing how the OneLambeth lot will still go on about it.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> But there is a OneUk?
> 
> Any relation to these guys? Seems a good match:
> 
> ...


No, there isn’t. Furthermore, there is no correlation between supporting Sofia and Brexit.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> No, there isn’t. Furthermore, there is no correlation between supporting Sofia and Brexit.



That’s quite a delayed response to a post you’d already responded to.

Maybe you could respond to snowy_again  post?









						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

That's not the point I was making. They could use the main roads if there was no congestion.  There is congestion on the main roads. Please read my post which details some of the difficulties blue badge holders face.




					www.urban75.net


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s quite a delayed response to a post you’d already responded to.
> 
> Maybe you could respond to snowy_again  post?
> 
> ...


?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 15, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> ?











						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

That's not the point I was making. They could use the main roads if there was no congestion.  There is congestion on the main roads. Please read my post which details some of the difficulties blue badge holders face.




					www.urban75.net


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 15, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
> 
> 
> That's not the point I was making. They could use the main roads if there was no congestion.  There is congestion on the main roads. Please read my post which details some of the difficulties blue badge holders face.
> ...


I’m not sure that he is asking a question. I’ve never said that I represent all disabled people. He is perfectly within his rights to be upset. As a group with protected characteristics there is a spectrum in terms of impact. That’s pretty much why we are in the courts at the moment as the work wasn’t done beforehand. More than anyone I would expect him to understand that, whilst this might not be pertinent to him, it will be pertinent to people in the same/similar group. As such, I would expect him to fully support court action as this is about pointing out how blanket measures might not work for everyone, even within a specific protected group. I’m happy to be criticised for this as, in the end, fighting for the rights of a group or sub-set of people who should be protected by law is the right thing to do. You’ve never understood this.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 17, 2021)

OneLambeth confirming what we already know that they don’t really give a fuck about traffic & pollution on main roads.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> OneLambeth confirming what we already know that they don’t really give a fuck about traffic & pollution on main roads.
> 
> View attachment 288711



No surprises here


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 17, 2021)

It’s almost as if they don’t really care about pollution or disabled people at all, isn’t it?

“I want to drive my car where I want”. It’s always been, and always will be, their only argument.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 17, 2021)

Councillor Tim Briggs' latest efforts

"Privatised Roads"?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Councillor Tim Briggs' latest efforts
> 
> "Privatised Roads"?
> 
> ...


The guy's such an idiot. Spoke to him once and he was denying climate change. He won his seat by such a small margin & I can't see this sort of think playing well in Clapham so got no idea what his game plan is.


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 17, 2021)

I see the OLJ Twitter account (the official account of the legal campaign) has now locked itself and it’s content is only visible to followers.

Amazing campaigning.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 17, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I see the OLJ Twitter account (the official account of the legal campaign) has now locked itself and it’s content is only visible to followers.
> 
> Amazing campaigning.



All 535 of them!


----------



## edcraw (Sep 17, 2021)

I did mention to one of the hardcore Onesies how awful it was and there claiming it might be a hack… that’s been going on for months chowce5382 thinks otherwise.



How many OneLambeth’s is that now?


----------



## cogito (Sep 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I did mention to one of the hardcore Onesies how awful it was and there claiming it might be a hack… that’s been going on for months chowce5382 thinks otherwise.
> 
> View attachment 288837
> 
> How many OneLambeth’s is that now?


Too many to count.

OneRailton is also OneLambeth Justice. Is that really different from OneLambethJustice?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 19, 2021)

I mean, why do they need counters when they have Scoot?


----------



## lblres (Sep 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I did mention to one of the hardcore Onesies how awful it was and there claiming it might be a hack… that’s been going on for months chowce5382 thinks otherwise.
> 
> View attachment 288837
> 
> How many OneLambeth’s is that now?


this has to be the funniest thing I've ever read the tweet fits with all their other content


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 22, 2021)

Secretary of State for Transport (and Tory)


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I did mention to one of the hardcore Onesies how awful it was and there claiming it might be a hack… that’s been going on for months chowce5382 thinks otherwise.
> 
> View attachment 288837
> 
> How many OneLambeth’s is that now?



Tim Briggs definitely thinks the account is both legitimate and represents the campaign (which he considers himself part of).


I did actually see a private road in an LTN the other day up at Oval.  So I guess this is the road Tim Briggs wants this got rid of so there can be a rat run through the estate?


----------



## cuppa tee (Sep 23, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Tim Briggs definitely thinks the account is both legitimate and represents the campaign (which he considers himself part of).
> 
> 
> I did actually see a private road in an LTN the other day up at Oval.  So I guess this is the road Tim Briggs wants this got rid of so there can be a rat run through the estate?
> ...




...that’s more Stockwell tbh, and the road is a dead end so not much use as a rat run.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 23, 2021)

I wonder if Ealing will continue measuring traffic post LTN removal or whether it will be a missed opportunity to see what actually happens, which almost certainly will be no significant drop in traffic on most of the main roads.


----------



## Not a Vet (Sep 23, 2021)

It’s interesting to see how these are playing out across councils. Some capitulate almost immediately, some like Ealing later and others like Lambeth seem to keep going. I’m biased as it’s been amazing to see the transformation of Railton from how it was before to now and a lot of the huge jams seem to be around the school run so it still seems that people are not suitably persuaded to ditch the car but will sit in traffic regardless. So I wonder when the tipping point will come? Will it be the ULEZ that is due to be applied in October? Will changes to who can access the modal filters dampen the antis? I suspect not. The current consultation will be key


----------



## edcraw (Sep 23, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> It’s interesting to see how these are playing out across councils. Some capitulate almost immediately, some like Ealing later and others like Lambeth seem to keep going.



I think a lot of it depends on car ownership eg. inner/outer London & how safe councillors are.

Lambeth having low car ownership and councillors with large majorities mean they feel fairly safe against the pro-car backlash.


----------



## editor (Sep 24, 2021)

I'm trying to work out what the "Boris  ❤️ LTNs" stickers are supposed to signify. I saw a couple on Coldharbour Lane.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 24, 2021)

editor said:


> I'm trying to work out what the "Boris  ❤️ LTNs" stickers are supposed to signify. I saw a couple on Coldharbour Lane.



I guess it’s people opposed wanting to tie them in with Johnson who’s supportive. They’re pretty funny and better designed than most of the anti stuff.


----------



## thebackrow (Sep 24, 2021)

editor said:


> I'm trying to work out what the "Boris  ❤️ LTNs" stickers are supposed to signify. I saw a couple on Coldharbour Lane.


Desperation?


----------



## BusLanes (Sep 25, 2021)

Ealing seems to have treated it more as political issue at the council level whereas in Lambeth, Briggs or GLA campaign aside it hasn't really. 

Apparently in Oval at least a lot of the local Tories are pro too.

The Lib Dems and Greens haven't really campaigned on it either way.


----------



## snowy_again (Sep 25, 2021)




----------



## liquidindian (Sep 27, 2021)

Seems the revenge for this is to review bomb the London Cycling Campaign, with all kinds of weirdos posting one-star reviews.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 27, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Seems the revenge for this is to review bomb the London Cycling Campaign, with all kinds of weirdos posting one-star reviews.
> 
> View attachment 290322



And I mean - what is the end goal, that people looking for a cycling campaign pick a different one ?

“Oh look, London cycling campaign only have one star on google - I’m going to pick this other cycling campaign”

It’s not like it’s a curry house or a plumber.

Alex


----------



## edcraw (Sep 27, 2021)

Maybe chowce5382 knows?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 27, 2021)

Sinister given the LCC are on the payroll of Lambeth Council….


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Maybe chowce5382 knows?


?


----------



## edcraw (Sep 27, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> ?



Obviously not then.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 27, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> ?


To help you out - some people might have got the impression that you were involved in some sort of google-review action against LCC in response to some sort of google based prank directed at Howard Cox.

Up to you whether you want to say anything about that, but I wonder if you agree with the FairFuelUK position on air pollution?






						Emissions-Solutions
					

We are a public affairs team with no shareholders to satisfy, just an award winning campaign representing the real concerns of hard working motorists, families, small businesses, commercial drivers and hauliers across the UK. Decades of fiscal exploitation by successive Governments with little...




					www.fairfueluk.com


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

Climate change denier Cristo getting some serious traction here by stirring up hate against the mayor by failing to point out the threats against him and his need for significant security. Put this with the time he gave significant airtime to lies about a paramedic at a mosque and I think it’s fair to accuse him of Islamaphobia.


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> To help you out - some people might have got the impression that you were involved in some sort of google-review action against LCC in response to some sort of google based prank directed at Howard Cox.
> 
> Up to you whether you want to say anything about that, but I wonder if you agree with the FairFuelUK position on air pollution?
> 
> ...


Sorry, I’ve just looked back at the messages as yesterday was manic. I’ve got no idea who Howard Cox is or what he’s done. Whomever that user is, it isn’t me. They got the wrong name but worryingly the photo looks like me so I’ve spoken to Google about it.

On the Fair Fuel piece, it’s the first time I’ve heard of them. I don’t use a car so car usage has rarely been as issue for me. I completely understand that cars are a necessity for some and for that reason as very easy source of income for any government. My view is that anything which creates a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels should be promoted. Ideally, the government should be investing huge amounts in SAF as, in the short term, this is the best way to decarbonise the transport industry whilst we get the Infra around hydrogen sorted out


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Sorry, I’ve just looked back at the messages as yesterday was manic. I’ve got no idea who Howard Cox is or what he’s done. Whomever that user is, it isn’t me. They got the wrong name but worryingly the photo looks like me so I’ve spoken to Google about it.



These LCC hackers play a long game!


----------



## alex_ (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> These LCC hackers play a long game!
> 
> View attachment 290424



Yes, very fishy


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> These LCC hackers play a long game!
> 
> View attachment 290424


That one is me. Just when fish lounge opened I think. I don’t know about the one above. I don’t use a google email account since I move over into iPhone agaces ago. In any event it’s been reported and I’ve asked google to remove both of these.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> That one is me. Just when fish lounge opened I think. I don’t know about the one above. I don’t use a google email account since I move over into iPhone agaces ago. In any event it’s been reported and I’ve asked google to remove both of these.



It seems pretty unlikely that someone would hack into your existing Google account to leave a 1 star review, with no comment, for a cycling campaigning organisation.

But then it also seems weird that someone would leave that review themselves and then protest that they hadn’t and claim their account had been hacked.

🤷


----------



## chowce5382 (Sep 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It seems pretty unlikely that someone would hack into your existing Google account to leave a 1 star review, with no comment, for a cycling campaigning organisation.
> 
> But then it also seems weird that someone would leave that review themselves and then protest that they hadn’t and claim their account had been hacked.
> 
> 🤷


Well quite, given that I’m comfortable being filmed and put on Twitter talking about LTNs this is hardly something I would be concerned about admitting to.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

Truly a mystery for the ages.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 28, 2021)

Maybe all those car journeys aren’t as essential as people insist after all.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 28, 2021)

Epic trolling


----------



## teuchter (Sep 29, 2021)

More holocaust stuff.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 29, 2021)

Neighbourhood whatsapp news:

"I received 7 penalty notices from the new camera. I made representations but they refused and now I'm going to court. Please give your valuabnle advice and suggestions"

I have not said "if you don't want 7 fines, don't drive through a closed road 7 times" because I don't think it would go down well.


----------



## pbsmooth (Sep 29, 2021)

was it anyone on here handing out leaflets in Railton Road this morning? I would have taken it more readily but for a lack of pockets on my cycling gear... signed the consultation.


----------



## edcraw (Sep 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> More holocaust stuff.




Oh dear - they’ve been hacked again…


----------



## lblres (Sep 30, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Oh dear - they’ve been hacked again…


What vile extremist behaviour, if I was Claire Holland I would be involving the police.


----------



## lblres (Sep 30, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Sep 30, 2021)

So, what's this?

It's some of the data you can get from here:





__





						London Air Quality Network :: Welcome to the London Air Quality Network » Statistics Maps
					

London Air Quality Network :: the comprehensive source of information about air pollution in London




					www.londonair.org.uk
				




Which I have posted about before on this thread. Here's the graph OneLambeth_Justice have posted on twitter:



They are saying that this somehow shows that LTNs have made air pollution worse on this site, for this particular measure. Well, I can replicate their graph, for March 2020 - April 2021, as per my link above, and it looks like this:



Slightly different formatting but essentially the same graph. They seem to be pointing at the peak in November 2020. Sure, that was after the LTNs around Brixton were mostly in. And it was sort of between lockdowns.

So shall we see what the same period, for the previous years look like?

First, March 2019 - April 2020:



Then, March 2018 - April 2019 (unfortunately a chunk of data missing):



Finally, March 2017- April 2018:



What are they on about? There are significantly worse levels measured during all of these previous years.

And what if we look at the bit they've conveniently missed off their graph - which is what's happened since spring/summer 2021, as restrictions have been lifted, with LTNs pretty much fully implemented? Do we see the graph line rising and rising? No!




In fact we see levels between June-September 2021 dropping to generally lower than are seen in all of the previous years for the same months ... with the possible exception of 2020, when the LTNs were already in.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> So, what's this?
> 
> It's some of the data you can get from here:
> 
> ...




Its just taken as an article of faith by so many that LTNs increase pollution with no evidence. I get that they’re slightly counterintuitive but has anyone seen noticeable increases in traffic.

Meanwhile, we’ve actually seen actual choas on streets around petrol stations, obviously caused by vehicles, and no one seems to give a shit.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 1, 2021)

Anyone heard any update on the court case? 

The fundraising page says “Our appeal is likely to be heard in the Appeal Court early Autumn with a judgement by October/November time.”









						OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

OneLambeth Anti-LTN Court Appeal Fundraiser  On Tuesday 5th April 2022 the Appeal Court j… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge



					gofund.me


----------



## BigTom (Oct 1, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Anyone heard any update on the court case?
> 
> The fundraising page says “Our appeal is likely to be heard in the Appeal Court early Autumn with a judgement by October/November time.”
> 
> ...



They are only 1/3rd of the way to their funding target. Did they even raise enough to appeal the case before the deadline in July?


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Its just taken as an article of faith by so many that LTNs increase pollution with no evidence. I get that they’re slightly counterintuitive but has anyone seen noticeable increases in traffic.


No, and i challenge anyone to stand around on ferndale, for example, and tell me in good conscience its worse than in years past.

But try suggesting that to any of them online and you will be attacked in the most vicious, personal, and slanderous terms.

Bunch of c*nts.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 3, 2021)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> No, and i challenge anyone to stand around on ferndale, for example, and tell me in good conscience its worse than in years past.
> 
> But try suggesting that to any of them online and you will be attacked in the most vicious, personal, and slanderous terms.
> 
> Bunch of c*nts.



I knew these schemes were controversial but really wasn’t prepared for the nastiness of opposition and frankly it’s amazing how some seemingly sensible & moderate people (eg. chowce5382 & Cllr Briggs) are happy to ignore this and even play up to it.

I’m sure some will try and “both sides” it but seems v rare for LTN supporters to be aggressive etc. and certainly not on the level of those opposed. So many opposed seem fine with Holocaust comparisons for example.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 3, 2021)

edcraw said:


> it’s amazing how some seemingly sensible & moderate people (eg. chowce5382 & Cllr Briggs) are happy to ignore this and even play up to it.



Maybe they weren’t sensible moderate people after all ?


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 4, 2021)

Some have now reached the Crisis Actors stage of conspiracy theorising.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 4, 2021)

It’s our council tax that’s paying for that foi nonsense.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 8, 2021)

If anyone here’s in the OneLambeth Facebook group and wouldn’t mind letting me know if they’re talking about something can you drop me a PM. Thanks 🙏


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> If anyone here’s in the OneLambeth Facebook group and wouldn’t mind letting me know if they’re talking about something can you drop me a PM. Thanks 🙏


....maybe chowce5382 can help ?


----------



## cogito (Oct 12, 2021)

So now that the RailtonLTN survey deadline has passed, what’s happening next?


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 12, 2021)

I guess that Lambeth will look at the data to see if the LTN has met it's objectives, along with feedback from those using it and decide if it is to stay, go or stay with changes


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 13, 2021)

People going postal in dulwich..










						Moped drivers burst into Dulwich cafe and threaten customers ‘after LTN row’
					

One witness said the incident as ‘ten minutes of absolute sheer terror’




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## spitfire (Oct 13, 2021)

Our local one is a fucking headcase.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 13, 2021)

Lambeth Overview and Scrutiny Committee discussing the LTNs yesterday.

Sad to hear the owner of Atlantic Bakery went to kill himself over the loss of business. ALso sounds like Lambeth are looking into SCOOT data.


----------



## pbsmooth (Oct 13, 2021)

Weird that so many people were apparently driving to a bakery there


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 13, 2021)

Good to hear Cllr Briggs going full conspironut with regards to Prof Aldred and misrepresenting the report because of a typo on the survey (the report says _The total number of motor vehicles within the LTN decreased by 63% and when including the boundary roads decreased by 18%._)


crojoe said:


> Weird that so many people were apparently driving to a bakery there


I feel bad for the guy, but I don't know how you separate the effects of the LTN from the effects of everything else in the last year. The cafe where I would get my Friday treat, an almond croissant, is now gone because people like me haven't been near it for over a year simply because patterns of living have changed. I can't say how many people were driving there but there has been a bunch of studies that show that retailers way overestimate the number of people who visit by car. This is one but it refers to others. https://bristolcyclingcampaign.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/shoppersandhowtheytravel.pdf


----------



## nick (Oct 14, 2021)

Wait until people remember the extension to the ULEZ zone kicks in in 11 days. That'll get blood pressure rising


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 14, 2021)

nick said:


> Wait until people remember the extension to the ULEZ zone kicks in in 11 days. That'll get blood pressure rising


Will they remember, or realise? Or will they fail to realise until they get seven letters through the door and take to Nextdoor to share their outrage?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 14, 2021)

Both sides etc...


----------



## BigTom (Oct 14, 2021)

lol, for anyone wondering, yes "common law courts" are a FOTLer thing. see eg: this FoI: UK Common Law Courts - a Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice

"





> Your answer referred exclusively to a Court system established under Parliamentary Legislation. Those Courts act as commercial courts, since all Legislation is Commercial Law subject (since the 1930 Geneva Convention), to Uniform Commercial Code. Hence my secondary question about the current Court system, operating as commercial “Companies”, since they operate as Courts de Facto under Maritime Law, with Boards of Directors, impose fees which often inhibit access to justice and operate in direct opposition to the principles of Magna Carta.



maritime law, check... magna carta, check... someone without a clue about actual legal processes.... oh yes that's a massive check.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2021)

Does it start from some kind of default where everyone has free access to the land? Because I'd be tempted to attend and explain how my freedoms as a Free Pedestrian have been controlled by the imposition of roads and all their attendant rules and restrictions.


----------



## Winot (Oct 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Does it start from some kind of default where everyone has free access to the land? Because I'd be tempted to attend and explain how my freedoms as a Free Pedestrian have been controlled by the imposition of roads and all their attendant rules and restrictions.


I’d pay to see this.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> some kind of default


I wouldn't try and map some kind of sense or order on to Freemen of the Land. It starts with "I don't want to pay this speeding fine" and goes from there.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 16, 2021)

BigTom said:


> lol, for anyone wondering, yes "common law courts" are a FOTLer thing. see eg: this FoI: UK Common Law Courts - a Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice
> 
> "
> 
> maritime law, check... magna carta, check... someone without a clue about actual legal processes.... oh yes that's a massive check.


This is one of the more random, and less educated, pieces of legal research. Anyone who bangs on about Magna Carta (which was only valid for a short period of time) isn’t worth listening to


----------



## edcraw (Oct 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> This is one of the more random, and less educated, pieces of legal research. Anyone who bangs on about Magna Carta (which was only valid for a short period of time) isn’t worth listening to



Any update on the court case?


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Any update on the court case?


Nope.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Nope.



Has the appeal been heard yet?


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Has the appeal been heard yet?


See above reply. It will answer all your questions


----------



## Winot (Oct 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> See above reply. It will answer all your questions


Have you actually filed an appeal?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> See above reply. It will answer all your questions



You should maybe update your fundraising page as it seems quite misleading then.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 16, 2021)

please explain and I’ll relay it to the relevant people.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> please explain and I’ll relay it to the relevant people.



Is that the people you only fund, but otherwise have nothing to do with ?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> please explain and I’ll relay it to the relevant people.



I’m good thanks - up to you whether you want to keep it up to date.


----------



## Casaubon (Oct 16, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Anyone who bangs on about Magna Carta..................................


'Did she die in vain?'
Tony Hancock


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 16, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Is that the people you only fund, but otherwise have nothing to do with ?


I don’t find anyone


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 16, 2021)

As


edcraw said:


> I’m good thanks - up to you whether you want to keep it up to date.


it is comforting that you care so much


----------



## Winot (Oct 16, 2021)

Winot said:


> Have you actually filed an appeal?


I’m guessing the answer is no. Feel free to correct me chowce5382


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

Winot said:


> I’m guessing the answer is no. Feel free to correct me chowce5382


Do you want us to file an appeal?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Do you want us to file an appeal?


It’d be v worrying if you haven’t as your fundraiser says this needed to be done in July and you’ve accepted many donations since then.

You don’t need to tell us what’s going on but I hope you’re keeping your donors up to date.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’d be v worrying if you haven’t as your fundraiser says this needed to be done in July and you’ve accepted many donations since then.
> 
> You don’t need to tell us what’s going on but I hope you’re keeping your donors up to date.


It’s sweet/slightly weird that you spend so much of your time checking up on a process that you want to fail. If you read the page you’ll find out what’s going on. I’ve spoken to the people who are updating it and told them how concerned you are about the process and how much you care about the case and they are going to make an extra special effort to start doing real time updates for you


----------



## edcraw (Oct 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s sweet/slightly weird that you spend so much of your time checking up on a process that you want to fail. If you read the page you’ll find out what’s going on. I’ve spoken to the people who are updating it and told them how concerned you are about the process and how much you care about the case and they are going to make an extra special effort to start doing real time updates for you



🙄


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> 🙄


Yup, I know how you feel. It’s the same as when someone asks for an update, gets told there isn’t one and then demands that they are updated about something that hasn’t yet happened, for a cause they are fundamentally against…


----------



## Winot (Oct 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Do you want us to file an appeal?


Of course not. I want your campaign to become completely irrelevant. Glad to hear it’s on its way.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, I know how you feel. It’s the same as when someone asks for an update, gets told there isn’t one and then demands that they are updated about something that hasn’t yet happened, for a cause they are fundamentally against…





edcraw said:


> You don’t need to tell us what’s going on but I hope you’re keeping your donors up to date.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

Winot said:


> Of course not. I want your campaign to become completely irrelevant. Glad to hear it’s on its way.


Again, another person who is really keen to ensure that a case which will make a huge difference to the life of a disabled person fails. You’re such kind people


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

Hence why you should look on the fundraiser if you want an update…


----------



## edcraw (Oct 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Hence why you should look on the fundraiser if you want an update…



That’s the point - it hasn’t been updated. 🤦‍♂️


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s the point - it hasn’t been updated. 🤦‍♂️


Because there hasn’t been an update since the 16th July deadline.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 17, 2021)

Okay - do you didn’t file the appeal. Thanks. Maybe shut the fundraiser then.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 17, 2021)

TfL leaflet through the door today. Next LTNs are Acre Lane to S.Circular between Brixton Hill and Kings Ave, and Streatham High Road to Leigham Court Road as far as the common.



No details on the gate locations


----------



## alex_ (Oct 17, 2021)

Crispy said:


> TfL leaflet through the door today. Next LTNs are Acre Lane to S.Circular between Brixton Hill and Kings Ave, and Streatham High Road to Leigham Court Road as far as the common.
> 
> View attachment 293068
> 
> No details on the gate locations



Brilliant - can’t wait


----------



## alex_ (Oct 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s sweet/slightly weird that you spend so much of your time checking up on a process that you want to fail. If you read the page you’ll find out what’s going on. I’ve spoken to the people who are updating it and told them how concerned you are about the process and how much you care about the case and they are going to make an extra special effort to start doing real time updates for you



Yes, because while this is clearly a scam to rip off the desperate - the slightly odd thing is that you aren’t very good at it.

You should be posting regular updates, about how much money even a pound makes and about how close you are to major milestones

Alex


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Okay - do you didn’t file the appeal. Thanks. Maybe shut the fundraiser then.


We met the deadline as stipulated on the page so we are now just waiting. I don’t think you understand the process


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

How is it a rip off. That would insinuate fraud, happy to see your working on this.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> We met the deadline as stipulated on the page so we are now just waiting. I don’t think you understand the process



So there is something to update, maybe let your donors know. I have some understanding of the process but difficult to work out what’s going on when you never seem to give a straight answer on here.


----------



## Winot (Oct 17, 2021)

Crispy said:


> TfL leaflet through the door today. Next LTNs are Acre Lane to S.Circular between Brixton Hill and Kings Ave, and Streatham High Road to Leigham Court Road as far as the common.
> 
> View attachment 293068
> 
> No details on the gate locations


Excellent. This is much needed to stop the Lyham Rd rat-run (which bisects a key primary school walking route between Blenheim Gardens Estate and two primary schools).


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Yes, because while this is clearly a scam to rip off the desperate - the slightly odd thing is that you aren’t very good at it.
> 
> You should be posting regular updates, about how much money even a pound makes and about how close you are to major milestones
> 
> Alex


Ok, so it’s just updates you’re after rather than saying it’s fraudulent. I’ll call the courts and tell them to hurry up as you’re getting frustrated.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 17, 2021)

This seems a long time ago.



chowce5382 said:


> Evening All,
> 
> I'm new here but thought I'd get involved. I've seen a number of comments about the legal case and the reasoning/rationale behind it including the type of people who are against LTNs. It's been an interesting read as I'm the person listed as the beneficiary on the Gofundme link and that has obviously caused some confusion and, on some areas of social media, has resulted in some interesting conspiracy theories. I wanted to introduce myself and say that I'm very open to answer any questions that you may have about why we are doing this (as long as they don't prejudice our case) and explain who we are as a group. From what I've seen, this seems like a place where the vast majority of people are keen to discuss, possibly disagree but generally treat each other with decency. From the start, I'll be completely open, honest and tell you the truth about what we're doing and why. All I'd ask is that we keep it polite as, frankly, most social media seems to be a hell hole at the moment. Having that this, this seems to be pretty respectful and decent.
> 
> ...


----------



## alex_ (Oct 17, 2021)

Crispy said:


> TfL leaflet through the door today. Next LTNs are Acre Lane to S.Circular between Brixton Hill and Kings Ave, and Streatham High Road to Leigham Court Road as far as the common.
> 
> View attachment 293068
> 
> No details on the gate locations



Can you post more of the leaflet ?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 17, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Can you post more of the leaflet ?



Good leaflet - shows how the mayor and Lambeth are sticking to their guns on this. Still bizarre that some people are happy for our city to be over run by cars and choose to spend their time, effort & money campaigning for this.


----------



## cogito (Oct 17, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, so it’s just updates you’re after rather than saying it’s fraudulent. I’ll call the courts and tell them to hurry up as you’re getting frustrated.


Not completely on topic here but I found this article earlier How Politicians and Lobby Groups Tried — And Failed — To Co-opt Legitimate Concerns Over Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (maybe old news for the oldies here) and I was a little surprised.
The question for you chowce5382  is : did any of the funding pages you seem to be running received donations from a Roger Lawson and was it/were they returned as the “Open our roads” collective did?


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 17, 2021)

cogito said:


> Not completely on topic here but I found this article earlier How Politicians and Lobby Groups Tried — And Failed — To Co-opt Legitimate Concerns Over Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (maybe old news for the oldies here) and I was a little surprised.
> The question for you chowce5382  is : did any of the funding pages you seem to be running received donations from a Roger Lawson and was it/were they returned as the “Open our roads” collective did?


So, there was one funding page and a second opened for the appeal. I have no idea who Roger Lawson is and we haven’t had any donations from him or any lobby groups or collective groups representing road users. All of our donations have been from individuals. As mentioned time and time again, we are a group of people, most of whom didn’t know each other before the LTNs, raising money for Sofia’s case. We don’t have links to lobby groups and haven’t spoken to any about support as none of us want to be involved with pro car groups. The only groups we have spoken to are legal aid charities and the Human Rights Comission. We are advocating for the rights of a disabled women who has suffered as a result of LTNs. Really sorry if some of you guys would like it to be different as that would allow people to make an excuse for this issue, but it isn’t I’m afraid.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> So, there was one funding page and a second opened for the appeal. I have no idea who Roger Lawson is and we haven’t had any donations from him or any lobby groups or collective groups representing road users. All of our donations have been from individuals.



While I think you should be free to accept donations from whoever you like, I'm not sure that Pimlico Plumbers is an "individual". And if they are, then they are Charlie Mullins whose various rants do seem to be rather more focused on road space being given away to cycle fascists and so on, than on protecting the rights of disabled residents. Again, you can take donations from whoever you want and it doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with everyone and anyone who gives you money, but I don't know how many people are just going to take your word for it that you received no funding from those representing "road users" (by which I assume you mean road users not allowed to pass through filters).


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> While I think you should be free to accept donations from whoever you like, I'm not sure that Pimlico Plumbers is an "individual". And if they are, then they are Charlie Mullins whose various rants do seem to be rather more focused on road space being given away to cycle fascists and so on, than on protecting the rights of disabled residents. Again, you can take donations from whoever you want and it doesn't necessarily mean that you agree with everyone and anyone who gives you money, but I don't know how many people are just going to take your word for it that you received no funding from those representing "road users" (by which I assume you mean road users not allowed to pass through filters).


“Lobby groups or collective groups representing road users”. If you or others don’t want to take my word for it that’s fine, it just means you’ll be labouring under a misapprehension. I’d also point you back to the comment that it could be easier for you to think that as it covers the inconvenient issue regarding why the money is being raised (and for whom)…


----------



## edcraw (Oct 18, 2021)

Leaflet saying consultation opening soon on the Tulse Hill LTN (and I’m guessing Streatham Hill & Ferndale one’s).


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> “Lobby groups or collective groups representing road users”. If you or others don’t want to take my word for it that’s fine, it just means you’ll be labouring under a misapprehension. I’d also point you back to the comment that it could be easier for you to think that as it covers the inconvenient issue regarding why the money is being raised (and for whom)…


I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are acting with good intentions and a genuine interest in the rights of disadvantaged residents (while noting you're not willing to do the same in reverse).

But - on the one had you keep telling us that "One Lambeth Justice" (or whatever assemblage of people you currently see yourself as part of) is so loosely formulated that you have no influence or control over what is said on the twitter feed of the same name, nor do you have any influence or control over the website that at one point you said was the one that represented your project. From what I can work out, all that you have any oversight of, is the gofundme page that both of those things direct people towards.

And on the other hand you want to confidently assure us that no-one donating to the appeal has any connection to lobbies or groups representing, say, road users. It doesn't make any sense at all! You can't know the details of everyone who donates and you don't even have any control over the messages that are used to direct or encourage people to make donations in the first place.

So, yes, everyone can simply make their own assumptions about who is donating and why, and they will be very likely to fit those assumptions to what would be least "inconvenient" to their view. But that surely has to include you too.


----------



## pbsmooth (Oct 18, 2021)

Can we just drop the idea the disabled woman is anything more than the poster girl. It's ridiculous. Just look at the comments from people donating and the donation page. The main picture isn't even her and there's barely any mention of whatever spurious reason there is for including her.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are acting with good intentions and a genuine interest in the rights of disadvantaged residents (while noting you're not willing to do the same in reverse).
> 
> But - on the one had you keep telling us that "One Lambeth Justice" (or whatever assemblage of people you currently see yourself as part of) is so loosely formulated that you have no influence or control over what is said on the twitter feed of the same name, nor do you have any influence or control over the website that at one point you said was the one that represented your project. From what I can work out, all that you have any oversight of, is the gofundme page that both of those things direct people towards.
> 
> ...


Apart from the fact that I get to see every single person who donates and have rejected overtures from certain groups whom we do not want to be affiliated with or donate to our campaign.  

On that basis there is a considerable difference I would suggest as one is proactive  and the other view point doesn’t have a proactive position in the process but judges what they deemto be to truth from a position of lesser knowledge about the facts/donations. This isn’t a dig at you, it’s just the nature of the process as you don’t get to see what I do.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Apart from the fact that I get to see every single person who donates and have rejected overtures from certain groups whom we do not want to be affiliated with or donate to our campaign.


This suggests you're happy to be associated with the fairly public views of the boss of Pimlico Plumbers.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This suggests you're happy to be associated with the fairly public views of the boss of Pimlico Plumbers.


In relation to LTNs and the impact on his business I can see where he is coming from. I distinguish that against a lobby group that is just focussed on cars and the rights of car owners as they are as blinkered as the equivalent cycle lobby imho. Neither are particularly helpful to solve this issue.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

crojoe said:


> Can we just drop the idea the disabled woman is anything more than the poster girl. It's ridiculous. Just look at the comments from people donating and the donation page. The main picture isn't even her and there's barely any mention of whatever spurious reason there is for including her.


It seems you have made your mind up having not been in any of our meetings with her or the lawyers or spent hours talking to her about the problems she is facing.


----------



## pbsmooth (Oct 18, 2021)

Correct.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> In relation to LTNs and the impact on his business I can see where he is coming from. I distinguish that against a lobby group that is just focussed on cars and the rights of car owners as they are as blinkered as the equivalent cycle lobby imho. Neither are particularly helpful to solve this issue.


You said you haven't accepted any donations from any groups representing "road users". But did you actually mean "car owners", and you are happy to be associated with groups lobbying against restrictions that affect the ease with which they can carry out their business operations using motor vehicles?


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

crojoe said:


> Correct.


Solid basis to make a decision. Armed with your facts as your sword and your own conviction in your position as your shield.


----------



## pbsmooth (Oct 18, 2021)

her cab has to come down a different road? do me a favour. I see no reason to humour your nonsense based on your post history.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

crojoe said:


> her cab has to come down a different road? do me a favour. I see no reason to humour your nonsense based on your post history.


Classic ableist comment. Next you’ll be telling her to jog on…


----------



## pbsmooth (Oct 18, 2021)

zzzz


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You said you haven't accepted any donations from any groups representing "road users". But did you actually mean "car owners", and you are happy to be associated with groups lobbying against restrictions that affect the ease with which they can carry out their business operations using motor vehicles?


I really meant the “car lobby” which I’ve been accused of being part of. I do think that businesses should be able to carry out their business using a motor vehicle and plumbers and builders are probably part of a group that would find it very difficult to remain as a going concern without that ability. In the end that’s really their look out though and I’m pretty sure that LTNs weren’t designed to stop that kind of economic activity (esp given the house building requirement in the county) but to stop needless trips where a car isn’t needed. 

As mentioned before, there are a huge number of issues that are bound up in this but the one that I’m really focused on is Sofia and the problems she faces from day to day.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 18, 2021)

What does the court case have to do with a plumbing business? Surely Charlie Mullins is donating out of his altruistic concern for people with disabilities.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What does the court case have to do with a plumbing business? Surely Charlie Mullins is donating out of his altruistic concern for people with disabilities.


Ask him. He did specifically mention Sofia when he donated. Do you know if he has a loved one who has suffered from a disability?


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Apart from the fact that I get to see every single person who donates and have rejected overtures from certain groups whom we do not want to be affiliated with or donate to our campaign.
> 
> On that basis there is a considerable difference I would suggest as one is proactive  and the other view point doesn’t have a proactive position in the process but judges what they deemto be to truth from a position of lesser knowledge about the facts/donations. This isn’t a dig at you, it’s just the nature of the process as you don’t get to see what I do.


You’ve accepted street collections (which legally you aren’t allowed to do, firstly as you weren’t licensed to do so, and secondly as it coincided with political campaigning activity)  and you’ve received pooled funds from various people paid in by other person. 

All quite low sums, but to say it’s 100% transparent isn’t really true.


----------



## snowy_again (Oct 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ask him. He did specifically mention Sofia when he donated. Do you know if he has a loved one who has suffered from a disability?


You can’t really accuse someone else of ableism when you use the phrase “suffered” in your next sentence...


----------



## edcraw (Oct 18, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Ask him. He did specifically mention Sofia when he donated. Do you know if he has a loved one who has suffered from a disability?





chowce5382 said:


> In relation to LTNs and the impact on his business I can see where he is coming from. I distinguish that against a lobby group that is just focussed on cars and the rights of car owners as they are as blinkered as the equivalent cycle lobby imho. Neither are particularly helpful to solve this issue.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 18, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> You can’t really accuse someone else of ableism when you use the phrase “suffered” in your next sentence...


I don’t think that follows. My dad definitely said that he suffered as a result of his disability. This is personal and I’m going from my experiences but he said he suffered and others I know have also said that. Nice that you’re jumping on my comment rather than one of the other previous posts which was more incendiary.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

Talking about Pimlico Plumbers I was thinking how incredibly inefficient their way of working is. They operate from a single base (not in Pimlico) and individual plumbers travel all over London with a van which is basically a workshop with 3 ladders on the roof whilst mainly responding to small domestic tasks. Think how much needless pollution this is causing as opposed to a local plumber not least this guy on a cargo bike: This Plumber Conducts 95% of His Business by Cargo Bike

They're able to do this exactly because we don't have restrictions to stop this or charge the relevant costs for the damage done by driving around with all this needless equipment. It's only surprising that they could only find £300 for a donation tbh.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Talking about Pimlico Plumbers I was thinking how incredibly inefficient their way of working is. They operate from a single base (not in Pimlico) and individual plumbers travel all over London with a van which is basically a workshop with 3 ladders on the roof whilst mainly responding to small domestic tasks. Think how much needless pollution this is causing as opposed to a local plumber not least this guy on a cargo bike: This Plumber Conducts 95% of His Business by Cargo Bike



Have you seen how much Pimlico plumbers charge ?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Have you seen how much Pimlico plumbers charge ?


Indeed - used them once in an emergency at work and won't again. I think they try and present themselves as some plucky little business but they really aren't.


----------



## Winot (Oct 19, 2021)

Also very bad on employment rights.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Indeed - used them once in an emergency at work and won't again. I think they try and present themselves as some plucky little business but they really aren't.



They have very good brand recognition, and bearing in mind how infrequently most people need their services - this probably works well for them.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

alex_ said:


> They have very good brand recognition, and bearing in mind how infrequently most people need their services - this probably works well for them.



Yep - but as I mentioned extremely inefficient and causing tons of pollution compared to local plumbers. There are sites now & Google that make it much easier to find local services now.

The anti-LTN harp on about pollution but never when it’s things like huge vans driving around with equipment they never need (3 ladders!) or all these bloody massive SUVs and we all know why that is.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 19, 2021)

From some of the above posts it looks like Pimlico Plumbers are to LTN lovers what Tim Martin & Wetherspoons are to Remainers.
By which I mean poison may be vented at will, deserved or undeserved, as  balm to the soul.

Personally I'm on the threshold of using Pimlico Plumbers. My washing machine broke down right at the start of the Covid lockdown, I live in a controlled traffic zone where normal people can't park without a dispensation from the Pope, and my kitchen, where the dead washing machine is located resembles the cellar of The Pit and the Pendulum.

I reckon the only firm who can extract the dead machine from my dungeon and replace with a shiny new Korean long-life model has got to be Charlie Mullin's Pimlico Plumbers! Might even get a donation to the Lib Dems thrown in for free.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

CH1 said:


> From some of the above posts it looks like Pimlico Plumbers are to LTN lovers what Tim Martin & Wetherspoons are to Remainers.
> By which I mean poison may be vented at will, deserved or undeserved, as  balm to the soul.
> 
> Personally I'm on the threshold of using Pimlico Plumbers. My washing machine broke down right at the start of the Covid lockdown, I live in a controlled traffic zone where normal people can't park without a dispensation from the Pope, and my kitchen, where the dead washing machine is located resembles the cellar of The Pit and the Pendulum.
> ...



Good luck - do let us know how you get on. Or maybe support a local business  🤷‍♂️


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good luck - do let us know how you get on. Or maybe support a local business  🤷‍♂️



local plumbers or tradesmen generally are very thin on the ground atm, and the few there are are very busy...one even recommended me to contact Pimlico plumbers lol, this kind of explains all the vans heading out of town along the Brixton Road at home time........my advice if you are stuck CH1 maybe try using“ nextdoor “ which seems as good a place as any to start looking.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 19, 2021)

If you are local to Brixton try the Spin doctor, although he is against LTNs...









						London Spin Doctor | Repair & Installation Services
					

We have experience and expertise with all major manufacturers of white goods. We qualify each job over the phone to avoid unnecessary, expensive call-out charges.




					londonspindoctor.com


----------



## CH1 (Oct 19, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> local plumbers or tradesmen generally are very thin on the ground atm, and the few there are are very busy...one even recommended me to contact Pimlico plumbers lol, this kind of explains all the vans heading out of town along the Brixton Road at home time........my advice if you are stuck CH1 maybe try using“ nextdoor “ which seems as good a place as any to start looking.


Thanks for trying to help.
The NexrDoor web service is not compatible with only having  a landline - i.e NOT a mobile, whose billing address they verify????
I've tried it - and BT/Plusnet do valiantly try to give you the 4 digit code verbally at 200 mph, but it doesn't work anyway.


			https://help.nextdoor.com/s/article/How-to-verify-your-address?language=en_GB
		

It seems a bit creepy actually - or intrusive. Do they end up asking how much you van Goghs are worth?

One of my friends has suggested a plumber - but I need more than just someone to connect the pipes. This is a heavy manual job here.

Last time I had something like this was around 2012 when I had to replace the 20 year old boiler.
British Gas were amazing - like the engineer totally destroyed the old boiler's pressure switch (needed to initiate the fire-up sequence) then kindly put me on to sales on hius mobile. They had a two week wait for a QUOTE.

Temperature outside was about -2 and my old mate Devon Thomas from the Brixton Forum suggested South Thames Gas from Railton Road - who were brilliant.
A bit pricey - but probably less pricey than BG.

I find these big jobs traumatic.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 19, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> If you are local to Brixton try the Spin doctor, although he is against LTNs...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Might be worth a try - he might even be able to repair the existing - though I doubt it. Serious knocking on the drum then slowed down to a stop.
Sounded like bearings shot to me. I was scared to do too much - you don't want a machine full of water to move around.


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 19, 2021)

post deleted.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Talking about Pimlico Plumbers I was thinking how incredibly inefficient their way of working is. They operate from a single base (not in Pimlico) and individual plumbers travel all over London with a van which is basically a workshop with 3 ladders on the roof whilst mainly responding to small domestic tasks. Think how much needless pollution this is causing as opposed to a local plumber not least this guy on a cargo bike: This Plumber Conducts 95% of His Business by Cargo Bike
> 
> They're able to do this exactly because we don't have restrictions to stop this or charge the relevant costs for the damage done by driving around with all this needless equipment. It's only surprising that they could only find £300 for a donation tbh.



Surely thats an office and not a base? They take their vans home, you can see them parked on streets.

Any plumber will go far - I had mine come from uxbridge a few weeks ago. They carry a lot of equipment and go where the work is. Some local tradesmen turn down jobs in and around the LTNs


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - but as I mentioned extremely inefficient and causing tons of pollution compared to local plumbers. There are sites now & Google that make it much easier to find local services now.
> 
> The anti-LTN harp on about pollution but never when it’s things like huge vans driving around with equipment they never need (3 ladders!) or all these bloody massive SUVs and we all know why that is.



Have you ever done such a job?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Any plumber will go far - I had mine come from uxbridge a few weeks ago. They carry a lot of equipment and go where the work is. Some local tradesmen turn down jobs in and around the LTNs



That’s just my point - how inefficient is it to have a plumper travel across London with tons of equipment they won’t use? Just think of the pollution from that! Crazy!


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s just my point - how inefficient is it to have a plumper travel across London with tons of equipment they won’t use? Just think of the pollution from that! Crazy!


Exactly. Most trades hate driving... You don't get paid for it do you? When I worked as an electrician I only did local jobs, less driving and it meant I could provide a good follow up service to customers. There is so much work around in London that if you're a half decent tradesperson, you can pick up enough work locally (my 'boundary' was a 30 minute drive max). Better for  the planet and my petrol spending.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That’s just my point - how inefficient is it to have a plumper travel across London with tons of equipment they won’t use? Just think of the pollution from that! Crazy!



...but how do you know they wont use it? Have you seen the amount of stuff inside most of those vans?

What are they supposed to do cycle accross london to fix a valve and then turn down bigger work because they don't have everything they need? They are mobile workshops / offices /storerooms / wahtever.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> They are mobile workshops / offices /storerooms / wahtever.



Exactly! They’re driving a workshop across London causing huge pollution. Use someone local that can go and pick up what they need.

As mentioned anti-LTNers only seem to care about pollution when they can try and blame it on LTNs or cycle lanes. Luckily some of our politicians seem to get it.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Exactly! They’re driving a workshop across London causing huge pollution. Use someone local that can go and pick up what they need.
> 
> As mentioned anti-LTNers only seem to care about pollution when they can try and blame it on LTNs or cycle lanes. Luckily some of our politicians seem to get it.



....but even local plumbers would use a van. If you get paid per job why would you risk having to come back because you don't have a certain thing. People go where the work is not everyone can service their local area and still make a living

Just sounds like another Answer: cycling What's the question? Without thinking about the situation.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> ....but even local plumbers would use a van. If you get paid per job why would you risk having to come back because you don't have a certain thing. People go where the work is not everyone can service their local area and still make a living
> 
> Just sounds like another Answer: cycling What's the question? Without thinking about the situation.



The answer to any question is never driving a workshop all the way across London. If you can’t see the issue I give up.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The answer to any question is never driving a workshop all the way across London. If you can’t see the issue I give up.



Their office is also your house. Their equipment is needed to do their job. They have a lot of stuff. They could be swapping a part on a boiler, replaceing one of many washers, taps or showers heads. They could be changing a pipe out.

I don't think you grasp what they are expected to do and what they need to do it. Look at anything from the internet engineers, thames water, utilities, etc. It's all the same for a pretty obvious reason


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

post deleted as it’s really not worth it.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

It's OK, it can be challenging to get your head around what the coal face have to do to make a living


----------



## alex_ (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It's OK, it can be challenging to get your head around what the coal face have to do to make a living



Ah yes, “no you are the metropolitian elite”, “no you are”


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It's OK, it can be challenging to get your head around what the coal face have to do to make a living


 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Winot (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> It's OK, it can be challenging to get your head around what the coal face have to do to make a living


Did you see the post from sparkybird?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

Winot said:


> Did you see the post from sparkybird?


Yes. Stayed local. Still drove


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Ah yes, “no you are the metropolitian elite”, “no you are”



Well, there's clearly a struggle with understanding, but pile on. have a field day


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes. Stayed local. Still drove


 …and less pollution!


----------



## Winot (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes. Stayed local. Still drove


And who has said that plumbers shouldn’t drive? You clearly haven’t read - or understood - the post about Pimlico Plumbers.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

Winot said:


> And who has said that plumbers shouldn’t drive? You clearly haven’t read - or understood - the post about Pimlico Plumbers.



He clearly hasnt understood how pimlico plumbers work. Let's see

1.) Comment about operating form a single base and going all over London. No. they have an office in Lambeth. The drivers don't 'punch in' collect their van and drive out. They take the vans home and they get sent to where they are closest. Most already are working loclal. Its not like a bus depot - they may have a few facilities there but not parking for hundreds of vans. No trade works liek that. Not british gas, not virgin, none of them i'm aware of.
2.) Obligatory 'here's a guy who does it on a bike' comment. hint hint wink wink did i mention cycling yet.
3.) Failing to grasp the equipment a tradesperson carries and that most can't/wont turn down work that isn't local. Think of the last two years or boilers not getting swapped out, maintained, serviced, certified. Plumbers dont live on leaky taps.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

Just pop on facebook or other social platforms and you'll see how the LTNs even affects local tradies


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> He clearly hasnt understood how pimlico plumbers work. Let's see
> 
> 1.) Comment about operating form a single base and going all over London. No. they have an office in Lambeth. The drivers don't 'punch in' collect their van and drive out. They take the vans home and they get sent to where they are closest. Most already are working loclal. Its not like a bus depot - they may have a few facilities there but not parking for hundreds of vans. No trade works liek that. Not british gas, not virgin, none of them i'm aware of.
> 2.) Obligatory 'here's a guy who does it on a bike' comment. hint hint wink wink did i mention cycling yet.
> 3.) Failing to grasp the equipment a tradesperson carries and that most can't/wont turn down work that isn't local. Think of the last two years or boilers not getting swapped out, maintained, serviced, certified. Plumbers dont live on leaky taps.



Yep - no vision for how things could be better or any actual care about air pollution.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

Nextdoor


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep - no vision for how things could be better or any actual care about air pollution.



Yeah. Who cares about people's jobs or needs. Why stop at private car journeys under a few km. Take some pot shots at people trying make a living too.

pretty much the LTNs summed up. Disregard for people and absolute ignorance...but hey heres a vision


----------



## edcraw (Oct 19, 2021)

🙄


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2021)

Guess what: if the aim is to have fewer vehicles driving around, then people need to drive vehicles around less. And that means that businesses need to change their work patterns.

If it still somehow makes commercial sense for a plumber to drive 20 miles across Europe's biggest city from Uxbridge to south London, that suggests to me that the problem we have with our transport set-up is not that we are making it too hard for commercial vehicles to move around in pursuit of business - it suggests the opposite.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Guess what: if the aim is to have fewer vehicles driving around, then people need to drive vehicles around less. And that means that businesses need to change their work patterns.
> 
> If it still somehow makes commercial sense for a plumber to drive 20 miles across Europe's biggest city from Uxbridge to south London, that suggests to me that the problem we have with our transport set-up is not that we are making it too hard for commercial vehicles to move around in pursuit of business - it suggests the opposite.



Assuming people can change their work patterns. the issue is trying to force a change and assuming its too easy to move around when really its just people trying to earn money. On yer bike was a phrase I heard growing up and it wasnt about actually getting on your bike it was getting out there and going to where the work is. Its not always local.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Assuming people can change their work patterns. the issue is trying to force a change and assuming its too easy to move around when really its just people trying to earn money. On yer bike was a phrase I heard growing up and it was about actually getting on your bike it was getting out there and going to where the work is.


Changing work patterns is pretty much fundamental to the nature of any business. No-one's work patterns stay static. Unless you never want anything to change ever, then you have to accept that the context within which businesses work will change over time. Anyone in the building trade is constantly subject to the need to change work patterns whether it's in response to technological changes, or changes to H&S legislation, or changes to building regulations.

Of course you can't change things so drastically that it's simply impossible for anyone to adapt quickly enough to avoid going under, or in such a way that it puts people under unreasonable stress.

Are these changes of that nature? No I don't think they are.

Can and will people adapt? Yes they will. Look at your facebook friend. They are choosing jobs closer together to each other now, instead of driving around on what are supposed to be residential streets in order to get between jobs.



Doesn't look like it's about to send that particular trader bankrupt, and much of this difficulty is overstated - but yes for sure, changes are inevitably going to be difficult for some people at least in the short term.

That's what you have to balance against the benefits of the changes being made. If you don't believe in those benefits then of course you will be of the opinion that the difficulties they cause are unreasonable.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yeah. Who cares about people's jobs or needs. Why stop at private car journeys under a few km. Take some pot shots at people trying make a living too.
> 
> pretty much the LTNs summed up. Disregard for people and absolute ignorance...but hey heres a vision


Who cares about pollution or the planet?. 

Why should we design things around whats best for business?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Assuming people can change their work patterns. the issue is trying to force a change and assuming its too easy to move around when really its just people trying to earn money. On yer bike was a phrase I heard growing up and it wasnt about actually getting on your bike it was getting out there and going to where the work is. Its not always local.


You say that but you've posted up a plumber saying he has loads of local jobs?


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Just pop on facebook or other social platforms and you'll see how the LTNs even affects local tradies


 I never had a problem with charging more for some jobs that were difficult to access eg 4th floor no lift, congestion zone, limited parking. Customers understand the issues and accept that they will pay a bit extra. 
You need to be adaptable to many things, LTNs being just one.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 19, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Yes. Stayed local. Still drove


Did anyone suggest otherwise? Of course most trades require motorised transport (although increasingly clever people are finding ways to work without). The point is that my mileage was really low because I only took local work. And for some jobs I could walk to quote and deliver tools to the site and walk or bus to the job if it was more than a few days.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Anyone else noticed how much quieter the roads are in the morning now private schools are on half term even though state ones aren’t yet?

Weird how anti-LTNers want to turn this into some kind of class war.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 20, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> He clearly hasnt understood how pimlico plumbers work. Let's see
> 
> 1.) Comment about operating form a single base and going all over London. No. they have an office in Lambeth. The drivers don't 'punch in' collect their van and drive out. They take the vans home and they get sent to where they are closest. Most already are working loclal. Its not like a bus depot - they may have a few facilities there but not parking for hundreds of vans. No trade works liek that. Not british gas, not virgin, none of them i'm aware of.
> 2.) Obligatory 'here's a guy who does it on a bike' comment. hint hint wink wink did i mention cycling yet.
> 3.) Failing to grasp the equipment a tradesperson carries and that most can't/wont turn down work that isn't local. Think of the last two years or boilers not getting swapped out, maintained, serviced, certified. Plumbers dont live on leaky taps.


They seem to have an awful lot of space up at Sail Street now - what looks like their own van repair workshop and about 5 arches under the railway opposite, most of which look like they can be driven into (you can see a load of cars parked in one of them)  Google Maps

Yes, it's true that most plumbers drive around in VW Transporter vans (like the Pimlico guys), but it's a completely different question whether they actually need to. I've done a lot of plumbing work myself, and paid people to fit boilers and radiators.  None of the work I've done or seen done has needed anything more than a normal sized toolbox -  which is why there are quite a few plumbers operating using box bikes now who just get pipe/radiators/boiilers delivered direct to site. 

Maybe you can try to carry every part you might ever need for a job - the Spin Doctor presumably has the odd washing machine repair that's runs so far over time he can't make it home (due to the LTNs) and has to sleep in the rooftop bed of the camper van he drives around in.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 20, 2021)

Yeah, when I used the spin doctor he had me order the part off the net to my home. 

Washing machines and boilers are so specialised now there's no way tradespeople would have stock of all the parts.

On the one occasion we did use pimlico plumbers to fix a simple leak under the sink he informed us he didn’t have the parts either and would have to go to the shop to get them - charging his hourly rate... They are more salespeople than anything else.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 20, 2021)

Just imagine campaigning for this!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 21, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You say that but you've posted up a plumber saying he has loads of local jobs?



Oh now you take anecdotal comments as gospel. Weird


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 21, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> They seem to have an awful lot of space up at Sail Street now - what looks like their own van repair workshop and about 5 arches under the railway opposite, most of which look like they can be driven into (you can see a load of cars parked in one of them)  Google Maps
> 
> Yes, it's true that most plumbers drive around in VW Transporter vans (like the Pimlico guys), but it's a completely different question whether they actually need to. I've done a lot of plumbing work myself, and paid people to fit boilers and radiators.  None of the work I've done or seen done has needed anything more than a normal sized toolbox -  which is why there are quite a few plumbers operating using box bikes now who just get pipe/radiators/boiilers delivered direct to site.
> 
> Maybe you can try to carry every part you might ever need for a job - the Spin Doctor presumably has the odd washing machine repair that's runs so far over time he can't make it home (due to the LTNs) and has to sleep in the rooftop bed of the camper van he drives around in.



If they know what the job will entail and its local sure. However they often rarely get more information other than 'boiler not working', 'I have a leak'. They also get calls while on jobs which could be for anything.

I had a leak which I thought was a valve as the water was under the radiator. Turns out it was the pipe under the floor. Old, corroded. He had the carpet up, he had the flooring up, the skirting had to come off, he had piping in his van, he had the tools to bend the pipes in his van. He had sealant / glue to put the skirting back on. One visit, good work. The nature of their role is to expect anything and get things fixed.

They are the amazon prime of fixing things. Yes I can be there, yes I have everything, yes it will get fixed today.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 21, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> They seem to have an awful lot of space up at Sail Street now - what looks like their own van repair workshop and about 5 arches under the railway opposite, most of which look like they can be driven into (you can see a load of cars parked in one of them)  Google Maps



I looked on their website, they have a car wash and maintenance area. Makes sense given the size of their fleet. I can't see any company being able to park some 300 work vans.

I only see one van there & the parking under the arches looks like office parking as it's all cars


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 21, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Oh now you take anecdotal comments as gospel. Weird


No, you're just contradicting yourself.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 21, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, you're just contradicting yourself.



How?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 21, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> How?


You posted up this:



> Assuming people can change their work patterns. the issue is trying to force a change and assuming its too easy to move around when really its just people trying to earn money. On yer bike was a phrase I heard growing up and it wasnt about actually getting on your bike it was getting out there and going to where the work is. Its not always local.



And posted up a post by a tradesperson saying that they had loads of local work.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> You posted up this:
> 
> 
> 
> And posted up a post by a tradesperson saying that they had loads of local work.


Not only that but that they are changing their travel habits in response to the LTNs, so that they are driving around less.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 21, 2021)

The topic i took this from was all about how tradespeople are attending less jobs because of the LTNs. Two let their helpers / apprentices go because of the reduction in jobs. Note he says ~IF~ he has jobs. If it's LTN or nothing they will do it.

He changed his habits in response to keeping his living going. Not all have. Not all can. See the gent who owns Atlantic bakery - how can he adapt?

See second picture for example of how these 'small five minute detours' are actually not five minutes.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> The topic i took this from was all about how tradespeople are attending less jobs because of the LTNs. Two let their helpers / apprentices go because of the reduction in jobs. Note he says ~IF~ he has jobs. If it's LTN or nothing they will do it.
> 
> He changed his habits in response to keeping his living going. Not all have. Not all can. See the gent who owns Atlantic bakery - how can he adapt?
> 
> See second picture for example of how these 'small five minute detours' are actually not five minutes.


The journey he says took 1hr 35 minutes, Google just now tells me should take about 9 minutes.

Do you think that journey always takes them 1hr 35mins or do you think he's picked an extreme example that happened once, as a result of things that may or may not have had much to do with the LTNs?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The journey he says took 1hr 35 minutes, Google just now tells me should take about 9 minutes.
> 
> Do you think that journey always takes them 1hr 35mins or do you think he's picked an extreme example that happened once, as a result of things that may or may not have had much to do with the LTNs?



I think when someone gives an example its an example. Given their comments, the comments of local tradespeople, Pimlico plumbers donating to Sonia's court action I think they have their finger on the pulse and they are all wondering if this project it worth it and when is it supposed to get better?


----------



## BigTom (Oct 21, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The journey he says took 1hr 35 minutes, Google just now tells me should take about 9 minutes.
> 
> Do you think that journey always takes them 1hr 35mins or do you think he's picked an extreme example that happened once, as a result of things that may or may not have had much to do with the LTNs?



tbf on a friday at 3pm.. but then you can set google to a day/time and see what traffic is like on average then:


----------



## teuchter (Oct 21, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I think when someone gives an example its an example. Given their comments, the comments of local tradespeople, Pimlico plumbers donating to Sonia's court action I think they have their finger on the pulse and they are all wondering if this project it worth it and when is it supposed to get better?


Of course they don't like the fact that it makes some of their journeys slower. Why would they? These measures are not introduced for the benefit of tradespeople, they are introduced for the general benefit of everyone who is affected by pollution, road safety and so on.

Given that they are motivated not to like the measures, it wouldn't be surprising to see a certain amount of exaggeration going on when they are trying to persuade people that the measures should be removed.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

BigTom said:


> tbf on a friday at 3pm.. but then you can set google to a day/time and see what traffic is like on average then:
> 
> View attachment 293555



It’s just weird this hyperbole antis come out with about constant traffic when we can all see this is bullshit all because your 10min trip is taking a couple of minutes more.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 21, 2021)

Touché


----------



## BigTom (Oct 21, 2021)

edcraw said:


> It’s just weird this hyperbole antis come out with about constant traffic when we can all see this is bullshit all because your 10min trip is taking a couple of minutes more.



I mean they probably did have a day where that journey took that long (they have some very specific times so may have GPS location recording on their vehicles and know exactly how long the journey took).

But it's not because of the LTNs, or that would be the norm. There was most likely a day where a combination of roadworks and collisions created a local gridlock, which the LTN may have added to by reducing the number of routes in the network that cars/vans can re-route around, or may not have if those routes would not have mattered or would have become gridlocked themselves.

Regardless it's most important to look at averages to see what the effect of the LTN is.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 22, 2021)

The point that is seemingly constantly overlooked by the anti brigade is that if a city requires residential streets to be available as rat runs in order to keep moving, then that is a spectacular failure of design and needs fixing. If an LTN makes things worse _then the problem is not the LTN it is something far bigger._


----------



## edcraw (Oct 22, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The point that is seemingly constantly overlooked by the anti brigade is that if a city requires residential streets to be available as rat runs in order to keep moving, then that is a spectacular failure of design and needs fixing. If an LTN makes things worse _then the problem is not the LTN it is something far bigger._


Yep, streets that allow through traffic really shouldn't have parking so cars can pass each other. There's a reason we've made some roads A & B roads.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 22, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> The topic i took this from was all about how tradespeople are attending less jobs because of the LTNs. Two let their helpers / apprentices go because of the reduction in jobs. Note he says ~IF~ he has jobs. If it's LTN or nothing they will do it.
> 
> He changed his habits in response to keeping his living going. Not all have. Not all can. See the gent who owns Atlantic bakery - how can he adapt?
> 
> See second picture for example of how these 'small five minute detours' are actually not five minutes.


Why didn't he just carry on through Dulwich village and turn onto Half moon Lane?

Tradespeople have loads of work on, they don't need any help.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 22, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I think when someone gives an example its an example. Given their comments, the comments of local tradespeople, Pimlico plumbers donating to Sonia's court action I think they have their finger on the pulse and they are all wondering if this project it worth it and when is it supposed to get better?


Better for who?. Drivers?.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 22, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> You can’t really accuse someone else of ableism when you use the phrase “suffered” in your next sentence...


Can you explain this one. Still trying to understand what point you were trying to make


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 23, 2021)

Inclusive language: words to use and avoid when writing about disability
					






					www.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Weird that they “treasurer” of One Lambeth never seems to want to talk about the actual pros & cons of LTNs.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Also, I would like to know what happens if they don’t meet the fundraising target. Will the lawyers still get paid?


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Also, I would like to know what happens if they don’t meet the fundraising target. Will the lawyers still get paid?


I think there will be enough three-figure donations from anonymous sources to get them over the line. All just simply concerned individuals, of course.


----------



## lblres (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Also, I would like to know what happens if they don’t meet the fundraising target. Will the lawyers still get paid?


had a look at the post on fb, seems their overwhelming support was only 00.2% of the group


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

Love how chowce5382’s mates lobby local politicians. Send random abuse to a potential new councillor for an area that doesn’t yet have an LTN who doesn’t seem to have ever expressed an opinion on them!


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 23, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Inclusive language: words to use and avoid when writing about disability
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still waiting…


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Love how chowce5382’s mates lobby local politicians. Send random abuse to a potential new councillor for an area that doesn’t yet have an LTN who doesn’t seem to have ever expressed an opinion on them!



Of course you can back all this up…


----------



## edcraw (Oct 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Of course you can back all this up…



Which bit are you disputing?


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 23, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Still waiting…


Weirdly I've got an answer for a question I didn't even ask.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Still waiting…


Did you try reading the linked page?

If you can't understand what has been linked perhaps you should not be so quick to accuse people of ableism.


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Which bit are you disputing?





BigTom said:


> Did you try reading the linked page?
> 
> If you can't understand what has been linked perhaps you should not be so quick to accuse people of ableism.


Did you read the post I was responding to when I mentioned ableism? Some pretty nasty stuff by one poster completely disregarding the stress and pain that someone has been put through. Strange that no one on here has mentioned that but has jumped on this. Says it all really


----------



## chowce5382 (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Which bit are you disputing?


My mates - like I’m either involved, have knowledge of or have/am encouraging it.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> My mates - like I’m either involved, have knowledge of or have/am encouraging it.



Ah, okay, it was a joke.

One Lambeth distance themselves from One Tower Hamlets over abusive tweet sent to prospective councillor then 😉


----------



## BigTom (Oct 24, 2021)

chowce5382 said:


> Did you read the post I was responding to when I mentioned ableism? Some pretty nasty stuff by one poster completely disregarding the stress and pain that someone has been put through. Strange that no one on here has mentioned that but has jumped on this. Says it all really





This is the context to that post. You wanted to know why using the word "suffered" was you using ableist language, and the link in the post afterwards to show you.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 24, 2021)

lblres said:


> had a look at the post on fb, seems their overwhelming support was only 00.2% of the group



ppl contribute in different ways. There were people leafletting regarding the consultation, people putting up sign posts outside peoples houses.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Love how chowce5382’s mates lobby local politicians. Send random abuse to a potential new councillor for an area that doesn’t yet have an LTN who doesn’t seem to have ever expressed an opinion on them!




I also hear that chowce5382s middle name is keyser soze.

His location around the death of jfk was apparently a grassy area.

He also could not account for his wherabouts when tupac was shot.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 24, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I also hear that chowce5382s middle name is keyser soze.
> 
> His location around the death of jfk was apparently a grassy area.
> 
> He also could not account for his wherabouts when tupac was shot.



What do you think of the political lobbying skills of the One groups Jeanette?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 24, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What do you think of the political lobbying skills of the One groups Jeanette?



I'm not going to be your distraction. Find another pen pal


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 24, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> ppl contribute in different ways. There were people leafletting regarding the consultation, people putting up sign posts outside peoples houses.


...pouring oil in planters, vandalising signs and cameras, every little helps.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> ...pouring oil in planters, vandalising signs and cameras, every little helps.



...and people have been on the receiving end of abuse (including racial abuse towards their children), had their personal details published on twitter, things drawn on their front doors, employers contacted just to get people with opinions silcened, negative reviews left for businesses just because they don't support he LTNS.

Those against the LTNs don't bring this up in every conversation as we understand the act of a few individuals does not make everyone with a different viewpoint part of that act.

Others though just luv to bring it up over and over like it defines a whole group


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 24, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Those against the LTNs don't bring this up in every conversation...Others though just luv to bring it up over and over like it defines a whole group


Your comrades-in-arms are still banging on about three tweets from a few years ago.



Jeanette Moo said:


> employers contacted just to get people with opinions silcened


Oh I had that. I'm lucky enough that my boss just found it very funny.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

Loving the “both sides” again.

The One groups make no secret of abusing people as that One Tower Hamlets tweet shows. If your official channels are vile what does that say about your supporters.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Loving the “both sides” again.
> 
> The One groups make no secret of abusing people as that One Tower Hamlets tweet shows. If your official channels are vile what does that say about your supporters.



come on Ed, you should know better than others how silly this whole approach is

Its funny because someone -edited out- started a facebook post on one of the biggest local mums forums about how the whole 'holocaust comparison'. This -edited out- was met with so many stories from normal people about how they had been on the receiving end of the most horrific personal and professional abuse they had to delete their own post. Not one group peoeple or some other niche....a local mums forum. Racial abuse, vandalism to their own property, negative google reviews left for their businesses. All for holding the opinion that LTNs are not working out.

winning hearts and minds through abuse.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

I think you're confused Jeanette Moo - or just making stuff up...


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 25, 2021)

Sounds pretty bad, any arrests or charges brought?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

Sorry, not you then. Must just be someone else called -edited out-who is local, talks about LTN stuff and keeps posting the onelambeth 'holocaust tweet' while getting shot down by a gang of angry mothers


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

Still weird how everyone's fine with the Holocaust comparisons. How is that not about as offensive a thing anyone can say?


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Still weird how everyone's fine with the Holocaust comparisons. How is that not about as offensive a thing anyone can say?



People are offended....but when theyve been on the receiving end of racial abuse to their family, having their personal info posted online and their livelihood affected just for holding an opinion.......

How to turn a 20000+ member of local mums against a cause. Step 1, racially abuse the kids of one of the admins.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Step 1, racially abuse the kids of one of the admins.


Sorry - you're accusing me of this?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> People are offended....


Well do something about it if you're a member of One Lambeth.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 25, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> How to turn a 20000+ member of local mums against a cause. Step 1, racially abuse the kids of one of the admins.


"I was in favour of filtering some roads but then someone received some racial abuse so now I'm against filtering some roads."


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Sorry - you're accusing me of this?



-edited out-


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Well do something about it if you're a member of One Lambeth.



I am, i've never seen it posted in onelambeth. I don't think i've ever seen ANY tweets from that twitter account in the FB group but I only scan every day or two

most people don't use twitter because its a cesspit. Personally i just don't get twitter.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> "I was in favour of filtering some roads but then someone received some racial abuse so now I'm against filtering some roads."



"I voiced my concern about a scheme and all of a sudden I was on the end of personal abuse directed at me for having an opinion"


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 25, 2021)

Nonono, that's not the cause and effect you described.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Nonono, that's not the cause and effect you described.



Either you're not following, i'm not understanding or youre wading into the middle of a conversation about something else. lets leave it there


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 25, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> How to turn a 20000+ member of local mums against a cause. *Step 1*, racially abuse the kids of one of the admins.


If you like. I think I understand just fine.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> I am, i've never seen it posted in onelambeth. I don't think i've ever seen ANY tweets from that twitter account in the FB group but I only scan every day or two
> 
> most people don't use twitter because its a cesspit. Personally i just don't get twitter.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


>




The topic you were talking about was the tweets where the holocaust is mentioned. I replied I have never seen anything from that twitter account posted in onelambeth fb group.

You respond with a load of screenshots of people making comments about other things.

You dart around a lot.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

Is this the bit where you latch onto someone else to comment on other peoples comments?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

That's the Holocaust tweet - pretty clear. The other tweets are the Facebook group you're a member of actively encouraging vandalism. You're choosing to ignore a lot of things.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That's the Holocaust tweet - pretty clear. The other tweets are the Facebook group you're a member of actively encouraging vandalism. You're choosing to ignore a lot of things.



Posted on the facebook group? I've seen zero tweets from "onelambeth justice" on the FB group. Not screenshotted or shared by anyone. I don't spend long on there but i've seen zilch.

I'm not ignoring, i'm staying on the topic you are focused on but seem very happy to throw the kitchen sink in like it helps - and then accuse others of ignoring said kitchen sink while they try to unravel just what point you are trying to make in the hope you will overwhelm with whatabboutery


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 25, 2021)

Always interesting when a Onesie produces some ideas for improving transport.  These are particularly innovative:








						What’s your brilliant solution then… hmmmm?   Ehhhh?
					

This is part of the favoured routine of the pro-LTN brigade. They seem to think it’s a reasonable logical step if their own idea is subject to criticism that the person critiquing it must imm…




					ghostofthecoalhewer.wordpress.com
				



1) Invent SCOOT to optimise traffic signals 
2) Ask drivers to be more considerate (sorry - IMAGINARY CYCLE LANES)
3) Retail deliveries early morning and late evening (as already happens), Depots where large lorries shift their loads to smaller vehicles (you know, like all the delivery companies and parcel force do). Oh, and reorganise society to remove the rush hour.
4) encourage walking with...electric shopping trollies (and form Living Streets to lobby for pedestrians)


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Always interesting when a Onesie produces some ideas for improving transport.  These are particularly innovative:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That article hits the nail on the head. Those opposed to LTNs refuse to realise that there even is a problem.



> LTNs are no solution at all, so agreeing with the premise that you might have a “better” solution is immediately to fall for the trap in the begged question.
> 
> Let’s all first agree on what “begged question” means – it’s a definition of a recognised logical fallacy. If I say “Hey Janine, have you stopped beating up on your husband yet?” That’s a begged question, because it presumes it to be a fact that Janine beats up her husband.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> That article hits the nail on the head. Those opposed to LTNs refuse to realise that there even is a problem.


to be fair, they do reframe the question as " What changes can we make to the way we live, especially in our cities, such that our lives are healthier and more sustainable, and maybe even score the bonus of making them richer and happier lives too?"

So accept that there is a need to be healthier and more sustainable.  I'm just not sure how that gets to 'make as much motor traffic flow through the streets as possible, making them all busy at all times' which seems to be the objective.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> to be fair, they do reframe the question as " What changes can we make to the way we live, especially in our cities, such that our lives are healthier and more sustainable, and maybe even score the bonus of making them richer and happier lives too?"
> 
> So accept that there is a need to be healthier and more sustainable.  I'm just not sure how that gets to 'make as much motor traffic flow through the streets as possible, making them all busy at all times' which seems to be the objective.



Yep, I read that, just a way to muddy the waters and make the issue so large. Same thing people do about climate change.

They don’t recognise that motor vehicles are a problem. It’d be much better if they just admit that that’s where they’re coming from.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

The court case is due to be heard in January next year apparently.


----------



## PaigeLDN__ (Oct 25, 2021)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Is this the bit where you latch onto someone else to comment on other peoples comments?


_deleted_


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 25, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> These are particularly innovative


I like the bit where he says that public discourse is a closed shop where no one can get in, because it's full of organisations that anyone can set up.

I've seen a few takes like these, where someone suggests that filtering roads isn't the answer to traffic, instead we need to reshape the whole of society from top to bottom. This one is particularly good because it describes designing and creating a whole new AI-controlled traffic flow system, and changing the ingrained habits of tens of millions of drivers, as "baby steps".


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 25, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> This one is particularly good because it describes designing and creating a whole new AI-controlled traffic flow system



The SCOOT system that TfL _already use_ to optimise signals  _is_ a 'smart' traffic flow system.  
SCOOT - Split Cycle and Offset Optimisation Technique World famous adaptive urban traffic signal control syste


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 25, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> The SCOOT system that TfL _already use_ to optimise signals  _is_ a 'smart' traffic flow system.
> SCOOT - Split Cycle and Offset Optimisation Technique World famous adaptive urban traffic signal control syste


Yeah but it's not AI though. AI is better, I've seen it in the films.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 25, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> Yeah but it's not AI though. AI is better, I've seen it in the films.



Yes, the AI bit was my favourite bit.


----------



## liquidindian (Oct 25, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Yes, the AI bit was my favourite bit.


I always like it being mentioned because if it's in a sans serif font I can pretend it's talking about me. You can do the same, actually.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2021)

Presumably there is portion of people who start off being anti LTN but do sort of agree that traffic needs to be reduced (ideally by other people doing stuff). And in being actively anti something specific, instead of passively pro the status quo, they start thinking hard about ways to achieve the end aim _without_ using things like LTNs. And they spend some time coming up with various ideas and reading about alternatives. And if they are serious they come to see the reasons those alternatives either wouldn't work or would be even more controversial to implement. And eventually they come round in a big circle to realise that things like LTNs are the best options we currently have. Which is essentially the process that most of us who are boring enough to have been thinking about these kinds of transport issues for years, went through some time ago.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 25, 2021)

The above post is not particularly intended to be snarky by the way, I think that in some ways all the aggro kicked up recently has got a bunch of people talking about things that not that long ago were kind of seen as fringe interests. And surely it must have prompted some previously uninterested people to take an interest and become active on both sides.

It's interesting to me that quite a lot of the protest has centred around the idea that pollution is displaced to main roads. Because once you've set that up as your position (maybe disingenuously, maybe not) you are one step along the way to acknowledging that traffic is a problem. And not just a problem to drivers who are slowed down by it but something with external consequences for people that live near roads. I actually reckon that in many or most cases traffic on those main roads is not really worse than it has been already for years, but there are some people who have now been awoken into an awareness of it, and specifically an awareness of it as something that generates air pollution. Or slows down buses or ambulances - just like it always has!

In the long term there is maybe some positive to come out of all those people who have got really wound up by these recent implementations.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 25, 2021)

Strong move to send abuse to an MP who’s remained neutral on LTNs as far as I know:



We all know, if there’s one thing that gets you in to the shadow cabinet it’s a love of e-scooters!


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Oct 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Presumably there is portion of people who start off being anti LTN but do sort of agree that traffic needs to be reduced (ideally by other people doing stuff). And in being actively anti something specific, instead of passively pro the status quo, they start thinking hard about ways to achieve the end aim _without_ using things like LTNs. And they spend some time coming up with various ideas and reading about alternatives. And if they are serious they come to see the reasons those alternatives either wouldn't work or would be even more controversial to implement. And eventually they come round in a big circle to realise that things like LTNs are the best options we currently have. Which is essentially the process that most of us who are boring enough to have been thinking about these kinds of transport issues for years, went through some time ago.



I didn't find this snarky, I found it quite reasonable and well put.

This article has just come out - Britain’s new road rage: how traffic rules are tearing our neighbourhoods apart

I do think what it says is right. Its put back cycling a lot. The whole oompf the way LTNs have been done has now created an anti-anything army. FOr example Edcraws message above. I'm all for e-scooters. Get them out there, get people using them. I used them in a few countries and loved them.

The real negative, in my opinion, is ~some~ people in the anti groups and now anti-any-change. ULEZ. Escooters. Cycle lanes. You name it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 26, 2021)

I don't think the anti-everything army have been "created" by this. They have always been a thing.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't think the anti-everything army have been "created" by this. They have always been a thing.



Always been a thing, constantly against any changes (cycle lanes, congestion charge, speed cameras, seat belts! etc.) it’s exhausting - and this is how OneLambeth come across with their Twitter account and chowce5382 ’s cheap cyclist bashing. I’m know reasonable people who against LTNs but OneLambeth isn’t representing them & they’ve refused to have any involvement.

If you wanted to teach how not to campaign for something they’d be the perfect example.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 26, 2021)

Here you go - one of the biggest LTN opponents in the media taking a shot at ULEZ & cycle lanes again 🙄


----------



## alex_ (Oct 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Strong move to send abuse to an MP who’s remained neutral on LTNs as far as I know:



And for one Lambeth - that is quite polite.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Presumably there is portion of people who start off being anti LTN but do sort of agree that traffic needs to be reduced (ideally by other people doing stuff). And in being actively anti something specific, instead of passively pro the status quo, they start thinking hard about ways to achieve the end aim _without_ using things like LTNs. And they spend some time coming up with various ideas and reading about alternatives. And if they are serious they come to see the reasons those alternatives either wouldn't work or would be even more controversial to implement. And eventually they come round in a big circle to realise that things like LTNs are the best options we currently have. Which is essentially the process that most of us who are boring enough to have been thinking about these kinds of transport issues for years, went through some time ago.


Indeed, from that Telegraph piece - 
"the schemes, he said, had been foisted on people with no discussion of alternatives. There are all sorts of solutions that could be considered; traffic crossings, calming measures, one-way street. But we’ve been told those solutions are very 20th century and have been proved not to work."

If you're going to have a coherent anti position you're either claiming there is/was no problem in the first place and or that you do care about traffic and pollution but just a want a different solution.  Then it's either "we're not experts, it's not our job to provide alternative solutions" (leaving aside the current schemes have been designed by professionals based on experience from around the world) or come up with something yourself which is either going to be half arsed measures that have been tried and failed for decades (see above) or a boil the ocean 'build a tram network' or 'change the world of work'


----------



## edcraw (Oct 26, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> leaving aside the current schemes have been designed by professionals based on experience from around the world.



I think we’ve all had enough of experts…


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 26, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I think we’ve all had enough of experts…


I don't know - I've heard rumours theres a guy on the WhatsApp who knows everything


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 26, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The above post is not particularly intended to be snarky by the way, I think that in some ways all the aggro kicked up recently has got a bunch of people talking about things that not that long ago were kind of seen as fringe interests. And surely it must have prompted some previously uninterested people to take an interest and become active on both sides.
> 
> It's interesting to me that quite a lot of the protest has centred around the idea that pollution is displaced to main roads. Because once you've set that up as your position (maybe disingenuously, maybe not) you are one step along the way to acknowledging that traffic is a problem. And not just a problem to drivers who are slowed down by it but something with external consequences for people that live near roads. I actually reckon that in many or most cases traffic on those main roads is not really worse than it has been already for years, but there are some people who have now been awoken into an awareness of it, and specifically an awareness of it as something that generates air pollution. Or slows down buses or ambulances - just like it always has!
> 
> In the long term there is maybe some positive to come out of all those people who have got really wound up by these recent implementations.



teuchter makes a non snarky post....result a whole heap of snarkiness and reductionism 😂


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2021)

Consultations for Streatham Hill & Tulse Hill LTNs start on 15th November.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Consultations for Streatham Hill & Tulse Hill LTNs start on 15th November.



Any news on Brixton hill ?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Any news on Brixton hill ?



Not that I’ve heard. I guess they’ll wait until after the current ones are made permanent, if they.

It’s much needed imo. Dumbarton Rd & New Park Road are horrible rat runs.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Not that I’ve heard. I guess they’ll wait until after the current ones are made permanent, if they.
> 
> It’s much needed imo. Dumbarton Rd & New Park Road are horrible rat runs.



Also thornbury


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Also thornbury



Is that where the Dumbarton traffic goes then?

No one seems to be calling to rip out the Crescent Lane filter. That really is an expensive area but people would be quite happy for Upper Tulse Hill to have constant rat running traffic all day again.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 27, 2021)

The chancellor continues the 12 year freeze on fuel prices. Really shows that LTNs are pretty much the only show in town when it comes to reducing car usage as bigger all else seems to be happening.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Is that where the Dumbarton traffic goes then?
> 
> No one seems to be calling to rip out the Crescent Lane filter. That really is an expensive area but people would be quite happy for Upper Tulse Hill to have constant rat running traffic all day again.



Yes, it’s east west On Dumbarton to thornbury, and north to south east on lyham Dumbarton.

The knobheads have said all traffic calming measures are up for grabs, I’m looking forward to driving through Liverpool Street station personally.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 28, 2021)

Here’s a plumber talking about the massive savings he’s made from using a cargo bike.









						The plumber challenging 'white van man' stereotypes
					

Plumber Martin Broer explains why he swapped his van for an electric cargo bike.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## cuppa tee (Oct 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The chancellor continues the 12 year freeze on fuel prices. Really shows that LTNs are pretty much the only show in town when it comes to reducing car usage as bigger all else seems to be happening.



ulez ? Congestion charge ? Cycle lanes ? ParkinG controls ?


----------



## edcraw (Oct 28, 2021)

cuppa tee said:


> ulez ? Congestion charge ? Cycle lanes ? ParkinG controls ?



Fair point but they do much to reduce car journeys. Maybe congestion charge but that’s not expanding and been in pace for 20 years nearly.

The cost of driving has falling in real terms for years whilst rail and bus are have increased.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 28, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Here’s a plumber talking about the massive savings he’s made from using a cargo bike.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Coincidentally I'm spending today training people to use these:



It's part of a council scheme to let local businesses trial cargo bike without needing to fork out to buy one initially.

The reason the organisations in training today are really interested is because of how the local LTN has changed things, both making it harder for local deliveries by car/van and making it nicer for cycling.

Hopefully going to replace a bunch of local car/van journeys.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 28, 2021)

Someone was telling me about this scheme in S London a few weeks ago.






						Bikes for Business comes to the Low Line ← News ← The Low Line
					






					www.lowline.london


----------



## alex_ (Oct 28, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Coincidentally I'm spending today training people to use these:
> 
> View attachment 294499
> 
> ...



Presumably you save a load of time and money finding/paying for parking.

You’ll never carry a new boiler - but most tradesmen carry all of their tools into the house in one go anyway.


----------



## editor (Oct 28, 2021)

Typical comment here 



> LTN enclaves killing off yet another long established local business.











						Crowdfunder launched to save Brixton Wholefoods
					

Located in Atlantic Road, Brixton Wholefoods has been serving the community since 1982, but is now asking for help to survive. A combination  of rent increases and the impact of Covid have left the…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## BigTom (Oct 28, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Presumably you save a load of time and money finding/paying for parking.
> 
> You’ll never carry a new boiler - but most tradesmen carry all of their tools into the house in one go anyway.



I've randomly chosen a boiler: Vaillant Boiler Specs
Valliant boiler which is a brand I know so I'm assuming this is reasonably representative.
Ecotec Plus 800 Series​weighs 36-43kg depending on the model.

Those bikes have a weight load of 100kg and are a little less than a cubic metre in storage space. I'm not sure about the practicalities of actually loading it but you are easy on weight and I reckon clear on space to carry a boiler in there, probably along with the tools you'd need to fit it, although I don't know exactly what would be needed tbf.

edit: not really parking that is the issue as we're talking businesses delivering to local residential properties, it's more that you can access the roads whichever way you want on a bike and you can't do that anymore in a car or van. Monetary savings would come _if_ you could completely replace a company car/van with one of these bikes as the cost of purchase, fuel and maintenance is so much lower than a vehicle.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Someone was telling me about this scheme in S London a few weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



looks similar, this one is funded by the energy saving trust and I'm pretty sure they have a few trial schemes running doing similar things. It's a good idea and we've had a lot of interest from organisations interested in trying them out to see if they can work, mostly motivated by environmental concerns.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 29, 2021)

Trail LTN coming to Streatham Wells in the new year! Guessing Brixton Hill might be at the same time but haven’t heard anything.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 29, 2021)

Government report on the progress of LTNs is worth a look: says that thus far, the evidence is that they don't displace traffic to neighbouring roads, but lead to all-round reductions:



			https://t.co/jw371TVRt9?amp=1


----------



## CH1 (Oct 29, 2021)

Will Self did a fantastic anti-car Point of View on Radio 4 today (repeated Sunday 8.50 am)








						BBC Radio 4 - A Point of View, Car Hatred
					

Will Self on motor-mania.




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## editor (Oct 30, 2021)

LTN latest Lambeth Council announces latest low traffic neighbourhood consultations for Tulse Hill and Streatham Hill LTNs


----------



## Rushy (Nov 1, 2021)

I spotted a skip lorry driving north through the Shakespeare Road modal gate again today. Local company that would know what's what. Does anyone know whether any exemptions have been granted?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 1, 2021)

Rushy said:


> I spotted a skip lorry driving north through the Shakespeare Road modal gate again today. Local company that would know what's what. Does anyone know whether any exemptions have been granted?


Only to council ones I believe.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2021)

Good point here. The Walworth LTN has indeed had v little opposition. For all the convoluted arguments against it’s really mostly about people wanting to be able drive everywhere.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 5, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Good point here. The Walworth LTN has indeed had v little opposition. For all the convoluted arguments against it’s really mostly about people wanting to be able drive everywhere.



Yep. Always has been, always will be only one argument against them - “I want to drive my car wherever the fuck I want”.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 5, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep. Always has been, always will be only one argument against them - “I want to drive my car wherever the fuck I want”.



As is very clear from the stated intent to roll back every bit of traffic calming ever implemented outlined by some of the posters in this thread


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2021)

Cycling electrician





__





						Cycling Sparks
					






					www.thecyclingsparks.co.uk
				







> I started using a bike to get to sites over 4 years ago. Since then I’ve been manoeuvring though London far more efficiently without having to worry about train/tube delays, traffic, parking, fuel costs, the congestion charge or the newly introduced T charge, and without adding to London’s pollution. I’ve found that we can carry the tools and equipment that we need on a bike, and haven't required a van to do the job.
> 
> 
> We've worked with small local businesses and domestic clients in Greenwich, Deptford, Blackheath, Woolwich, New Cross, Peckham, Camberwell, Central London, Shoreditch, Mile End, Hackney, Stoke Newington, Clapton and Walthamstow.




And case study









						Unlocking business growth with ecargo bike funding
					

We spoke to Aaron Fleming-Saheed, owner of The Cycling Sparks, about how his business has benefitted from the eCargo Bike Grant Fund.




					energysavingtrust.org.uk


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 11, 2021)

Meet the ‘inactivists’, tangling up the climate crisis in culture wars
					

The long read: As climate science has gone mainstream, outright denialism has been pushed to the fringes. Now a new tactic of dismissing green policies as elitist is on the rise, and has zoned in on a bitter row over a disused airport in Kent




					www.theguardian.com
				




This sounds like all of the OneLambeths...
"It comes in the form of an appeal to social justice: one that casts environmentalists as an aloof, out-of-touch establishment, and the inactivists as insurgents, defending the values and livelihoods of ordinary people. “The biggest single threat to the net zero transition is a culture war-style backlash that heavily politicises this agenda and spooks governments into moving more slowly,” says Murray."


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 12, 2021)

though at the same time it looks like there is one less Lambeth. (or is it fewer?)









						One Lambeth asks new Council Leader to ditch Cabinet system and replace it with democratic committees at the Town Hall
					

One Lambeth has written to new Lambeth Leader Cllr Claire Holland asking her to scrap the Cabinet system of local government.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com
				




The link there is now dead and looks like the Ben Rymer's campaign  has moved to @lambethref2022 on twitter.  They're still only up to 631 signatures so a long way to go to get to 5% of voters (about 15000) - hitching onto the Onesies doesn't seem to have worked out for them.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 12, 2021)

They were the first onesies


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2021)

Consultations on the Tulse Hill & Streatham Hill LTNs have opened today.









						Love Lambeth
					

Lambeth Council has launched consultations asking residents for their views on the futures of two Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in the borough.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2021)

Some people seem to hate our neighbourhoods and can’t seem to think they could possibly be made nicer. This is Roupell Road that splits parts of the St Martins Estate. The huge majority of traffic through there was rat runners. I know how I’d like my estate to look.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 15, 2021)

tbf the 201 is through there every 10 minutes. Not exactly an ideal playground.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 15, 2021)

It's not really being depicted as a playground though is it?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 15, 2021)

Crispy said:


> tbf the 201 is through there every 10 minutes. Not exactly an ideal playground.



Much nicer without the 450 cars an hour imo.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 15, 2021)

I jest a little, but I would personally attend to my child in a pushchair on the other side of that bench


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Some people seem to hate our neighbourhoods and can’t seem to think they could possibly be made nicer. This is Roupell Road that splits parts of the St Martins Estate. The huge majority of traffic through there was rat runners. I know how I’d like my estate to look.




Loving the hateful replies to this.



I guess Monk£y Bar$ doesn’t know about the windmill just round the corner then.


----------



## Winot (Nov 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> I guess Monk£y Bar$ doesn’t know about the windmill just round the corner then.


Perhaps one of his 2 followers can educate him.


----------



## Cat Fan (Nov 16, 2021)

To be fair it's a silly image. One cyclist isn't looking where she is going and about to crash into the "camera", the other is heading straight for a collision with a man and his young daughter. The third has stopped in the middle of nowhere to take in the view(?)


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

I’m not sure that was his point, seemed more that this area isn’t nice and can’t be made to be!

He lives nearby, on a private gated road apparently, but doubt he’s ever ventured up here except to drive through.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 16, 2021)

Some people are actually trying to improve this area, may Cristo & his ilk would like to lend a hand?









						Plans for Huggins Corner
					

Last Tuesday 4th May we had another great workshop with Social Landscapes to see the final ideas for Huggins Corner. This is currently a piece of waste group at the junction of Roupell Road and Chr…




					stmartinstra.blog


----------



## teuchter (Nov 16, 2021)

One of the most successful street redesigns I've seen in S London is the one at Van Gogh Walk.









						Google Maps
					

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.




					goo.gl
				




It's not directly comparable with what would be done at Tulse Hill because it's not a bus gate - it's a street that's been essentially given over to pedestrians - but at each end of it, there is a portion which sits across a street along which cars can still drive. 

It's been there for going on ten years now I think, and it still looks good. I pass through there now and again and there are very often (in the summer almost always) people using the space. Sometimes some kids with a ball, sometimes a barbecue, quite often just some folk sat around chatting. And it's not all middle class white folk doing crochet. 

It's an excellent real world example of what can be done and any sceptics ought to go and look at it before dismissing some relatively modest street redesign as "utopian".

These promotional images are always a bit problematic because even if the idea of them is just to give a sense of how something might look in principle, some people will look at them very literally and start focusing on details that have been plonked in there by someone who's probably only been paid enough to spend a couple of hours knocking together something in photoshop and who might not be wise enough to know to be careful about unintentional cues for people to jump on.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 16, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Some people are actually trying to improve this area, may Cristo & his ilk would like to lend a hand?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I had a hand in this right at the beginning. Decent bunch of local people wanting to improve the area 👍


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2021)

Online course to help kids wanting to cycle to school! What a waste of money on “entitled cyclists” hey chowce5382 ?!


----------



## BigTom (Nov 19, 2021)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 19, 2021)

How can you look at the way motorists are treated, from the massive amounts of money spent on them to the non existent penalties and think cyclists are the ones who are entitled?.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 19, 2021)

Always lots of talk about the “cycle lobby”.

Here’s how the LTDA has gone about getting exemptions from bus gates in Lambeth.









						Lambeth Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and the LTDA - a Freedom of Information request to Lambeth Borough Council
					

Please provide details of all consultations with and representations from the London Taxi Driver's Association (LTDA) and their representatives regarding Low Traffic Networks within the borough of Lambeth. Please provide any emails or notes from any calls or meetings which included the LTDA or...




					www.whatdotheyknow.com


----------



## Cat Fan (Nov 20, 2021)

I do think that taxi drivers being able to drive through the LTN barriers with impunity somewhat undermines the whole thing, but there you go, Lambeth has spoken


----------



## edcraw (Nov 20, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I do think that taxi drivers being able to drive through the LTN barriers with impunity somewhat undermines the whole thing, but there you go, Lambeth has spoken



It’s just bus filters in Lambeth. From that FOI request you can see why this has happened, they’re a powerful lobby with a lot of money behind them.

Black cabs are a fantastic service for people with mobility issues but they lean heavily on this and is a small fraction of their customers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Always lots of talk about the “cycle lobby”.
> 
> Here’s how the LTDA has gone about getting exemptions from bus gates in Lambeth.
> 
> ...



Taxis are one of the worst polluters, driving around looking for business, which is mostly rich people not wanting to take public transport.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 20, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I do think that taxi drivers being able to drive through the LTN barriers with impunity somewhat undermines the whole thing, but there you go, Lambeth has spoken


It’s utterly ridiculous that they can ignore them.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 20, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I do think that taxi drivers being able to drive through the LTN barriers with impunity somewhat undermines the whole thing, but there you go, Lambeth has spoken



Is it just black cabs - because there are fuck all of them compared to Uber drivers.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 20, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Is it just black cabs - because there are fuck all of them compared to Uber drivers.



Black cabs & fully accessible private hire ones. As you say there aren’t many round here so not much of an issue.

Completely understand an exemption when it’s for people with mobility issues but most black users aren’t and are v wealthy.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 20, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Is it just black cabs - because there are fuck all of them compared to Uber drivers.


Yes it is ("Taxi" or "hackney carriage" = black cab. Uber etc are "Private Hire Vehicles" or "minicabs") edit: edcraw is more knowledgeable than me on the detail so I'm wrong about this.

Their argument is that all black cabs are wheelchair accessible and they provide a form of public transport for disabled people who are unable to use busses, trains or their own private car. They also argued for access to bus lanes on the same basis and on the basis that they need to pull up to the kerb for their wheelchair ramps to work.


----------



## nagapie (Nov 20, 2021)

So black cabs are getting access but not blue badges?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 20, 2021)

nagapie said:


> So black cabs are getting access but not blue badges?



Blue badges will get to choose a filter they can go through under the proposals. Taxis just the ones buses can go through which are 2 on Railton Rx and 1 on Roupell Rd (might be others I’m not aware of).


----------



## nagapie (Nov 20, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Blue badges will get to choose a filter they can go through under the proposals. Taxis just the ones buses can go through which are 2 on Railton Rx and 1 on Roupell Rd (might be others I’m not aware of).


One filter is pointless, tokenistic at best.


----------



## Winot (Nov 20, 2021)

Sorry to intrude but can anyone remember the woman on Twitter who cycles and has a disability? I’m trying to track her down and can’t remember her name. Ta.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 20, 2021)

nagapie said:


> One filter is pointless, tokenistic at best.



Why - it lets them exit their local ltn any way ?


----------



## nagapie (Nov 20, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Why - it lets them exit their local ltn any way ?


I have multiple LTNs in all different directions to access appointments, never mind actual recreation and being part of the community.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 21, 2021)

Winot said:


> Sorry to intrude but can anyone remember the woman on Twitter who cycles and has a disability? I’m trying to track her down and can’t remember her name. Ta.


I mean there’s lots but I assume you mean Isabelle Clement?


----------



## Winot (Nov 21, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> I mean there’s lots but I assume you mean Isabelle Clement?


Thank you, yes.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 21, 2021)

🤣


----------



## alex_ (Nov 21, 2021)

nagapie said:


> I have multiple LTNs in all different directions to access appointments, never mind actual recreation and being part of the community.



Is this the “disabled people are a unique group who cannot be slowed down in any way” point of view ?


----------



## nagapie (Nov 21, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Is this the “disabled people are a unique group who cannot be slowed down in any way” point of view ?


Fuck off


----------



## nagapie (Nov 21, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Is this the “disabled people are a unique group who cannot be slowed down in any way” point of view ?


Those self entitled disabled people.

Did I tell you to fuck off, fuck off again.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 22, 2021)

nagapie said:


> Fuck off



I’ll take this as a “yes”


----------



## nagapie (Nov 22, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I’ll take this as a “yes”


No, take it as another fuck off.

You clearly have no understanding of the  hardships many disabilities mean for getting around. I'm sure you couldn't even conceive of some of the situations or you would be deeply ashamed of yourself.


----------



## nagapie (Nov 22, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I’ll take this as a “yes”


Unless of course you're some rabid Daily Mail reader who thinks people with disabilities are skivers with their free money and cars


----------



## nagapie (Nov 22, 2021)

alex_ said:


> I’ll take this as a “yes”


But what I love about you best, alex, is how through other parts of this long thread you've tried to paint yourself as caring of the rights of those with severe mobility, medical and learning needs whereas now it's clear you don't give a shit.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 22, 2021)

What is wrong with a yellow card system.
All I personally need is a warning. Each council say that they have given local residents a grace period by email. That means that people outside the local area are immediately unfairly excluded. 
Personally I have no problem with the measures - it's just the enforcement that immediately sets people against the council.


----------



## alex_ (Nov 22, 2021)

nagapie said:


> No, take it as another fuck off.
> 
> You clearly have no understanding of the  hardships many disabilities mean for getting around. I'm sure you couldn't even conceive of some of the situations or you would be deeply ashamed of yourself.



I don’t see why - I’m entirely supportive of this.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> All I personally need is a warning. Each council say that they have given local residents a grace period by email. That means that people outside the local area are immediately unfairly excluded.
> Personally I have no problem with the measures - it's just the enforcement that immediately sets people against the council.


The warning is the road sign that clearly tells you you aren't allowed to drive through. Is it too much to expect people to read and understand road signage?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The warning is the road sign that clearly tells you you aren't allowed to drive through. Is it too much to expect people to read and understand road signage?


Drivers actually having to be aware of things around them? Whatever next!


----------



## edcraw (Nov 22, 2021)

One Lambeth want to remove the wider pavements in Brixton. They really are just a pro car lobby.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 22, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> What is wrong with a yellow card system.
> All I personally need is a warning. Each council say that they have given local residents a grace period by email. That means that people outside the local area are immediately unfairly excluded.
> Personally I have no problem with the measures - it's just the enforcement that immediately sets people against the council.


There was a grace period of, I think a month, for all drivers who got caught driving though where they shouldn't have. They got a warning letter or letters but no fine


----------



## Crispy (Nov 22, 2021)

I'd rather use the half-acre of road space at that junction to provide segregated cycle lanes through it.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 22, 2021)

https://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/crime/islington-council-candidate-spared-jail-for-knife-conviction-8476480 

Jody Graber, the anti LTN islington campaigner who's spoken at two of the OLJ events / demos has got a suspended sentence for possession of an offensive weapon (a knife in his car). 

I think this means he can no longer stand as a councillor - which he intended on doing (again) using funds that were donated to the Islington anti LTN campaign that he allegedly repurposed to his own political ambitions...


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The warning is the road sign that clearly tells you you aren't allowed to drive through. Is it too much to expect people to read and understand road signage?


I do not drive fast Tom and i look at the road when i am driving around the roundabout.
Actually now you mention signage at certain times when driving there might be 3 road signs at the side of the road plus signage on the road surface. There has to be a limit on signage as it is too much for a normal human being to take in whilst driving with due care and attention


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 22, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> There was a grace period of, I think a month, for all drivers who got caught driving though where they shouldn't have. They got a warning letter or letters but no fine


That is exactly what i was referring to.
Instead of the grace period why didn't they send each 1st offender a warning.
I hadn't driven down this rd in the last year - the grace period meant nothing for me


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 22, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> That is exactly what i was referring to.
> Instead of the grace period why didn't they send each 1st offender a warning.
> I hadn't driven down this rd in the last year - the grace period meant nothing for me


I imagine that it's less work and therefore cheaper just to have a blanket grace period than to try and work out if it's the first offense for each car.


----------



## toblerone3 (Nov 22, 2021)

Another report confirming the myth of traffic displacement on the 'boundary roads' of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.  Traffic 5% down on boundary roads.    New data shows traffic down around Homerton LTN


----------



## teuchter (Nov 22, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> That is exactly what i was referring to.
> Instead of the grace period why didn't they send each 1st offender a warning.
> I hadn't driven down this rd in the last year - the grace period meant nothing for me


Which road are you on about?


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 23, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> I imagine that it's less work and therefore cheaper just to have a blanket grace period than to try and work out if it's the first offense for each car.


Possibly - but they have your registration - so with an easy algorithm it would be simple enough.  This will be my third fine this year for the same reason.  I have been driving very steadily for 40 yrs without any colissions or fines. And now because I have learned to use the back roads over the years i feel nervous driving. I feel I should give my full concentration to the road when going around a roundabout - i believe that is the right thing to do. Thanks fo your reply


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Which road are you on about?


Coming up Palace Rd into Hillside


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 24, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> That is exactly what i was referring to.
> Instead of the grace period why didn't they send each 1st offender a warning.
> I hadn't driven down this rd in the last year - the grace period meant nothing for me






Johnythefox said:


> Actually now you mention signage at certain times when driving there might be 3 road signs at the side of the road plus signage on the road surface. There has to be a limit on signage as it is too much for a normal human being to take in whilst driving with due care and attention



---
So, despite a mass of publicity (positive and negative) about Lambeth's LTNs in the last year and quite obvious changes to the road (planters, and a mass of new signage), and widespread coverage in the press about LTNs (which much surely have done a lot to raise awareness of the 'flying motorbike' signs and what they mean you still managed to drive through a filter?

That level of 'autopilot' driving does scare me quite a bit.  If drivers are paying that little attention to their surroundings how likely are they to notice something unexpected - a child stepping out, someone on a bike or whatever.

I actually agree with you on the signage though - far too often the solution to danger from drivers seems to be 'signs will make it better'.  There's been a rash of recent road painting around Brixton with more 20mph symbols painted in the road.  The whole borough is 20mph now - none of those should be necessary, it's just more clutter.  

Theres a load of signage in all the LTNs - there were signs before they went in, red signs on the edge (no access to X road from X type stuff), the no motor vehicles signs, signs saying 'enforcement cameras now live' all over the place (which surely shouldn't be necessary - you shouldn't need an active camera to obey traffic rules) 

Likewise all the yellow lines - in London at least we could have a clear policy that you can park in marked bays only (with signage giving conditions - whether pay/resident or time restrictions).  Everywhere else should be no parking at any time.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 24, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> Possibly - but they have your registration - so with an easy algorithm it would be simple enough.  This will be my third fine this year for the same reason.  I have been driving very steadily for 40 yrs without any colissions or fines. And now because I have learned to use the back roads over the years i feel nervous driving. I feel I should give my full concentration to the road when going around a roundabout - i believe that is the right thing to do. Thanks fo your reply


So you use rat runs and then moan you’ve been caught three times? Get to fuck


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

I think they might be talking about a location where one of the exits from a mini roundabout goes directly into a bus gate. But I'm not familiar with the setup in the Streatham LTN and it's not shown on google streetview so hard to say whether it's a reasonable objection.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So you use rat runs and then moan you’ve been caught three times? Get to fuck



Doesn't Hillside road have something like this when you come up it from Palace?  Planters in the road, a _stack_ of new signage. ?


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 24, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> Taxis are one of the worst polluters, driving around looking for business, which is mostly rich people not wanting to take public transport.


I'm pretty sure black cabs spend about 50% of their time empty, looking for fares.   Which is going to be about the same as old school minicabs based at an office and heading out on a trip, back empty. 

Uber _should_ be better in theory as they shouldn't need to cruise around - the app should send then to a nearby fare.  But I read that, because Uber recruited so many drivers (so that no-one ever has to wait long) and it's intensely competitive, they drive around as well so the reality has been they at they also spend half their time empty.  

I don't know what the solution is - it's got to be some sort of Uber style smart job assignment but without the driving round empty.  Nationalise the lot and run it as in the public interest?


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 24, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> ---
> So, despite a mass of publicity (positive and negative) about Lambeth's LTNs in the last year and quite obvious changes to the road (planters, and a mass of new signage), and widespread coverage in the press about LTNs (which much surely have done a lot to raise awareness of the 'flying motorbike' signs and what they mean you still managed to drive through a filter?
> 
> That level of 'autopilot' driving does scare me quite a bit.  If drivers are paying that little attention to their surroundings how likely are they to notice something unexpected - a child stepping out, someone on a bike or whatever.
> ...


Thanks your reply. In this particular case and in Dulwich the first sign you see / not see is coming off the roundabout.
The autopilot thing - I think I have a high level of concentration - and as I said previously my concentration is fully focused on the road ahead and what's happening around when going around a bend or roundabout. I have been having a good look at the new ULEZ signs. They look like they have been designed to be hard to see.
I know where the Ulez is but these LTN's suddenly appear (if you are not a local resident) .
There were no planters or signs for me - just signs on the point of entry.
I appreciate you might think me not noticing the signs as remiss -  I am a professional driver with a spotless record - but yet have had 3 LTN's in a year. 
Some LTN's have time guides - so you absolutely would have to stop your car on a roundabout ( which i see happening). Surely that is so dangerous


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 24, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So you use rat runs and then moan you’ve been caught three times? Get to fuck


I use ratruns because i gave learned them over many years driving studying maps.
I consider it better for me and the planet for me to get home quicker and avoid being stuck in traffic with my engine running. Surely the shorter i am on the road the less I am poluting.
Please educate me if you feel i am wrong - i am open to learning


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 24, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> I use ratruns because i gave learned them over many years driving studying maps.
> I consider it better for me and the planet for me to get home quicker and avoid being stuck in traffic with my engine running. Surely the shorter i am on the road the less I am poluting.
> Please educate me if you feel i am wrong - i am open to learning


The problem now that everyone has access to sat navs is that the rat runners have completely overwhelmed small residential streets that were not designed for the volume of traffic they are now taking. This leads to congestion, aggressive behaviour and more idling. Over the last 10 years traffic volume on unclassified roads in London has almost doubled, while on A roads it has actually fallen.
Now do you see the problem that LTNs are trying the address?


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 24, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> Please educate me if you feel i am wrong - i am open to learning


The problem is that you think that by limiting your impact in this very minimal way, you're making a positive difference. You are making a difference, but you're actually, indirectly, making things worse. Not by the things you are doing alone, but the cumulative effect of you and lots of other people doing the same thing.

Over the last 10 (or 20) years, there's been a big increase in cars using smaller roads to speed up their journeys. Most aren't using maps, they're using sat navs and waze to find the quickest route to where they're going.

This is a problem because there is not a fixed number of car journeys that are made each day. It's been shown time and time again that if you expand road space, there are more car journeys. If you restrict space for cars, there are fewer journeys. You can read more about this here: What's Up With That: Building Bigger Roads Actually Makes Traffic Worse

Sat navs essentially open up a whole bunch of alternative routes and available road space, and LTNs are one way of reversing this. You can see this in the stats for a whole bunch of LTNs that have been referred to in this thread--Brixton, Islington, Southwark and more. The space for cars has been reduced and the amount of traffic has reduced overall. Some people are making different choices.

Your car being on the road for a slightly shorter time and polluting slightly less would be fine if the total number of car journeys was static. They're not.

A related problem is that traffic causes traffic because it stifles options. If there are no safe routes to walk or cycle, or if buses aren't given their own routes and lanes, then people decide they might as well take the car. Those who have no car are worse off because they have to walk along dangerous and unpleasant routes, or sit for longer on buses. Those who have no option but to travel by car are worse off because there are people who would take other options, but feel they cannot, in the way.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> I consider it better for me and the planet for me to get home quicker and avoid being stuck in traffic with my engine running. Surely the shorter i am on the road the less I am poluting.
> Please educate me if you feel i am wrong - i am open to learning


The problem with this logic is that while you are using the back roads, the main roads are still full of stuck traffic idling. 

The busy main roads are a constant, if you like - at busy times they will be more or less full regardless of how many alternative routes there are. So the idea of the LTNs is to accept that the main roads will always have traffic on them, but at least cut out all the additional traffic using back routes. So the overall amount of traffic reduces. Obviously from your point of view, if you are a professional driver driving for your work, you will likely not like this idea if you have got used to using back roads, but the main roads stay more or less as busy as before, and you get to places as quickly or slowly as you would have done, had you previously used the main roads (as is the intention in the design of the road network. In the bigger picture though there is less traffic overall and less pollution overall.

It's controversial because some people refuse to believe that it's possible for the overall amount of traffic to reduce, and refuse to believe that it doesn't just make the main roads even busier and slower. But there's loads of evidence that shows that's not generally what happens. And often the traffic on the main roads actually reduces as well.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 24, 2021)

I posted this on another thread earlier today by the way.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 24, 2021)

I have seen what you are referring to on certain pinch points. Personally if i have come across these situations i try to find an alternative route so that i can spend less time on the road. 
From my own personal experience my journey to work in my car would take double the time when taking main roads.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 24, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The problem with this logic is that while you are using the back roads, the main roads are still full of stuck traffic idling.
> 
> The busy main roads are a constant, if you like - at busy times they will be more or less full regardless of how many alternative routes there are. So the idea of the LTNs is to accept that the main roads will always have traffic on them, but at least cut out all the additional traffic using back routes. So the overall amount of traffic reduces. Obviously from your point of view, if you are a professional driver driving for your work, you will likely not like this idea if you have got used to using back roads, but the main roads stay more or less as busy as before, and you get to places as quickly or slowly as you would have done, had you previously used the main roads (as is the intention in the design of the road network. In the bigger picture though there is less traffic overall and less pollution overall.
> 
> It's controversial because some people refuse to believe that it's possible for the overall amount of traffic to reduce, and refuse to believe that it doesn't just make the main roads even busier and slower. But there's loads of evidence that shows that's not generally what happens. And often the traffic on the main roads actually reduces as well.


Thank you for your very informative thought provoking reply


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 24, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> Thanks your reply. In this particular case and in Dulwich the first sign you see / not see is coming off the roundabout.
> The autopilot thing - I think I have a high level of concentration - and as I said previously my concentration is fully focused on the road ahead and what's happening around when going around a bend or roundabout. I have been having a good look at the new ULEZ signs. They look like they have been designed to be hard to see.
> I know where the Ulez is but these LTN's suddenly appear (if you are not a local resident) .
> There were no planters or signs for me - just signs on the point of entry.
> ...


Sorry - perhaps I misunderstood your post. I thought you mentioned palace road / hillside?
Post in thread 'Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists'
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

Dulwich _is_ confusing, not least as it’s timed. Much clearer for stuff to be all hours (not least people want to travel safely by bike off peak)


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 24, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> The problem is that you think that by limiting your impact in this very minimal way, you're making a positive difference. You are making a difference, but you're actually, indirectly, making things worse. Not by the things you are doing alone, but the cumulative effect of you and lots of other people doing the same thing.
> 
> Over the last 10 (or 20) years, there's been a big increase in cars using smaller roads to speed up their journeys. Most aren't using maps, they're using sat navs and waze to find the quickest route to where they're going.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your informative reply.
I have to confess I would still find it a dishonourable thing to do to spend double the time on the road.


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 24, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> I have to confess I would still find it a dishonourable thing to do to spend double the time on the road


Then it's good that there are now schemes that make you stick to the main roads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 24, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> Thank you for your informative reply.
> I have to confess I would still find it a dishonourable thing to do to spend double the time on the road.


So look at alternatives.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So look at alternatives.


I presume you mean different modes of transport. Unfortunately there is no public transport near my place of work. I would probably still own a car even if i didn't use it for work . That must sound so stupid but ironically one of the main reasons i would keep t would be to get out of London into the countryside.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> Thank you for your informative reply.
> I have to confess I would still find it a dishonourable thing to do to spend double the time on the road.



How do LTNs make you spend twice as long on the road? That’s only for v short trips presumably.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> How do LTNs make you spend twice as long on the road? That’s only for v short trips presumably.


By avoiding LTN'S I take the main roads and am sitting still in my car in a long line of traffic polluting the planet whilst not actually moving ( at least that is how it feels)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> By avoiding LTN'S I take the main roads and am sitting still in my car in a long line of traffic polluting the planet whilst not actually moving ( at least that is how it feels)


You’re polluting the planet either way. And you’re not _in_ a line of traffic, you _are_ the traffic.


----------



## Winot (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> By avoiding LTN'S I take the main roads and am sitting still in my car in a long line of traffic polluting the planet whilst not actually moving ( at least that is how it feels)


The idea with LTNs is that some drivers will decide not to drive so that overall there will be fewer drivers. The evidence that this is happening is looking good.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You’re polluting the planet either way. And you’re not _in_ a line of traffic, you _are_ the traffic.


But surely i would be polluting the planet less if i was home much sooner with my engine off


----------



## Winot (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> But surely i would be polluting the planet less if i was home much sooner with my engine off


There is a third option.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> But surely i would be polluting the planet less if i was home much sooner with my engine off


And so would everyone else, which is why we have the problem. There is a world more than you. Start thinking about it.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

Winot said:


> The idea with LTNs is that some drivers will decide not to drive so that overall there will be fewer drivers. The evidence that this is happening is looking good.


I am out on the roads all day long and find it so hard to judge. Obviously people working from home has had a huge effect on our habits. And covid has meant so much more shopping on line ( delivered to people's doors - rather than the better option of a hub) League tables mean that parents are driving their children miles to school to better their education - no school buses and very few walking / taking public transport. I think the reason why vehicles are on the road needs to be looked at.
Anyway i only came on here to express my feeling that signing and lack of road level alerts mean first time offenders are used as a cash cow for councils low on cash


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

Winot said:


> There is a third option.


Go on


----------



## edcraw (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> By avoiding LTN'S I take the main roads and am sitting still in my car in a long line of traffic polluting the planet whilst not actually moving ( at least that is how it feels)


We need fewer car journeys to decrease pollution. LTNs aim to do that and the evidence shows that they do.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

edcraw said:


> We need fewer car journeys to decrease pollution. LTNs aim to do that and the evidence shows that they do.


As far as I know LTN's have been implemented all across London during Covid.
I am a professional driver and I cannot underestimate how big an effect Covid has had on people's driving patterns. So how reliable evidence can be gathered during this time does seem implausible


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> And so would everyone else, which is why we have the problem. There is a world more than you. Start thinking about it.


Either you have misunderstood my point - or I am not getting yours


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> Either you have misunderstood my point - or I am not getting yours


You think you are better off by finding rat runs. _So does everyone else_. So the rat runs - residential streets - become clogged up and unsafe for those who live there. Doing what’s best for _you_ isn’t what’s best for everyone.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> I presume you mean different modes of transport. Unfortunately there is no public transport near my place of work. I would probably still own a car even if i didn't use it for work . That must sound so stupid but ironically one of the main reasons i would keep t would be to get out of London into the countryside.


Is your place of work outside of London? There are few places in London where there is no public transprort nearby.


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> You think you are better off by finding rat runs. _So does everyone else_. So the rat runs - residential streets - become clogged up and unsafe for those who live there. Doing what’s best for _you_ isn’t what’s best for everyone.


Look I was only using that term as it was quoted to me. I agree that the overall problem is lessening car use. I can only speak from personal perspective. I walk and cycle as much as possible and only use the car to got to work as there is no public transport nearby and I start as early as 4am and finish as late as 2am. I believe there is a lot of unnecessary traffic (school runs parcel delivery etc) out there that needs to be addressed


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Is your place of work outside of London? There are few places in London where there is no public transprort nearby.


It is on an industrial estate and my earliest start is at 4am and my latest finish is at 2am


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> It is on an industrial estate and my earliest start is at 4am and my latest finish is at 2am


You are getting stuck in traffic driving across London at 2 or 4am?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You are getting stuck in traffic driving across London at 2 or 4am?


To be fair this is entirely possible


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You are getting stuck in traffic driving across London at 2 or 4am?


Sorry I didn't explain fully - if I start at 4am I will finish in the afternoon and if i finish at 2am I will start in the afternoon.  Either option I cannot manage without a car at these times


----------



## edcraw (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> Look I was only using that term as it was quoted to me. I agree that the overall problem is lessening car use. I can only speak from personal perspective. I walk and cycle as much as possible and only use the car to got to work as there is no public transport nearby and I start as early as 4am and finish as late as 2am. I believe there is a lot of unnecessary traffic (school runs parcel delivery etc) out there that needs to be addressed


Surely the traffic "caused by the LTNs" isn't causing huge congestion in the middle of the night?


----------



## Johnythefox (Nov 25, 2021)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> To be fair this is entirely possible





edcraw said:


> Surely the traffic "caused by the LTNs" isn't causing huge congestion in the middle of the night?


Sorry I didn't explain fully - if I start at 4am I will finish in the afternoon and if i finish at 2am I will start in the afternoon.  Either option I cannot manage without a car at these times


----------



## editor (Nov 25, 2021)

Feedback invited  for the Streatham LTN









						Have your say on the Streatham Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN)
					

Lambeth Council are asking people who live, work and travel in the trial low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) to share their views by doing a survey. This is because the council are considering making t…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> I agree that the overall problem is lessening car use.


Sure. But you need to stop thinking about what _you_ do, and think more about what _everyone _does.

You're slightly inconvenienced, and if what you say is correct and you are making necessary car journeys, then yes you will be driving a little further.

But this is more than offset by the choices made by other people.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 25, 2021)

Johnythefox said:


> Sorry I didn't explain fully - if I start at 4am I will finish in the afternoon and if i finish at 2am I will start in the afternoon.  Either option I cannot manage without a car at these times


While it seems counter intuitive, if you’re already rat running then it makes little difference, but Google maps and Waze nearly always show the LTNs very soon after they go in, so using a sat nav (while still not following it blindly past signs) will help you avoid future fines.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 26, 2021)

I see the monitoring for Tulse Hill LTN has been published now -


			https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/commonplace-customer-assets/tulsehillltn/Tulse%20Hill%20LTN%20SYSTRA%20Stage%202%20Appendices.pdf
		


and it looks like the Onesies claims about increased traffic on Brixton Hill are simply false - it's actually fallen.  And Tulse Hill seems basically unaffected. 

 Traffic _is_ up on the South Circular but it seems to be up on the south circular in places nowhere near LTNs, and even there the increase is not exactly changing the nature of the road - a very busy road is a bit busier.


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 26, 2021)

For those interested, OLJ are now retweeting a film of a bloke telling The Mayors People’s Question Time that covid is all a hoax and that vaccines are killing children. And that Khan was voted in through “artificial intelligence” and is unelected.

Also a film of Piers Corbyn protesting ULEZ by storming some sort of office drinks party.

Totally normal.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 26, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> For those interested, OLJ are now retweeting a film of a bloke telling The Mayors People’s Question Time that covid is all a hoax and that vaccines are killing children. And that Khan was voted in through “artificial intelligence” and is unelected.
> 
> Also a film of Piers Corbyn protesting ULEZ by storming some sort of office drinks party.
> 
> Totally normal.



Absolutely batshit crazy. Anyone associated with these people really needs to take a long hard look at themselves.


----------



## editor (Nov 26, 2021)

Tulse Hill LTN consultation 








						Have your say on the Tulse Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN)
					

Lambeth Council are asking people who live, work and travel in the trial low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) at Tulse Hill to share their views by doing a survey. This is because the council are consid…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 27, 2021)

Have just completed the Tulse Hill survey. Thought the questions were a bit directed to agreeing with the scheme. I'd favour some tweaks and exemptions for disabled badge holders. Essentially I agree if some compromises could be achieved would be the way forward.

OneLambeth have been delivering "object" leaflets in our area.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 27, 2021)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Have just completed the Tulse Hill survey. Thought the questions were a bit directed to agreeing with the scheme. I'd favour some tweaks and exemptions for disabled badge holders. Essentially I agree if some compromises could be achieved would be the way forward.
> 
> OneLambeth have been delivering "object" leaflets in our area.



Here’s the slightly deranged OneLambeth leaflet. 




There’s a supporting leaflet going out as well.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 27, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Here’s the slightly deranged OneLambeth leaflet.
> 
> View attachment 298413
> View attachment 298412
> ...


So, selectively pick the roads to list an only include the ones that show an increase.  Leave off at the actual total number which is kind of important in judging whether an increase is really significant.  And for Brixton Hill it looks like they've just made up some numbers because the published ones don't fit their narrative?


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 27, 2021)

You should make sure the council gets a copy of that. Misleading leaflets delivered to every door should be factored into the consultation response.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 27, 2021)

Like emergency services never got stuck on main roads before 🙄


----------



## BigTom (Nov 29, 2021)

Not about this LTN but an interesting if short article talking about modelling showing how in a city high car usage slows everyone down regardless of their mode of transport, including drivers and how we'd all be able to get to our destinations quicker if fewer people drove. This is one of the arguments behind things like LTNs as specifically mentioned in this article, that by reducing car usage you end up with everyone moving more quickly through the city, including car drivers taking longer routes.









						If we all choose the fastest mode of travel in a city, the whole city gets slower – and more congested
					

Apps are telling us how to get around our cities faster. But if each person acts only in their own interest, society at large gets stuck in traffic.




					theconversation.com


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 30, 2021)

Ian Armstrong - the guy who has been selling the 'Open the roads' estate agents signs, turns out to be a cab driver (of course).  At least he doesn't even try to pretend he wants to cut traffic and he does genuinely seem to think that all historic changes to the roads should be opened up to maximise traffic everywhere.

"We should all share the pollution and traffic load" really is  "Dirty air for all" with no suggestions as to how people should be enticed out of their cars (except speed humps, which are already in pretty much every road in all of Lambeth's LTNs already)

From Next Door -


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 30, 2021)

Bet the residents of those roads wouldn't be too happy with his suggestion....


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 1, 2021)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Have just completed the Tulse Hill survey. Thought the questions were a bit directed to agreeing with the scheme. I'd favour some tweaks and exemptions for disabled badge holders. Essentially I agree if some compromises could be achieved would be the way forward.
> 
> OneLambeth have been delivering "object" leaflets in our area.


I agree that the questions were framed that way. Basically "LTNs are the answer" with no real alternatives considered.

I for one would love more, permanent segregated cycle lanes. The LTNs where I live are not helping me to cycle to work because I work in the city, not a 2 min walk from my door funnily enough. To cycle to work I would have to go on all the main roads which Lambeth's own stats from the consultation show are more polluted than before (and roughly as busy).


----------



## Winot (Dec 1, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I agree that the questions were framed that way. Basically "LTNs are the answer" with no real alternatives considered.
> 
> I for one would love more, permanent segregated cycle lanes. The LTNs where I live are not helping me to cycle to work because I work in the city, not a 2 min walk from my door funnily enough. To cycle to work I would have to go on all the main roads which Lambeth's own stats from the consultation show are more polluted than before (and roughly as busy).


This might be useful - shows where it’s safe(r) to cycle including LTNs and cycle routes. 



			https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?hl=en&mid=1XlpvN9R-Wg7qZHyezO8y-eVlftr4e0WX&ll=51.516975804561255%2C-0.21828576419061996&z=10


----------



## Winot (Dec 1, 2021)

I live in Brixton and work in the City and FWIW I cycle through the Ferndale LTN, up the Larkhall Rise Quietway 5, through the Oval LTN, across Baylis Rd/The Cut then up the Blackfriars route. Those two LTNs make a big difference linking up the cycle routes.


----------



## Jimbeau (Dec 1, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I agree that the questions were framed that way. Basically "LTNs are the answer" with no real alternatives considered.
> 
> I for one would love more, permanent segregated cycle lanes. The LTNs where I live are not helping me to cycle to work because I work in the city, not a 2 min walk from my door funnily enough. To cycle to work I would have to go on all the main roads which Lambeth's own stats from the consultation show are more polluted than before (and roughly as busy).


I think any survey on this issue is going to provoke the usual attitude polarisation and confirmation bias. As a bit of research design it is not awful - it asks a set of questions framed around the intended benefits of the scheme, against which people can respond on a scale from strong agreement to strong disagreement.

Lambeth could have used a different question syntax - eg ‘on a scale where 1 is much worse and 5 is much better, how do you think the LTN has affected safety at night?’ This is clunkier but less loaded, and statistically would yield the same data outcome.

I’m not sure what to make of people asking why the survey doesn’t address LTN alternatives or other anti-traffic initiatives in the borough. That’s not the point of a summative evaluation exercise. The final question is at least an open invitation to provide other suggestions.

Given that the proposal for the permanent implementation includes exemptions for taxis and blue badge holders, it will interesting to see how this affects the anti lobby as it removes one of the main foundations of their argument.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 1, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> cycle to work I would have to go on all the main roads which Lambeth's own stats from the consultation show are more polluted than before (and roughly as busy).


Which pollution stats are those?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 1, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> To cycle to work I would have to go on all the main roads which Lambeth's own stats from the consultation show are more polluted than before (and roughly as busy).





teuchter said:


> Which pollution stats are those?


I wondered that so went to have a look.  The air quality report is linked from the commonplace site.  This is a direct link - 
Air quality report - Lambeth LTNs

It's definitely not an easy to read doc, but I'm supposing that making definitive assessments of air quality, when it's so dependent on wind, weather etc and you can only measure at some points and have to extrapolate over wider areas is an imprecise science.  You've also got to consider different pollutants. 
But as far as I can work out from the doc, the only roads that are above legal limits after the LTNs were already above the legal limits before (and any change is minimal) 

Notably, there quite a number of 'boundary roads' which are assessed as having improved air quality - including Brixton Hill


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 1, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I for one would love more, permanent segregated cycle lanes. The LTNs where I live are not helping me to cycle to work because I work in the city, not a 2 min walk from my door funnily enough. To cycle to work I would have to go on all the main roads


The main roads into town from Brixton have improved in the last 2 years even if not all of it is fully segregated cycle lanes.  I've found it's made a lot of difference heading into zone 1 from Brixton.  

the bus lanes on the A3 and A23 (and I think on all the Red Routes) are now 'at all times' and go right up to the junctions (so you don't get arsehole drivers undertaking to get one car ahead when the lights change)
there are a load of improved or new cycleways with some sort of protection -
2020 New Cycle Infrastructure - Google My Maps


----------



## edcraw (Dec 1, 2021)

Winot said:


> I live in Brixton and work in the City and FWIW I cycle through the Ferndale LTN, up the Larkhall Rise Quietway 5, through the Oval LTN, across Baylis Rd/The Cut then up the Blackfriars route. Those two LTNs make a big difference linking up the cycle routes.



Yep, LTNs have mean that I no longer have to cycle on the main roads into the City, using Tulse Hill, Railton & Walworth ones. It’s much nicer and about the same time as hardly any traffic lights.

Segregated cycle lanes are fantastic but can’t see this happening on most main roads anytime soon.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 1, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I wondered that so went to have a look.  The air quality report is linked from the commonplace site.  This is a direct link -
> Air quality report - Lambeth LTNs
> 
> It's definitely not an easy to read doc, but I'm supposing that making definitive assessments of air quality, when it's so dependent on wind, weather etc and you can only measure at some points and have to extrapolate over wider areas is an imprecise science.  You've also got to consider different pollutants.
> ...


A bit frustrating it's all just modelled - ie extrapolated from traffic data. It would be nice to have some actual measurements of reality.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> A bit frustrating it's all just modelled - ie extrapolated from traffic data. It would be nice to have some actual measurements of reality.


I think modelling is nearly always used because point measurements are so specific and changeable - the maps here are the same www.londonair.org.uk (and theres a load of detail on where the monitoring stations are and how they work)


----------



## edcraw (Dec 2, 2021)

OneChiswick have dropped their legal case against a cycle lane as the traffic order has been superseded.



> A member of OneChiswick Facebook group also commented on social media that they were unable to continue with the action because the traffic order they had initially challenged had been superseded.



Surely this is the same case in Lambeth, and has been obvious & pointed out on here for a while.









						TfL confirms OneChiswick has withdrawn Cycleway 9 legal challenge - Chiswick Calendar News
					

Transport for London has confirmed that legal proceedings which challenged the decision to install C9, the cycle lane which runs through Chiswick High Rd, have come to an end. Campaign […]




					chiswickcalendar.co.uk


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 2, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Which pollution stats are those?


Here you go chaps:

Areas where Beneficial or Adverse impacts are predicted in Streatham Hill LTN include:
• Substantial Beneficial to Slight Beneficial impacts on LTN Roads Hillside Road,
Downton Avenue, Amesbury Avenue and Hailsham Avenue;
• Substantial Beneficial to Slight Beneficial impacts on the boundary road Knollys
Road; and
• Substantial Adverse to Slight Adverse impacts on boundary roads Christchurch Road
(A205), Streatham Hill (A23) and Leigham Court Road.

City Heights Academy is on the S Circular and kids and their parents are walking there every day during peak traffic times. Not sure why there was no monitoring site at the school to be honest, seems like an oversight.


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Yep, LTNs have mean that I no longer have to cycle on the main roads into the City, using Tulse Hill, Railton & Walworth ones. It’s much nicer and about the same time as hardly any traffic lights.
> 
> Segregated cycle lanes are fantastic but can’t see this happening on most main roads anytime soon.


I'm South of the S circular, and it's a nightmare to get past Tulse Hill gyratory/ Brixton Hill area safely.

The route you describe makes some kind of sense, but it's not clearly marked anywhere, and surely it means you still have to cut through main roads to get between the LTNs? And you're cycling up Herne Hill/Denmark Hill?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 2, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I'm South of the S circular, and it's a nightmare to get past Tulse Hill gyratory/ Brixton Hill area safely.
> 
> The route you describe makes some kind of sense, but it's not clearly marked anywhere, and surely it means you still have to cut through main roads to get between the LTNs? And you're cycling up Herne Hill/Denmark Hill?



It’s this route from Brixton so no hills and nice and quiet. You cut across main roads but that’s okay and better than on them. Don’t know where you are but would steer well clear of the Tulse Hill gyratory until the plans to get rid of it go ahead.

You’re right about the routes no being clearly marked - I don’t think people appreciate how much effort goes into finding good routes. But that the point of LTNs - if you remove through traffic from all minor roads you won’t need to mark routes as they’ll be tons on safe ones!


----------



## Crispy (Dec 2, 2021)

If you're on the Palace Road side of Streatham Hill, then you can go via Roupell Road, Upper Tulse Hill, Elm Park, Josephine Ave. Railton Road and then on up through the back streets of Myatts Fields.



Then round the back of Kennington Park and back streets again to Elephant where CS7 takes you to Farringdon


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 2, 2021)

I go down Railton and Shakespeare to LJ and up to oval from there and avoid brixton altogether when cycling, central brixton is horrible for that. You could use Rosendale Rd to avoid Tulse Hill.


----------



## Jimbeau (Dec 2, 2021)

Crispy said:


> If you're on the Palace Road side of Streatham Hill, then you can go via Roupell Road, Upper Tulse Hill, Elm Park, Josephine Ave. Railton Road and then on up through the back streets of Myatts Fields.
> 
> View attachment 299073
> 
> ...


I go from off Upper Tulse Hill to near Tower Bridge. From the end of Barnwell I go through the tunnel, along Loughborough Park and then Loughborough Road and Akerman and Wyndham to Burgess Park, then Bermondsey backstreets. It's cycle lanes and traffic calming pretty much all the way.

I live in hope that there will one day be a cycle crossing where Burgess Park meets the junction of Old Kent Road and Albany Road. It's a major bike route that ends abruptly with no interface with the traffic whatsoever.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 2, 2021)

As an alternative to the northern bit of Crispy 's route - I currently quite like using this one. It's most useful if you are heading more west end than city, but once you get over Vauxhall Bridge, there's a continuous mostly segregated route all the way along the north side of the Thames at least as far as the Tower. The only awkward bit is getting round Trafalgar square which is a pain going north and less so going south.

The bit between Vauxhall and Myatts Field Common is entirely on fully segregated routes, designated quietways or otherwise very quiet roads (helped by the Oval LTN). The only issue is getting across the A3 and the A23. Less confident cyclists could choose to use pedestrian crossings at these points.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 2, 2021)

Just a reminder for everyone to make sure to fill out the consultations. As the posts here show they really are working and we can’t go back to having traffic everywhere. They may not be perfect but the alternative is ever increasing traffic on all roads.









						Have your say
					

Have your say and help shape the future of your community.




					tulsehillltn.commonplace.is
				












						Streatham Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

A space to learn about and feed into the Streatham Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood.




					streathamhilllowtrafficneighbourhoodproposals.commonplace.is


----------



## Winot (Dec 2, 2021)

Jimbeau said:


> I live in hope that there will one day be a cycle crossing where Burgess Park meets the junction of Old Kent Road and Albany Road. It's a major bike route that ends abruptly with no interface with the traffic whatsoever.


Did that in the summer a couple of times with the teenage daughters. Fucking hell it’s grim. There’s not even room on the pedestrian crossing island to walk bikes across.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 2, 2021)

Winot said:


> Did that in the summer a couple of times with the teenage daughters. Fucking hell it’s grim. There’s not even room on the pedestrian crossing island to walk bikes across.


Indeed absolutely horrible. It’s a vision how a lot of London could have been bit luckily didn’t happen. 

Quietway 1 the other side is glorious though!


----------



## Jimbeau (Dec 2, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Indeed absolutely horrible. It’s a vision how a lot of London could have been bit luckily didn’t happen.
> 
> Quietway 1 the other side is glorious though!


After much experimentation, I’ve found two safe options. The first is to leave Burgess Park via the last gate onto Albany before the junction. That way you can ride straight across into Humphrey Way with the traffic when the lights are on green. 

The other is to ride out the main gate of BP when the pedestrian crossing is green and take a position ahead of all the waiting traffic on OKR in the right-turn lane. When the lights change, you’re then in a safe position (basically the same as at an Advanced Stop Line) to turn right into Dunton Road. 

I tend to go for the latter option more often these days. Largely because drivers can hoon it along Albany trying to beat the lights and are not looking out for people on bikes coming out of the side gates of the park.


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 3, 2021)

Crispy said:


> If you're on the Palace Road side of Streatham Hill, then you can go via Roupell Road, Upper Tulse Hill, Elm Park, Josephine Ave. Railton Road and then on up through the back streets of Myatts Fields.
> 
> View attachment 299073
> 
> ...


Interesting, thanks. Definitely represents a few detours, but I'm keen to try it out one day, time permitting.

My point is mainly that both Tulse Hill gyratory and central Brixton are terrifying to cycle through. If Lambeth is asking me in the LTN consultation what's stopping me cycling to work it's the lack of more segregated cycle lanes (like you see in the Netherlands), LTNs don't really help. But I accept that for some more experienced cyclists used to cutting through back streets they may help on some level.

My risk tolerance for cycling is pretty low, and studies have shown it's not just me it's especially women and families who are put off by the level of risk. I don't know any cycling commuters who haven't had at least a near miss.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 3, 2021)

I think there are another level of cyclists that the LTNs do really help though, local ones. For example making a journey from Brixton Streatham, is now much improved and no need to use the scary A23.
I don't have kids, but many parents have told me they have been using the LTNs to practice cycling skills and ride as a family.
It strikes me that experienced cyclists will always cycle whatever. What the LTNs have done is encourage the scaredy cat ones onto bikes


----------



## teuchter (Dec 3, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Interesting, thanks. Definitely represents a few detours, but I'm keen to try it out one day, time permitting.
> 
> My point is mainly that both Tulse Hill gyratory and central Brixton are terrifying to cycle through. If Lambeth is asking me in the LTN consultation what's stopping me cycling to work it's the lack of more segregated cycle lanes (like you see in the Netherlands), LTNs don't really help. But I accept that for some more experienced cyclists used to cutting through back streets they may help on some level.
> 
> My risk tolerance for cycling is pretty low, and studies have shown it's not just me it's especially women and families who are put off by the level of risk. I don't know any cycling commuters who haven't had at least a near miss.


It's worth trying out some routes. If you do find a back street route that works for your journey, you might be pleasantly surprised how safe it feels. If the journey is a regular commute then it's worth spending some time finding a route you are comfortable with. I would agree that London is still not very good for people who want to avoid busy roads, to do ad hoc journeys, because if you are doing an unfamiliar journey it's not all that easy to plan it reliably even using journey planners.

Some of the routes suggested above involve back routes until you get to zone 1 at which point you can switch onto a properly segregated route. There are, now, some good properly segregated routes in central London such as the one along the embankment. Linking to that there's a fully segregated route leading south from Blackfriars bridge, and also (just about linked) is a fully segregated route leading south over Vauxhall bridge that gets you through the horrible Vauxhall gyratory and most of the way to the Oval. I find it useful to visualise these routes as a kind of backbone to link into because once you get onto any of those three routes there's a fairly wide area of central London you can get to by fully segregated route plus a short stretch of non-segregated to get to your final destination.


----------



## Jimbeau (Dec 3, 2021)

I'd also advocate sticking with it, as safe routes are out there, even for the most risk-adverse of us.

I used to be one of the more blasé cyclists. Consider myself experienced, vigilant, happy to ride assertively when needed, happy on busy main roads, and so on. Two years ago I got thrown over the bonnet of a minicab by a driver who turned into me while looking at his phone. Nasty bruises, broken collarbone, etc. These days I stick to backstreets when I can and have double the number of lights and reflectors that I used to. It's changed my whole perception of risk. But I do want to keep at it, and the Quietways and LTNs have been great for teaching my kids to ride too.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 3, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Interesting, thanks. Definitely represents a few detours, but I'm keen to try it out one day, time permitting.
> 
> My point is mainly that both Tulse Hill gyratory and central Brixton are terrifying to cycle through. If Lambeth is asking me in the LTN consultation what's stopping me cycling to work it's the lack of more segregated cycle lanes (like you see in the Netherlands), LTNs don't really help. But I accept that for some more experienced cyclists used to cutting through back streets they may help on some level.
> 
> My risk tolerance for cycling is pretty low, and studies have shown it's not just me it's especially women and families who are put off by the level of risk. I don't know any cycling commuters who haven't had at least a near miss.


I don't think many (any?) people think LTNs are the complete solution - they are needed AS WELL as protected cycleways on main roads.  You only need a few scary moments to be put off a trip so trips need to feel safe from home to destination (and at all times of day or night - it's no good having a route along a dark canal path, or that relies on riding through a park that's either unlit or simply closed after dusk).   

Main road routes are easier to navigate than back streets because you know where you are but back street routes, if they're still reasonably direct work well for some trips. 

Personally I'm finding the changes to bus lane times are making a big difference on the A23  (Brixton Road north of Brixton) and A3 (elephant to Clapham and beyond), for trips outside rush hour.  Those roads definitely feel better at night and weekends now when they used to often be terrifying even for a confidant cyclist.  Black cabs can still be an issue as they seem to insist on close passing in a bus lane even if the lane next to it is clear.

Ask for main road cycleways in the consultations - the issue is they're expensive and they take a long time.  TfL have consulted and and confirmed they will build protected tracks on the A23 through streatham but with their budget troubles due to COVID who knows how soon that will be built.  That was supposed to be the first stage of protected cycling up to Oval.   There were consultations around removing the Tulse Hill gyratory but again needed many millions from TfL that they don't currently have.

I don't know where you're starting from  but there are changes to help get north

Rosendale Road (approved but waiting on funding I think)
the Streatham Hill and Tulse Hill LTNs are good to ride through now (though winding your way though isn't very direct)
bus lanes on A23 are now all hours and days.  protected space coming on Streatham High Road
the A3 superhighway is pretty good now.  The bus lanes are wide and all hours.

It sounds like you might be coming from around Norwood and I hate riding around there - busy main roads and rat running on all the back streets. Needs work.


----------



## editor (Dec 3, 2021)

Anti-LTN protest on Sunday LTN Day of Action in Leigham Court Road, Streatham, 1pm, 5th Dec 2021


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 3, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> LTNs don't really help. But I accept that for some more experienced cyclists used to cutting through back streets they may help on some level.


It's the opposite for me. I'm not experienced at all and the Railton LTN and relative quietness of Rosedale Road makes my commute possible. I get off and cross as a pedestrian at Loughborough Junction rather than turn right. CS6 and 7 make up a lot of the rest of my journey. 

I don't drive, though, and I wonder if there's a barrier in being used to certain routes as a driver and thinking that's the way to go, and then thinking no way is that safe on a bike. (I'm happy to be told I'm wrong about this, it's a guess)


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 4, 2021)

Thanks all for the tips. It looks like the proposed cycleway I7 would help me a lot, but who knows when/if that will be built giving TFL's funding problems and inability to deliver major projects on time.





						Cycle
					

Cycle Map




					tfl.gov.uk


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 4, 2021)

Winot said:


> Did that in the summer a couple of times with the teenage daughters. Fucking hell it’s grim. There’s not even room on the pedestrian crossing island to walk bikes across.


I get onto the road alongside the park and go straight across the OKR (as I call it) to the Quietway. Otherwise it’s horrible.

(ETA I didn’t read everyone else’s replies but at least we agree. Even to the extent of calling it the OKR)


----------



## edcraw (Dec 6, 2021)

Someone from OneLambeth posted this on Nextdoor. Really shows the power of collaboration!


----------



## Not a Vet (Dec 7, 2021)

I do love Nextdoor where the ranting never abates. I’ve noticed that there’s a style of posts that always begins with something like, I’m a keen cyclist or I regularly cycle etc but then goes into one about the LTNs being awful etc.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 7, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> I do love Nextdoor where the ranting never abates. I’ve noticed that there’s a style of posts that always begins with something like, I’m a keen cyclist or I regularly cycle etc but then goes into one about the LTNs being awful etc.


Yep - I think it’s because drivers can’t just say the real reason why they’re against them and have to pretend they care a jot about others. 

“These LTNs are forcing me to pollute the poor people on main roads more as I now have to travel slightly further” 🙄


----------



## alex_ (Dec 8, 2021)




----------



## snowy_again (Dec 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Someone from OneLambeth posted this on Nextdoor. Really shows the power of collaboration!
> 
> View attachment 299553


OLJ are now retweeting this and lines that LTNs and the active travel sector are ‘large scale corruption’


----------



## edcraw (Dec 8, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> OLJ are now retweeting this and lines that LTNs and the active travel sector are ‘large scale corruption’


Here's the hi-res version. Someone's obviously taken ages to put together and has a good understanding - but really wtf is their point? It's nutcase shit.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 8, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Someone from OneLambeth posted this on Nextdoor. Really shows the power of collaboration!
> 
> View attachment 299553








I just don't even understand what they are trying to do with that graphic. Like it's corruption that people who work for the council work for the council? Cos that's what most lines seem to be, from the organisation to an employee. idk if there's a better quality/higher res one anywhere but I'm curious what the black rectangle logo is that Karen Creavin connects to (I work for the the active wellbeing society, she is the ceo, top left quadrant, straight down from the h of neighbourhoods). 

Otherwise it's like, what, a diagram of people who advocate for cycling and walking infrastructure and people on councils/central govt who implement them? So what?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 8, 2021)

BigTom said:


> I'm curious what the black rectangle logo is that Karen Creavin connects to


This I think



			https://placesincommon.co.uk/


----------



## BigTom (Dec 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This I think
> 
> 
> 
> https://placesincommon.co.uk/



ah yeah, that's it, thank you


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 8, 2021)




----------



## thebackrow (Dec 8, 2021)

BigTom said:


> I just don't even understand what they are trying to do with that graphic. Like it's corruption that people who work for the council work for the council? Cos that's what most lines seem to be, from the organisation to an employee. idk if there's a better quality/higher res one anywhere but I'm curious what the black rectangle logo is that Karen Creavin connects to (I work for the the active wellbeing society, she is the ceo, top left quadrant, straight down from the h of neighbourhoods).
> 
> Otherwise it's like, what, a diagram of people who advocate for cycling and walking infrastructure and people on councils/central govt who implement them? So what?


I just love that the _anonymous_ accounts posting this up and throwing around accusations of corruption, extremism, evil network etc feel the need to add “Disclaimer: This tweet is 'in the public interest' and all information is available in the public domain.”.  I mean....


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2021)

Update Lambeth residents in Leigham Court Road call for clean air for all.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 9, 2021)

editor said:


> Update Lambeth residents in Leigham Court Road call for clean air for all.


Are they actually interested in “clean air for all” or do they just want to get rid of the LTNs?

Monitoring says traffic is up by 25% on LCR road high bad but hardly seismic as the article says. ULEZ helps with pollution levels even outside the area but traffic calming measures or more restrictions on LCR would be good. Who’s up for a bus gate?


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are they actually interested in “clean air for all” or do they just want to get rid of the LTNs?
> 
> Monitoring says traffic is up by 25% on LCR road high bad but hardly seismic as the article says. ULEZ helps with pollution levels even outside the area but traffic calming measures or more restrictions on LCR would be good. Who’s up for a bus gate?


To be fair, a 25% increase is pretty hefty.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 9, 2021)

editor said:


> To be fair, a 25% increase is pretty hefty.


Hefty but not seismic. 

We all want clean air for all - let’s hear the solutions on how we get there.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 9, 2021)

There used to be a Department for Transport count point on Leigham Court Road, almost exactly where the Lambeth counter was.  (Road traffic statistics - Manual count point: 930320) 

So traffic volume now is actually just back to what it was in 2005.  It looks very much like this is a prime example of how rat running has increased over the last 20 years as people used first satnav and then their phones.  And since emission standards have got a lot tighter over that time pollution levels should be a lot lower. 

That's not to say there shouldn't be efforts to reduce it, and traffic volumes, further.


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 9, 2021)

editor said:


> To be fair, a 25% increase is pretty hefty.


It's also 25% of a big number.

Lambeth is powerless at enforcing this 20mph limit thing, I don't know what the solution is though.

Hearing about the guy getting hit by a car mounting the pavement is scary.

There's no proper pedestrian crossing by the (Dunraven) school either which doesn't help.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Are they actually interested in “clean air for all” or do they just want to get rid of the LTNs?
> 
> Monitoring says traffic is up by 25% on LCR road high bad but hardly seismic as the article says. ULEZ helps with pollution levels even outside the area but traffic calming measures or more restrictions on LCR would be good. Who’s up for a bus gate?


Yes, is there a reason why LCR is not removed as a cut through route - it doesn't appear to be an A road and I assume it's used by people trying to avoid Streatham centre or Tulse Hill?


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes, is there a reason why LCR is not removed as a cut through route - it doesn't appear to be an A road and I assume it's used by people trying to avoid Streatham centre or Tulse Hill?


I think it's important for the Streatham Hill LTN to be accessible from more than just the A23, therefore it forms an important "boundary road"?

The problem with LTNs in central London in general is that lots of people/schools/businesses are based on the so called main roads.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 9, 2021)

IIRC Leigham court road is classified by Lambeth as a local distributor road, so it needs to be without restrictions. I do feel sorry for residents, the side streets have effectively been removing traffic from this road for years and having got used to that, it is horrible having it back where it's designed to be.
We need more than just LTNs to tackle the problem of too much traffic.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2021)

I wish there'd be at least a half hearted attempt to enforce 20 limits, at all.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I wish there'd be at least a half hearted attempt to enforce 20 limits, at all.


Yes absolutely. I did some speed checks on leigham court road about 6 months ago with the police and got 11 speeders in 20 mins. ☹️


----------



## teuchter (Dec 9, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Yes absolutely. I did some speed checks on leigham court road about 6 months ago with the police and got 11 speeders in 20 mins. ☹️


I've done this quite a few times in Loughborough Junction and we regularly and reliably get 20-30 speeders per hour in each direction. It's pretty hard to get them to come and do an actual enforcement though ... or to get them to come out later at night when the number of cars is smaller but the speeding is more extreme.


----------



## pbsmooth (Dec 10, 2021)

Leigham Court Road has been busy forever, no? It's the standard road through there, particularly as west norwood high street is always gridlock. My satnav would always take me that way going from Croydon into London


----------



## alex_ (Dec 10, 2021)

Brixton hill consultation Comment map for Brixton Hill LTN Map


----------



## edcraw (Dec 10, 2021)

The council is proposing to make Oval & Railton LTNs permanent! 









						Love Lambeth
					

New proposals for the future of the Oval to Stockwell and Railton and St. Matthew's Low Traffic Neighbourhood Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have now been published




					love.lambeth.gov.uk
				




And they're popular:



> The data found 55 per cent of respondents thought the Oval to Stockwell LTN was a positive change, while 54 per cent felt the Railton LTN was a positive change.


----------



## alex_ (Dec 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The council is proposing to make Oval & Railton LTNs permanent!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



“After careful consideration of feedback, trip patterns and impacts the proposals include exceptions for Blue Badge holders who rely on driving, being driven or on visitors who arrive by car. Exceptions are also proposed for taxis and fully accessible private hire vehicles, and rapid response healthcare providers.”


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 10, 2021)

The Railton LTN is the difference between me cycling to work or not. This is fantastic.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 10, 2021)

Great news.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 10, 2021)

Am I right in thinking that making this permanent means a new traffic order, which then means anyone challenging this through judicial review needs to essentially start again?


----------



## Not a Vet (Dec 10, 2021)

One Lambeth justice and Nextdoor are going to be interesting


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 10, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> One Lambeth justice and Nextdoor are going to be interesting




"We have never seen such corruption and evil before our eyes." I'd like a top 5 of corruption and evil, just to see what's at spots 2-5, below some modal filters.


----------



## Not a Vet (Dec 10, 2021)

The lack of punctuation makes it read like some bloke called Tim democracy has died.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 10, 2021)

The line the antis seem to be taken is that submissions were excluded to sway the result. There were excluded and this is the reason.


They getting into full QAnon territory now.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 10, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> "We have never seen such corruption and evil before our eyes." I'd like a top 5 of corruption and evil, just to see what's at spots 2-5, below some modal filters.



Surely Vaccine passports will push it off top spot?


----------



## alex_ (Dec 10, 2021)

Not a Vet said:


> Tim democracy has died.



But he died in Lambeth


----------



## alex_ (Dec 10, 2021)

edcraw said:


> The line the antis seem to be taken is that submissions were excluded to sway the result. There were excluded and this is the reason.
> 
> View attachment 300118
> They getting into full QAnon territory now.
> ...



Because it removes their crap astroturfing…


----------



## alex_ (Dec 10, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> "We have never seen such corruption and evil before our eyes." I'd like a top 5 of corruption and evil, just to see what's at spots 2-5, below some modal filters.




“Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted with a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's personal gain.”

I don’t get it - is BigBike paying them off ?


----------



## CH1 (Dec 12, 2021)

Appreciate there is a certain QAnon quality to OneLambeth etc - but here is the voice of a veteran Lambeth public transport campaigner.
You may have him to thank for the Clapham High Street overground station.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 12, 2021)

He's wrong, though. He says that the benefits are just theoretical when there's evidence from a whole bunch of boroughs that these schemes work. I guess the argument that we need widespread buy-in from people... so let's go for road pricing is at least funny.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 12, 2021)

Interesting responses to his tweet. But his main hypothesis just repeats a few statements that have shown not to stand up to scrutiny (without even attempting to evidence them). 

Also on Lambeth


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 12, 2021)

If that's the problem why not pitch an article to the Local Government Chronicle on how to make people feel less "abandoned" rather than this nonsense in the Telegraph?


----------



## Rushy (Dec 12, 2021)

Anyone know about Lambeth's "plans for adjacent main roads"?


----------



## Crispy (Dec 12, 2021)

Rushy said:


> Anyone know about Lambeth's "plans for adjacent main roads"?


If any of them rely on TfL paying for it then they've got another thing coming


----------



## BigTom (Dec 13, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> He's wrong, though. He says that the benefits are just theoretical when there's evidence from a whole bunch of boroughs that these schemes work. I guess the argument that we need widespread buy-in from people... so let's go for road pricing is at least funny.



The other thing is that if he's saying "we need data", then that's what we're going to get in a much wider fashion from the current LTNs. Surely his stance should be "wait and see"?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 13, 2021)

Is his organisation anything more than just him?


----------



## DaphneM (Dec 13, 2021)

hahaha

fuck you OneLambeth


----------



## alex_ (Dec 13, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> He's wrong, though. He says that the benefits are just theoretical when there's evidence from a whole bunch of boroughs that these schemes work. I guess the argument that we need widespread buy-in from people... so let's go for road pricing is at least funny.



In a sense they’ve done both - driving through an LTN now costs 80 quid a go.


----------



## Winot (Dec 13, 2021)

I’ve read his Twitter feed and he is clearly a long-term campaigner for sustainable transport. 

His supporting evidence for boundary road traffic increase seems to be one LTN/road in Dulwich. I’m not a data expert but seems to me it’s probably a bit early for either side to set too much store by any single example. There is data which points the other way. 

His answer to traffic reduction is road-user pricing which I would like to see and may happen at some point but at the moment is politically unlikely. His anti-LTN stance is a classic case therefore of the perfect being the enemy of the good.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 13, 2021)

Here’s what this guy is enabling by using any reputation he has:



Prominent OneWandsworth member campaigning against Lambeth’s LTNs.

Seems he’s happy to do this and further the Sunday Telegraph pro car agenda. Hope he got paid a decent amount.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 13, 2021)

p.s. why do antis never crop screen grabs properly?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 13, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Appreciate there is a certain QAnon quality to OneLambeth etc - but here is the voice of a veteran Lambeth public transport campaigner.
> You may have him to thank for the Clapham High Street overground station.



Here John Burke responds to the opinions given in the piece with evidence


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Here John Burke takes the opinions given in the piece with evidence



they should just duke it out in de beauvoir square


----------



## snowy_again (Dec 13, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Is his organisation anything more than just him?


Which one? The Campaign for Better Transport that he is the Chair of has distanced themselves from his comments.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 13, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Here John Burke takes the opinions given in the piece with evidence



De Beauvoir Town is obviously a singularity
In 1907, the Fifth Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party held at the Brotherhood Church on the east side of Southgate Road. Attendees included Lenin, Stalin, Maxim Gorky, Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky. The congress debated strategy for a communist revolution in Russia and strengthened the position of Lenin's Bolsheviks and debated strategy for a communist revolution in Russia.[9]


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 13, 2021)

snowy_again said:


> Which one? The Campaign for Better Transport that he is the Chair of has distanced themselves from his comments.


There's distancing and there's directing people to an article that says _Councils should not succumb to the will of a vocal minority who wish to thwart Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. _Not sure that's a distance easily covered by active travel.


----------



## Jimbeau (Dec 13, 2021)

Today's Graun cites that Telegraph piece. 









						How a myth about London bike lanes and congestion took off
					

Analysis: delving into news stories linking congestion with cycle lanes shows how troubling myths can escape into the wild




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## editor (Dec 13, 2021)

Lambeth LTN update Lambeth Council to spend close to £1M to make Railton and Stockwell Low Traffic Neighbourhoods permanent by the end of the year


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 13, 2021)

editor said:


> Lambeth LTN update Lambeth Council to spend close to £1M to make Railton and Stockwell Low Traffic Neighbourhoods permanent by the end of the year


We’ll make it up in fines.


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 13, 2021)

sleaterkinney said:


> We’ll make it up in fines.


That's the secret of LTNs, self funding! Councils have about as much money to throw around as TFL right now, no?


----------



## Not a Vet (Dec 13, 2021)

It will be interesting to see future consultation results as the antis are convinced that they lost many responses as they’d all answered the same way in the free text boxes. Now they are still instructing how to complete it (I don’t know why they don’t just let people put what they want) but with a cunning twist, inserting their own name. This should make it unique. TBH, I’m cool with that, it shouldn’t be a forgone conclusion. Whether it changes the end result (Southwark buried their bad news in the appendices) remains to be seen


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 13, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Appreciate there is a certain QAnon quality to OneLambeth etc - but here is the voice of a veteran Lambeth public transport campaigner.
> You may have him to thank for the Clapham High Street overground station.



I think he has a really good point. It's the lack of equity that worries me the most about LTNs as well.

It clearly divides into haves and have nots, and people on Twitter aren't particularly nice about it either, saying people living on boundary roads are asking to be mired in pollution.


----------



## Winot (Dec 13, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> I think he has a really good point. It's the lack of equity that worries me the most about LTNs as well.
> 
> It clearly divides into haves and have nots, and people on Twitter aren't particularly nice about it either, saying people living on boundary roads are asking to be mired in pollution.


It doesn’t. They don’t.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 13, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> saying people living on boundary roads are asking to be mired in pollution.


I suspect what they're actually saying is that main roads are where cars "should be" rather than taking the shortcuts their satnavs direct them down to save them a few seconds. It's easy to twist this into saying something else.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 13, 2021)

What’s the answer to this except restricting minor roads to through traffic?


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 14, 2021)

edcraw said:


> What’s the answer to this except restricting minor roads to through traffic?



A number of alternative measures are suggested in the article and below the line. For example road pricing, better enforcement of speed limits, traffic calming measures or building more cycle lanes.

I'd personally like to see more radical measures like a ULEZ++ and perhaps restricting parking permits to no more than two per household.

The guy you are linking to has a point though? LTNs are like islands, they aren't joined up. Therefore they are pretty poor at encouraging active travel, vs. a segregated cycleway for example. We need to learn better lessons from what's done in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 14, 2021)

LTNs were only ever part of the solution, not the solution itself.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> LTNs are like islands, they aren't joined up. Therefore they are pretty poor at encouraging active travel, vs. a segregated cycleway for example. We need to learn better lessons from what's done in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden.


For the past several years TfL policy has been pretty much what you describe - a mixture of measures including segregated cycleways, reduction in speed limits, traffic calming, redesign of junctions, expansion of ULEZ and so on. No-one in favour of LTNs thinks they are the solution to everything, nor do they need to learn lessons from other countries. These lessons have been learnt and well known for many years. What stops these things from happening is the resistance that is faced when an implementation of any of these things is attempted. Whether it's a segregated cycleway or speed limits or the ULEZ there will be people popping up to explain why some other thing should be done instead. And this is also why some of the new LTNs are "islands". It's not because those promoting them want that - they want it to be a policy applied to the whole of the city - but achieving that is very difficult in the face of all the resistance. It seems the best we can hope for at the moment are these small steps towards something a bit less bad than the status quo, and perhaps the bits in between the islands can gradually get filled in.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 14, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> We need to learn better lessons from what's done in countries like the Netherlands


Okay we can call a modal filter a knip.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 14, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> better enforcement of speed limits, traffic calming measures


On the first - how? fixed cameras don't work - go look at the one on Acre Lane and see nearly every driver brake hard then accelerate when past it. 
Traffic calming seems to have comprehensively failed - I'm pretty sure every street in the Ferndale and Railton areas is already lined with speedhumps and Railton Road had 'chicanes'.  Where do you think traffic calming is missing and what sort would you install?



Cat Fan said:


> I'd personally like to see more radical measures like a ULEZ++ and perhaps restricting parking permits to no more than two per household.


A bigger ULEZ or tighter regulations?

Last Census  showed
130k households in Lambeth


"no more than two permits per household" really isn't going to have a noticeable impact - and still doesn't stop anyone with off street parking having on street as well.



Cat Fan said:


> We need to learn better lessons from what's done in countries like the Netherlands and Sweden.



by creating LTNs? Making a 1960s street grid fit for the 21st century


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Here is the voice of a veteran Lambeth public transport campaigner.
> You may have him to thank for the Clapham High Street overground station.



Literally here is the voice - John Stewart discusses his LTN article with BikeBiz journalist Carlton Reid.





						Why is anti-roads campaigner John Stewart against LTNs? – Hosted by David Bernstein & Carlton Reid since 2006
					






					www.the-spokesmen.com
				




I found this quite interesting - a reasoned discussioin. In this 53 minute podcast done after his Telegraph article and subsequent Twitter storm, John Stewart recounts his long background in public transport campaigning, anti road campaigning and airport issues.

He is adamant that the LTN problem is one of fairness - and he says he also favours road use charging as a long term solution to traffic issues.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 14, 2021)

Is there any wide scale road charging scheme in operation?
I only know of singapore and that's a tiny city really.
All the other "road pricing" things I know of are stuff like toll roads or the congestion charge - things that are applied to a very small area, and in a blanket way. Not something that is charged on all roads at variable rates.
Does the tech really exist yet?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> He is adamant that the LTN problem is one of fairness - and he says he also favours road use charging as a long term solution to traffic issues.


I'm still having trouble reconciling his Telegraph article with this paper, which he wrote a year ago - he seems to have changed his position quite significantly whilst more evidence has been published of the effectiveness of LTNs And who lives on main roads won’t have altered.


			http://www.ukna.org.uk/uploads/4/1/4/5/41458009/the_great_traffic_disruptor_final.pdf
		


Most significantly on his arguments about fairness this statement seems at odds with this page of his earlier paper which says main road populations are pretty much like the general population in terms of ethnicity and wealth.

road charging is surely inevitable (not least since electric cars will remove tax income from fuel) but while it’s surely technically possible, nowhere has yet implemented it, it’s many years away and, (based on previous discussions on here) some see it as having fairness issues of its own.  And by itself it doesn’t make walking and cycling better.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2021)

The main problem with his article is that it's based on a false premise that the traffic is inevitably displaced. The numbers from the recently implemented LTNs don't support this. It's true that there are some boundary roads that have seen increases but there are lots of others that have seen decreases.

Firstly, we might see further reductions another 6 or 12 months from here. Secondly, why not focus on finding solutions for the specific roads where there appears to be a problem. The fact that some boundary roads see decreases, suggests that in principle there is scope within the network for some redistribution with the intention of balancing things out such that no boundary roads see a substantial increase on what was there before.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Is there any wide scale road charging scheme in operation?
> I only know of singapore and that's a tiny city really.
> All the other "road pricing" things I know of are stuff like toll roads or the congestion charge - things that are applied to a very small area, and in a blanket way. Not something that is charged on all roads at variable rates.
> Does the tech really exist yet?


Not just the tech issue but you then have to deal with the issues of disporoportionate impact on the least wealthy. Road pricing lets the more wealthy pay their way out of restrictions - unlike measures that reduce capacity.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 14, 2021)

Having now scanned the transcript of the interview I'm still not a lot clearer on his 'fairness' position.  

None of the LTNs have made a road that was previously really quiet into a busy road - at worst they've made an already busy road a bit busier (though as Leigham Court Road data a bit upthread, quite possibly only as busy as it was a decade or so ago before satnavs were being widely used).  Whereas the satnav impact on minor road in many cases has made roads that were quiet much busier. 
Main road housing isn't disproportionally social housing (based on the income distribution data above) so the vast majority of main road residents have chosen to live there - trading off a larger home, or a home in a more "expensive" area against a smaller home or one in a less expensive area on something other than a main road.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 14, 2021)

BigTom said:


> Does the tech really exist yet?


750 cameras for the new ULEZ, and that's just at the borders for entering and leaving.


teuchter said:


> Road pricing lets the more wealthy pay their way out of restrictions



I think there are potential unintended consequences too. We want more people to walk and cycle short distances where possible but here you have a small charge that may have the opposite effect. Like the school that introduced fines for picking up kids, where the fines quickly became a price for being late, not a fine.



> A daycare in Israel had a similar problem: parents were arriving late to collect their children. In response, the daycare fined those who didn't pick their tots up on time. Except this did not result in increased punctuality; quite the opposite. Parents were more likely to be late after the fines were introduced. They simply paid the fee and thought no more about it. The intrinsic motivation – to conform to the social norm of being on time – was crowded out by the extrinsic motivation of cash fines.



Look at how some people are outraged by the idea they must share space with others who have not paid "road tax". Road pricing may make that worse without providing a compelling disincentive to ditch short car journeys.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> Having now scanned the transcript of the interview I'm still not a lot clearer on his 'fairness' position.
> 
> None of the LTNs have made a road that was previously really quiet into a busy road - at worst they've made an already busy road a bit busier (though as Leigham Court Road data a bit upthread, quite possibly only as busy as it was a decade or so ago before satnavs were being widely used).  Whereas the satnav impact on minor road in many cases has made roads that were quiet much busier.
> Main road housing isn't disproportionally social housing (based on the income distribution data above) so the vast majority of main road residents have chosen to live there - trading off a larger home, or a home in a more "expensive" area against a smaller home or one in a less expensive area on something other than a main road.


I think he is precisely arguing against your view. which seems succinctly stated to be "You chose not to be in an LTN - now sufffer"


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> "You chose not to be in an LTN - now sufffer"


There's a name for creating a grotesque parody of a point of view and then arguing against that.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> "You chose not to be in an LTN - now sufffer"


Of course, this must also be the view of anyone who drives along a main road, for any reason. I guess if they are driving someone to hospital to save their life, then maybe they could live with themselves.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> There's a name for creating a grotesque parody of a point of view and then arguing against that.


Not really s/he gave reasons.
Living in social housing, or chosing to buy a cheaper property for two.
So from what I see they are fine with high value residents getting the benefit of LTNs and low value residents the disadvantages.

John Stewart did not name the case, but his point seemed absolutely flood-lit by this Air pollution: Coroner calls for law change after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah's death


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Of course, this must also be the view of anyone who drives along a main road, for any reason. I guess if they are driving someone to hospital to save their life, then maybe they could live with themselves.


No-one has mentioned electric vehicles.  Maybe up thread.
Presumably 100% electric obviates the need for LTNs - or will it then be something else?
I would certainly settle for 100^ electric skip lorries. Is that on the cards?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> No-one has mentioned electric vehicles.  Maybe up thread.
> Presumably 100% electric obviates the need for LTNs - or will it then be something else?
> I would certainly settle for 100^ electric skip lorries. Is that on the cards?


Electric vehicles are mentioned repeatedly. And repeatedly it's pointed out that they only improve the air pollution problem partially, and they do absolutely nothing to solve congestion, parking or road safety issues.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Electric vehicles are mentioned repeatedly. And repeatedly it's pointed out that they only improve the air pollution problem partially, and they do absolutely nothing to solve congestion, parking or road safety issues.


I think you should look at congestion round the Rayne Institute.
There's now so many ambulances parked up the buses have trouble passing.
Until recently you never saw ambulances parked on Coldharbour Lane.
Is this to do with King's digging up their car park - thus having to allow car parking outside the hospital - and moving ambulances to Coldharbour Lane?
Have Coldharbour Lane residents been consulted?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I think you should look at congestion round the Rayne Institute.
> There's now so many ambulances parked up the buses have trouble passing.
> Until recently you never saw ambulances parked on Coldharbour Lane.
> Is this to do with King's digging up their car park - thus having to allow car parking outside the hospital - and moving ambulances to Coldharbour Lane?
> Have Coldharbour Lane residents been consulted?


Are we doing a non-sequitur contest?


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Are we doing a non-sequitur contest?


Inevitable - you say pollution is a minor part of it.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Inevitable - you say pollution is a minor part of it.


I don't understand what point you're making. What has KCH got to do with the LTNs?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> Inevitable - you say pollution is a minor part of it.



streatham-hill-tulse-hill-ltns


> Cllr Adilypour added: “We believe the use of low traffic neighbourhoods can help reduce traffic, improve road safety and enable active travel such as walking or cycling.
> “Less dependence on motor vehicle use means we can reduce air pollution and improve air quality.
> “Low traffic neighbourhoods are an effective way to create safer, greener and less polluted streets that respond to the challenges of the climate emergency.”


So they, clearly, have a number of objectives.


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 14, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> On the first - how? fixed cameras don't work - go look at the one on Acre Lane and see nearly every driver brake hard then accelerate when past it.
> Traffic calming seems to have comprehensively failed - I'm pretty sure every street in the Ferndale and Railton areas is already lined with speedhumps and Railton Road had 'chicanes'.  Where do you think traffic calming is missing and what sort would you install?
> 
> 
> ...


Sigh, not really looking for a huge keyboard war here. The most scientific way to test your hypothesis would be to remove all the calming/safety measures and see what happens. 

The technology is there for more effective speed controls, we just live in a world where there are big warning signs and flags on the navigation apps.

By the way I've walked through Railton LTN a few times recently and the few motorbikes/cars/buses that there are absolutely bomb it through because it's so empty.

I'd be for a bigger ULEZ _and_ tighter restrictions. The government (local & national) is just too concerned with appeasing car owners.

Big sigh at the people who say electric vehicles aren't the answer. What part of zero emissions is so difficult to understand?

Finally, it's handwave-y magical thinking to say that traffic will go down on boundary roads over time. That simply won't happen without measures to decrease and discourage car ownership over the whole of London.

As far as I'm concerned LTNs are just greenwashing for the council. They can say they are doing their bit for the climate. But in reality they are driving resentment and inequality, without actually discouraging car ownership or decreasing pollution in the main.


----------



## Cat Fan (Dec 14, 2021)

CH1 said:


> I think he is precisely arguing against your view. which seems succinctly stated to be "You chose not to be in an LTN - now sufffer"


Yes, exactly. So instead of road pricing we have the rich living on super quiet roads and the poor choking on fumes. But ok, I guess it's their "choice" to be poor.


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 14, 2021)

If you're not looking for "a big keyboard war" why are you posting things that are not true?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 14, 2021)

Here are some road pricing threads, where people line up to explain all the problems with road pricing and how we should do _something else instead,_ eg:



> _There's already a system in place that ensures people driving in congested areas and those with bigger cars pay more. It's called fuel tax. They're just getting upset because people are buying electric cars and dodging the tax. A simple solution would be to make the likes of Amazon pay their taxes, but, as usual, its the least well off who will suffer._











						Road pricing back on the agenda
					

Each registered owner reports the milage every 6 months, gets sent a bill. Random checks to ensure compliance. Job done.   Easy enough to install a switch to turn the odometer off.




					www.urban75.net
				






> _Why not just ask for the existing road pricing scheme called *Fuel tax *to divert more of its funds to alternatives to road travel such as better train routes and services/buses etc.
> 
> The road pricing scheme will cost substantialy more before it sees even a penny in revenue. It involves the manufacture of millions of tracking units (that manufacture will have a carbon footprint), it will need loads of servers to track and calculate everything (more carbon footprint) and tons more admin staff who will need to be paid before any profit is taken.
> 
> ...











						Support road pricing ...
					

For any disgruntled pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, or environmentalists out there:  As the anti-road pricing petition seems to have gotten its fair share of publicity on here, it's only right that this one should too ...  http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/yes2roadpricing/   Fast...




					www.urban75.net
				






> not signing this nonsense by some Islington Living, Middle Class, Green crank
> 
> I live in a semi-rural area with no public transport to speak of, and no road congestion either. I just see this as another attempt to socially cleanse rural areas of working class people, to be repalced by those who can afford road pricing











						Petition FOR road-pricing
					

Pete Where isthe petition against Road Pricing. I'll try and get as many people to sign it as I can?:D ;)  good man  whack e petitions in google, hit the first hit and get STUCK IN.  having said that, the latest plan is for voluntary road pricing, which, potentially, could save me money...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## Winot (Dec 14, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Big sigh at the people who say electric vehicles aren't the answer. What part of zero emissions is so difficult to understand?


EVs result in particulate emission from braking etc.


----------



## CH1 (Dec 14, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't understand what point you're making. What has KCH got to do with the LTNs?


Was thinking that the families in social housing on CHL are unjustly suffering noise disturbance and POLLUTION due to snarled up traffic from KCH never-ending PFI projects
As Liza Minelli sang in "Cabaret" **** on being poor!


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 15, 2021)

Cat Fan said:


> Big sigh at the people who say electric vehicles aren't the answer. What part of zero emissions is so difficult to understand?



there is this-


----------



## edcraw (Dec 15, 2021)

Winot said:


> EVs result in particulate emission from braking etc.


EVs are also very far from zero CO2 emissions. Generating electricity is still extremely reliant on fossil fuels and the manufacture in the first place takes huge amounts of energy. To believe otherwise is really sticking your head in the sand.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2021)

Say what?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 16, 2021)

On electric vehicles, 75% of electricity is from fossil fuels, plus you have to make and dispose of those toxic batteries.


----------



## BusLanes (Dec 17, 2021)

editor said:


> Say what?
> 
> View attachment 301171



Ha that's a fun pivot


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 17, 2021)

It's a reference to Boris Lowtrafficneighbourhood, the inventor of the modal filter.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 17, 2021)

This is bad news - Changes to the Congestion Charge to support long term traffic reduction and a sustainable recovery 
Without doubt will generate  more trips on Lambeth's roads.  Seems to be a truly deafening silence from the supposed 'clean air for all' groups opposing LTNs on this...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 17, 2021)

liquidindian said:


> It's a reference to Boris Lowtrafficneighbourhood, the inventor of the modal filter.


Boris ‘burbs.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 17, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> This is bad news - Changes to the Congestion Charge to support long term traffic reduction and a sustainable recovery
> Without doubt will generate  more trips on Lambeth's roads.  Seems to be a truly deafening silence from the supposed 'clean air for all' groups opposing LTNs on this...


Some strange statements in there


> 'The removal of the evening charge will support the capital's culture, hospitality and night-time businesses which have struggled so much, as well as encouraging people to walk, cycle and use public transport. It's vital we do not encourage a car-led recovery and replace one public health crisis with another due to filthy air.'



I don't see how removing the evening charge will encourage people to walk, cycle and use PT


----------



## editor (Dec 18, 2021)

New LTN for Brixton New Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) proposed for Brixton Hill


----------



## edcraw (Dec 18, 2021)

editor said:


> New LTN for Brixton New Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) proposed for Brixton Hill


New Park Road needs to be closed of to through traffic. The weird chicanes put in a few years ago really don’t work & have just made it worse.


----------



## alex_ (Dec 18, 2021)

edcraw said:


> New Park Road needs to be closed of to through traffic. The weird chicanes put in a few years ago really don’t work & have just made it worse.



And the lynham/thornbury/dunbarton cut throughs, traffic on all three goes really fast.


----------



## felonius monk (Dec 19, 2021)

The reduction in the evening charge wont benefit the culture or nighttime industries, where it still doesn't make much sense to drive, park etc. More likely to benefit those who drive in and out of Zone as part of work pattern, knowing that it lifts at 6pm. Completely counter-intuitive.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 19, 2021)

felonius monk said:


> The reduction in the evening charge wont benefit the culture or nighttime industries, where it still doesn't make much sense to drive, park etc. More likely to benefit those who drive in and out of Zone as part of work pattern, knowing that it lifts at 6pm. Completely counter-intuitive.


I can’t work out the narrow subsection of the population who are wealthy enough to own a car, spend a night out in central London, and pay for parking but not quite wealthy enough just to get a taxi (or for whom  the congestion charge would be the straw that breaks the camels back on the total cost of a night out).  

Makes no sense.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 19, 2021)

Do you think it could be worries about covid? Seeing a few posts on my local FB group about 'where to park' in central London for a trip out with the kids/family?
And Khan under pressure from business to make sure their clients can get to them any which way?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 19, 2021)

I do think they haven’t communicated this very well. The increase to £15 & charging for evenings and weekends were bought in temporarily and so really they’re keeping the increase & weekend charging rather than dropping evenings.

I suspect they prefer to present it this way to make it seem better - anyway the congestion charge is much stronger than it was a few years ago.


----------



## editor (Dec 21, 2021)

On a related note 








						Pity the poor, oppressed driver forced to share their roads with the rest of us | Catherine Bennett
					

We’re still in thrall to the car – to judge by the lenient sentences for reckless motorists




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Dec 21, 2021)

Everything comes back to the evil LTNs for good old Tim.



Can’t see how his weird campaign is going to help him with the voters of Clapham Common - particularly as he seems to be in favour of stopping rat running there 🤦.









						Hi everyone
					

I am going to try to put pressure on council officers to respond to the group, just as I did with the plans to close Rodenhurst Road.   P...




					nextdoor.co.uk


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 22, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Everything comes back to the evil LTNs for good old Tim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eh? He's always posting on the one Lambeth Twitter against LTNs but now is supporting the implementation of one? I'm very confused


----------



## alex_ (Dec 22, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Eh? He's always posting on the one Lambeth Twitter against LTNs but now is supporting the implementation of one? I'm very confused



Confused that a Tory is a hypocrite ?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 22, 2021)

sparkybird said:


> Eh? He's always posting on the one Lambeth Twitter against LTNs but now is supporting the implementation of one? I'm very confused


He has been for some time, mentioned further back in the thread at various points. For his own ward, in the posh-ish bit of clapham near Abbeville Rd etc.


----------



## pbsmooth (Dec 22, 2021)

There aren't many non-posh bits of Clapham left...


----------



## edcraw (Dec 22, 2021)

teuchter said:


> He has been for some time, mentioned further back in the thread at various points. For his own ward, in the posh-ish bit of clapham near Abbeville Rd etc.


Haven’t seen him campaigning to rip out this filter on Crescent Lane which surely displaces traffic onto the residents of Clapham Park.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 22, 2021)

Wait a sec the Onesies have won! LTN advocate drives a car!!!!


----------



## BigTom (Dec 23, 2021)

edcraw said:


> Wait a sec the Onesies have won! LTN advocate drives a car!!!!




Well that's me convinced, after all doesn't every LTN advocate argue that 100% of journeys must be made by walking, cycling or pogo stick?


----------



## alex_ (Dec 23, 2021)

teuchter said:


> He has been for some time, mentioned further back in the thread at various points. For his own ward, in the posh-ish bit of clapham near Abbeville Rd etc.



Presumably he’s in favour of his voters driving through other areas, and against anyone else driving through his area.


----------



## alex_ (Dec 23, 2021)

More great news from hackney 



Traffic down everywhere !


----------



## CH1 (Dec 27, 2021)

This interesting (US I assume) Quora post shows what happens when monitoring goes hardcore


----------



## liquidindian (Dec 27, 2021)

CH1 said:


> interesting


I think you've put this in the wrong thread.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 31, 2021)

I see one of the loudest Onesies is over on next door "railing" against a new pedestrian crossing on Streatham High Road.  By "colluding" do they actually mean "co-ordination", with work on the main roads as well as the side streets to improve safety and convenience for people walking and cycling? It really is all a massive conspiracy.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 31, 2021)

Apparently the TfL work has been long in the planning, even before Lambeth put in any LTNs so difficult to see how they could be colluding.
I just don't get it, if cash strapped TfL have identified a project that could save lives and serious injuries, how is that not something good?


----------



## Not a Vet (Dec 31, 2021)

thebackrow said:


> I see one of the loudest Onesies is over on next door "railing" against a new pedestrian crossing on Streatham High Road.  By "colluding" do they actually mean "co-ordination", with work on the main roads as well as the side streets to improve safety and convenience for people walking and cycling? It really is all a massive conspiracy.
> 
> View attachment 303866


Think his paranoia has grown through the year, particularly as their doomed approach to answering a questionnaire probably meant they were excluded. To be fair to him, he’s been consistent and open to debate which is how it should be, unlike all those anonymous Twitter accounts


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 5, 2022)

Any of our resident onesies care to comment on this:



> One example of this saw the Railton consultation receive over 600 responses submitted one after another from 3am until 1pm on one day – around one a minute for ten hours straight, all with identical formatting in the free text box asking for the first line of their address and no email address provided.
> 
> To make matters worse, those responsible were apparently intent on distorting and misrepresenting the opinions of under-represented non-white and LGBTQ+ Lambeth residents, as they had recorded these fake responses as being almost entirely from people whose ethnicity was not white and who identified as LGBTQ+.












						Lambeth makes first LTN schemes permanent - Lambeth Labour
					

Cllr Danny Adilypour is the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Transport, Environment and Clean Air (job-share) and a councillor in Streatham South ward.  In December, the council published its intention to make the Railton and Oval to Stockwell low traffic neighbourhood schemes permanent. These...




					www.lambeth-labour.org.uk


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 5, 2022)

wow, how did they ever think that was going to get past the data analysts?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> wow, how did they ever think that was going to get past the data analysts?


Well some of them aren’t the brightest.

I doesn’t sound like it’s something that could be automated so sounds like it was done manually!


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 5, 2022)

The poster who was briefly on here with the weird font, Yuk! was their favourite ending is now popping up on Twitter. They haven’t mellowed


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 5, 2022)

Big day in court next week. The appeal on the judicial review. I was fairly sure the basis of the appeal was whether Lambeth could use a rolling EQIA (unless I’m mistaken). If they win, presumably, rolling EQIA’s should not be used but as Lambeth now have an updated one for the permanent schemes, it’s academic. Only £8550 raised so far though out of £14500 needed. Big bill for someone….


----------



## edcraw (Jan 5, 2022)

This person seems to have been quite active lately and has no qualms in comparing LTNs to slavery 🤦‍♂️


----------



## teuchter (Jan 5, 2022)

So is this appeal happening after all?


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 6, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Any of our resident onesies care to comment on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It’s a(nother) massive corrupt conspiracy that…er…somebody  has actually read the Lambeth Labour page on the link in the tweet that they'd screenshotted.


----------



## editor (Jan 7, 2022)

Two LTNs to become permanent Lambeth Council confirms that Railton and Oval to Stockwell Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are to be made permanent


----------



## edcraw (Jan 7, 2022)

editor said:


> Two LTNs to become permanent Lambeth Council confirms that Railton and Oval to Stockwell Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are to be made permanent


This is exciting


> The council expects initial public realm work in the LTN areas to begin in Spring 2022 with further enhancements to follow later.



Hopefully the council will have enough money to really transform some areas.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This is exciting
> 
> 
> Hopefully the council will have enough money to really transform some areas.



“In both LTNs there will be exceptions for Blue Badge holders who are reliant on driving, being driven or on visitors who arrive by car. Taxis and fully accessible private hire vehicles will also be exempt along with rapid response healthcare providers and the emergency services.”


👍


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 8, 2022)

alex_ said:


> “In both LTNs there will be exceptions for Blue Badge holders who are reliant on driving, being driven or on visitors who arrive by car. Taxis and fully accessible private hire vehicles will also be exempt along with rapid response healthcare providers and the emergency services.”
> 
> 
> 👍


Surely no need for the court case now, right?



right? ;-/


----------



## alex_ (Jan 8, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Surely no need for the court case now, right?
> 
> 
> 
> right? ;-/



The onesies don’t give a toss about blue badge holders of disabled people


----------



## edcraw (Jan 8, 2022)

alex_ said:


> The onesies don’t give a toss about blue badge holders of disabled people


Their narrative definitely seems to have gone away from this and now seems to be concern for pollution on boundary roads - as if the people campaigning for LTNs aren’t also in favour of measures to reduce this eg. ULEZ etc 

It’s been exhausting how the opposition keeps coming up with changing concerns and bad faith arguments.

We should have been doing these measures decades ago like the Dutch but glad they’re becoming mainstream finally.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 10, 2022)

Looks like the council are looking to enforce advertising rules around the stop signs that people have put up.


----------



## nick (Jan 10, 2022)

I'm no fan of the antis, but if this is true I could see it being interpreted as "big brother" stomping on the face of the plucky democratic antis.

Surely the Stop LTN placards are a useful way to mark out the residents worth talking to if/when the authorities go round making enquiries about the repeated vandalism?


----------



## Winot (Jan 10, 2022)

Yeah agreed it’s a bad idea and just feeds into the paranoid persecution complex of the Onesies.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 10, 2022)

I agree ... but it may be that once someone reports it, Lambeth are obliged to treat it like any other planning enforcement enquiry and send a letter (whether or not they then go on to actually enforce it).


----------



## edcraw (Jan 10, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I agree ... but it may be that once someone reports it, Lambeth are obliged to treat it like any other planning enforcement enquiry and send a letter (whether or not they then go on to actually enforce it).


Good point - there's online reporting so that's probably more likely than the council doing it off it's own back:









						Reporting a board that breaches regulations
					

If you suspect that an estate agent board is being displayed outside of the regulations, you can report it to the Planning Enforcement Team. Contact the Planning Enforcement Team Online reporting form Email: planningenforcement@lambeth.gov.uk.




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## Jesterburger (Jan 10, 2022)

Most other sign boards (estate agent ones; party political ones at elections; school fairs) come down after the event ends.

If anyone is allowed to erect permanent signs for any reason without enforcement, then it opens chances for more people to do the same. So I agree that if people have complained the council really should treat it as a standard enforcement complaint otherwise it sets a precedent.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 10, 2022)

I thought it was going to be a road sign issue before I read the letter (that people might mistake this for an actual road sign). I also think it's a bad idea to stop people putting political placards up under advertising rules. Would be interesting to know if the council have had an outside complaint that they're required to act on.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 10, 2022)

BigTom said:


> I thought it was going to be a road sign issue before I read the letter (that people might mistake this for an actual road sign). I also think it's a bad idea to stop people putting political placards up under advertising rules. Would be interesting to know if the council have had an outside complaint that they're required to act on.





			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11499/326679.pdf
		


it looks like there is a very clear set of rules that allows estate agent signs (which are supposed to be taken down soon after sale), charity event adverts (for a limited period ) etc etc. even covers stuff like “beware of the dog“ signs.

political stuff seems to be covered by “Advertisements relating specifically to a pending Parliamentary, European Parliamentary, or local government election or a referendum. These advertisements must not be displayed more than 14 days after the close of the poll.”

these  don’t fall into any of the allowed categories as far as I can see


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11499/326679.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That’s true as it’s not an advertisement relating to an invitation to treat for specific services or to a formal political party and relating to a poll (which would have been implemented by legislation). It doesn’t fit into any of these categories because it isn’t an advertisement. 

A number of these letters have gone out. Not a single letter has gone out to anyone showing an “I love my LTN” sign. Both of these signs are just statements of how people feel about their neighbourhood (esp given that people have been encouraged decorate their planters with pro LTN slogans). Both should be allowed and I’m really surprised that Lambeth is actually spending time and effort on this.  It shows a myopic approach to local issues from the elected representatives


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Any of our resident onesies care to comment on this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’d be interested to see how this person got hold of this evidence/data as we’ve been told u see FOIs that the council are not allowed to share this under any circumstance as it contains third party information which is protected. Does anyone know esp as I think this tweet was from someone outside Lambeth. Would be interesting to know


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> A number of these letters have gone out. Not a single letter has gone out to anyone showing an “I love my LTN” sign. Both of these signs are just statements of how people feel about their neighbourhood (esp given that people have been encouraged decorate their planters with pro LTN slogans). Both should be allowed and I’m really surprised that Lambeth is actually spending time and effort on this.  It shows a myopic approach to local issues from the elected representatives


 I don't recall seeing any 'I love my LTN' signs in the same 'estate agent' signboards (please correct me if I'm wrong) plus none advertising a website to donate money or protest against the LTNs. 
Maybe this advertising is the difference??
Plus they've been up for ages so clearly not temporary


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> I don't recall seeing any 'I love my LTN' signs in the same 'estate agent' signboards (please correct me if I'm wrong) plus none advertising a website to donate money or protest against the LTNs.
> Maybe this advertising is the difference??


It’s not the signboard idea that makes a difference under the legislation. The advertising point relates to an “invitation to treat” to supply services of buy something. If this is the granular level of the issue which the council is trying to address one could argue that a “I love my LTN” is a political advertisement as it’s directly supporting the published political policy of the current ruling party in Lambeth. 

You just won’t agree in general as you’ll see it for one side and that’s fine. I’m just surprised and that the council is spending time and energy on this. Especially when they have spent more time directly interacting with people who have a sign up than disabled people they could actually help. Again, it’s just myopic and their time could be better spent elsewhere I suspect.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I’d be interested to see how this person got hold of this evidence/data as we’ve been told u see FOIs that the council are not allowed to share this under any circumstance as it contains third party information which is protected. Does anyone know esp as I think this tweet was from someone outside Lambeth. Would be interesting to know


If you’re referring to  “One example of this saw the Railton consultation receive over 600 responses submitted one after another from 3am until 1pm on one day – around one a minute for ten hours straight, all with identical formatting in the free text box asking for the first line of their address and no email address provided.”  that text is copied from the Lambeth Labour webpage linked above.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> I don't recall seeing any 'I love my LTN' signs in the same 'estate agent' signboards (please correct me if I'm wrong) plus none advertising a website to donate money or protest against the LTNs.
> Maybe this advertising is the difference??
> Plus they've been up for ages so clearly not temporary


Yes - only seen signs in windows in support for LTNs which are obviously different.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> If you’re referring to  “One example of this saw the Railton consultation receive over 600 responses submitted one after another from 3am until 1pm on one day – around one a minute for ten hours straight, all with identical formatting in the free text box asking for the first line of their address and no email address provided.”  that text is copied from the Lambeth Labour webpage linked above.


Thanks. I’ve asked for the data behind this and been told by the council that they were not able to to give any granular data behind the consultation results as it could result in third party data being given in breach of data protection. I then asked for how they were able to publish the data above, I’ve been told that they can’t tell me due to GDPR. Not sure how they can publish it but at the same time tell me that I can’t have the same (redacted) info due to gdpr.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I’d be interested to see how this person got hold of this evidence/data as we’ve been told u see FOIs that the council are not allowed to share this under any circumstance as it contains third party information which is protected. Does anyone know esp as I think this tweet was from someone outside Lambeth. Would be interesting to know


Are you commenting on the article by Danny Adilypour? What tweet are you referring to?

Someone obviously tried to send in a lot of fake consultation responses and the council are pointing this out.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Thanks. I’ve asked for the data behind this and been told by the council that they were not able to to give any granular data behind the consultation results as it could result in third party data being given in breach of data protection. I then asked for how they were able to publish the data above, I’ve been told that they can’t tell me due to GDPR. Not sure how they can publish it but at the same time tell me that I can’t have the same (redacted) info due to gdpr.


You're submitting FOIs about the fake responses? What do you think you'll find out?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Are you commenting on the article by Danny Adilypour? What tweet are you referring to?
> 
> Someone obviously tried to send in a lot of fake consultation responses and the council are pointing this out.


No, a tweet that came out from Enfield? at the same time/slightly beige this was published on the Lambeth website. I looked at how various responses could be filtered out and realised that if a husband and wife put exactly the same response in from the same IP address then both would be discounted as “suspicious” as they would have used the “other” box in the consultation. I noted that very similar/exactly the same responses from the same IP address which were plposiyive were not discounted as being “suspicious”. I there wanted to find out exactly how many of the Al responses in the “other” were discounted but was told that this information was not allowed to be released under GDPR (even in a redacted form). The information on the wedsitw is exactly the kind of thing I was asking for but was told the council can’t release it. I’m therefor trying to figure out why the information they are releasing is not covered by the same GDPR rules that they are relying on.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You're submitting FOIs about the fake responses? What do you think you'll find out?


Read below. The process of getting out responses includes anything in the other box from the same IP address. Therefore two people in a house who put the same response in the “other” category both had their responses discarded. I was asking how many times this happened. 

You say fake responses as anything in the”other” box from the same IP address was instantly treated as being “suspicious”. I’m just asking for the background data. Councils will normally make this available as a matter of course so that the process is transparent to all. Especially when there isn’t an ability to register a negative response without using a catch all “other” response.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

Seems rather like going down a rabbit hole tbh. After all it's been stated many times that the consultations aren't referendums but rather an opportunity to raise issues concerns and then up to the council to see what merit these have. Writing "REMOVE ALL LTNS" as seems to have been the copied script of ones from multiple IP addresses isn't really very helpful for a consultation.

Anyway, elections in May will give people the opportunity to show if they disagree with the councils approach.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> You say fake responses as anything in the”other” box from the same IP address was instantly treated as being “suspicious”. I’m just asking for the background data. Councils will normally make this available as a matter of course so that the process is transparent to all. Especially when there isn’t an ability to register a negative response without using a catch all “other” response.


I'm saying fake responses in relation to the 600 responses submitted one after another from 3am until 1pm on one day - that was what the original post you replied to was asking for comment on. Do you have a view on that?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

Steve Bird of the Telegraph has his usual measured response here:









						Council accused of acting like North Korea with threats against low traffic zone protester
					

Local authority in Lambeth demands that campaigner remove placard calling for end to road closures or face fines and legal action




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I'm saying fake responses in relation to the 600 responses submitted one after another from 3am until 1pm on one day - that was what the original post you replied to was asking for comment on. Do you have a view on that?


I can’t have a view on that as I’ve asked for the underlying data to show the responses but I’ve been told that the council is not allowed under the law to release this data. I’m therefore asking how they are now releasing this data showing that one IP address was submitting a reply once every minute for 10 hours straight. Furthermore, when they first released the consultation data they said they knocked out way more than 600 suspicious responses (all of which were “other” responses) and I’ve for this bit it’s ilegal to publish it.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s not the signboard idea that makes a difference under the legislation. The advertising point relates to an “invitation to treat” to supply services of buy something. If this is the granular level of the issue which the council is trying to address one could argue that a “I love my LTN” is a political advertisement as it’s directly supporting the published political policy of the current ruling party in Lambeth.


Estate agent style boards come within the scope of planning rules relating to adverts & signage, and things displayed inside windows generally don't.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> So is this appeal happening after all?




chowce5382 the appeal is going ahead today, is that right?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> chowce5382 the appeal is going ahead today, is that right?


Yup, starting at 10.30 today.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I can’t have a view on that as I’ve asked for the underlying data to show the responses but I’ve been told that the council is not allowed under the law to release this data. I’m therefore asking how they are now releasing this data showing that one IP address was submitting a reply once every minute for 10 hours straight. Furthermore, when they first released the consultation data they said they knocked out way more than 600 suspicious responses (all of which were “other” responses) and I’ve for this bit it’s ilegal to publish it.


Well of course they couldn't release underlying data as that would need to have IP addresses and presumably names & address. They haven't released anything like that - they're just stating what happened. Presumably  you just don't believe them - which okay, but sounds quite conspiratorial and along with accusations of acting like North Korea/Nazis/East Germany and ethnic cleansing all has got very very tiresome indeed.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well of course they couldn't release underlying data as that would need to have IP addresses and presumably names & address. They're have released anything like that - they're just stating what happened. Presumably  you just don't believe them - which okay, but sounds quite conspiratorial and along with accusations of acting like North Korea/Nazis/East Germany and ethnic cleansing all has got very very tiresome indeed.


You haven’t quite understood. The information they have published in the post to which we refer…I was told that it was unlawful to publish that information. On that basis I need to understand why they can’t publish all the information but redact to be in line with GDPR as they have with this esp given that only similar responses in the “other” box were discounted.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> You haven’t quite understood. The information they have published in the post to which we refer…I was told that it was unlawful to publish that information. On that basis I need to understand why they can’t publish all the information but redact to be in line with GDPR as they have with this esp given that only similar responses in the “other” box were discounted.


You're referring to this - yes?



> Sadly though, the consultations also saw concerted attempts at manipulation with blatant efforts to stop the council from really hearing people’s views by swamping the consultations with over 1,800 fake responses. This is something that has been seen repeatedly in consultations for active travel schemes across the country, as Newcastle City Council for one can testify.
> 
> One example of this saw the Railton consultation receive over 600 responses submitted one after another from 3am until 1pm on one day – around one a minute for ten hours straight, all with identical formatting in the free text box asking for the first line of their address and no email address provided.
> 
> To make matters worse, those responsible were apparently intent on distorting and misrepresenting the opinions of under-represented non-white and LGBTQ+ Lambeth residents, as they had recorded these fake responses as being almost entirely from people whose ethnicity was not white and who identified as LGBTQ+.



But your FOI was asking for underlying data - yes?


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Thanks. I’ve asked for the data behind this and been told by the council that they were not able to to give any granular data behind the consultation results as it could result in third party data being given in breach of data protection. I then asked for how they were able to publish the data above, I’ve been told that they can’t tell me due to GDPR. Not sure how they can publish it but at the same time tell me that I can’t have the same (redacted) info due to gdpr.


They can publish a summary because it includes no personally identifiable information. You've asked to see the underlying data - for that to be any use it would have to include IP addresses, and IP addresses are considered personally identifiable information under the GDPR regulations.  Thats why you're not getting anywhere.  If they released it sufficiently redacted to comply it wouldn't show you anything.


chowce5382 said:


> No, a tweet that came out from Enfield? at the same time/slightly beige this was published on the Lambeth website.


So your conspiracy is that someone posted something soon after it was published on a website (that doesn't seem to have a time of posting on it).  Even if it was prior to the website it is possible there may have been an email to party members beforehand.


chowce5382 said:


> Therefore two people in a house who put the same response in the “other” category both had their responses discarded. I was asking how many times this happened.


I can't find the link upthread to the council document but weren't there a load of other signs of fake responses being looked for - not filling in the whole survey, not submitting an email address, not completing the equalities section (or filling it in with contradictory responses that made no sense)? So basically people who were not participating in in good faith. Not surprising when OneLambeth were both telling people to fill in the consultation wherever they were and in the same sentence calling it a fake / sham.


----------



## DaphneM (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, starting at 10.30 today.


I hope you lose. Fingers crossed!


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You're referring to this - yes?
> 
> 
> 
> But your FOI was asking for underlying data - yes?


Yes, redacted. So without ip numbers, names or addresses to show the number of responses in each box. 

So, if you had two responses in a box which was a positive responses in the consultation from the same IP address, how many of those were discounted compared to those which were instantly treated as being “suspicious” (councils word not mine) which were from the same same IP address. No actual names, addresses or IP number required just number of responses. I was told that even this would breach GDPR. I made it very clear that no names, addresses or IP adressess/number were being requested and also clarified this subsequently.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> I hope you lose. Fingers crossed!


Correction - you hope that the disabled lady bringing the case loses.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Estate agent style boards come within the scope of planning rules relating to adverts & signage, and things displayed inside windows generally don't.




I don't know - looking at that doc it seems pretty much nothing visible externally is allowed.  _Most_ election posters are just stuck in windows in London (though in the country you see estate agent type signs stuck in gardens).  

I'd guess the reason letters have been sent is that maybe complaints have been made.  It's one thing to have a piece of paper stuck in a window but I could imagine neighbours getting sick of looking down the street or out of their window and seeing a load of those estate agents boards. Particularly given the consultations have ended and the schemes made permanent.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Correction - you hope that the disabled lady bringing the case loses.


If they win it's a victory for everyone against the LTN. If they lose it's a council bullying one woman.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes, redacted. So without ip numbers, names or addresses to show the number of responses in each box.
> 
> So, if you had two responses in a box which was a positive responses in the consultation from the same IP address, how many of those were discounted compared to those which were instantly treated as being “suspicious” (councils word not mine) which were from the same same IP address. No actual names, addresses or IP number required just number of responses. I was told that even this would breach GDPR. I made it very clear that no names, addresses or IP adressess/number were being requested and also clarified this subsequently.


If there weren’t any IP addresses how would you know they were the same?!

Think you’re on a wind up again like your “art installation”.

Frankly depressing how much effort some will put into opposing some frankly minor road changes. We’re completely fucked when it comes to climate change.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> If they win it's a victory for everyone against the LTN. If they lose it's a council bullying one woman.


No, it’s a victory for the lady bringing the case. It has ramifications for other vulnerable groups but it’s her victory.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> If there weren’t any IP addresses how would you know they were the same?!
> 
> Think you’re on a wind up again like your “art installation”.
> 
> Frankly depressing how much effort some will put into opposing some frankly minor road changes. We’re completely fucked when it comes to climate change.


Because the council can say they were the same without giving the actual address. That is what redacting information does.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yes, redacted. So without ip numbers, names or addresses to show the number of responses in each box.
> 
> So, if you had two responses in a box which was a positive responses in the consultation from the same IP address, how many of those were discounted compared to those which were instantly treated as being “suspicious” (councils word not mine) which were from the same same IP address. No actual names, addresses or IP number required just number of responses. I was told that even this would breach GDPR. I made it very clear that no names, addresses or IP adressess/number were being requested and also clarified this subsequently.


That's what they've already published - see this post








						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

The council is proposing to make Oval & Railton LTNs permanent!   https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/proposal-for-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-permanent/  And they're popular:   “After careful consideration of feedback, trip patterns and impacts the proposals include exceptions for Blue Badge holders who...




					www.urban75.net
				




The number excluded was in the report, and these are the reasons why they filtered them out.  You said you'd asked for 'underlying data' - without names/address/IP address all you'd have is a load of lines on a spreadsheet that looked exactly the same.



> "Sadly though, the consultations also saw concerted attempts at manipulation with blatant efforts to stop the council from really hearing people’s views by swamping the consultations with over 1,800 fake responses. "


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> That's what they've already published - see this post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I asked how many of those deleted were positive rather than negative responses (given that there were only positive / affirmatory boxes which could be checked) and was told that this information couldn’t be given. In effect, why can you publish the deleted responses that were “suspicious” but then not tell me how many positive responses were from the same IP address? It wouldn’t require any data subject to GDPR being handed over at all.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Because the council can say they were the same without giving the actual address. That is what redacting information does.


So you don't believe their statement but you'll believe them when they say redacted information is the same? Sounds frankly like you're wasting their time tbh. Again, all very depressing.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

You might as well share the response you received no?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> That's what they've already published - see this post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Having done quite a few of these and then splitting up the data into the various responses types it’s not difficult to do whilst also not breaching GDPR. That’s my point. Never mind.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> I don't know - looking at that doc it seems pretty much nothing visible externally is allowed.  _Most_ election posters are just stuck in windows in London (though in the country you see estate agent type signs stuck in gardens).


Things stuck in windows (on the inside of the glass) are excluded here



> Advertisements which are excluded from direct control
> There are 9 different classes of advertisement which are excluded from
> the direct control of the planning authority provided certain conditions
> are fulfilled. These categories are:


......


> 9. Advertisements displayed inside a building. These advertisements must
> not be illuminated or displayed within one metre of any window or
> other external opening through which they can be seen from outside
> the building (see illustrations 8 and 9 )


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You might as well share the response you received no?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 13, 2022)

The sad, desperate floundering of the anti mob is never ending.

“We want traffic data”

“Noooo, not that sort”

“We want pollution data”

“Noooo, not that sort”

“We want popularity data”

“Noooo, not that sort”

Again, and again, and again.

Just admit it, you don’t give a fuck about anything other than wanting to drive your car wherever and whenever the fuck you like, and then at least people could respect you for your honesty if nothing else.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Things stuck in windows (on the inside of the glass) are excluded here
> 
> 
> ......


thanks - I'd missed that.

FFS - telegraph sinks to a new low here I think with the "North Korea' line.  This is sub local paper stuff - it's very clear from that planning doc that you don't have a 'democratic right' to stick a sign in your front garden.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> View attachment 305703View attachment 305703View attachment 305703


That's not really what you said is it? Can you share the FOI request you made?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The sad, desperate floundering of the anti mob is never ending.
> 
> “We want traffic data”
> 
> ...


Good summary though think he's said he doesn't drive so seems like some anti-council/authority thing.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> That's not really what you said is it? Can you share the FOI request you made?


That’s the response I got which linked it to Environmental data as you can see. You’ve got the jisheng of it above. The responses from the consultation showing responses discarded by the council. Splitting them into other in the other box (from the same IP address) and positive responses from the same IP address. I then asked for a couple of further subdivisions without asking for names or GDPR sensitive info


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The sad, desperate floundering of the anti mob is never ending.
> 
> “We want traffic data”
> 
> ...


I don’t own a car. I walk or take public transport.


----------



## BusLanes (Jan 13, 2022)

I was quite surprised that there are rules about such signage. Whilst I don't particularly like such large signs all over the place, it didn't particularly bother me.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 13, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> I was quite surprised that there are rules about such signage. Whilst I don't particularly like such large signs all over the place, it didn't particularly bother me.



I'm not surprised there are rules, I just thought the political signage would have exemptions (and it should imo). idk whether having fundraising info on it changes it from being something political to something else.
I also wonder if there have been complaints which the council is legally required to act on if they receive them - if this is what has happened then it makes the whole North Korea thing even more laughable since this is a democratic mechanism that allows people to have some input or control over the local visual environment.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

BigTom said:


> I'm not surprised there are rules, I just thought the political signage would have exemptions (and it should imo). idk whether having fundraising info on it changes it from being something political to something else.
> I also wonder if there have been complaints which the council is legally required to act on if they receive them - if this is what has happened then it makes the whole North Korea thing even more laughable since this is a democratic mechanism that allows people to have some input or control over the local visual environment.


There are exemptions for political signage but needs to be removed 14days after an election etc. There's no active consultations on these and not in the area where the news article's about.

A good journalist would report on what the rules around signage are but then this is the Telegraph...


----------



## Rushy (Jan 13, 2022)

BigTom said:


> I'm not surprised there are rules, I just thought the political signage would have exemptions (and it should imo). idk whether having fundraising info on it changes it from being something political to something else.
> I also wonder if there have been complaints which the council is legally required to act on if they receive them - if this is what has happened then it makes the whole North Korea thing even more laughable since this is a democratic mechanism that allows people to have some input or control over the local visual environment.


It's somewhere in between. Councils are required to look into reported breaches but have discretion whether to take enforcement action. 

A breach of planning is not an offence until enforcement action is started and a time limit to conform with the requirements in the enforcement notice has expired.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 13, 2022)

Was watching a bit of the judicial review earlier, judge remarked that this might be academic as they are now permanent. Obviously there are a number that aren’t so that’s still in play


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 13, 2022)

I think a strategy of getting people to respond to a questionnaire with exactly the same responses even in free text fields is naive at best


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> There are exemptions for political signage but needs to be removed 14days after an election etc. There's no active consultations on these and not in the area where the news article's about.
> 
> A good journalist would report on what the rules around signage are but then this is the Telegraph...


I was unaware as well but if you dont' have fairly strict rules on advertising you end up with towns looking like US strip malls and risk every increasing 'battles of the signs' between neighbours.    Keeping visual clutter to a minimum is a good thing.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Was watching a bit of the judicial review earlier, judge remarked that this might be academic as they are now permanent. Obviously there are a number that aren’t so that’s still in play


This has been raised here many times & if true I wonder whether the law firm raised this with chowce5382 

Someone watching has said that they've said any ruling would be for Ferndale & Streatham Hill - is this true?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This has been raised here many times & if true I wonder whether the law firm raised this with chowce5382
> 
> Someone watching has said that they've said any ruling would be for Ferndale & Streatham Hill - is this true?


That’s what the “one” barrister said


----------



## DaphneM (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Correction - you hope that the disabled lady bringing the case loses.


that was surely implicit in what I said?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

Large protest just now outside the case…


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Large protest just now outside the case…
> 
> View attachment 305742


That's a bit unfair, it started at 1030am and it looks like there were 10 people there (if you count the photographer).  Though the banners seem to be completely at odds with the grounds the case is being argued on.   This seems to be back to 'dirty air for all'.


----------



## co-op (Jan 13, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Just admit it, you don’t give a fuck about anything other than wanting to drive your car wherever and whenever the fuck you like, and then at least people could respect you for your honesty if nothing else.



A bit like the anti-speed camera carheads - why don't they just campaign to get speed limits increased? Answer of course is that they know they'd lose any such campaign because people generally aren't keen on faster traffic (possible exception; maybe they'd get somewhere on speed limits for motorways or major A roads). 

So there's this whole hypocritical bullshit where they pretend that they hate speed cameras but not because they want to break the speed limit, when that's the only possible reason for becoming virulently against them. It's such nonsense.


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s not the signboard idea that makes a difference under the legislation. The advertising point relates to an “invitation to treat” to supply services of buy something. If this is the granular level of the issue which the council is trying to address one could argue that a “I love my LTN” is a political advertisement as it’s directly supporting the published political policy of the current ruling party in Lambeth.
> 
> You just won’t agree in general as you’ll see it for one side and that’s fine. I’m just surprised and that the council is spending time and energy on this. Especially when they have spent more time directly interacting with people who have a sign up than disabled people they could actually help. Again, it’s just myopic and their time could be better spent elsewhere I suspect.


Clearly, I don't make or enforce the rules, so was just speculating as to why the for and against signs had been treated differently.

I do actually agree with you, that this seems like a waste of Lambeth's time and energy and just stirs up more division, when it would be better for them and us to find a way to work together to get better outcomes for those already disadvantaged. Country wide it's looking increasingly that measures to reduce traffic impact (such as LTNs) are here to stay. They inconvenience anyone who uses a car of course - that's the point - but how to ensure that those inconveniences aren't insupportable to those already disadvantaged. I have no answer (or idea as yet), but this constant division - them and us - is not healthy or helping.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Clearly, I don't make or enforce the rules, so was just speculating as to why the for and against signs had been treated differently.
> 
> I do actually agree with you, that this seems like a waste of Lambeth's time and energy and just stirs up more division, when it would be better for them and us to find a way to work together to get better outcomes for those already disadvantaged. Country wide it's looking increasingly that measures to reduce traffic impact (such as LTNs) are here to stay. They inconvenience anyone who uses a car of course - that's the point - but how to ensure that those inconveniences aren't insupportable to those already disadvantaged. I have no answer (or idea as yet), but this constant division - them and us - is not healthy or helping.


I agree. These issues are polarising politics and, frankly, the benefit doesn’t outweight the polarisation. We can see it in todays politics where conservative ministers are condoning the indefensible. Starting to feel a bit like the US in that respect.

In any event, I feel the balance must be struck in favour of those for whom motorised access is important due to their circumstances/vulnerability. For people like me, you should just walk or take public transport.


----------



## BusLanes (Jan 13, 2022)

The election coming up is a good reason to keep those signs up - but then there may be electoral rules that govern campaigns by non party groups, so they may want to check those too


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 13, 2022)

They can replace them with Workers Party placards.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

co-op said:


> A bit like the anti-speed camera carheads - why don't they just campaign to get speed limits increased? Answer of course is that they know they'd lose any such campaign because people generally aren't keen on faster traffic (possible exception; maybe they'd get somewhere on speed limits for motorways or major A roads).
> 
> So there's this whole hypocritical bullshit where they pretend that they hate speed cameras but not because they want to break the speed limit, when that's the only possible reason for becoming virulently against them. It's such nonsense.


Except what he says above is not correct


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> That's a bit unfair, it started at 1030am and it looks like there were 10 people there (if you count the photographer).  Though the banners seem to be completely at odds with the grounds the case is being argued on.   This seems to be back to 'dirty air for all'.
> 
> View attachment 305743


There were strict restrictions on the number of peope who could turn up.

Also, for those of you always saying “it’s the motor lobby” look at the people in the photo. These are the women who have done 90% of the work on this and nearly all of them have done so because they have someone who is “vulnerable” and impacted by LTNs


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This has been raised here many times & if true I wonder whether the law firm raised this with chowce5382
> 
> Someone watching has said that they've said any ruling would be for Ferndale & Streatham Hill - is this true?


As I’ve said all along with JR SR cases, the relief granted is up to the judge. Is not the same as a criminal case with a jury


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> There were strict restrictions on the number of peope who could turn up.
> 
> Also, for those of you always saying “it’s the motor lobby” look at the people in the photo. These are the women who have done 90% of the work on this and nearly all of them have done so because they have someone who is “vulnerable” and impacted by LTNs


The banner & signs aren't about this though which is surely telling. One of them is also a taxi driver.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> There were strict restrictions on the number of peope who could turn up.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> View attachment 305756
> 
> View attachment 305755





edcraw said:


> The banner & signs aren't about this though which is surely telling. One of them is also a taxi driver.


Yup. One bloke. The rest are as I’ve said above, so that’s 90% who aren’t “the motor lobby”


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup. One bloke. The rest are as I’ve said above, so that’s 90% who aren’t “the motor lobby”


Women can't be part of the motor lobby or taxi drivers?

The signs are pretty clear what they're campaigning for - getting rid of LTNs - no mention of this in the court case today, in fact your barrister seems to be a fan on LTNs.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Women can't be part of the motor lobby or taxi drivers?
> 
> The signs are pretty clear what they're campaigning for - getting rid of LTNs - no mention of this in the court case today, in fact your barrister seems to be a fan on LTNs.


Because this is an appeal Ed. It’s not a rerun of the previous case. In any event, this wouldn’t be pertinent to the case. You can believe that these women are part of the motor lobby if you want that to be your convenient truth.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Because this is an appeal Ed. It’s not a rerun of the previous case. In any event, this wouldn’t be pertinent to the case. You can believe that these women are part of the motor lobby if you want that to be your convenient truth.


You really don't make a lot of sense, It's an appeal so their signs shouldn't mention what the case is actually about?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You really don't make a lot of sense, It's an appeal so their signs shouldn't mention what the case is actually about?


You said “getting rid of LTNs - no mention of this in the court case today”. I pointed out that’s it’s the appeal and so this isn’t pertinent as it’s looking at the relevant merits of a previous decision. The appeal court are looking at those merits and so the basis of the decision. I’m not sure why you think that this would be brought up unless you don’t know how the court of appeal works. This would be understandable given it’s quite technical. As I’ve said, relief is at the gift of the judge and will depend on their decision


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> You said “getting rid of LTNs - no mention of this in the court case today”. I pointed out that’s it’s the appeal and so this isn’t pertinent as it’s looking at the relevant merits of a previous decision. The appeal court are looking at those merits and so the basis of the decision. I’m not sure why you think that this would be brought up unless you don’t know how the court of appeal works. This would be understandable given it’s quite technical. As I’ve said, relief is at the gift of the judge and will depend on their decision


oh ffs - that's the point. The OneLambeth group are saying "No to LTNs" & "remove road closures" which isn't what the court case is about. You're claiming they're solely focused on the needs of people with disabilities, they are demonstrably not.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

Anyone that thinks this is a good use of £50k is probably a lawyer.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> oh ffs - that's the point. The OneLambeth group are saying "No to LTNs" & "remove road closures" which isn't what the court case is about. You're claiming they're solely focused on the needs of people with disabilities, they are demonstrably not.


I was pointing to the people in the photo and said that they weren’t the motor lobby and were there as they all had a reason based on protecting those that are “vulnerable”. So the peope in the photo are there for the exact reason the court case was brought about. Unless you know them better than I do. I which case I’m happy for you to tell me their reasons for being there.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Anyone that thinks this is a good use of £50k is probably a lawyer.


Not sure why you give a fuck really. If it’s  upheld you’re happy. If it’s overturned, you’re also happy as it will mean that the council is reminded that it has to operate within the confines of the law. You win either way Ed


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I was pointing to the people in the photo and said that they weren’t the motor lobby and were there as they all had a reason based on protecting those that are “vulnerable”. So the peope in the photo are there for the exact reason the court case was brought about. Unless you know them better than I do. I which case I’m happy for you to tell me their reasons for being there.


Oh sorry - I was going by what the signs they were holding up were saying. My bad.



chowce5382 said:


> Not sure why you give a fuck really. If it’s  upheld you’re happy. If it’s overturned, you’re also happy as it will mean that the council is reminded that it has to operate within the confines of the law. You win either way Ed


So you're agree this wouldn't stop LTNs. Maybe update your fundraising page then "An appeal win could influence how LTNs are implemented across London and other UK cities, and even whether the schemes are allowed to continue."


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Oh sorry - I was going by what the signs they were holding up were saying. My bad.
> 
> 
> So you're agree this wouldn't stop LTNs. Maybe update your fundraising page then "An appeal win could influence how LTNs are implemented across London and other UK cities, and even whether the schemes are allowed to continue."


I’ll feed back your concerns.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Not sure why you give a fuck really. If it’s  upheld you’re happy. If it’s overturned, you’re also happy as it will mean that the council is reminded that it has to operate within the confines of the law. You win either way Ed


We definitely care because it's our Council tax money being wasted.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 13, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> We definitely care because it's our Council tax money being wasted.


As I’ve said, if it’s overturned then it will
Mean the council don’t put themselves in a similar situation again and the save money. 

Remember that Lambeth have form here and have had to pay out millions in damages. You should probably worry about those cases too.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 13, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Remember that Lambeth have form here and have had to pay out millions in damages.


Any chance of you being more specific here and the exact parallels between a case where a couple of roads are filtered and the one you're referring to?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

Notice the fundraiser is still short. Hope Sofia isn’t liable for the shortfall. Do you know what happens chowce5382 ?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Notice the fundraiser is still short. Hope Sofia isn’t liable for the shortfall. Do you know what happens chowce5382 ?


Think I read somewhere that they have until February 4th to raise the money


----------



## alex_ (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> thanks - I'd missed that.
> 
> FFS - telegraph sinks to a new low here I think with the "North Korea' line.  This is sub local paper stuff - it's very clear from that planning doc that you don't have a 'democratic right' to stick a sign in your front garden.



 Lambeth are just spinning up the execution squads and gulags, and they’ll be right on it next week.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> thanks - I'd missed that.
> 
> FFS - telegraph sinks to a new low here I think with the "North Korea' line.  This is sub local paper stuff - it's very clear from that planning doc that you don't have a 'democratic right' to stick a sign in your front garden.
> View attachment 305704


You could almost make a film about this kind of stuff.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 13, 2022)

.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 13, 2022)

Raising £50k to keep the status quo…









						Londoners told to reduce physical activity on Friday due to pollution
					

Government advises older people and those with lung or heart issues to avoid strenuous activity altogether




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Raising £50k to keep the status quo…
> 
> 
> 
> ...


BUT I _NEED_ MY CAR etc etc


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 14, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I was pointing to the people in the photo and said that they weren’t the motor lobby and were there as they all had a reason based on protecting those that are “vulnerable”. So the peope in the photo are there for the exact reason the court case was brought about. Unless you know them better than I do. I which case I’m happy for you to tell me their reasons for being there.


It's great to see these people coming together with a common purpose to improve conditions for the vulnerable.  There have been lots of OneLambeth complaints, and mention in the court, that not enough groups representing people with disabilities were consulted ahead of the implementation of the LTNs.  I guess the reality will show over time - whether these individuals will now be volunteering with one or more of the existing groups, or forming a new local body to lobby the council for a range of improvements to the area to benefit people with disabilities. Or whether their only interest and concern is over LTNs and their freedom to drive everywhere by the shortest route.   That the banners they're holding up seem unrelated to the case doesn't seem a good sign.

The original OneLambeth morphed into a general 'anti-council' / referendum on committee council campaign and seems to have dropped any concern about LTNs, traffic or pollution at all. Their new twitter account is languishing on just 122 followers and their petition seems to have barely moved in months - it's still under 700 when I think they need something like 15000.  Maybe theres a big push coming  over the 3 remaining months.

Are the remaining OneLambeth planning to run any candidates for the council elections? Putting up some single issue councillor candidates would seem a clear way of showing the degree of opposition to the current council Transport Strategy.  The official Twitter account keeps posting 'vote them out in May' messages - so is anyone running? While Tim Briggs has done a lot to court  attention he's in a ward that doesn't have an LTN (though of course he wants to deliver one there for his residents who are plagued by rat running to shortcut between the A205 and A3) and from what I've seen OneLambeths supporters largely claim to be Labour supporters so seems a big ask to get them to vote for a Conservative candidate (especially given the current performance the Government)


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 14, 2022)

If Boris goes, so may the LTN ideas. Green issues not conservative apparently


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 14, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It's great to see these people coming together with a common purpose to improve conditions for the vulnerable.  There have been lots of OneLambeth complaints, and mention in the court, that not enough groups representing people with disabilities were consulted ahead of the implementation of the LTNs.  I guess the reality will show over time - whether these individuals will now be volunteering with one or more of the existing groups, or forming a new local body to lobby the council for a range of improvements to the area to benefit people with disabilities. Or whether their only interest and concern is over LTNs and their freedom to drive everywhere by the shortest route.   That the banners they're holding up seem unrelated to the case doesn't seem a good sign.
> 
> The original OneLambeth morphed into a general 'anti-council' / referendum on committee council campaign and seems to have dropped any concern about LTNs, traffic or pollution at all. Their new twitter account is languishing on just 122 followers and their petition seems to have barely moved in months - it's still under 700 when I think they need something like 15000.  Maybe theres a big push coming  over the 3 remaining months.
> 
> Are the remaining OneLambeth planning to run any candidates for the council elections? Putting up some single issue councillor candidates would seem a clear way of showing the degree of opposition to the current council Transport Strategy.  The official Twitter account keeps posting 'vote them out in May' messages - so is anyone running? While Tim Briggs has done a lot to court  attention he's in a ward that doesn't have an LTN (though of course he wants to deliver one there for his residents who are plagued by rat running to shortcut between the A205 and A3) and from what I've seen OneLambeths supporters largely claim to be Labour supporters so seems a big ask to get them to vote for a Conservative candidate (especially given the current performance the Government)


Para 1:  it seems it's not enough to support this movement. You need to support others in the future for you to think  the present cae is an acceptable criticism

Para 2: the original “anti cabinet” movement got the requested number of signatories. They were then told that e-signatories don’t count during covid. They were therefore told to get “ink” signatories during lockdown. Not sure why the cabinet would accept this I the first place. They reached the requested number but the council decided to ignore.

Para 3: i think that there are some people who would want to stand. They would do so to be able to represent their constituents. Having said that, unless you’re in the cabinet you don’t actually have a vote, so, whilst you can be elected, you’re not actually allowed to properly represent your community. Only the cabinet can vote. Other councillors can represent but without the ability to democratically vote for change.

Finally, a number of people who might stand feel that, as Labour voters all their life, the coucil doesn’t represent them. As you say, the tories don’t either. I completely get that. However, we all remember the racist LLC member who was was part of the group pushing LTNs. He lost his job for being racist, and , even after that, tried to get back on Twitter using his wife’s name. I’m sure we can agree that we don’t want these nasty little racsists around.  In Lambeth, we then have a mayor how has resigned for the same issue. Lambeth seem to have a blind spot. I’m sure you don’t,and so could understand why, people would think twice about standing for a council position in which they are unable to democratically represent their ward and where there is this kind of issue.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 14, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> . However, we all remember the racist LLC member who was was part of the group pushing LTNs. He lost his job for being racist, and , even after that, tried to get back on Twitter using his wife’s name. I’m sure we can agree that we don’t want these nasty little racsists around.



so you think we should vote for people supporting a group who has compared LTNs to the holocaust on their official twitter feed.  You can fuck right off getting on your high horse about this whilst the organisation you are the treasurer of puts out all sorts of things on its twitter feed, the mentioned one which imo is anti-semitic as is basically holocaust denial.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 15, 2022)

Para 1. We will see. You clearly think none of them will hang around. LTNs are one part of making the city less car dominated - you won’t find many arguing for them who aren’t arguing for other stuff too. So it would be odd for all of these people who care deeply about disabled issues only to be concerned as far as they relate to getting LTNs removed.

Para 2 that’s odd - they were pushing the e-petition on twitter as recently as two days ago.

Para 3. So I’ll take that as a “no”. None of you actually have the balls to put yourself forward.

And then the usual desperate ad hom attacks that just make you look a dick.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 15, 2022)

BigTom said:


> so you think we should vote for people supporting a group who has compared LTNs to the holocaust on their official twitter feed.  You can fuck right off getting on your high horse about this whilst the organisation you are the treasurer of puts out all sorts of things on its twitter feed, the mentioned one which imo is anti-semitic as is basically holocaust denial.


As I’ve always said, I don’t put anything out on Twitter and I’ve just explained why people are unwilling to stand so I’m not asking you to vote for anyone


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 15, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Para 1. We will see. You clearly think none of them will hang around. LTNs are one part of making the city less car dominated - you won’t find many arguing for them who aren’t arguing for other stuff too. So it would be odd for all of these people who care deeply about disabled issues only to be concerned as far as they relate to getting LTNs removed.
> 
> Para 2 that’s odd - they were pushing the e-petition on twitter as recently as two days ago.
> 
> ...


Para 1 the point is that none of these people are politicians and never had any intention of being so. They are fighting against this because it has made a demonstrable difference to their lives and the lives of family who are in that vulnerable category.

On the e-petition, I believe they are trying both routes now but are still being told that, on this subject, an e-petition is not enough.

So you think it’s about balls, it’s mainly about not being able to actually change anything as, even if you’re a councillor, your vote means nothing. It’s a very strange system in that respect.

Lastly, the racist thing does make a difference to people thinking that they might be able to change something. They look at the council and think it’s rotten, just like the government. I understand it a difficult point for you given that you’re one of the people mentioned. Good to see that the training hasn’t made a difference and you think that people bringing it up are just being dicks. Don’t know if you made an apology but I assume the above completely cuts across that…


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Para 1:  it seems it's not enough to support this movement. You need to support others in the future for you to think  the present cae is an acceptable criticism
> 
> Para 2: the original “anti cabinet” movement got the requested number of signatories. They were then told that e-signatories don’t count during covid. They were therefore told to get “ink” signatories during lockdown. Not sure why the cabinet would accept this I the first place. They reached the requested number but the council decided to ignore.
> 
> ...


OneLambeth member trying to take moral high ground! 

You’re not standing any candidates because, sensibly, you know there actually aren’t any votes in it.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> OneLambeth member trying to take moral high ground!
> 
> You’re not standing any candidates because, sensibly, you know there actually aren’t any votes in it.


Or even if they did win a seat, they don’t even have a vote. Love that you guys think this is a sensible way to govern. I suggest that we should take votes away from all PMs and just allow the cabinet to make decisions.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Or even if they did win a seat, they don’t even have a vote. Love that you guys think this is a sensible way to govern. I suggest that we should take votes away from all PMs and just allow the cabinet to make decisions.


You obviously know more about this then me but if OneLambeth won a majority of seats you could do whatever you wanted! £50k would have been quite a fighting fund.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 15, 2022)

But we aren’t a political part or movement and £50k would, in any event, be nothing as compared to major political parties.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> But we aren’t a political part or movement and £50k would, in any event, be nothing as compared to major political parties.


Not true - spending limits mean you could have fielded tons of candidates.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not true - spending limits mean you could have fielded tons of candidates.
> 
> View attachment 305975


But we aren’t a party or a political movement Ed. I think I’ve said this before


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> But we aren’t a party or a political movement Ed. I think I’ve said this before.


Really not sure what you are Charlie - especially as you seem to distance yourself from your Twitter account & Facebook page. 

What’s the end game if you’re not looking to do this via democratic means & you’ve said the court case won’t remove the LTNs?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> As I’ve always said, I don’t put anything out on Twitter and I’ve just explained why people are unwilling to stand so I’m not asking you to vote for anyone


Fine you're not asking for votes but you still want people to support the organisation you are the treasurer of whose racist Twitter feed puts out racist tweets and you have the gall to have a go at Lambeth council because the employee of a completely different organisation  had some racist tweets on their personal twitter feed.

 Meanwhile your organisation is putting out racist tweets on its own official Twitter feed.

If you cared about racism you would have dissasociated yourself from the Twitter feed or removed the person who does run it from doing so.

You haven't so you are good with it. Good with anti semitism. Why would anyone want to support a racist organisation? Why are you an official of such a racist organisation?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 15, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Fine you're not asking for votes but you still want people to support the organisation you are the treasurer of whose racist Twitter feed puts out racist tweets and you have the gall to have a go at Lambeth council because the employee of a completely different organisation  had some racist tweets on their personal twitter feed.
> 
> Meanwhile your organisation is putting out racist tweets on its own official Twitter feed.
> 
> ...


I have continuously disassociated myself from it and don’t even follow it. As far as I know, none of the tweets have been reported for racism yet two of the people who helped implement LTNs in Lambeth have both now resigned due to racist tweets.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I have continuously disassociated myself from it and don’t even follow it. As far as I know, none of the tweets have been reported for racism yet two of the people who helped implement LTNs in Lambeth have both now resigned due to racist tweets.


So you are no longer the treasurer for the organisation and fundraising campaign that Twitter feed represents?

Because as long as you remain part of it you are associating yourself with it freely and gladly.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

BigTom said:


> So you are no longer the treasurer for the organisation and fundraising campaign that Twitter feed represents?
> 
> Because as long as you remain part of it you are associating yourself with it freely and gladly.


He personally knows the person running the account so just doesn’t care.

Happy to sling mud at people that have resigned when done wrong but taking no responsibility for his own organisation. Philip Normal raised £500k for an aids charity not £50k to maintain dangerous rat running.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> He personally knows the person running the account so just doesn’t care.
> 
> Happy to sling mud at people that have resigned when done wrong but taking no responsibility for his own organisation. Philip Normal raised £500k for an aids charity not £50k to maintain dangerous rat running.


Yup, because this case is all about “rat running” isn’t it 🙄


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I have continuously disassociated myself from it and don’t even follow it.


But are happy for it to be the official mouthpiece of the group of which you're part. Or at least not bothered enough to insist that maybe the group you're a part of has an official account that _isn't_ a constant mine of hate, abuse, nutty conspiracy theories and bad taste takes.

basically - that’s you that is.

By implication, happy with the

stalking,  threats and misogynistic abuse (which have involved Police on a number of occasions, including the person who runs the social media)
abuse of peoples partners and friends
£100k+of criminal damage
dumping of engine oil on the street, sorry “art project”
plant poisoning and vandalism of community gardening projects

all of which the group has either condoned or excused over the last 18 months.

Very keen on collective guilt and responsibility for others , however far in the past. But ongoing shittiness from your friends? Just fine.


----------



## lblres (Jan 15, 2022)

whoever does run the account seems to live either on the edge of the Oval to Stockwell triangle or just outside.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

lblres said:


> View attachment 306080View attachment 306081
> 
> whoever does run the account seems to live either on the edge of the Oval to Stockwell triangle or just outside.


Makes sense they seem to take a special interest (ie continual personal attacks) a couple that campaigned for the scheme there.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, because this case is all about “rat running” isn’t it 🙄


In a nutshell, yes. If a city requires residential streets to be full of traffic then it shows a complete failure of the transport system/infrastructure and it needs fixing.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

By way of comparison to the £50k raised to stop rat running the local Tulse Hill group in support of the LTN spent about £300 to print leaflets on 2 occasions that were designed by volunteers & distributed by volunteers to every household in the ward.


----------



## BusLanes (Jan 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Makes sense they seem to take a special interest (ie continual personal attacks) a couple that campaigned for the scheme there.



Yes I believe they had to call the police


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Yes I believe they had to call the police


The anger and hatred is pretty much one way. And when senior figures in organisations don’t condemn it, it only encourages it. (Cue examples of someone removing one of those signs or apparently having nails put under their tyres).

tbh I kind of understand it - people have spent significant amounts of their income on buying/financing a car whilst it’s bloody cheap to use it, so any restriction means they get angry but they need to realise how their convenience affects others.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 15, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> But are happy for it to be the official mouthpiece of the group of which you're part. Or at least not bothered enough to insist that maybe the group you're a part of has an official account that _isn't_ a constant mine of hate, abuse, nutty conspiracy theories and bad taste takes.
> 
> basically - that’s you that is.
> 
> ...



Great post - the guy funds anti semites.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 15, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Yes I believe they had to call the police











						The new road rage: bitter rows break out over UK’s low-traffic neighbourhoods
					

As barriers and signs go up to stop rat runs and promote cycling and walking, communities are deeply divided over the benefits




					theguardian.com
				





> The police confirm officers spoke to one person after pictures were taken outside the homes of members of a local residents’ association, which supports the Oval scheme. The photos were later shared from a now deleted Twitter account that also referred to: “ignorant ivory tower wealthy finger pointing arseholes”






lblres said:


> View attachment 306080View attachment 306081
> 
> whoever does run the account seems to live either on the edge of the Oval to Stockwell triangle or just outside.


Looks like the person who runs the account is probably  “Sam Cooray, who lives on the border of the scheme” in that piece.

Still talking about “ivory towers” and posting pics of that couple too.

“Good people on both sides” I think the phrase is.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> The new road rage: bitter rows break out over UK’s low-traffic neighbourhoods
> 
> 
> As barriers and signs go up to stop rat runs and promote cycling and walking, communities are deeply divided over the benefits
> ...


This “ivory towers” & “private roads” narrative is just crazy. Car ownership in our areas is so low and the most well off are far more likely to own cars and so are the ones polluting us all.

So many people just can’t believe that the majority of Lambeth households don’t have cars - which just shows what a bubble they’re living in.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 15, 2022)

Seriously chowce5382 - what’s the plan if the court case won’t remove the LTNs, they’re made permanent (as 2 have already) with blue badge exemptions and you’re not interested in the local elections?

Is there a plan?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Great post - the guy funds anti semites.


Not quite sure how paying for legal services is funding anti-semites. Unless of course you’re publicly saying that the law firm, barrister and Sofia are all anti-Semitic. Quite a bold statement to make


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Seriously chowce5382 - what’s the plan if the court case won’t remove the LTNs, they’re made permanent (as 2 have already) with blue badge exemptions and you’re not interested in the local elections?
> 
> Is there a plan?


As I’ve said at the very beginning, this is all about the legal position for me which is why I’m supporting and advocating and raising for a legal challenge which is now with the court of appeal. 

People will have to decide what they want to do next and whether the single gate exemption is enough. I’m not standing for local elections, I don’t have time therefore it wouldn’t be appropriate.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Not quite sure how paying for legal services is funding anti-semites. Unless of course you’re publicly saying that the law firm, barrister and Sofia are all anti-Semitic. Quite a bold statement to make


How do you feel about calling LTNs “ethnic cleansing”?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> How do you feel about calling LTNs “ethnic cleansing”?


You’ve asked me this exact question before. I’ve said on a few occasions that is not language that I would use for a number of reasons but primarily that I’m a student of history and understand what that phrase means and can contextualise it. 

You can go back to the previous conversations we’ve had about this.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> You’ve asked me this exact question before. I’ve said on a few occasions that is not language that I would use for a number of reasons but primarily that I’m a student of history and understand what that phrase means and can contextualise it.
> 
> You can go back to the previous conversations we’ve had about this.


Well you might want to share your views & educate some of the people you just mentioned. It also doesn’t seem the issue is just about disability rights for them if they’re using that phrase.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well you might want to share your views & educate some of the people you just mentioned. It also doesn’t seem the issue is just about disability rights for them if they’re using that phrase.


Who did I just mention that I need to educate? I don’t hold out much help of educating adults.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Who did I just mention that I need to educate? I don’t hold out much help of educating adults.


I wouldn’t like to name them here but it’s a small group so I’m sure you can find out.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I wouldn’t like to name them here but it’s a small group so I’m sure you can find out.


“Educate people”
“Who”
“Not going to tell you”

Helpful


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

if you cared you’d work it out.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 16, 2022)

Sunday papers are reporting that due to partygate, Tories are on course to lose control of both Wandsworth and Westminster councils. That could have quite an impact on schemes moving forward if that happens


----------



## BusLanes (Jan 16, 2022)

Having lived in Wandsworth I don't think Conservatives are likely to lose. People seem happy to vote Labour at Westminster and Conservative at council. Labour also just won a by election by Balham/Streatham by one vote a few weeks back, where last two times they easily won it. Although I guess that predates Party gate


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 16, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Having lived in Wandsworth I don't think Conservatives are likely to lose. People seem happy to vote Labour at Westminster and Conservative at council. Labour also just won a by election by Balham/Streatham by one vote a few weeks back, where last two times they easily won it. Although I guess that predates Party gate


I’d not take much from that by-election result. 21% turnout vs 46% in 2018.

national polls are looking very different to 2018 right now, and even to the position in November.


----------



## BusLanes (Jan 16, 2022)

Sure but national polls don't always indicate local results. Wandsworth hasn't gone Labour for decades despite polls indicating Conservative collapse at various points.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

yeah - can’t see Wandsworth or Westminster changing but wondering how Tim Briggs campaign against the “woke” will play out in Clapham. What a lovely man.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 16, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Sure but national polls don't always indicate local results. Wandsworth hasn't gone Labour for decades despite polls indicating Conservative collapse at various points.


But can see why it’s considered in play


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 16, 2022)

googled Sam Cooray and looks like she’s a Paediatrics Doctor. Not a good look.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2022)

I don't think it's a very good idea to start trying to identify individuals unless you are absolutely certain you've got the right person and even then I'm not sure it's an especially helpful move.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2022)

The argument can be won on its own merits and arguably it already has been in Lambeth. This is just tit for tat smear tactics.  It's not necessary.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 16, 2022)

Was just trying to help out as whatshisname had always said he’d no idea who in the tiny OneLambeth group was dealing with the social media. Happy for the mods to remove so long as they’re consistent and take out all the other personal stuff across this thread and Buzz.  But I’ve not said anything nasty about her.

In any case, Sam was happy to put herself out there as a onesie spokesperson and be photographed at the court, posting her photo on the OneLambeth twitter. This just connects the dots and I’m a strong believer that you shouldn’t say anything online that you’d not say in person (though accept many of us may have said things that we don’t actually believe in anger or to get a reaction at times).


----------



## BusLanes (Jan 16, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> But can see why it’s considered in play View attachment 306177



Oh sure but compared to 2018 Labour has better polling but so far as I can tell from local Labour pals they won't have the volunteers.

I used to go via Clapham Junction in 18 quite regularly and it was quite impressive how much effort Labour threw at the election. I remember once walking past a car park where there were hundreds of volunteers getting fired up by Owen Jones. I don't think that this is likely to happen again.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 16, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Oh sure but compared to 2018 Labour has better polling but so far as I can tell from local Labour pals they won't have the volunteers.
> 
> I used to go via Clapham Junction in 18 quite regularly and it was quite impressive how much effort Labour threw at the election. I remember once walking past a car park where there were hundreds of volunteers getting fired up by Owen Jones. I don't think that this is likely to happen again.


The enthusiasm for Corbyn got Labour groups a huge number of feet on the ground. But he was such a polarising figure I suspect Corbynite door knockers weren’t likely to convert many wavering Tory voters.


----------



## BusLanes (Jan 16, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> The enthusiasm for Corbyn got Labour groups a huge number of feet on the ground. But he was such a polarising figure I suspect Corbynite door knockers weren’t likely to convert many wavering Tory voters.



Oh sure but raw numbers has a power of its own.

I did some canvassing one local election for a Labour pal and it having hundreds of people knocking doors of identified Labour voters seemed to work


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> if you cared you’d work it out.


Strong response Ed. Given you’ve mentioned them you could follow up. If you don’t want to, fine.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> yeah - can’t see Wandsworth or Westminster changing but wondering how Tim Briggs campaign against the “woke” will play out in Clapham. What a lovely man.


If you were to talk to him, he’s decent and willing to have a sensible debate. Whether you want to or not is another matter and up to you


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 16, 2022)

I imagine he's willing to have a debate, sure.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I imagine he's willing to have a debate, sure.


So, he’s willing to talk a about the issue. Is that good or bad?


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Is that good or bad?


A wee chat with the guy who described a couple of traffic management schemes as "eugenics" until he was told to take the post down? I don't think I'm going to pick "good".


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> If you were to talk to him, he’s decent and willing to have a sensible debate. Whether you want to or not is another matter and up to you


I have talked to him - he denied climate change was a thing 🤦‍♂️

Anyone that uses the word woke is a fucking idiot (and probably a bigot).


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Was just trying to help out as whatshisname had always said he’d no idea who in the tiny OneLambeth group was dealing with the social media. Happy for the mods to remove so long as they’re consistent and take out all the other personal stuff across this thread and Buzz.  But I’ve not said anything nasty about her.
> 
> In any case, Sam was happy to put herself out there as a onesie spokesperson and be photographed at the court, posting her photo on the OneLambeth twitter. This just connects the dots and I’m a strong believer that you shouldn’t say anything online that you’d not say in person (though accept many of us may have said things that we don’t actually believe in anger or to get a reaction at times).


It's fairly clear that chowce5382 has decided he's not going to get drawn into criticising or defending the one Lambeth Twitter account. I think we can assume that he knows who it is, or would be able to find out. From this we can all draw our own conclusions. The fact that the various people arguing on that side are not all comfortable with each other's positions doesn't necessarily detract from the arguments behind any of those positions, but it does give me confidence that they don't collectively represent anything that amounts to a majority view, and that the opposition to the LTNs comes from a smaller portion of the population than might sometimes appear to be the case.

If there were a large number of people with a strong argument then I think we would see them, and they would be distancing themselves from the kind of stuff that's been posted on that Twitter account, because there would be enough people not wanting their names to be associated with it.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> If you were to talk to him, he’s decent and willing to have a sensible debate.


Not my experience when I tried it once some time back under my real name on Facebook. He's disengenous and evasive. Maybe he was just having a bad several days though.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Strong response Ed. Given you’ve mentioned them you could follow up. If you don’t want to, fine.


DM sent though don’t think you do care.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> googled Sam Cooray and looks like she’s a Paediatrics Doctor. Not a good look.
> View attachment 306180
> 
> View attachment 306179


For what purpose?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> A wee chat with the guy who described a couple of traffic management schemes as "eugenics" until he was told to take the post down? I don't think I'm going to pick "good".


But you could talk to him and engage. If you don’t want or you can’t. Also, using eugenics as a reason probably isn’t bright


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Also, using eugenics as a reason probably isn’t bright


Isn’t bright!? It’s fucking offensive.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> But you could talk to him and engage.


The guy was happy to stand up in a council meeting and misrepresent the wording in a council report to claim that traffic had gone up on a road when it had actually gone down. Is engaging him with some convincing evidence going to help? It hasn't worked with you.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Isn’t bright!? It’s fucking offensive.


Of course it is. There are some great Labour politicians who were huge fans of eugenics.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Of course it is. There are some great Labour politicians who were huge fans of eugenics.


? Starting to think your opposition to LTNs is more political than anything.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> If you were to talk to him, he’s decent and willing to have a sensible debate. Whether you want to or not is another matter and up to you


This is the guy who has an eviction company and denies systematic racism?.

And who also wants an LTN for his bit of Clapham? (Page 11)


			https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s120925/1.%20Motions%20-%20October%202020%20with%20Amendments.pdf


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

This narrative of private roads with million pound houses shows how much these people know about our areas. Pretty sure Cristo lives on an actual private road while lots of the roads in our ward are made up of houses divided into flats, a lot of which are social housing eg. Leander Rd.

While prominent LTN opponents are also buy to let landlords - some whilst actually living in social housing.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

North Korea 🙄 Ignorant & offensive.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 16, 2022)

Cristo. Thatcher worshipping shock jock who lives on a road with no through traffic because it was closed off by a post war estate and thinks it’s fine to buy your way onto a quiet road but doesn’t think anyone else should have one. An odd ally for OneLambeth.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> The guy was happy to stand up in a council meeting and misrepresent the wording in a council report to claim that traffic had gone up on a road when it had actually gone down. Is engaging him with some convincing evidence going to help? It hasn't worked with you.


At the beginning, the counsel said it was all about covid. Then it wasn’t about covid/sorry, not covid


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This narrative of private roads with million pound houses shows how much these people know about our areas. Pretty sure Cristo lives on an actual private road while lots of the roads in our ward are made up of houses divided into flats, a lot of which are social housing eg. Leander Rd.
> 
> While prominent LTN opponents are also buy to let landlords - some whilst actually living in social housing.



I’m not sure that’s the best attack given that prominent LTN councillors live in LTNs too. If you’re going to savage anyone for living in an LTN and benefiting from it, you should probably start with the people who instigated the policy in the first place


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 16, 2022)

And back round we go to previously debunked talking points, but sure engagement and debate is worthwhile.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 16, 2022)

Someone’s not making a lot of sense…


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 16, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> At the beginning, the counsel said it was all about covid. Then it wasn’t about covid/sorry, not covid


Is this really what got your back up? Just read the Lambeth transport strategy. This did not come out of the blue. It’s not being done for a single reason - it addresses a whole range of objectives. It’s about a transition to a lower carbon city, air quality, improving life outcomes by increasing physical activity, increasing transport capacity. Yes, there were elements that helped with Covid (and need for people to avoid public transport and not switch to private car or cab) but the plans predate that and it was never solely about that. 

Now maybe the messaging didn’t try to communicate all of that at once but people do tend to respond best to simple messaging. Hands face space.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 16, 2022)

Kudos for being bothered to explain it yet again, but I'm sure it must be performative ignorance by now.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 16, 2022)

Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

I live on Ferndale and all the accounts and occasional videos don’t ring true to me. There is the odd beeping and disagreement but this is a street that is not designed for 2 way traffic and always has been.  IMO it has been quieter since the LTN has been introduced.  5:10 this evening:




					www.urban75.net


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 16, 2022)

I'm impressed that Lambeth Council predicted COVID but they could have warned us.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> The guy was happy to stand up in a council meeting and misrepresent the wording in a council report to claim that traffic had gone up on a road when it had actually gone down. Is engaging him with some convincing evidence going to help? It hasn't worked with you.


Engagement should always help. After all, weren’t you just advocating I do exactly that by “educating” people? I’m now confused as to what you actually think


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Is this really what got your back up? Just read the Lambeth transport strategy. This did not come out of the blue. It’s not being done for a single reason - it addresses a whole range of objectives. It’s about a transition to a lower carbon city, air quality, improving life outcomes by increasing physical activity, increasing transport capacity. Yes, there were elements that helped with Covid (and need for people to avoid public transport and not switch to private car or cab) but the plans predate that and it was never solely about that.
> 
> Now maybe the messaging didn’t try to communicate all of that at once but people do tend to respond best to simple messaging. Hands face space.


At the beginning it was specifically a reaction to covid, that’s also where the funding came from. That it has now been adapted to address a whole range of other things is a different matter.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> ? Starting to think your opposition to LTNs is more political than anything.


No, it’s legal. That’s why its at the court of appeal and why I’m not standing or interested in standing. If my stance was political I’d have taken a political route rather than a legal route


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Engagement should always help. After all, weren’t you just advocating I do exactly that by “educating” people? I’m now confused as to what you actually think


Not me, Chuck. I'm the guy that thinks there's no evidence or argument that could ever shift you or your mates' opinions. I do believe the bit about you being confused, though.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Not me, Chuck. I'm the guy that thinks there's no evidence or argument that could ever shift you or your mates' opinions. I do believe the bit about you being confused, though.


Ok, fine with that.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> No, it’s legal. That’s why its at the court of appeal and why I’m not standing or interested in standing. If my stance was political I’d have taken a political route rather than a legal route


You can tell yourself what you want. Pretty sure it’s some anti-council/Labour hang up going by your comments on here.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You can tell yourself what you want. Pretty sure it’s some anti-council/Labour hang up going by your comments on here.


Nope, it’s legal Ed. I haven’t gone against the council on anything else. It really is about disabled people. It’s personal for me.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> At the beginning it was specifically a reaction to covid, that’s also where the funding came from. That it has now been adapted to address a whole range of other things is a different matter.


This is why there’s no point in engaging with some if you won’t accept facts even when shown evidence (again & again). Note the start date of this thread.


----------



## Jesterburger (Jan 17, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Sure but national polls don't always indicate local results. Wandsworth hasn't gone Labour for decades despite polls indicating Conservative collapse at various points.


Wandsworth results:
2006: Tories 59, Labour 9
2010: Tories 45, Labour 13
2014 Tories 41, Labour 19
2018 Tories 33, Labour 26

Labour are very much on trend to take Wandsworth if this trend continues


----------



## BusLanes (Jan 17, 2022)

Jesterburger said:


> Wandsworth results:
> 2006: Tories 59, Labour 9
> 2010: Tories 45, Labour 13
> 2014 Tories 41, Labour 19
> ...



Oh sure, the trend is good in that regard, but on the other hand, Wandsworth is also getting more socially cleansed as well.

Wandsworth, if anything, is more of a one party state than Lambeth is. At least Lambeth has had someone not Labour in charge in the last 20 years


----------



## lblres (Jan 17, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> googled Sam Cooray and looks like she’s a Paediatrics Doctor. Not a good look.
> View attachment 306180
> 
> View attachment 306179


she seems to have a front-row seat on a public court room feed, if she stands by what is being posted on the _official_ twitter account why not put her name to it?
sam cooray is quoted in at least 7 newspaper articles on the subject.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Was just trying to help out as whatshisname had always said he’d no idea who in the tiny OneLambeth group was dealing with the social media. Happy for the mods to remove so long as they’re consistent and take out all the other personal stuff across this thread and Buzz.  But I’ve not said anything nasty about her.
> 
> In any case, Sam was happy to put herself out there as a onesie spokesperson and be photographed at the court, posting her photo on the OneLambeth twitter. This just connects the dots and I’m a strong believer that you shouldn’t say anything online that you’d not say in person (though accept many of us may have said things that we don’t actually believe in anger or to get a reaction at times).


Regarding the tweets you had to resign over…I take it your point above means that you would not only say exactly the same thing now but would also say it in person to the BAME community. You’re effectively standing by your position. Good to know


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Regarding the tweets you had to resign over…I take it your point above means that you would not only say exactly the same thing now but would also say it in person to the BAME community. You’re effectively standing by your position. Good to know


erm - is this on?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Nope, it’s legal Ed. I haven’t gone against the council on anything else. It really is about disabled people. It’s personal for me.


Not against the lycra clad cyclists on their payroll?


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> erm - is this on?


Clearly not but chowce5382 never passes up an opportunity to behave like an arsehole and derive the opposite meaning from what anyone has said.  He’s broken the forum rules so many times he should have been banned long ago.

It might be why he’s so confused about everything else - for all his legal knowledge he seems unable to comprehend the meaning of even quite basic sentences.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Clearly not but chowce5382 never passes up an opportunity to behave like an arsehole and derive the opposite meaning from what anyone has said.  He’s broken the forum rules so many times he should have been banned long ago.
> 
> It might be why he’s so confused about everything else - for all his legal knowledge he seems unable to comprehend the meaning of even quite basic sentences.


Not sure which rule I’ve just broken? Can you explain?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not against the lycra clad cyclists on their payroll?


If I was I’d being pursuing a political route. I’m not so that answers that one


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> If I was I’d being pursuing a political route. I’m not so that answers that one


Is making a speech in windrush sq talking about lycra-clad white middle class men political?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is making a speech in windrush sq talking about lycra-clad white middle class men political?


Not when you’re doing it to raise money to fund a legal challenge. If you were doing it as part of a process to overturn the current local government at the next election then it would be.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Not sure which tule I’ve just broken? Can you explain?


You know fine well what rule you've broken, which is linking people's real life identities with their identity on here.

This was already explained to you:









						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

As I’ve said again and again Ed, this is nothing do with me. If you called me a Blairite, I’d be very happy and comfortable with that.   You still associate with this and have never condemned it - just said nothing to do with you despite you saying you’re their treasurer.   As snowy_again says...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is making a speech in windrush sq talking about lycra-clad white middle class men political?


Clearly it's a strictly defined legal term, used only to clarify some legal technicalities in relation to a campaign entirely limited to concerns about consideration of those with disabilities.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Clearly it's a strictly defined legal term, used only to clarify some legal technicalities in relation to a campaign entirely limited to concerns about consideration of those with disabilities.


Well, when it comes to LCC it not too far off the mark


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You know fine well what rule you've broken, which is linking people's real life identities with their identity on here.
> 
> This was already explained to you:
> 
> ...


I was told that you couldn’t name names. I like the fact that you’re relying on this rather than picking up the point I was making. Obviously that’s just not important to you


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Not against the lycra clad cyclists on their payroll?


So they were on the payroll? Asking for a friend


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

You seem to be taking in the conspiracy theories your mates keep spouting chowce5382 - here's a refresher.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 17, 2022)

It is weird that this person @chowse5382 seems obsessed with made one stupid statement about three years ago, which didn’t seem representative of anything else they’d ever said or reflected in their behaviour in any way, and for which they had apologised and seemingly paid a fairly heavy price.  Someone was an arsehole for the length of time it took to write a few tweets and presumably learnt from that and moved on.  For OneLambeth to be still obsessed with them now they must have been amazingly influential and made a real difference. They seem terrified that person might continue to be using their skills and knowledge to make the case for a better Lambeth.

Yet he seems happy to associate with Sam, who despite being warned by the Police about her behaviour, appears to have carried on with the online abuse under another identity, as the official rep of his group, ever since. In the same way that despite having been warned about linking people to real life identities on here he continues to try to do so -   there is no repentance nor growth.

Some people seem destined to always be arseholes. And arseholes on account of being full of shit, rather than cunts, which have warmth and depth. Qualities he and Sam seem to completely lack.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Well, when it comes to LCC it not too far off the mark



Are you again trying to claim that LCC is mostly white males in lycra and generally represents this group/type of cyclists?

Because we went through this before and there was a good mix of apparent genders and ethnicities from the names/photos of their employees and going through their website I don't remember a single picture of anyone wearing lycra on their website.
LCC and other local campaign groups, like Cycling UK, do not represent sports cyclists who are most likely to be wearing lycra. They represent ordinary people who want to cycle and wear normal clothes to do so, they represent people who don't want to cycle fast and probably couldn't if they did want to (like me) and ultimately they represent all the people who currently don't cycle because it's not safe but would like to.

Please go and show me anything - I mean literally anything at all - from LCC which presents people wearing lycra or doing sports cycling.

If you can't do that then it's just pure prejudice on your part isn't it.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It is weird that this person @chowse5382 seems obsessed with made one stupid statement about three years ago, which didn’t seem representative of anything else they’d ever said or to reflected in their behaviour in any way, and for which they had apologised and seemingly paid a fairly heavy price.  Someone was an arsehole for the length of time it took to write a few tweets and presumably learnt from that and moved on.  For OneLambeth to be still obsessed with them now they must have been amazingly influential and made a real difference. They seem terrified that person might continue to be using their skills and knowledge to make the case for a better Lambeth.
> 
> Yet he seems happy to associate with Sam, who despite being warned by the Police about her behaviour, appears to have carried on with the online abuse under another identity, as the official rep of his group, ever since. In the same way that despite having been warned about linking people to real life identities on here he continues to try to do so on here there is no repentance nor growth.
> 
> Some people seem destined to always be arseholes. And arseholes on account of being full of shit, rather than cunts, which have warmth and depth. Qualities he and Sam seem to completely lack.


But they didn’t learn from it did they as they have said since that you shouldn’t put something on social media that you wouldn’t say face to face. This undercuts the premise of what they are saying. I also wouldn’t say it a heavy price, it was probably right. Again, saying it was a heavy price, undercuts their protestations of contrition and so their apologies can’t be believed as a result


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Not when you’re doing it to raise money to fund a legal challenge. If you were doing it as part of a process to overturn the current local government at the next election then it would be.


Let's be clear here, politics isn't just something that happens in Westminster or Lambeth Town Hall meeting rooms. 

It was very much politics, why do you think Shaun Bailey showed up with his bus?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Let's be clear here, politics isn't just something that happens in Westminster or Lambeth Town Hall meeting rooms.
> 
> It was very much politics, why do you think Shaun Bailey showed up with his bus?


Fun time Shaun!


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Let's be clear here, politics isn't just something that happens in Westminster or Lambeth Town Hall meeting rooms.
> 
> It was very much politics, why do you think Shaun Bailey showed up with his bus?


Because he was standing for office. He took a political stance and said he would review them if he got into office. I said no such thing as I wasn’t sanding for office or holding myself out as doing so. That why supporting a legal challenge


----------



## lblres (Jan 17, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Let's be clear here, politics isn't just something that happens in Westminster or Lambeth Town Hall meeting rooms.
> 
> It was very much politics, why do you think Shaun Bailey showed up with his bus?


from what i recall they invited all the candidates for london mayor to speak then claimed it wasn't a political rally


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 17, 2022)

lblres said:


> from what i recall they invited all the candidates for london mayor to speak then claimed it wasn't a political rally


Didn’t Tory councillor and eviction specialist Tim Briggs speak at this non-political rally?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

Tim Briggs has really lost the plot with this rant of a question (seems quite similar to chowce5382 's talking points ).


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Tim Briggs has really lost the plot with this rant of a question (seems quite similar to chowce5382 's talking points ).
> 
> View attachment 306389


The answer seems pretty vacuous whatever you think about the question.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 17, 2022)

The last thing Tim wanted was an answer.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2022)

Yeah, that definitely reads like someone who would be interested in a sensible reasonable debate. I wonder if anyone in the Conservative party has ever said anything racist Tim? Doesn't that mean we should also say your advice and thoughts comes from the vile racists of the Conservative party?

Also I'm pretty sure Lambeth council are funding the reporting and analysis of traffic levels on their roads, not LCC. I'm sure LCC have in the past funded Rachel Aldred to do some studies but that's not what he implies there. It's just a fucking joke. The answer isn't any good either but yeah I can't imagine having a reasonable conversation with tim briggs of the vile racist conservative party about LTNs.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, that definitely reads like someone who would be interested in a sensible reasonable debate. I wonder if anyone in the Conservative party has ever said anything racist Tim? Doesn't that mean we should also say your advice and thoughts comes from the vile racists of the Conservative party?
> 
> Also I'm pretty sure Lambeth council are funding the reporting and analysis of traffic levels on their roads, not LCC. I'm sure LCC have in the past funded Rachel Aldred to do some studies but that's not what he implies there. It's just a fucking joke. The answer isn't any good either but yeah I can't imagine having a reasonable conversation with tim briggs of the vile racist conservative party about LTNs.


Rather than the anti-Semitic Labour Party? Both are equally guilty on the charge you’ve raised


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> The answer seems pretty vacuous whatever you think about the question.


It was barely a question.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It was barely a question.


Do better than that Ed


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Do better than that Ed


What was the question? Seemed like virtue signaling to me (to borrow a phrase).

Also, stop calling me Ed - not just because it's against the rules but it's far too over familiar from someone I really don't want to be at all familiar with.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What was the question? Seemed like virtue signaling to me (to borrow a phrase).
> 
> Also, stop calling me Ed - not just because it's against the rules but it's far too over familiar from someone I really don't want to be at all familiar with.


Ok, fair enough. I’ll call you edcraw. Better? Or ed for short.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Ok, fair enough. I’ll call you edcraw. Better? Or ed for short.


No - use usernames. You're coming across pretty poorly these days and that's saying a lot.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Evening All,
> 
> I'm new here but thought I'd get involved. I've seen a number of comments about the legal case and the reasoning/rationale behind it including the type of people who are against LTNs. It's been an interesting read as I'm the person listed as the beneficiary on the Gofundme link and that has obviously caused some confusion and, on some areas of social media, has resulted in some interesting conspiracy theories. I wanted to introduce myself and say that I'm very open to answer any questions that you may have about why we are doing this (as long as they don't prejudice our case) and explain who we are as a group. From what I've seen, this seems like a place where the vast majority of people are keen to discuss, possibly disagree but generally treat each other with decency. From the start, I'll be completely open, honest and tell you the truth about what we're doing and why. All I'd ask is that we keep it polite as, frankly, most social media seems to be a hell hole at the moment. Having that this, this seems to be pretty respectful and decent.
> 
> ...


Let's all take a moment to remember chowce5382's introductory post


----------



## Winot (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Let's all take a moment to remember chowce5382's introductory post


Urban has changed him


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> No - use usernames. You're coming across pretty poorly these days and that's saying a lot.


Yup so I’ll call you ed, which is part of your username.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 17, 2022)

If you look closely there is a question buried in there which is "will Labour councillors...listen to residents?" so the answer really should be "Yes there was a consultation".


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup so I’ll call you ed, which is part of your username.


You’re not the brightest.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You’re not the brightest.


Coming from you that’s amazing 😂😂😂😂😂


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 17, 2022)

I remember when people typed lol or rofl when they weren't actually laughing.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Rather than the anti-Semitic Labour Party? Both are equally guilty on the charge you’ve raised



Tim Briggs raised the charge, not me, and I've nothing to do with the Labour party. If Tim Briggs wants to discount an organisation because one of their employees got sacked for some tweets on their personal feed then he should take the same level of responsibility for his own organisation, and be smeared by the same brush - more so since LCC took action whereas the tory party have let plenty of stuff pass. You are also smeared by that brush btw, with your organisations official anti-semitic communications which have not been retracted nor the person responsible for them removed from their position, which is far far far worse than what happened with the LCC. I'm sure Tim will be discounting your advice too right? right? cos he's a reasonable man and will hold all to the same standards, right? right? oh.

Sort your own house out before you go casting stones would be my advice.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 17, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> If you look closely there is a question buried in there which is "will Labour councillors...listen to residents?" so the answer really should be "Yes there was a consultation".


Not that consultation!


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 17, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> But they didn’t learn from it did they as they have said since that you shouldn’t put something on social media that you wouldn’t say face to face. This undercuts the premise of what they are saying. I also wouldn’t say it a heavy price, it was probably right. Again, saying it was a heavy price, undercuts their protestations of contrition and so their apologies can’t be believed as a result


You dont think that having made a mistake someone might change their behaviour and attitudes?  Given how little you’ve learned in the time you’ve been campaigning and the prejudices you continue to demonstrate in the face of clear evidence that you’re wrong I can see why that concept might be a challenge for you. You could even try to stop being an arsehole from this point forward and maybe even deal with the shitty behaviour from other members of your group.

I’d think the council might even have been a bit more likely to listen to your input if your official account  didn’t refer to the council leader as a “vile dictator”


----------



## edcraw (Jan 17, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Let's all take a moment to remember chowce5382's introductory post


Just remembered his 2nd post - it went down hill quickly & he’s still repeating the same lie.


Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists


----------



## edcraw (Jan 18, 2022)

Looking forward to the good reactions from anti-LTN campaigners to this which will reduce pollution on main roads…









						Sadiq Khan proposes journey charge for motorists in London
					

Mayor says air pollution and climate crisis are issues of ‘social justice’ in capital and across the globe




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## DaphneM (Jan 18, 2022)

Winot said:


> Urban has changed him


its brought out the worst in him


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 18, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Are you again trying to claim that LCC is mostly white males in lycra and generally represents this group/type of cyclists?
> 
> Because we went through this before and there was a good mix of apparent genders and ethnicities from the names/photos of their employees and going through their website I don't remember a single picture of anyone wearing lycra on their website.
> LCC and other local campaign groups, like Cycling UK, do not represent sports cyclists who are most likely to be wearing lycra. They represent ordinary people who want to cycle and wear normal clothes to do so, they represent people who don't want to cycle fast and probably couldn't if they did want to (like me) and ultimately they represent all the people who currently don't cycle because it's not safe but would like to.
> ...


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 18, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It is weird that this person @chowse5382 seems obsessed with made one stupid statement about three years ago, which didn’t seem representative of anything else they’d ever said or reflected in their behaviour in any way, and for which they had apologised and seemingly paid a fairly heavy price.  Someone was an arsehole for the length of time it took to write a few tweets and presumably learnt from that and moved on.  For OneLambeth to be still obsessed with them now they must have been amazingly influential and made a real difference. They seem terrified that person might continue to be using their skills and knowledge to make the case for a better Lambeth.
> 
> Yet he seems happy to associate with Sam, who despite being warned by the Police about her behaviour, appears to have carried on with the online abuse under another identity, as the official rep of his group, ever since. In the same way that despite having been warned about linking people to real life identities on here he continues to try to do so -   there is no repentance nor growth.
> 
> Some people seem destined to always be arseholes. And arseholes on account of being full of shit, rather than cunts, which have warmth and depth. Qualities he and Sam seem to completely lack.


Some deeply misogynistic and sexist language here. Quite offensive. Before anyone says “oh but what about” remember, this guy is actually writing this stuff himself. It’s all his own thoughts, views and ideas.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2022)

Just for full disclosure, where on the LCCs website is that image? chowce5382


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 18, 2022)

I think that's a photo of the Dulwich Paragon cycling club, "dedicated to the serious and sporting cyclist". I guess there are only about sixteen clues to that in there, so a big ask for you.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 18, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Some deeply misogynistic and sexist language here.


A tip: never move to Glasgow. You'll clutch your pearls to a fine powder.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 18, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Some deeply misogynistic and sexist language here. Quite offensive. Before anyone says “oh but what about” remember, this guy is actually writing this stuff himself. It’s all his own thoughts, views and ideas.


maybe he’s exploring the language through art form, bit like the vandalism of the planters.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 18, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Are you again trying to claim that LCC is mostly white males in lycra and generally represents this group/type of cyclists?
> 
> Because we went through this before and there was a good mix of apparent genders and ethnicities from the names/photos of their employees and going through their website I don't remember a single picture of anyone wearing lycra on their website.
> LCC and other local campaign groups, like Cycling UK, do not represent sports cyclists who are most likely to be wearing lycra. They represent ordinary people who want to cycle and wear normal clothes to do so, they represent people who don't want to cycle fast and probably couldn't if they did want to (like me) and ultimately they represent all the people who currently don't cycle because it's not safe but would like to.
> ...


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 18, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I think that's a photo of the Dulwich Paragon cycling club, "dedicated to the serious and sporting cyclist". I guess there are only about sixteen clues to that in there, so a big ask for you.


None of whom are members of LLC or affiliated. Obviously…


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 18, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> maybe he’s exploring the language through art form, bit like the vandalism of the planters.


Possibly. If so I’d expect peope to condemn him in exactly the same way. Of course, if he isn’t, then it’s just classic misogyny. Your choice.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Looking forward to the good reactions from anti-LTN campaigners to this which will reduce pollution on main roads…
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was shocked and surprised to find out they don't like these solutions either. Instead they want bus and bike lanes handed back to cars!


----------



## teuchter (Jan 18, 2022)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> None of whom are members of LLC or affiliated. Obviously…


Where did you get that image from?. Post up the link.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 18, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Possibly. If so I’d expect peope to condemn him in exactly the same way. Of course, if he isn’t, then it’s just classic misogyny. Your choice.


I think we can just add misogyny to the long list of things you have trouble understanding.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 18, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Possibly. If so I’d expect peope to condemn him in exactly the same way. Of course, if he isn’t, then it’s just classic misogyny. Your choice.


I think he just called you a cunt not an arsehole and explained his rationale.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 18, 2022)

If you're going to try and make out that's an especially misogynistic word in this country you're going to need to pedal pretty hard against that uphill struggle.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 18, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> I think he just called you a cunt not an arsehole and explained his rationale.


the reverse.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 18, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Where did you get that image from?. Post up the link.


Odd that Google reverse image search doesn't find it anywhere on the web either with or without the top banner.  I suspect he got it from the guy on the WhatsApp who knows everything


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 18, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> the reverse.


My bad


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Odd that Google reverse image search doesn't find it anywhere on the web either with or without the top banner.  I suspect he got it from the guy on the WhatsApp who knows everything


I found it, it’s a webpage specifically for affiliated cycling club members to join:





__





						Affiliates Programme: Individual Club Member Offer Page | London Cycling Campaign
					






					membership.lcc.org.uk
				




But you’d only get that if you were a member of a cycling club to begin with. A bit pathetic, isn’t it.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 18, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> If you're going to try and make out that's an especially misogynistic word in this country you're going to need to pedal pretty hard against that uphill struggle.


It's not the word itself but the sentence it was contained in. Certainly not something I'd feel comfortable writing, and I didn't feel comfortable reading it.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> I found it, it’s a webpage specifically for affiliated cycling club members to join:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On a page where the call to action is "join LCC to help everyone" ie: we know what we do isn't really what you do but you can help other cyclists when you join us.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2022)

BigTom said:


> On a page where the call to action is "join LCC to help everyone" ie: we know what we do isn't really what you do but you can help other cyclists when you join us.



As the page says:



> The more of us there are, the more we can campaign, lobby and educate decision makers - so the right decisions are made, so more people are able to cycle, and so cycling becomes safer for everyone - for those who commute by bike, for those who love riding bikes for sport and exercise, and for those too nervous to ride at all.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2022)

chowce5382 
So one on a page appealing to sports cyclists to join to help everyone ie non sports cyclists and one which is an offer from another company which is not LCC to LCC members.

How long did it take you to find those? How many pages and pictures did you trawl through?

Because the first one is not supporting the idea that LCC is for lycra clad cyclists, quite the opposite actually. The second is not LCC i think but you don't provide links for some reason so i can't check it out myself.

But even if they are LCC do you think two photos tucked away shows they are mostly lycra clad white men, when the vast majority do not and their board and employees are not?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 18, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I was shocked and surprised to find out they don't like these solutions either. Instead they want bus and bike lanes handed back to cars!
> 
> View attachment 306518


Who could possibly have predicted that? 

Almost as if they’re just a bunch of self serving, lying, cunts.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 18, 2022)

It's also a photo from nearly a decade ago, from a "go dutch" ride calling for better cycling provision, part of which was so that cycling could be... more diverse.

If you don't want cycling to be more diverse, a good way to do that would be to campaign against changes that make it more accessible, maybe even go to court in an attempt to maintain the status quo.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 18, 2022)

Someone really has a deep seated hatred of cyclists. Bizarre.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 18, 2022)

OneLambeth doesn't like solar panels either


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2022)

teuchter said:


> OneLambeth doesn't like solar panels either
> 
> View attachment 306533


But i thought that onelambeth was just about the needs of disabled people and ensuring those needs are properly accounted for?

Oh.

And really fucking stupid as well, pure denialism. Are they even talking about solar panels? It's a heating system in that tweet that has been quoted.


----------



## Winot (Jan 18, 2022)

teuchter said:


> OneLambeth doesn't like solar panels either
> 
> View attachment 306533


It’s well known that well-off middle classes put them on their houses to attract the sun and divert its rays from the poorer areas of London.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 18, 2022)

teuchter said:


> OneLambeth doesn't like solar panels either
> 
> View attachment 306533



It’s almost like you can ignore everything they say, assuming you can understand it.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 18, 2022)

BigTom said:


> But i thought that onelambeth was just about the needs of disabled people and ensuring those needs are properly accounted for?
> 
> Oh.
> 
> And really fucking stupid as well, pure denialism. Are they even talking about solar panels? It's a heating system in that tweet that has been quoted.


It's replying to this thread. Looks like they have put in solar panels and a heat pump system.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 18, 2022)

Also, a surprise to note that Cllr Tim Briggs is a Jordan Peterson fan


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 18, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Who could possibly have predicted that?
> 
> Almost as if they’re just a bunch of self serving, lying, cunts.


As I pointed out already, cunts bring forth life and give enormous pleasure. They have warmth and depth. I think you’re being very unfair to cunts.


----------



## lblres (Jan 18, 2022)

teuchter said:


> OneLambeth doesn't like solar panels either
> 
> View attachment 306533


complaining about targetted harrassment from an account full of it, have to pity the dr really


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Someone really has a deep seated hatred of cyclists. Bizarre.


They've lost the argument based on evidence, they've lost the argument on public opinion (according to repeated representative polls), they've been caught trying to game the consultation (when it wasn't a referendum in the first place). They know they'd lose at the ballot box if they put up any candidates. They might still win some small legal victory on a technicality, but that's not going to lead to LTNs being removed as their fundraising and even the posters outside the court suggest.  So all they have left is their ongoing vitriolic bullying attacks (much of which are based on lies or just nonsense) , on politicians, organisations and individuals they identify as publicly supporting a change in the status quo. And even the family and friends of people on their mad conspiracy chart.

But this, in the middle of a stream of abusive tweets is pure Alanis.
(image removed as in post above)


----------



## BigTom (Jan 18, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Also, a surprise to note that Cllr Tim Briggs is a Jordan Peterson fan
> 
> View attachment 306540


And also into climate change denial by the looks of that, given what jordan peterson was replying to.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 18, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Also, a surprise to note that Cllr Tim Briggs is a Jordan Peterson fan
> 
> View attachment 306540


Yep he’s a climate change denier. Tell us again how chowce5382 how we should be engaging with these people.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jan 19, 2022)

BigTom said:


> chowce5382
> So one on a page appealing to sports cyclists to join to help everyone ie non sports cyclists and one which is an offer from another company which is not LCC to LCC members.
> 
> How long did it take you to find those? How many pages and pictures did you trawl through?
> ...


The board looks pretty white and male dominated to me….I understand that’s this isn’t entirely representative of the current board as the guy circled had to leave because of his racist views. I don’t know if they replaced him with another white male or not.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 19, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> The board looks pretty white and male dominated to me….I understand that’s this isn’t entirely representative of the current board as the guy circled had to leave because of his racist views. I don’t know if they replaced him with another white male or not.


It isn’t representative of their board at any time. Where are you getting these from? Is there a Onesie’s shared folder of LCC conspiracy theory images somewhere?

This obsession is truly bizarre for someone solely focussed on the legal aspects! It explains your rant at Windrush Sq though.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 19, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> The board looks pretty white and male dominated to me….I understand that’s this isn’t entirely representative of the current board as the guy circled had to leave because of his racist views. I don’t know if they replaced him with another white male or not.



It’s a cut and paste from this nonsense London Cycling Campaign does not reflect London’s ethnic makeup


----------



## DaphneM (Jan 19, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I was shocked and surprised to find out they don't like these solutions either. Instead they want bus and bike lanes handed back to cars!
> 
> View attachment 306518


I really hope this goes through


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> The board looks pretty white and male dominated to me….I understand that’s this isn’t entirely representative of the current board as the guy circled had to leave because of his racist views. I don’t know if they replaced him with another white male or not.



So instead of going to LCC and seeing who is actually on their board of trustees, you've decided to repost a random blog... and provide no link becuase you are ashamed of your sources and don't understand google reverse images searches I would assume. No other reason to not provide a link that I can think of.





__





						Board of Trustees - London Cycling Campaign
					






					www.lcc.org.uk
				



Here is the actual board as it is today:



> Chair: Eilidh Murray
> 
> Vice Chair: Christian Wolmar
> 
> ...



There aren't photos but based on names and making assumptions about gender/race from that:
chair - woman, white but Celtic clearly so wouldn't have been white just a few decades ago. Shows how dodgy ideas of race are really.
Vice - Male, white
Treasurer -male, white
HR - male, white
BCC - male, white
Polciy forum - female not white
Campaigns - male, again celtic
Diversity - male not white
other two - female, Sarah probably white, pearl is a very common afro-carribean name (In Birmingham anyway) so no assumptions there.

10 positions, 9 people. Of those 9 people, 5 are male and 4 are female. If we go position it's 60/40. This is definitely an acceptable ratio, especially given that there are only 9 or 10 places here depending on how you want to count them. It's not exactly 50/50 but there's no way you can say it's mostly men.

Ethnicity we've got 2 or 3 who are not white, so that's 20% - 30%, which is well below the overall London population ratio quoted in your article but as they've clearly lied about who is on the board of trustees for LCC I wouldn't be trusting their figure of 40%. Perhaps if I lived in London I would have a feel as to whether that is reasonable or not. if it's 30% omn the board to 40% in London then really that's not far off. All they need to do is have one more BAME person on their board and they will be matching the general population.

So no, this is not evidence in support of LCC being mostly white males, and there's no suggestion of lycra here.

Now lets have a look at their employees.




__





						Meet the Team - London Cycling Campaign
					






					www.lcc.org.uk
				






> With a wide range of experience and expertise our staff team are dedicated to making London a world-class cycling city.
> 
> Supporting our activists and members with campaigning tools and resources, advice and assistance is a key part of their role. But they also work with organisations to support cyclists in the workplace and in the wider community.
> 
> ...




22 positions. 6 Women, not good but still ~30%, would need 5 more women to be equal. ethnicity is more difficult, depends where eastern european names fall, 3-6 ethnic minorities may be also ~30% and not that far off (2 more I think). Note that the chief exec is not white which does not suggest a white dominated organisation, usually you find lots of BAME/women at the bottom and then you look at the top and it's all white men - not the case here. Again no evidence of lycra here.
I would not call a 70/30 split mostly men (majority yes but mostly would suggest somewhere closer to 90% to me, almost no women, which is not the case at all) and the ethnic mix is really quite close to the general population being only two people on the "wrong" side of the line.


And bringing up the fact that LCC took action against the person making dodgy tweets on their personal twitter feed makes you look terrible again because your organisation's twitter feed is actively anti-semitic and apparently climate change denying as well. Why are you the treasurer of an anti-semitic climate change denying organisation and don't you think that either the person running the twitter feed should resign or you should leave the organisation? Otherwise you are supporting these things and saying your organisation is all good with anti-semitism and climate change denial. LCC did not support their person and took action over it - what would you want them to have done, and why won't you take even an ounce of the amount of action they did? You continue to support the person running your twitter feed and refuse to take action against them. Who comes out looking worse about this kind of thing?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 19, 2022)

BigTom said:


> So instead of going to LCC and seeing who is actually on their board of trustees, you've decided to repost a random blog... and provide no link becuase you are ashamed of your sources and don't understand google reverse images searches I would assume. No other reason to not provide a link that I can think of.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Careful now, don’t go muddying the waters here with facts


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Careful now, don’t go muddying the waters here with facts



pfft. you can prove anything with facts, I prefer to rely on instinct and blind prejudice.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 19, 2022)




----------



## thebackrow (Jan 19, 2022)

BigTom said:


> pfft. you can prove anything with facts, I prefer to rely on instinct and blind prejudice.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 19, 2022)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 19, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 306604


“We’re just concerned with the legal process”


----------



## edcraw (Jan 19, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 306604


This is what I remember growing up as well. No issues parking anywhere, not a lot of traffic and not cars absolutely everywhere. It’s almost like there’s tons more cars and that’s the problem!


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 306604


You know how people put their birth year after their name sometimes... well I think that might explain what's going on here.

Anyway, great to know we can have a reasonable debate with people who compare a generational dictatorship with an open liberal democracy. I'm sure these people and the organisations they officially represent will reach a very high standard of reasonable debate with such comparisons.

Also from what I know, North Korea doesn't have much in the way of traffic problems, pretty empty the roads there and I doubt there are any LTNs, cycle or bus lanes. We'd actually be making our roads more similar to NK if we removed these things wouldn't we?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 19, 2022)

Prominent OneLambeth member here blaming a driver driving at speed on the wrong side of the road on Leigham Court Road on them being frustrated by LTNs. On Streatham Mums Facebook group no less!


----------



## BigTom (Jan 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This is what I remember growing up as well. No issues parking anywhere, not a lot of traffic and not cars absolutely everywhere. It’s almost like there’s tons more cars and that’s the problem!



I grew up in Berkshire in the 1980s and visited London to see relatives reasonably often and the only time the roads were really clear was for Christmas Day - and I have definitely noticed hugely increasing levels of traffic on christmas day over the decades (still not congested but when I was a child there was very few other people driving, now there's plenty of others around, pre-pandemic obv). 

I remember my dad working at heathrow would work 7-3 to avoid the morning traffic. Rush hour was always 7am-10am in the morning and 4pm-7pm in the evening and the middle of the day wasn't great either. There must be data on average traffic speeds that's actually at least fairly objective but I remember London always being traffic heavy.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Prominent OneLambeth member here blaming a driver driving at speed on the wrong side of the road on Leigham Court Road on them being frustrated by LTNs. On Streatham Mums Facebook group no less!
> 
> View attachment 306611


Isn't that the same group where 40 angry mums sent you packing so badly with their own experiences after pedding some LTN info you deleted all your posts?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 20, 2022)

Jeanette Moo said:


> Isn't that the same group where 40 angry mums sent you packing so badly with their own experiences after pedding some LTN info you deleted all your posts?


I was pointing out that OneLambeth was rather objectionable & that the OneWandsworth founder was spreading lies. They deleted their post so mine went. I shouldn’t have gotten involved but you’ve seen what lies some spread on there and how some rant against cyclists.


----------



## editor (Jan 20, 2022)

teuchter said:


> OneLambeth doesn't like solar panels either
> 
> View attachment 306533


Fucking morons.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I was pointing out that OneLambeth was rather objectionable & that the OneWandsworth founder was spreading lies. They deleted their post so mine went. I shouldn’t have gotten involved but you’ve seen what lies some spread on there and how some rant against cyclists.



Bullshit

The whole thread is still there. I remember it because I recognised the name of the man you quoted above. You replied as your own comment int he thread, not as a reply to someone else. I remember as its still one of the contraversial topics of the group



The only person who could have removed your comment was you or the admins...and the admins confirmed they didn't touch it shortly adter you deleted it



 Happy to post other peoples comments for 'look at the dummy' reassurance with your mates..........but delete your own comments when you get steam rolled by a mob of angry mums. Guess its not a good look on a mums network with 20k members eh


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 21, 2022)

If someone blocks you on FB it looks like a deletion FYI.


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 21, 2022)

(Also never really understood the idea that being a mum makes you wiser than anyone else.)


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 21, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> If someone blocks you on FB it looks like a deletion FYI.



The comment was deleted, no one could see it unless that means 20k mums were all blocked?!


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 21, 2022)

Yes, I clearly meant that 20,000 mums blocked one person.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 21, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Yes, I clearly meant that 20,000 mums blocked one person.



Well thing it through, all of a sudden a post has disappeared for everyone. Was one person blocked or was a post deleted?

Admins confirmed it was deleted but can likely still see the text as admins, or at the least have a user activity record


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 21, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> (Also never really understood the idea that being a mum makes you wiser than anyone else.)



Who said that? I mentioned mums because that what it is.

The streatham mums network on facebook. I used to arrange fetes, sales, kids days with many of them going back years


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 21, 2022)

Oh I didn't realise you'd used this group to arrange fetes. I take everything back, no bad person has ever attended or arranged a fete.


----------



## Jeanette Moo (Jan 21, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Oh I didn't realise you'd used this group to arrange fetes. I take everything back, no bad person has ever attended or arranged a fete.



oooo look how picky and snarky he is!


----------



## liquidindian (Jan 21, 2022)

It's because I've never been to a fete.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 21, 2022)

As said I prob shouldn’t have got involved but it was to call out accusations on ethnic cleansing which too may seem happy to defend or ignore. Not good.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 22, 2022)

Tim Briggs having a normal one here retweeting some weird anti-cycling rant.

“Hunt them out”!

“They are the enemy”!

May seem funny but this shit really does influence and encourage dangerous drivers and put people’s lives at risk.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Tim Briggs having a normal one here retweeting some weird anti-cycling rant.
> 
> “Hunt them out”!
> 
> ...


Is just fucking hilarious.

I do wonder if anyone thinks that is actually written by anyone working for more sustainable transport systems. I'd like to assume no-one would but I know there will be done who think this is like a genuine internal document from LCC or Sustrans or someone.

Also I'll never understand why the idea of a 15 minute neighbourhood is bad? I think it's great that i can get most of what I need within a 15-20 minute walk rather than having to drive half an hour to get out of some American style suburban to get to some shops. I wouldn't change that and having a local high street is great and part of the reason i moved to the area of Birmingham I did.

Why wouldn't you want that? It's bizarre if you ask me, and i bet the same people who wrote that get all concerned about their local high street and the effects of LTN on trade etc but really a local high street is the core of a 15 minute neighbourhood, and encouraging people to stay and shop locally is good for a local high street.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 22, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Is just fucking hilarious.
> 
> I do wonder if anyone thinks that is actually written by anyone working for more sustainable transport systems. I'd like to assume no-one would but I know there will be done who think this is like a genuine internal document from LCC or Sustrans or someone.
> 
> ...


Because:

a) Lots of people have been sold the lie that cars equal freedom, have got themselves into huge amounts of debt as a result, and now need to justify that mistake to themselves 

And

b) Lots of people are lazy cunts


----------



## edcraw (Jan 22, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Is just fucking hilarious.
> 
> I do wonder if anyone thinks that is actually written by anyone working for more sustainable transport systems. I'd like to assume no-one would but I know there will be done who think this is like a genuine internal document from LCC or Sustrans or someone.
> 
> ...


It shows the measure of Cllr Briggs that he chose to retweet that nonsense. Abbeville Rd would benefit a ton from reduced through traffic but Briggs would prefer to play to some bizarre OneLambeth type audience than look to improve his ward.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 23, 2022)

I’m starting to think these anti types might just simply be really fucking stupid.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jan 23, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Prominent OneLambeth member here blaming a driver driving at speed on the wrong side of the road on Leigham Court Road on them being frustrated by LTNs. On Streatham Mums Facebook group no less!
> 
> View attachment 306611


I honestly saw one mum on there direct her ire, regarding her son almost being run over, towards the LTNs rather than the motorcyclist who chose to ride on the pavement (where said son was) to avoid a slightly longer route. I mean how low are people’s standards for motorists’ impulse control and frustration tolerance? Quite worrying really 

Certain sections of SMN are hardly a bastion of balanced and nuanced thinking.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 24, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I’m starting to think these anti types might just simply be really fucking stupid.



Or just in some weird spiral of denial.  Repeatedly posting the same static image showing a short lived queue in one direction in response to multiple videos at different times showing the road clear (and accusing the video poster of “cherry picking”)


----------



## edcraw (Jan 24, 2022)

Sick


----------



## alex_ (Jan 24, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Sick




Railton isn’t actually blocked from central Brixton is it - doesn’t the 322 go down there ?


----------



## edcraw (Jan 24, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Railton isn’t actually blocked from central Brixton is it - doesn’t the 322 go down there ?


Yes - someone died in this fire and this person, who’s always tweeting anti-LTN stuff, wants to use it for point scoring.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yes - someone died in this fire and this person, who’s always tweeting anti-LTN stuff, wants to use it for point scoring.



I guess it’s hard to know exactly where the LTN is when you don’t live in the area


----------



## edcraw (Jan 25, 2022)

alex_ said:


> I guess it’s hard to know exactly where the LTN is when you don’t live in the area


I'm not sure where they got the suggest that the fire engines were delayed - haven't seen that anywhere.


----------



## thebackrow (Jan 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I'm not sure where they got the suggest that the fire engines were delayed - haven't seen that anywhere.


I’m sure the fire engines were stuck in the 24/7 gridlock.  It was 4am.


----------



## lblres (Jan 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Sick



disgusting


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 25, 2022)

Brigade were called at 4.08. Railton is the LTN, we get fire engines belting down the road all the time as it’s so clear. Compete rubbish that they were delayed. That post on Twitter needs to be reported


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 25, 2022)

Also noticed that one Lambeth justice Twitter account has stopped posting messages.


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 25, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Brigade were called at 4.08. Railton is the LTN, we get fire engines belting down the road all the time as it’s so clear. Compete rubbish that they were delayed. That post on Twitter needs to be reported


I noticed that the Brixton L account was retweeting stuff from OneTowerHamlets fat shaming two female and 1 male known cyclists. Charming stuff.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 25, 2022)

Is the appeal case still going on?


----------



## BigTom (Jan 25, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Is the appeal case still going on?



I don't think they judge has made a decision yet, I'm sure we would have heard if they had but it does seem a while, I've no idea how long they usually take between case and judgement though.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jan 25, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> I noticed that the Brixton L account was retweeting stuff from OneTowerHamlets fat shaming two female and 1 male known cyclists. Charming stuff.


I happen to know that the owner of that account lives inside a private gated community inside the LTN as well, and drives a car, hence fulfilling the full definition of hypocrisy, which is to campaign to deny to other people something (in his case, a life free from traffic noise and pollution) that he benefits from himself.


----------



## Aristocrat (Jan 25, 2022)

Aristocrat said:


> I happen to know that the owner of that account lives inside a private gated community inside the LTN as well, and drives a car, hence fulfilling the full definition of hypocrisy, which is to campaign to deny to other people something (in his case, a life free from traffic noise and pollution) that he benefits from himself.


As well as, obviously, playing his part in imposing traffic on others through his use of a car.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 25, 2022)

Not sure what this has to do with disability rights?


----------



## Aristocrat (Jan 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what this has to do with disability rights?
> 
> View attachment 307393


----------



## Aristocrat (Jan 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what this has to do with disability rights?
> 
> View attachment 307393


Ah - the less affluent end with private parking with multiple SUVs parked in them, and cul de sacs with houses set well back from the main road and a safe space for children to play in, ie LTNs?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 25, 2022)

Skip lorries just covering their rear numberplates and driving through the camera controlled sections anyway. Took a photo of one this morning


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 25, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Skip lorries just covering their rear numberplates and driving through the camera controlled sections anyway. Took a photo of one this morning


Do report this to Lambeth if you've not already done so. I reported a Lambeth housing contractor doing the same and they did follow up.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 25, 2022)

I think it ought actually to be reported to police rather than Lambeth, no?


----------



## sparkybird (Jan 25, 2022)

Both I guess as obscuring number plates is illegal but Lambeth would deal with the camera fines. Anyway it was Lambeth that acted on it in my case (although maybe because it was one of their own?), I never reported it to the police


----------



## Not a Vet (Jan 25, 2022)

I’ve reported to both before and to be fair the police were keen to take it further but I don’t know the outcome. Lambeth put it into the too difficult pile (or the exception list as it’s known). This appears to be a more regular thing. A cctv camera on the opposite site would probably help and might have the bonus on improving safety/security. £100 fine if you cover your plates


----------



## alex_ (Jan 25, 2022)

Aristocrat said:


> I happen to know that the owner of that account lives inside a private gated community inside the LTN as well, and drives a car, hence fulfilling the full definition of hypocrisy, which is to campaign to deny to other people something (in his case, a life free from traffic noise and pollution) that he benefits from himself.



Hang on - this is the “greens must wear hair shirts or we will ridicule them” argument - it’s a fallacy.

Anti and pro ltn campaigners are allowed to drive cars or ride bikes and this doesn’t make them a hipocrite.


----------



## cogito (Jan 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what this has to do with disability rights?
> 
> View attachment 307393


Oh that was quick! They have already moved on from the "All LTNs delay emergency services and they must be scrapped" line? Surely the "green washing Boris backed blah blah blah" line will come back soon


----------



## Aristocrat (Jan 26, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Hang on - this is the “greens must wear hair shirts or we will ridicule them” argument - it’s a fallacy.
> 
> Anti and pro ltn campaigners are allowed to drive cars or ride bikes and this doesn’t make them a hipocrite.


I'm not really trying to say that. What I mean is that if someone lives inside a private gated community and campaigns against the benefits of an LTN being extended to those in their wider area, then they're a hypocrite. Especially so if, as he does, you throw around words like "enclosure" and "privatisation".


----------



## lblres (Jan 27, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I'm not sure where they got the suggest that the fire engines were delayed - haven't seen that anywhere.


looks as though the fire was purposely set "*Detectives have begun a murder investigation after a woman was found dead following a house fire in Lambeth."* making the comments from the antis even worse









						Murder investigation launched in Lambeth
					

Detectives have launched a murder investigation following a residential fire on Railton Road




					news.met.police.uk


----------



## editor (Jan 31, 2022)

LTN news Lambeth Council to consult on Ferndale Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN)


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 2, 2022)




----------



## alex_ (Feb 2, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 308366



👍


----------



## DaphneM (Feb 2, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> View attachment 308366


haha


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 2, 2022)

Not suspended, even though that's at least their second offence.

I imagine any campaign with the single mission of protecting disabled people's rights and nothing else is going to get done for doxxing a couple of times, right? Only natural.


----------



## Winot (Feb 2, 2022)

So with the Ferndale LTN consultation I was thinking that we hadn’t heard much recently about delays/congestion in that area.

Collateral Dama?


----------



## FerndaleRes (Feb 2, 2022)

Winot said:


> So with the Ferndale LTN consultation I was thinking that we hadn’t heard much recently about delays/congestion in that area.
> 
> Collateral Dama?


It’s still congested at times, new rush hours at various times including for Ubers at the weekends. Noise and arguments still happening - the increased traffic on Ferndale Road West as the only entry/exit is not nice for peoples mental health.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 2, 2022)

Removing some parking to create passing places seems the obvious way to reduce conflict between motorists on the western half of Ferndale.


----------



## Not a Vet (Feb 2, 2022)

FerndaleRes said:


> It’s still congested at times, new rush hours at various times including for Ubers at the weekends. Noise and arguments still happening - the increased traffic on Ferndale Road West as the only entry/exit is not nice for peoples mental health.


It sounds like how Railton used to be pre-LTN. Sorry I don’t know much about the local road layout but here, Dulwich road takes the traffic, could Acre/Bedford do the same if ferndale was blocked off?


----------



## alex_ (Feb 2, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Removing some parking to create passing places seems the obvious way to reduce conflict between motorists.



That’s a great idea, perhaps remove all parking apart from blue badge bays which would mean disabled people would be even less inconvenienced than befere


----------



## FerndaleRes (Feb 2, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> It sounds like how Railton used to be pre-LTN. Sorry I don’t know much about the local road layout but here, Dulwich road takes the traffic, could Acre/Bedford do the same if ferndale was blocked off?


Sounds like we were like Railton is now before the LTN went in. Still waiting for stage 2 report but residents have done counts too periodically and the increased traffic hasn’t stopped.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 3, 2022)

Oh no! The One Lambeth Justice account has made it so that you can't see their tweets unless you follow them!


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 3, 2022)

It's called effective campaigning, look it up.

I think they're finding that tweeting something, having that tweet reported, and then resharing the original tweet and request to take it down as screenshots is not actually an effective way to get around the rules.


----------



## editor (Feb 3, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Oh no! The One Lambeth Justice account has made it so that you can't see their tweets unless you follow them!


Pathetic.


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 3, 2022)

Confirmed. Their third strike at least.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 3, 2022)

What were they posting?


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 3, 2022)

I don't have, as the kids say, receipts, but just the usual guff about dictators and racists and so on and so on. The usual sensible campaigning stuff, y'know.

But it's getting more personal and just nastier. I guess once you've effectively claimed that this is the worst atrocity ever committed, you can't really back off from that to a more sensible position.


----------



## cogito (Feb 3, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Oh no! The One Lambeth Justice account has made it so that you can't see their tweets unless you follow them!


withdrawal syndrome coming?


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 5, 2022)

They do seem to hate any sort of walking or cycling scheme, anywhere, even when they claim to not drive themselves.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 5, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> They do seem to hate any sort of walking or cycling scheme, anywhere, even when they claim to not drive themselves.




It’s bizarre and cult like - complains about congestion, demonises people who stop driving.

Logically - they should want everyone off the roads apart from themselves.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 5, 2022)

He’s the only person who posts about Boris all the time too. Would be surprised if there wasn’t a connection to the stickers. Yet he also complains about the planters looking a mess.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 5, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> He’s the only person who posts about Boris all the time too. Would be surprised if there wasn’t a connection to the stickers. Yet he also complains about the planters looking a mess.



They are all a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 5, 2022)

They're not even trying in London tbh. This Birmingham-based anti-LTN account is taking it to a new level.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 5, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> They're not even trying in London tbh. This Birmingham-based anti-LTN account is taking it to a new level.




Looks like the kind of thing foxes do to me tbh.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 6, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Looks like the kind of thing foxes do to me tbh.


They aren't talking about the sign in the picture, they are taking about a police report of someone who has reported having someone try to break down their door, police filled a as attempted burglary, no further action.

The anti LTN loon is claiming it was attempted murder ("just asking questions") by Pro LTN activists ("alleged")

Which is hilarious if you know the area and the pro LTN activists, which I do because I live here.

But I would report that tweet if I had a Twitter account. It's a fucking disgusting accusation and if it was against an actual individual it would be good evidence of harassment and of course defamation but that's expensive and difficult to pursue.


----------



## cogito (Feb 6, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> They do seem to hate any sort of walking or cycling scheme, anywhere, even when they claim to not drive themselves.



They might not have learnt to drive but they certainly do own a car as a household it seems


----------



## edcraw (Feb 7, 2022)

Local Tories coming out strongly against the LTNs. One very vocal opponent seems to have joined them as well.



They also believe the Tulse Hill LTN has been made permanent (it hasn't) so good news there!


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 7, 2022)

They look cheerful


----------



## Not a Vet (Feb 7, 2022)

Be interesting how it plays out against the backdrop of national issues.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 7, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> They look cheerful


 Angry People in Local Newspapers


----------



## BusLanes (Feb 7, 2022)

Oh are they running in those areas? I'd assumed they would be campaigning in Dulwich/Clapham


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 7, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Oh are they running in those areas? I'd assumed they would be campaigning in Dulwich/Clapham


I doubt it. The issue is that the local conservative party chairman lives on a road just outside an LTN..... You can work out the rest. They just want to stir it up rather than trying to be part of a solution


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 8, 2022)

I think the Brixton Hill LTN will include my kids’ school. I don’t care if it becomes a LTN, a school road with limited access at x times of day, or even gets a zebra crossing or lollypop person, something has to change. Fed up with rat running motorists whizzing down it thinking they’ve got priority over 10 year olds walking solo and much younger kids walking with their parents. One of my daughter’s friend’s mum got literally run over some years ago.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 8, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I think the Brixton Hill LTN will include my kids’ school. I don’t care if it becomes a LTN, a school road with limited access at x times of day, or even gets a zebra crossing or lollypop person, something has to change. Fed up with rat running motorists whizzing down it thinking they’ve got priority over 10 year olds walking solo and much younger kids walking with their parents. One of my daughter’s friend’s mum got literally run over some years ago.


Don't know if it's New Park Road if you're talking about but that just goes to show you can't improve streets without drastically reducing traffic The 'improvements' there have been a complete failure and waste of money. Bent cycle hoops and the trees will be lucky to last long. 



As you say, why should we prioritise motor traffic over kids, particularly when it's just trying to avoid the main roads.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 8, 2022)

There’s also Morrish Road with its weird house/studio/storage place which takes up the space where the pavement should be. You either have to properly cross to the other side and then back again, or just walk in the road past the house. Psychologically people are wired to do the second. Add in the big vans that park illegally on the double yellows, particularly infuriating at school run time, and motorists taking their technical right of way and it’s really not very pleasant.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 8, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> There’s also Morrish Road with its weird house/studio/storage place which takes up the space where the pavement should be. You either have to properly cross to the other side and then back again, or just walk in the road past the house. Psychologically people are wired to do the second. Add in the big vans that park illegally on the double yellows, particularly infuriating at school run time, and motorists taking their technical right of way and it’s really not very pleasant.


I've always wondered how that ended up like that - whether it's a quirk of the property ownership or whether someone just decided to build on the pavement at some point and no-one stopped them. Either way, the pavement ought to be built out around it, parking spaces on other side removed if necessary. As it is, there's not even a dropped kerb to let you go onto the roadway to go around or to cross.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 8, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I think the Brixton Hill LTN will include my kids’ school. I don’t care if it becomes a LTN, a school road with limited access at x times of day, or even gets a zebra crossing or lollypop person, something has to change. Fed up with rat running motorists whizzing down it thinking they’ve got priority over 10 year olds walking solo and much younger kids walking with their parents. One of my daughter’s friend’s mum got literally run over some years ago.


Outside my kid's school is traffic chaos but I'd say it is largely parents rather than rat runners. Some really terrible driving and cars always mounting pavements.

I had an interesting exchange with a Lambeth engineer who was marking up a new position for a bollard slap bang in the middle of a pavement. The last bollard - put there to prevent vehicles from mounting and driving along the pavement - had been flattened by a reversing truck. He said it was being repositioned into the middle of the pavement so that it was away from the kerb and protected from vehicles driving into it. It did not appear to have occurred to him that he was making an allowance for vehicles to encroach half way onto the pavement and that it no longer fully protected pedestrians. Which seems like very bizarre thinking.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 8, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Outside my kid's school is traffic chaos but I'd say it is largely parents rather than rat runners. Some really terrible driving and cars always mounting pavements.
> 
> I had an interesting exchange with a Lambeth engineer who was marking up a new position for a bollard slap bang in the middle of a pavement. The last bollard - put there to prevent vehicles from mounting and driving along the pavement - had been flattened by a reversing truck. He said it was being repositioned into the middle of the pavement so that it was away from the kerb and protected from vehicles driving into it. It did not appear to have occurred to him that he was making an allowance for vehicles to encroach half way onto the pavement and that it no longer fully protected pedestrians. Which seems like very bizarre thinking.




Historic answer to motorists encroaching on pedestrian space always seemed to be to take away pedestrian space.  The bollards effectively taking about a third of the width of the busy pavements here on CHR are a particularly poor example.  I wonder what driver behaviour necessitated these in the first place?



Nursery Road another one


----------



## Crispy (Feb 8, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I've always wondered how that ended up like that - whether it's a quirk of the property ownership or whether someone just decided to build on the pavement at some point and no-one stopped them. Either way, the pavement ought to be built out around it, parking spaces on other side removed if necessary. As it is, there's not even a dropped kerb to let you go onto the roadway to go around or to cross.


Looks like the building line is historic. 1893 OS map:



There was no pavement on that side of the road, and the property line extended all the way to the junction with Brixton Road.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 8, 2022)

It seems remarkable that there is no camera to record vehicles driving through LTN gates with their number plate covered. It's solely ANPR and if you cover your number plate up you are likely to get away with it unless you are unlucky enough to be spotted by the police.


----------



## nick (Feb 8, 2022)

Crispy said:


> Looks like the building line is historic. 1893 OS map:
> 
> View attachment 309235
> 
> There was no pavement on that side of the road, and the property line extended all the way to the junction with Brixton Road.


Yours for £2.5m, if you fancy it. Not sure if the dog is included in the price









						Check out this 4 bedroom flat for sale on Rightmove
					

4 bedroom flat for sale in Morrish Road London SW2 for £2,495,000. Marketed by The Modern House, London




					www.rightmove.co.uk


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 8, 2022)

nick said:


> Yours for £2.5m, if you fancy it. Not sure if the dog is included in the price
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I lived there I would “enjoy” constantly telling all the illegal parked vans to fuck off.

Also these stairs do not look compliant with regs!


----------



## Rushy (Feb 8, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> If I lived there I would “enjoy” constantly telling all the illegal parked vans to fuck off.
> 
> Also these stairs do not look compliant with regs!
> 
> View attachment 309299


They need a balustrade but otherwise the steps probably do meet regs (depending on the room they are serving). They're called paddle tread stairs, compact stairs, space saver stairs.

That place keeps coming on the market at ever higher prices but I'm not sure that it has ever been sold in the past 15 years. Currently listed as "reduced to £2,495,000".


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 8, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> There’s also Morrish Road with its weird house/studio/storage place which takes up the space where the pavement should be. You either have to properly cross to the other side and then back again, or just walk in the road past the house. Psychologically people are wired to do the second. Add in the big vans that park illegally on the double yellows, particularly infuriating at school run time, and motorists taking their technical right of way and it’s really not very pleasant.


Sorry to hear about this, it sounds dreadful. You can take a pic of the illegally parked vehicles and report them via the Lambeth website.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 9, 2022)

This is hilarious, the residents of Fulham want something - just don't call it an LTN. 



			https://tcprwest.com/


----------



## BigTom (Feb 9, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> This is hilarious, the residents of Fulham want something - just don't call it an LTN.
> 
> 
> 
> https://tcprwest.com/



ANPR controlled blocks are different to physical blocks tbf, although I would say either are LTNs.


----------



## lblres (Feb 9, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Confirmed. Their third strike at least.
> 
> View attachment 308545


after locking down this account doctor cooray seems to be on her alternative


----------



## Rushy (Feb 9, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> This is hilarious, the residents of Fulham want something - just don't call it an LTN.
> 
> 
> 
> https://tcprwest.com/



I don't understand why this is hilarious? 

I agree that the TCPR is similar in many aspects to the LTNs being rolled out all over the place. But it appears to be more advanced in its management of vehicle access and take a different approach to residents within a scheme. I would likely choose a TCPR over an LTN as it deals with most of my original concerns about their operation. So I think some sort of differentiation is justified, even if their aims are more or less the same.

I wondered how feasible this was when I first read about it about 18 months ago. I've not followed it but I guess that if they are proposing roll out, it has proven successful?

I'd also be interested to know how the set up and ongoing management costs differ.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 9, 2022)

This is what they say about the differences



I don't think it's at all accurate to say that LTNs have a "very high impact on emergency vehicles, public transport and local activity" (I'm assuming they mean negative impact).

Bits I'd agree with are "more effective at reducing total traffic including local" and "focus on modal shift".

What they have in Fulham is something that stops people from outside of the borough using residential streets as cut-throughs. People that live in the area aren't restricted.

I don't see how this can lead to a better outcome for things like pollution and congestion on the main roads, compared to the LTN approach. It seems primarily to lead to a better outcome for car owners who live within the zone.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 9, 2022)

Rushy said:


> I don't understand why this is hilarious?
> 
> I agree that the TCPR is similar in many aspects to the LTNs being rolled out all over the place. But it appears to be more advanced in its management of vehicle access and take a different approach to residents within a scheme. I would likely choose a TCPR over an LTN as it deals with most of my original concerns about their operation. So I think some sort of differentiation is justified, even if their aims are more or less the same.
> 
> ...


I thought the point about LTNs was to encourage drivers to swap short local journeys by car to another form of transportation eg walking, cycling bus etc. Taking these cars off the road gives more space for longer journey drivers. If local residents can still drive everywhere, this isn't going to be much encouragement. Nor space


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 9, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> This is hilarious, the residents of Fulham want something - just don't call it an LTN.
> 
> 
> 
> https://tcprwest.com/


“We don’t want cars, well, actually, we do want cars, just the _right_ _sort_ of cars… ours, obviously”


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 9, 2022)

There's been a bit of rebranding going on, in Croydon they're now "Healthy Neighbourhoods". If the aim is to try and convince the headbangers that they're something different, then the very best of luck.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 9, 2022)

Rushy said:


> I don't understand why this is hilarious?
> 
> I agree that the TCPR is similar in many aspects to the LTNs being rolled out all over the place. But it appears to be more advanced in its management of vehicle access and take a different approach to residents within a scheme. I would likely choose a TCPR over an LTN as it deals with most of my original concerns about their operation. So I think some sort of differentiation is justified, even if their aims are more or less the same.
> 
> ...


They are trying to create a low traffic neighborhood, just call it something different.

Actually though what they are doing is creating a private gated community without the gates.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 9, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> They are trying to create a low traffic neighborhood, just call it something different.
> 
> Actually though what they are doing is creating a private gated community without the gates.


The running cots via Ring Go must be pretty expensive with no charge for residents. Seems a way to over complicate a simple thing to pander to residents. A very West London way of doing things...



And tradesmen & Ubers needing to register each day is confusing and probably lead to more fines from people getting it wrong.


----------



## Jesterburger (Feb 10, 2022)

Looks like it's a group of resident drivers who reckon LTNs might be inevitable and trying to pre-empt that with an approach that looks a bit like an LTN on the surface but still lets them drive everywhere (rather than outright hostile oppostion). I'll grudgingly accept it's probably smart.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 10, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> They are trying to create a low traffic neighborhood, just call it something different.
> 
> Actually though what they are doing is creating a private gated community without the gates.


I think what they are proposing it really wrong. 
If you are lucky enough to live in an LTN (in my view) then being inconvenienced by not being able to drive through it is the price you must pay.
Otherwise it's like having your cake and eating it. It is actually creating a real gated community, and will be even more decisive than an LTN


----------



## Rushy (Feb 10, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> I think what they are proposing it really wrong.
> If you are lucky enough to live in an LTN (in my view) then being inconvenienced by not being able to drive through it is the price you must pay.
> Otherwise it's like having your cake and eating it. It is actually creating a real gated community, and will be even more decisive than an LTN


When you say that it will be more divisive, who are you concerned will be excluded from driving into the zone?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2022)

It makes the whole scheme optimised around the interests of car owners who live within LTNs. It lessens the benefit for the "greater good" because it sacrifices some of the potential to lower traffic overall, in order to pander to the most privileged.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 10, 2022)

Exactly what teuchter said.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 10, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Exactly what teuchter said.


The references to a gated community are a little confusing. Just so we are clear - keeping vehicles not registered to residents or permitted under various schemes out of the zone is not what you think is divisive. You are OK with that bit?


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 10, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It makes the whole scheme optimised around the interests of car owners who live within LTNs. It lessens the benefit for the "greater good" because it sacrifices some of the potential to lower traffic overall, in order to pander to the most privileged.


and, by taking through traffic off the roads within the LTNs it actually makes driving within the borough quicker and more convenient for those with permits - which is likely to induce extra local trips by them.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 10, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It makes the whole scheme optimised around the interests of car owners who live within LTNs. It lessens the benefit for the "greater good" because it sacrifices some of the potential to lower traffic overall, in order to pander to the most privileged.



It does let you introduce a scheme like this to little opposition, and you can then chip away at the benefits in a manner which makes objecting harder.

One example of this would be how parking permits are now cost variable per co2/km.

You could whack parking permits up 100 quid, but give an 100 quid discount to people who never drove through the anpr cameras


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2022)

Rushy said:


> The references to a gated community are a little confusing. Just so we are clear - keeping vehicles not registered to residents or permitted under various schemes out of the zone is not what you think is divisive. You are OK with that bit?


I don't think references to gated communities are appropriate for either version... In neither version (Lambeth style LTN or Fulham variant) is anyone prevented from getting anywhere, the routes are just made less direct if you're in a motor vehicle.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 10, 2022)

(In fact the "gated community" rhetoric that's been going on from the beginning seems to have been quite successful in leading some people to think these schemes actually block access to some streets ... Including some people who would otherwise be supportive. The reality is that they make access a little more awkward for those in cars, and increase accessibility for other modes.)


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 10, 2022)

I used the term gated community as only residents traffic is allowed through the gates.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 10, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> I used the term gated community as only residents traffic is allowed through the gates.


But no one is kept out - only vehicles which do not have a reason to be there (residents, public transport, authorised trades, etc..). Do you object to this?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 10, 2022)

Rushy said:


> But no one is kept out - only vehicles which do not have a reason to be there (residents, public transport, authorised trades, etc..). Do you object to this?



I do because the residents themselves don't have any restrictions.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 10, 2022)

Rushy said:


> The references to a gated community are a little confusing. Just so we are clear - keeping vehicles not registered to residents or permitted under various schemes out of the zone is not what you think is divisive. You are OK with that bit?


The gated reference came from elsewhere but I used it with the meaning of having an neighborhood where only those who live (or those working for the people who live) in it are allowed to enter. Everyone else is outside the 'gates' - unless they want to pay a fine of course. 
This might be different to how you define a 'gated community' of course.
To me it smacks of those inside the gates get all the benefits (IE they can drive wherever and as often as they like with ease) and those outside get none. There is the divide. Does that make sense?


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 10, 2022)

In Croydon the leader of what is essentially the one group here, set up a petition to ask for ANPR access for local residents. They essentially won that concession.

Once they had that, this same person then spoke to a council meeting, where they quoted Sustrans warning that such concessions risked minimising the benefits of the scheme, so they should just scrap it.

You have to admire the balls, I suppose.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> But no one is kept out - only vehicles which do not have a reason to be there (residents, public transport, authorised trades, etc..). Do you object to this?


Yes, because it misses the point of what makes LTN’s safer.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 11, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yes, because it misses the point of what makes LTN’s safer.



Pretty sure removing through traffic will make most areas safer.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> The gated reference came from elsewhere but I used it with the meaning of having an neighborhood where only those who live (or those working for the people who live) in it are allowed to enter. Everyone else is outside the 'gates' - unless they want to pay a fine of course.
> This might be different to how you define a 'gated community' of course.
> To me it smacks of those inside the gates get all the benefits (IE they can drive wherever and as often as they like with ease) and those outside get none. There is the divide. Does that make sense?


The gated reference is one you chose to adopt and justify. But what you have described is not what this is. Not one single person is excluded.

Anyone is allowed to enter. By foot. By car. By bike. By converted pedalo.

In fact even anyone with a legitimate reason to take a car in can take a car in, it would seem.

The only people being excluded are those who choose not to enter the zone without a car, even though they have no legitimate reason to be using a car in the zone.

As for those inside being able to drive wherever they want - the trial scheme is approx 500m x 1200m. The LTN I live in is even smaller 400m x 200m. And people with the freedom of access would be similarly excluded from all other zones. The idea that residents are going to be zooming around inside it all day seems like a nonsense.

Might you feel differently if this were being trialed on the St Matthews Estate LTN rather than in Fulham?


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yes, because it misses the point of what makes LTN’s safer.


Vehicle movements aren't effectively stopped within the zone by either scheme. In my street people inexplicably still drive to Sainsburys despite it being 2-4x further and having to take the A23 and then negotiate jams on Effra Road. And they are not even driving less distance within the zone itself (just on a different part of it).

Even if the roads are safer due to reduced through traffic, they are by no means "safe". Personally I'd be happier with something like the TCPR or whatever it is called combined with something like a Homezone. Controlled driving within your own LTN / TCPR and access to and from all boundary roads for all residents within. Zones sized small so that it is hardly worth driving within them.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 11, 2022)

One Lambeth showing an ambulance & police car going through an LTN filter as proof that they… can’t go through the filters! 🤦‍♂️


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

To be fair it's been well demonstrated that all it takes for anyone to go through a Lambeth LTN gate is a black bin bag. From initial enquiries, it sounds like no action is being taken on this.

I'm told that this is not an issue on the resident led TCPR because they have an array of cameras.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> And people with the freedom of access would be similarly excluded from all other zones. The idea that residents are going to be zooming around inside it all day seems like a nonsense.


I don't believe that is true for the H&F schemes - ie borough residents can drive through all the ANPR filters in the borough.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> I don't believe that is true for the H&F schemes - ie borough residents can drive through all the ANPR filters in the borough.


You're right - that does seem to be the case on that one - although they would then be excluded from other neighbouring schemes (if that were the norm). Eligibility is easily adjustable. I think the key to it working is getting the zones right - not sure how relevant borough boundaries should really be.


----------



## editor (Feb 11, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Historic answer to motorists encroaching on pedestrian space always seemed to be to take away pedestrian space.  The bollards effectively taking about a third of the width of the busy pavements here on CHR are a particularly poor example.  I wonder what driver behaviour necessitated these in the first place?
> 
> View attachment 309226
> 
> ...


The bumper sized bollards on CHL outside Brixton House are even  more intrusive


----------



## Crispy (Feb 11, 2022)

We have bollards on our street. It's one of the few round here with no parking restrictions, but there's only room to park on one side. Before the bollards, the pavement would fill up with cars on the other during the day, completely blocking people's front gates.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

Crispy said:


> We have bollards on our street. It's one of the few round here with no parking restrictions, but there's only room to park on one side. Before the bollards, the pavement would fill up with cars on the other during the day, completely blocking people's front gates.


Like nursery road.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 11, 2022)

editor said:


> The bumper sized bollards on CHL outside Brixton House are even  more intrusive


If there are new ones (I can't recall) I'd guess they might be hostile vehicle mitigation, like Windrush Square. 


Crispy said:


> We have bollards on our street. It's one of the few round here with no parking restrictions, but there's only room to park on one side. Before the bollards, the pavement would fill up with cars on the other during the day, completely blocking people's front gates.


I'm sure that's what it is - but the solution to illegal parking should be enforcement, not to take space from pedestrians.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> The gated reference is one you chose to adopt and justify. But what you have described is not what this is. Not one single person is excluded.
> 
> Anyone is allowed to enter. By foot. By car. By bike. By converted pedalo.
> 
> ...


Yes, if you have a _legitimate_ reason to enter, you can, same as a gated community.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> The gated reference is one you chose to adopt and justify. But what you have described is not what this is. Not one single person is excluded.
> 
> Anyone is allowed to enter. By foot. By car. By bike. By converted pedalo.
> 
> ...


Clearly I've not explained well. I'm not justifying a gated community and maybe my idea of one is not the same as yours.
Converted pedalos or not, I'm not going to try again. It's ok to have different views isn't it?


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Clearly I've not explained well. I'm not justifying a gated community and maybe my idea of one is not the same as yours.
> Converted pedalos or not, I'm not going to try again. It's ok to have different views isn't it?


As long as you accept the concept of open access by converted pedalo, I'm happy.

Just to explain my objection to the use of the term, "Gated community" is politically loaded reference to the types of segregated developments like those found in parts of the US and S Africa. They are what they say. They have gates and walls and security designed to segregate. They provide facilities (usually premium facilities) inside, such as shops and schools, so that no one needs to leave. And no one from outside can use those facilities.









						Gated community - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




All a TCPR does is control whether you can come in and out using your own car. That's why it does not seem like an appropriate reference.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Yes, if you have a _legitimate_ reason to enter, you can, same as a gated community.


No. Not the same. In a "gated community" the majority of people are excluded from entering. In a TCPR absolutely no one is excluded. Anyone can enter and go anywhere and use any public facility - but they can only enter _using their own car_ if they have a legitimate reason to have a car in there.


----------



## Crispy (Feb 11, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> If there are new ones (I can't recall) I'd guess they might be hostile vehicle mitigation, like Windrush Square.
> 
> I'm sure that's what it is - but the solution to illegal parking should be enforcement, not to take space from pedestrians.


Apparently enforcement wasn't enough. People would just accept the cost of an occasional ticket. And besides, a car with a parking ticket on the window blocks the pavement just as well as one without. I agree they make the pavement awkward, but it's a lesser evil IMO.


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> As long as you accept the concept of open access by converted pedalo, I'm happy.
> 
> Just to explain my objection to the use of the term, "Gated community" is politically loaded reference to the types of segregated developments like those found in parts of the US and S Africa. They are what they say. They have gates and walls and security designed to segregate. They provide facilities (usually premium facilities) inside, such as shops and schools, so that no one needs to leave. And no one from outside can use those facilities.
> 
> ...


Fair point. In the UK maybe gated development is a more accurate phrase? 

BTW I was attempting to make reference to the anti LTNers use of gated. A true LTN seems less gated than a TCPR, so I can't understand why the latter would have more support from those against LTNs. 
However logic doesn't always abound!


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Fair point. In the UK maybe gated development is a more accurate phrase?
> 
> BTW I was attempting to make reference to the anti LTNers use of gated. A true LTN seems less gated than a TCPR, so I can't understand why the latter would have more support from those against LTNs.
> However logic doesn't always abound!


Yes it's a silly argument from anti LTNers and no less silly when it comes from LTNvangenlists. Gated is still private and exclusive - this is only about car access for people who don't need car access.

For me the biggest difference is sensible access to and from boundary roads around your zone (LTN or TCPR or whatever it's called). This affects some LTNs differently from others. As I've said from the very beginning, I'm not against the principle. I don't like the implementation or transparency. Things like the lack of competent enforcement just add to my feelings of disdain for the principle. I also have sympathy for arguments from people on boundary roads. The honking  around my way from snarl ups in the morning and evening is unlike anything I recall before the pandemic.

It's worth remembering that most people are not hard pro or anti. In the stats bandied about on here when I was last paying attention the vast majority of the population seem to fall into the somewhat support, somewhat disagree, just don't know or care categories.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> No. Not the same. In a "gated community" the majority of people are excluded from entering. In a TCPR absolutely no one is excluded. Anyone can enter and go anywhere and use any public facility - but they can only enter _using their own car_ if they have a legitimate reason to have a car in there.


Ok, so you can enter on foot or pedalo. 

My objection is that it gives rights to residents that other people don't have, so I think the comparison is a valid one.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Ok, so you can enter on foot or pedalo.
> 
> My objection is that it gives rights to residents that other people don't have, so I think the comparison is a valid one.


So using that logic parking in residential streets should be equally available to all drivers? Not just local residents? And because it is not so, our streets are already comparable to a segregated gated community?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> So using that logic parking in residential streets should be equally available to all drivers? Not just local residents? And because it is not so, our streets are already comparable to a segregated gated community?


If they made the parking in the whole LTN residents only it would have an effect like that.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 11, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> If they made the parking in the whole LTN residents only it would have an effect like that.


 We already have parking zones. Only residents of those zones are allowed to park in them. Some of them are as small as a handful of streets.

Rights to residents which other people do not have. Exactly what you object to.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 11, 2022)

Meanwhile, in the north…



Fair play to them. The absolute state of some of the replies though


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 12, 2022)

Rushy said:


> We already have parking zones. Only residents of those zones are allowed to park in them. Some of them are as small as a handful of streets.
> 
> Rights to residents which other people do not have. Exactly what you object to.


Anyone can park there, as long as you pay, it’s just cheaper for residents.









						Parking charges
					

The hourly rate for parking depends on which Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) you are parked in. View a guide and map of CPZs in Lambeth.  All diesel vehicles that are non-complaint with Euro 6 Emission standards will be liable for a 50% diesel surcharge. Please keep to the maximum time allowed on...




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 12, 2022)

Aren’t LTNs open to residents anyway, as in you can enter the area just not go through the barriers? Are people getting that snippy about a couple more minutes to go round a corner?

I think blue badge drivers should have no restrictions and taxis transporting people with mobility difficulties, but other than those and emergency vehicles, no one else should really get priority. 

Last taxi I took, the driver kept going on and on about LTNs and the implications for women’s safety, referring explicitly to Sarah Everard, when both my girls (almost 6 and 8) were in the taxi listening 

He didn’t get a tip.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 12, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Are people getting that snippy about a couple more minutes to go round a corner?


Yep.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 12, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Anyone can park there, as long as you pay, it’s just cheaper for residents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm afraid that is incorrect. Almost all bays are residents' bays - only residents can park in a residents bay. Unless they are provided with a visitors permit (but visitors permits are available exclusively to residents).

"Pay for" (previously "Pay and Display") do exist but are limited. (And - as you'll know if you've ever tried parking in one of the two on Tunstall Road, opposite the tube - somewhat unreliable as they are in very high demand).

Parking in CPZs is a right to residents which other people do not have. In fact even some residents have more rights than other. For instance - if you live in the central Brixton BIR zone you can park in the central BIR zone as well as anywhere in the larger BR zone which surrounds it. But if you live in the BR zone you cannot park in the central BIR zone. The whole purpose of this is to control demand for parking in the immediate central area where everyone wants to park. It stops residents of the surrounding BR zone driving unnecessarily into central Brixton to go shopping when they could just walk. Parking in that area is a right reserved only for residents of a handful of roads in central Brixton.

Your position is that giving rights to residents which others do not have is comparable to a gated / segregated community. But this is already going on - there are even stratifications of rights amongst residents. Yet this does not segregate the community. It is not a gated community.

Absolutely no one is excluded from a TCPR - unless they insist on bringing a car with them without having a valid reason to do so. The can apply for access via an app, just like "pay for" parking - only it is free.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 12, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep.


I guess maybe it's an issue if they're driving that route multiple times a day, but who apart from tradesmen and people who really can't use other forms of transport (rather than finding them a bit more inconvenient) really needs to do that? 

Sadly it is hard to get a sense of whether things like LTNs are changing driving behaviours. I'm sure they probably are for some people but they seem to be the quieter ones!


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 12, 2022)

If I was road dictator for a year, I'd put in some changes that would be much more likely to get some drivers' knickers in a twist 
Would anyone like to hear?


----------



## Winot (Feb 12, 2022)

I for one welcome our Sparrow overlords.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 12, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I guess maybe it's an issue if they're driving that route multiple times a day, but who apart from tradesmen and people who really can't use other forms of transport (rather than finding them a bit more inconvenient) really needs to do that


It’s also that they can no longer rat run on other streets. Most drivers seem not to give a shit about how their actions impact on others hence the rise in the number of stupidly sized SUVs.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 12, 2022)

Rushy said:


> I'm afraid that is incorrect. Almost all bays are residents' bays - only residents can park in a residents bay. Unless they are provided with a visitors permit (but visitors permits are available exclusively to residents).
> 
> "Pay for" (previously "Pay and Display") do exist but are limited. (And - as you'll know if you've ever tried parking in one of the two on Tunstall Road, opposite the tube - somewhat unreliable as they are in very high demand).
> 
> ...


The CPZs don’t cover the whole area though, a non resident can come and park somewhere in Brixton, even without a _valid_ reason to do so, with a TCPR they couldn’t do that, they’re not the same thing at all.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 12, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> The CPZs don’t cover the whole area though,  a non resident can come and park somewhere in Brixton


Most of Lambeth north of Brockwell Park - including most of Brixton - is covered by CPZs. They certainly cover a lot more area than the LTNs do.

By that argument you could say that it does not matter that people can't drive into the TCPR because they can still drive around most of Fulham?



> sleaterkinney said:
> 
> 
> > a non resident can come and park somewhere in Brixton, even without a _valid_ reason to do so, with a TCPR they could not do that


And you feel that every driver's right to drive anywhere they wish without any reason needs to be preserved at all costs?


I'm happy to agree that TCPRs - like LTNs - have their issues. But we already live with a situation where residents have some rights over non residents simply on account of being resident. And as I've shown, some residents even have unequal rights over other residents - in order to solve specific traffic problems. And the world has not fallen apart. 

I don't believe that you genuinely think a TCPR bears comparison to a segregated or gated community.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 12, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Most of Lambeth north of Brockwell Park - including most of Brixton - is covered by CPZs. They certainly cover a lot more area than the LTNs do.
> 
> By that argument you could say that it does not matter that people can't drive into the TCPR because they can still drive around most of Fulham?
> 
> ...



You’ve not shown anything, you’ve argued that a different thing doesn’t have the effect of what I was saying this would.


----------



## Rushy (Feb 12, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> You’ve not shown anything, you’ve argued that a different thing doesn’t have the effect of what I was saying this would.



You argued:


sleaterkinney said:


> My objection is that it gives rights to residents that other people don't have, so I think the comparison [to a segregated / gated community] is a valid one.



My intention was to show that giving specific vehicular rights to residents over non-residents (and indeed over other residents) in order to manage car use in a particular zone is already well established and accepted throughout London. I have never heard anyone argue that this results in anything like a segregated or gated community.

Until now. Fair enough. I'm surprised but I acknowledge your opinion.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 12, 2022)

Rushy said:


> You argued:
> 
> 
> My intention was to show that giving specific vehicular rights to residents over non-residents (and indeed over other residents) in order to manage car use in a particular zone is already well established and accepted throughout London. I have never heard anyone argue that this results in anything like a segregated or gated community.
> ...


You know what a strawman is, right?


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 15, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> If there are new ones (I can't recall) I'd guess they might be hostile vehicle mitigation, like Windrush Square.
> 
> I'm sure that's what it is - but the solution to illegal parking should be enforcement, not to take space from pedestrians.


Saw these at the weekend. Definitely hostile vehicle stuff so they have to be big and ugly.  At least they're on the section where the pavement is wide and there is space to gather - it's the few by the market that are really in the way where the pavement is narrow.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 15, 2022)

Ferndale consultation is now live 


and there is traffic monitoring data 
Traffic 



FerndaleRes said:


> It’s still congested at times, new rush hours at various times including for Ubers at the weekends. Noise and arguments still happening - the increased traffic on Ferndale Road West as the only entry/exit is not nice for peoples mental health.



Ferndale Road is interesting - the eastern half has a big reduction in traffic and theres an increase on the western end.  But it's only an extra 300 cars a day so the total daily cars is less than 1200.  That's still a very quiet road - the eastern half previously had over 3000 per day. So surely comes back to removing some parking to enable vehicles to pass each other more easily, which never seems to get a response from those complaining.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 15, 2022)

I think we all know what the reaction to “remove parking” would be.


----------



## liquidindian (Feb 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I think we all know what the reaction to “remove parking” would be.


That's mostly because the responses to anything from some looks like it was put together by a series of preprogrammed macro key presses.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 15, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> That's mostly because the responses to anything from some looks like it was put together by a series of preprogrammed macro key presses.


I really hope he does cut and paste rather than typing it out every time.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Feb 17, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Ferndale consultation is now live
> 
> 
> and there is traffic monitoring data
> ...



You say that it’s “only an extra 300 cars a day” and “still a very quiet road”. If that’s so then why do they need to put in passing spaces for the first time ever? The traffic on Ferndale Road West is incessant now. It used to be quiet for much of the day and almost all of the night. It’s now the only way into or out of a giant cul-de-sac housing maybe 2,000 people, three churches, some big estates, a very popular pub. Oh, and it’s also the Lambeth Healthy Route, and Lambeth Council is putting all the traffic on to its Healthy Route, which is also the road that most pedestrians use between Brixton and Clapham. Lambeth‘s numbers will require examination. They were taken at a strange time (ie, lockdowns and fuel shortage — and their ”normalisation” of the baseline). Besides which, would you want to have a passing space put in front of your house, with idling engines, maybe music and tooting horns telling other cars to come on or stay put? The passing areas also aren’t going to work. This is the most narrow part of Ferndale Road and it’s never been nice to cycle on when there’s an oncoming or overtaking car, and now there’s a lot more of them, thanks to the LTN.


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 17, 2022)

Collateral Dama said:


> You say that it’s “only an extra 300 cars a day” and “still a very quiet road”. If that’s so then why do they need to put in passing spaces for the first time ever? The traffic on Ferndale Road West is incessant now. It used to be quiet for much of the day and almost all of the night. It’s now the only way into or out of a giant cul-de-sac housing maybe 2,000 people, three churches, some big estates, a very popular pub.


So what are you proposing?  If you think that the sub 1500 vehicles per day on Ferndale West is too high for a Healthy Route you surely can't be suggesting reopening the rat runs as Ferndale East and Concanon used to be more than twice that.

As far as I can work out the normalisation increases the number above what was counted (to adjust for any impact of the pandemic). The notes seem to say they think this has overstated the HGV and motorbike traffic as those types of vehicle traffic haven't reduced)


----------



## sparkybird (Feb 17, 2022)

IIRC Lambeth criteria for a healthy route is no more than 200 vehicles per hour at peak time if cyclists and drivers mix.more than this,it needs a separate cycle lane


----------



## Rushy (Feb 17, 2022)

900 to 1200 is a 33% increase in traffic. That's pretty big. It does not seem unreasonable to complain about it. Especially when the purpose is to reduce traffic on a neighbouring road.  Hasn't Lambeth boasted about smaller pc reductions in traffic?

I have not looked at the plans but from what Collateral Dama posted, might this be largely avoided if residents of the LTN - who have no option but to use this access point - could drive through the gates and choose the most efficient point of entry and exit from the LTN?


----------



## thebackrow (Feb 18, 2022)

Rushy said:


> 900 to 1200 is a 33% increase in traffic. That's pretty big. It does not seem unreasonable to complain about it. Especially when the purpose is to reduce traffic on a neighbouring road.  Hasn't Lambeth boasted about smaller pc reductions in traffic?


At some point you have to look at absolutes - what level of traffic constitutes a 'low traffic street'.  Ferndale Road doesn't look any narrower than any other street - like Concanon for example.  Concanon previously took over 2.5 times the traffic volume Ferndale does now.  But the distance to the first side road is just over 100m, whereas there seems to be a 300m length of Ferndale that's completely parked on both sides.  This doesn't seem a difficult problem to solve - it's clearly not the absolute level of traffic that's the issue, but the ability of vehicles to pass each other.

Based on the videos that I've seen posted online the issue really appears to be the volume of mini-cabs at night - with the Duke of Edinburgh  the only place open (or closing) late at night in the streets accessed from Ferndale.  Which would mean allowing residents to drive through the filters wouldn't help at all.  I wonder if moving the filter position so it was directly outside the Duke would be enough to reduce those trips as they would then approach it from both sides? The pub's 10 minutes from Clapham North and 7 from Brixton tubes - that so many people now take taxis for their night out rather than public transport seems a big shift from my youth.


----------



## Collateral Dama (Feb 18, 2022)

This is a quote of you just above: “So surely comes back to removing some parking to enable vehicles to pass each other more easily, which never seems to get a response from those complaining”.


sparkybird said:


> IIRC Lambeth criteria for a healthy route is no more than 200 vehicles per hour at peak time if cyclists and drivers mix.more than this,it needs a separate cycle l





thebackrow said:


> At some point you have to look at absolutes - what level of traffic constitutes a 'low traffic street'.  Ferndale Road doesn't look any narrower than any other street - like Concanon for example.  Concanon previously took over 2.5 times the traffic volume Ferndale does now.  But the distance to the first side road is just over 100m, whereas there seems to be a 300m length of Ferndale that's completely parked on both sides.  This doesn't seem a difficult problem to solve - it's clearly not the absolute level of traffic that's the issue, but the ability of vehicles to pass each other.
> 
> Based on the videos that I've seen posted online the issue really appears to be the volume of mini-cabs at night - with the Duke of Edinburgh  the only place open (or closing) late at night in the streets accessed from Ferndale.  Which would mean allowing residents to drive through the filters wouldn't help at all.  I wonder if moving the filter position so it was directly outside the Duke would be enough to reduce those trips as they would then approach it from both sides? The pub's 10 minutes from Clapham North and 7 from Brixton tubes - that so many people now take taxis for their night out rather than public transport seems a big shift from my youth.


It is the absolute level of traffic. The traffic now is incessant for most of the day and much of the night. Weekend nights are the worst because of the pub traffic, as you note, but it's now constant at most other times too. Four passing spaces isn't going to solve the problem because of the traffic level and the length of the street. It's easy for you to say that there's an easy solution but you don't live here and you're not going to have a passing space put in front of your house. This is the narrowest part of Ferndale Road. It's narrower than Ferndale East. It might be a similar width to Concanon, for example, but Concanon is not the Healthy Route and does not have the pedestrian or cycle traffic that this so-called Healthy Route does. Sparkybird is right that the "Healthy Route standard" is 200 vehicles per hour at peak. As the stage 2 report notes, we're close to that now. As I said above, we think the numbers are low and that we exceed 200 vph at times. But is it really the spirit and intention of these Healthy Routes to concentrate all the vehicle traffic on to them? I'd never heard of a Healthy Route before the LTN got started. Talk about giving a dog a name to kick it. The LTN didn't have to be constructed as it has been. Indeed, the first iteration left Ferndale Road open as the one route through the LTN for those who wanted to escape jammed boundary roads. I'd never heard of LTNs before this one landed on us but a few minutes research revealed one of the most basic rules, which is that you do not leave an open route through the LTN. Lambeth took many months to correct that basic mistake and they did so by plunking the filter down on Ferndale Road east almost at the railway bridge, creating a cul-de-sac that's half a mile long and houses roughly 2,000 people etc. The filters could be placed in different positions to create smaller "cells" with different entry and exit points, rather than making every vehicle wanting to access this half-mile stretch use just this one, narrow and purportedly Healthy route in.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Feb 18, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> At some point you have to look at absolutes - what level of traffic constitutes a 'low traffic street'.  Ferndale Road doesn't look any narrower than any other street - like Concanon for example.  Concanon previously took over 2.5 times the traffic volume Ferndale does now.  But the distance to the first side road is just over 100m, whereas there seems to be a 300m length of Ferndale that's completely parked on both sides.  This doesn't seem a difficult problem to solve - it's clearly not the absolute level of traffic that's the issue, but the ability of vehicles to pass each other.
> 
> Based on the videos that I've seen posted online the issue really appears to be the volume of mini-cabs at night - with the Duke of Edinburgh  the only place open (or closing) late at night in the streets accessed from Ferndale.  Which would mean allowing residents to drive through the filters wouldn't help at all.  I wonder if moving the filter position so it was directly outside the Duke would be enough to reduce those trips as they would then approach it from both sides? The pub's 10 minutes from Clapham North and 7 from Brixton tubes - that so many people now take taxis for their night out rather than public transport seems a big shift from my youth.


moving the restriction to the other side of the pub sounds like a good idea, especially as the other side has a minimal amount of housing on the way to the main roads and it's a one way street.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Pretty sure removing through traffic will make most areas safer.


The "L" in LTN stands for "low", not "almost none". 
If - as was originally theorised - LAs had been given time to measure traffic flow and develop models of local traffic, LTNs could have been effective. As it is, pollution load has merely been switched. No wonder Lambeth Council's pollution monitors on main roads are almost permanently disabled! 
Rat-runs have been displaced. Where I live, idiots wanting to avoid the last 100m before the traffic lights now drive onto my estate and speed up our access rd. We're averaging 2 cars a week getting damaged - fortunately no lives yet - but hey, all hail the cunting LTNs!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I guess maybe it's an issue if they're driving that route multiple times a day, but who apart from tradesmen and people who really can't use other forms of transport (rather than finding them a bit more inconvenient) really needs to do that?
> 
> Sadly it is hard to get a sense of whether things like LTNs are changing driving behaviours. I'm sure they probably are for some people but they seem to be the quieter ones!


Here on Cressingham we've seen non-resident/courier use of our access road more than double since the Tulse Hill LTN was put in place, & a significant minority of those users drive like arseholes, including the wanker in the Subaru who allows us all the "benefit" of his car backfiring (he must have a very small penis to go with a very small brain).


----------



## madolesance (Feb 22, 2022)

ViolentPanda said:


> Here on Cressingham we've seen non-resident/courier use of our access road more than double since the Tulse Hill LTN was put in place, & a significant minority of those users drive like arseholes, including the wanker in the Subaru who allows us all the "benefit" of his car backfiring (he must have a very small penis to go with a very small brain).


Just how does the new Tulse Hill LTN affect Cressingham? All the recent changes are on the west side off Tulse Hill. Are you meaning the left turn/ no entry into Trinity Rise? 
That's been there for years. Those rat runners it seems have just got a bit more sneaky.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 22, 2022)

ViolentPanda said:


> The "L" in LTN stands for "low", not "almost none".
> If - as was originally theorised - LAs had been given time to measure traffic flow and develop models of local traffic, LTNs could have been effective. As it is, pollution load has merely been switched. No wonder Lambeth Council's pollution monitors on main roads are almost permanently disabled!
> Rat-runs have been displaced. Where I live, idiots wanting to avoid the last 100m before the traffic lights now drive onto my estate and speed up our access rd. We're averaging 2 cars a week getting damaged - fortunately no lives yet - but hey, all hail the cunting LTNs!


Your complaining of rat running traffic on Cressingham Grdns but want others to have to deal with it? Roupell Rd was horrible before the LTN and dangerous to cross all because of traffic avoiding the main roads. Much safer now.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 22, 2022)

Cressingham Grdns is a great example of how post war housing has been built to keep out traffic - why should streets built before cars just have to suffer from increased traffic?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 27, 2022)

ViolentPanda said:


> Here on Cressingham we've seen non-resident/courier use of our access road more than double since the Tulse Hill LTN was put in place, & a significant minority of those users drive like arseholes, including the wanker in the Subaru who allows us all the "benefit" of his car backfiring (he must have a very small penis to go with a very small brain).


Really sorry to hear things have been pushed your end  Though I also agree with edcraw, roads like Roupell are much less dangerous/actually crossable. 

Ultimately what needs to happen is most people who can need to stop or reduce driving. Problem is that everyone thinks they’re one of those who can’t. A justifiable position for those with mobility issues or heavy equipment to cart around. Not justifiable IMO just to shave a bit of time off your journey.  I can see why people are finding it hard to make that jump, I just disagree that their journeys are as essential as they say (when they moan on SMN!)

Sad thing is, if car use can’t be minimised in London with the relatively amazing public transport, what chance is there in the rest of the country?


----------



## teuchter (Feb 27, 2022)

madolesance said:


> Are you meaning the left turn/ no entry into Trinity Rise?
> That's been there for years. Those rat runners it seems have just got a bit more sneaky.


There's a similar situation here in Loughborough Junction, where Padfield Rd allows people to bypass the traffic lights at the junction of Herne Hill Road and Coldharbour Lane. Especially going south it just requires a left turn off CH Lane, down Padfield Rd and another left turn onto HH Road, and lots of drivers like doing all this at considerable speed which means it's not much fun trying to cross the junctions at either end of the cut-through.

This is happening without any LTNs in the vicinity. In fact part of the ill fated Loughborough Junction road changes a few years ago included putting a block on Padfield Rd. And no-one could argue that that block made access to their home anything other than very marginally more inconvenient than before. The only people it inconvenienced were those who wanted to drive straight through and avoid some traffic lights. Nonetheless, it was scrapped along with everything else when Lambeth lost their bottle. The justification in the report for its removal is mainly based on the outcome of "consultation", which in practice means that enough people who wanted to continue to dodge the traffic lights, or who just had an ideological opposition to any traffic blocking in principle, got their answers in to the survey.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 27, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Really sorry to hear things have been pushed your end  Though I also agree with edcraw, roads like Roupell are much less dangerous/actually crossable.
> 
> Ultimately what needs to happen is most people who can need to stop or reduce driving. Problem is that everyone thinks they’re one of those who can’t. A justifiable position for those with mobility issues or heavy equipment to cart around. Not justifiable IMO just to shave a bit of time off your journey.  I can see why people are finding it hard to make that jump, I just disagree that their journeys are as essential as they say (when they moan on SMN!)
> 
> Sad thing is, if car use can’t be minimised in London with the relatively amazing public transport, what chance is there in the rest of the country?


This is why it needs to be forced. People are never going to give up their cars willingly.

Ban private cars from city centres. Ban on street parking for private vehicles. Make petrol ruinously expensive. Tax per mile, weighted against vehicle size, close through/cross city road routes. 20mph max in any built up area, etc etc.

Driving needs to be made an utterly miserable experience for anyone it isn’t absolutely essential for. And that’s a list a lot smaller than most people think.


----------



## Winot (Feb 27, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is why it needs to be forced. People are never going to give up their cars willingly.
> 
> Ban private cars from city centres. Ban on street parking for private vehicles. Make petrol ruinously expensive. Tax per mile, weighted against vehicle size, close through/cross city road routes. 20mph max in any built up area, etc etc.
> 
> Driving needs to be made an utterly miserable experience for anyone it isn’t absolutely essential for. And that’s a list a lot smaller than most people think.


Well yes, but forced by whom? Problem in London is that road control is split between TfL and local authorities. And some LAs are scared of selfish drivers voting them out so cancel LTNs (Ealing, Wandsworth, Kensington).

The situation is overly complex and holds back sensible transport planning. TfL should have control of all London transport and all London roads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 27, 2022)

Winot said:


> Well yes, but forced by whom? Problem in London is that road control is split between TfL and local authorities. And some LAs are scared of selfish drivers voting them out so cancel LTNs (Ealing, Wandsworth, Kensington).
> 
> The situation is overly complex and holds back sensible transport planning. TfL should have control of all London transport and all London roads.


Not just London. The whole mess needs a national approach.


----------



## nagapie (Feb 27, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This is why it needs to be forced. People are never going to give up their cars willingly.
> 
> Ban private cars from city centres. Ban on street parking for private vehicles. Make petrol ruinously expensive. Tax per mile, weighted against vehicle size, close through/cross city road routes. 20mph max in any built up area, etc etc.
> 
> Driving needs to be made an utterly miserable experience for anyone it isn’t absolutely essential for. And that’s a list a lot smaller than most people think.


Petrol ruiniously expensive will impact on those that drive due to additional or medical needs.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2022)

nagapie said:


> Petrol ruiniously expensive will impact on those that drive due to additional or medical needs.



Which can be resolved through benefits payments, it's the kind of thing PIP/DLA is intended to cover.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 27, 2022)

Ruinously expensive fuel is just not going to happen anytime soon because we've managed to build a country where too many people are car dependant. Realistically it has to start in cities with things like LTNs - and road pricing if there is any hope of getting that through politically.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Ruinously expensive fuel is just not going to happen anytime soon because we've managed to build a country where too many people are car dependant. Realistically it has to start in cities with things like LTNs - and road pricing if there is any hope of getting that through politically.


Road pricing will happen with electric vehicles, politically there is just too much money waiting to be lost from petrol duty and they won't want to raise all electricity prices to cover that loss.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 27, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Road pricing will happen with electric vehicles, politically there is just too much money waiting to be lost from petrol duty and they won't want to raise all electricity prices to cover that loss.


Yes, I agree and it will hopefully be one of the positives to come out of a transition to EVs.


----------



## nagapie (Feb 27, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Which can be resolved through benefits payments, it's the kind of thing PIP/DLA is intended to cover.


So people who would struggle to walk or use public transport and therefore have to use a vehicle should be penalised out of their benefits? Do you work for the government, because I think there's a job for you.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2022)

nagapie said:


> So people who would struggle to walk or use public transport and therefore have to use a vehicle should be penalised out of their benefits? Do you work for the government, because I think there's a job for you.


I think you've completely misunderstood what i was saying.

PIP/DLA exist to cover extra costs of disabilities.

If cars are being taxed to increase their costs and this hits people with disabilities with an extra cost then this extra cost could be covered through PIP/DLA, as that is the purpose of these benefits.

So anyone with mobility issues or whatever that meant they really needed to use a car could get extra payments through PIP/DLA to cover this, not a cut out of their benefits.


----------



## teuchter (Feb 27, 2022)

BigTom said:


> I think you've completely misunderstood what i was saying.


It's what's called deliberate misinterpretation.


----------



## nagapie (Feb 27, 2022)

BigTom said:


> I think you've completely misunderstood what i was saying.
> 
> PIP/DLA exist to cover extra costs of disabilities.
> 
> ...


So you're saying there would be an increase in pip and dla to cover this, that was not clear but welcomed if that's what you meant.


----------



## nagapie (Feb 27, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's what's called deliberate misinterpretation.


No, it wasn't clear. Why would I want to be deliberately combative, I'm not you.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 27, 2022)

BigTom said:


> I think you've completely misunderstood what i was saying.
> 
> PIP/DLA exist to cover extra costs of disabilities.
> 
> ...


The problem is that would run counter to what is actually happening to benefits, ie they’re shrinking/becoming harder to get in the first place.    Whatever controls get put in place, blue badge holders should not be penalised, and also ideally those who don’t quite qualify but still need car transport for genuine accessibility reasons.

My completely-not-serious-but-satisfying solution would be everyone who isn’t the above having to apply for permits for their semi regular journeys


----------



## teuchter (Feb 27, 2022)

Road pricing with exemptions/discounts seems a much better solution than fuel tax refunded via benefits, for sure.

One thing road pricing can potentially do is adjust the cost of driving according to the availability of public transport on the route being taken.


----------



## edcraw (Feb 27, 2022)

This hiding behind people with disabilities to stop measures to reduce car usage is pretty sickening especially as it usually comes from people that don’t give a shit otherwise but as it impacts them suddenly seem to care.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 27, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This hiding behind people with disabilities to stop measures to reduce car usage is pretty sickening especially as it usually comes from people that don’t give a shit otherwise but as it impacts them suddenly seem to care.


Yes, but tbf that’s not what is happening in this recent exchange.


----------



## nagapie (Feb 27, 2022)

edcraw said:


> This hiding behind people with disabilities to stop measures to reduce car usage is pretty sickening especially as it usually comes from people that don’t give a shit otherwise but as it impacts them suddenly seem to care.


Also don't conflate this issue with One Lambeth just because they are using it for their agenda.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 27, 2022)

nagapie said:


> So you're saying there would be an increase in pip and dla to cover this, that was not clear but welcomed if that's what you meant.


Yes, why are you still doubting what I meant when I've been completely explicit now since you clearly misunderstood my initial post.


Agent Sparrow said:


> The problem is that would run counter to what is actually happening to benefits, ie they’re shrinking/becoming harder to get in the first place.    Whatever controls get put in place, blue badge holders should not be penalised, and also ideally those who don’t quite qualify but still need car transport for genuine accessibility reasons.
> 
> My completely-not-serious-but-satisfying solution would be everyone who isn’t the above having to apply for permits for their semi regular journeys


Yeah but beesonthewhatnow idea is not something that is going to happen with the current politicians, I wasn't dealing with the current world but one in which a government exists which would consider such policies.


----------



## nagapie (Feb 27, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Yes, why are you still doubting what I meant when I've been completely explicit now since you clearly misunderstood my initial post.


I'm not.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Feb 28, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Yeah but beesonthewhatnow idea is not something that is going to happen with the current politicians, I wasn't dealing with the current world but one in which a government exists which would consider such policies.


Understood


----------



## edcraw (Mar 1, 2022)

What a waste of money these money making LTNs are!!!!


----------



## teuchter (Mar 3, 2022)

I walked the length of Croxted road around lunchtime today, from West Dulwich to Brockwell park.

The "no to LTNs" placards continue to outnumber massive traffic queues, of which I saw none.

Here is the queue that built up during a cycle of the traffic lights at the bottom


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 3, 2022)

Looks similar to when I took the bus in early December, during "rush hour". It does get busier when the school run is happening, and only during term time. If only someone could figure out the cause.


----------



## nick (Mar 3, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Looks similar to when I took the bus in early December, during "rush hour". It does get busier when the school run is happening, and only during term time. If only someone could figure out the cause.


Solution obviously is to ban kids from driving themselves to school  (  )


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 3, 2022)

nick said:


> Solution obviously is to ban kids from driving themselves to school  (  )


Which is supposed to be a real issue around Dulwich 6th forms


----------



## nick (Mar 3, 2022)

Really. 
I was tongue in cheek, but surprised that there are that many kids driving themselves.  
Even the College, which isn't short of land, doesn't have that much all-day parking space for them 

Can't imagine 6th formers self driving would be that material compared to the number of parents doing the school run. But happy to be corrected


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 3, 2022)

nick said:


> Really.
> I was tongue in cheek, but surprised that there are that many kids driving themselves.
> Even the College, which isn't short of land, doesn't have that much all-day parking space for them
> 
> Can't imagine 6th formers self driving would be that material compared to the number of parents doing the school run. But happy to be corrected


I think the moan was that they fill all the (not resident only) parking In the surrounding streets.


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 4, 2022)

finally honest about the legal process.








						Why we can’t challenge Southwark’s road closures in the courts — One Dulwich
					

A legal update




					www.onedulwich.uk


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 4, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> finally honest about the legal process.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting, thanks. I wonder if the same will apply in the case of Lambeth?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 5, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> finally honest about the legal process.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a v weird thing to say:


> the courts are very unwilling to get involved in policy decided on by locally elected councillors


----------



## snowy_again (Mar 5, 2022)

Isn’t one of one dulwich standing as a Tory councillor?


----------



## alex_ (Mar 5, 2022)

snowy_again said:


> Isn’t one of one dulwich standing as a Tory councillor?



Sounds about right


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 8, 2022)

More weird stuff going on in Dulwich.

An account tweets that Southwark Council has awarded £6000 to a pro healthy streets group. Lots of the usual suspects fall over themselves to share this.



Except the group denies it. There was an application for funds but they didn't submit it.



And it turns out the whole thing was a fraud. (thread)


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 11, 2022)

Just received emails from Lambeth that Blue Badge Holders can now finally apply for an exemption from one filter in  Railton or Oval/Stockwell LTNs. Up to 2 vehicles can be registered








						Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) dispensation
					

If you are a Blue Badge holder, you can apply for a dispensation to access a traffic filter location within a given Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN).




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## alex_ (Mar 12, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Just received emails from Lambeth that Blue Badge Holders can now finally apply for an exemption from one filter in  Railton or Oval/Stockwell LTNs. Up to 2 vehicles can be registered
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Has anyone heard from the anti’s recently ?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 12, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Has anyone heard from the anti’s recently ?


They seem to just be focussed on ‘the increased pollution’. Really sticks in the throat that those happily polluting everyone so easily try and blame those looking to improve things. Luckily most are well aware of their priorities.


----------



## sparkybird (Mar 13, 2022)

Lambeth looking for a Healthy Routes programme manager £46k, deadline 20 March
Great that they are committed to making streets better for those not in vehicles.


----------



## alex_ (Mar 14, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Great that they are committed to making streets better for those not in vehicles.


 The majority of the population iirc


----------



## edcraw (Mar 14, 2022)

The consultation for the Ferndale LTN closes this Sunday. If you haven't already do make sure you fill in to have your views heard.






						Free Online Survey Software by SurveyMonkey: Closed Survey
					

This survey is currently closed.  Please contact the author of this survey for further assistance.




					www.surveymonkey.co.uk


----------



## edcraw (Mar 14, 2022)

chowce5382 are you part of this plan to raise a legal challenge to the traffic orders for Oval & Railton?


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 14, 2022)

Aw, the big day of action on the 26th March seems to have disappeared for some reason. I was looking forward to laughing at that.





			https://takebackourstreets.info/


----------



## chowce5382 (Mar 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> chowce5382 are you part of this plan to raise a legal challenge to the traffic orders for Oval & Railton?
> 
> View attachment 314386


Depends what you mean by legal challenge.
From what I see above this is predicated on a number of (legal) assumptions. As such those assumptions will probably need to be met before a challenge is made. Ed - feel free to give some professional advice on this as it would be good to know your legal thought process.

Anyone got anything to say about the recent story of a counsel lying about pollution?

After all, you guys have been telling everyone that it’s down on all roads everywhere.

Looking to forward to the yes but no answers, or the, “we’re actually trying to make the world better but you drive a car” answer (even if we don’t) and what we’ve been saying previously has now been admitted by a counsel that is a major advocate of LTNs).

Personally, and given the stories coming from BrixtonBuzz, I’m not entirely sure that the council are entirely focussed on the things that matter (housing etc). However, I’m sure you’ll spent the next few days putting me right and pointing out that a council was completely right in what it has said.

Given you guys care so much about this, it’s surprising that there is very little on this topic on here. I would have assumed that you’d be shocked and would be calling this counsel out.  You aren’t, because it doesn’t back up your narrative. 

Looking forward to people picking into the exact use of language rather than addressing the point.

Off you go…


----------



## teuchter (Mar 15, 2022)

Well don't leave us hanging - what's the story that we are to react to?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

Counsel or council? Kind of confusing when changing the subject from a legal case.

Thanks for your answer - was just wondering how you’ll be finding any further legal fees?

Really don’t know enough about the scheme in Islington to comment tbh. Only read this article but it’s LBC so 🤷

I thought your focus was solely on the effect on people with disabilities?

As mentioned above it’s interesting how the argument seems to have focussed on pollution now. It’ll be good to see OneLambeth getting behind the ULEZ extension and I’d be interested to hear you’re other ideas of tackling it - or is it all down to LTNs?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

Okay - so it was an error in an interim report apparently. The full year report shows rises in pollution but they are inline (less within the LTN) with borough wide rises of over 15%!!!! Where’s the fucking outrage over that ffs!

Page 74 onwards.

chowce5382 little tip - if only LBC is reporting a story (especially on traffic) there’s probably more going on.


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> if only LBC is reporting a story


Steve Bird in the Telegraph too, don't forget him.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

Anyway - back to the court case chowce5382 - on what basis do you think you can challenge the traffic orders? I thought your barrister said they were separate from the emergency ones.


----------



## chowce5382 (Mar 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Anyway - back to the court case chowce5382 - on what basis do you think you can challenge the traffic orders? I thought your barrister said they were separate from the emergency ones.


Every order is separate from another order, by definition, if it’s a different order in a different place. Doesn’t mean that’s it’s not capable of challenge on the same, or a similar basis.


----------



## chowce5382 (Mar 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Okay - so it was an error in an interim report apparently. The full year report shows rises in pollution but they are inline (less within the LTN) with borough wide rises of over 15%!!!! Where’s the ducking outrage over that ffs!
> 
> Page 74 onwards.
> 
> chowce5382 little tip - if only LBC is reporting a story (especially on traffic) there’s probably more going on.


and a couple of broadsheets.  So pollution is down then? Pretty big error. Did they mix up the plus and minus sign again?  Or is it up in general?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Every order is separate from another order, by definition, if it’s a different order in a different place. Doesn’t mean that’s it’s not capable of challenge on the same, or a similar basis.


And that’s the question - on what basis does OneLambeth think they can challenge these orders?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 15, 2022)

So, pollution is still going up _everywhere_, but that’s the fault of a few LTN’s, yes? That’s now the loons argument?

How quickly “the disabled” are forgotten, eh?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> and a couple of broadsheets.  So pollution is down then? Pretty big error. Did they mix up the plus and minus sign again?  Or is it up in general?


I don’t really know - it’s another borough, I’m just reading the full year report. The story is about an earlier report. You bought it up so presumably you know the ins and outs.


----------



## chowce5382 (Mar 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, pollution is still going up _everywhere_, but that’s the fault of a few LTN’s, yes? That’s now the loons argument?
> 
> How quickly “the disabled” are forgotten, eh?


If pollution is up since their implementation then that’s a bad thing. I’m just pointing out that your argument (as a collective group) has always been that they reduce pollution and that traffic is displaced and evaporates. Just your argument so it’s interesting to understand whether pollution is has gone up or down and whether this can be attributed to LTNs or whether is just randomly gone up since then and for no related reason.

You’ll see that the purpose I’m doing this originally has not been forgotten given that there is another legal challenge which has just gone in.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> You’ll see that the purpose I’m doing this originally has not been forgotten given that there is another legal challenge which has just gone in.


What legal challenge?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> If pollution is up since their implementation then that’s a bad thing. I’m just pointing out that your argument (as a collective group) has always been that they reduce pollution and that traffic is displaced and evaporates. Just your argument so it’s interesting to understand whether pollution is has gone up or down and whether this can be attributed to LTNs or whether is just randomly gone up since then and for no related reason.
> 
> You’ll see that the purpose I’m doing this originally has not been forgotten given that there is another legal challenge which has just gone in.


I’m of the view that pollution arguments are entirely secondary to the simple removal of through traffic from residential streets/city centres. Replace every polluting car out there with an electric one and nothing changes. Our streets will still be cramped and dangerous. We will still have rat runs and traffic jams. Pavements will still be blocked by parked cars.

We need less cars.


----------



## chowce5382 (Mar 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What legal challenge?


Not in London. 

On the above comment which I assume is from Facebook or something similar, we’ll look at each order as and when it’s made and make a decision on whether/how to challenge based on the merits of that order. As they are all individual then you have to take an individual approach


----------



## chowce5382 (Mar 15, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I’m of the view that pollution arguments are entirely secondary to the simple removal of through traffic from residential streets/city centres. Replace every polluting car out there with an electric one and nothing changes. Our streets will still be cramped and dangerous. We will still have rat runs and traffic jams. Pavements will still be blocked by parked cars.
> 
> We need less cars.


To be fair, I don’t see that many pavements blocked by parked cars, they tend to be on the street.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Not in London.
> 
> On the above comment which I assume is from Facebook or something similar, we’ll look at each order as and when it’s made and make a decision on whether/how to challenge based on the merits of that order. As they are all individual then you have to take an individual approach


It's from your Twitter account.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> To be fair, I don’t see that many pavements blocked by parked cars, they tend to be on the street.


You're not paying attention then. In our area Coburg Crescent & Gaywood Close are particularly awful.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> To be fair, I don’t see that many pavements blocked by parked cars, they tend to be on the street.


None so blind etc.


----------



## chowce5382 (Mar 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> You're not paying attention then. In our area Coburg Crescent & Gaywood Close are particularly awful.


Not a single car on the pavements anywhere near where I walk, everything is on the street rather than the pavement. I’ll keep an eye out but I walk everywhere and generally don’t see this


----------



## teuchter (Mar 15, 2022)

It's much worse outside of London. But still see it in London. Took this the other week.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Not a single car on the pavements anywhere near where I walk, everything is on the street rather than the pavement. I’ll keep an eye out but I walk everywhere and generally don’t see this


For someone so concerned about the impact of LTNs on people with disabilities it's v weird not to be aware of this issue.











						Transport Secretary announces plans to make pavements accessible for all
					

Government launches consultation on pavement parking.




					www.gov.uk


----------



## chowce5382 (Mar 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> For someone so concerned about the impact of LTNs on people with disabilities it's v weird not to be aware of this issue.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As I said, I don’t see if near me. I’m aware that cars do sometimes park on pavements, just saying that in my area of brixton it’s not a habitual issue. Possibly we have wider roads and therefore enough space for cars to park on both sides and there be enough space for others to drive


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 15, 2022)

What about ships, see any of those?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 15, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's much worse outside of London. But still see it in London. Took this the other week.
> 
> View attachment 314442


Specifically illegal in London but elsewhere is only illegal to drive on a pavement, never mind that a parked car clearly drove on and will be driven off the pavement, you can't prosecute.

No idea if any prosecutions happen in London really though but outside you have to be fully obstructing the pavement for it to be an offence.

Law needs changing and has been talked about for many years.


----------



## Rushy (Mar 15, 2022)

Can someone link to an article about recent rises in pollution? Worrying that this is happening despite ULEZ. Or is it different category of pollutants?

ETA It seems that the increase observed was pre-ULEZ.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2022)

Tbh, LTNs have been so few and far between i wouldn't have expected an impact on pollution.


----------



## liquidindian (Mar 15, 2022)

The "increase in pollution" is a return to the mean caused by people leaving the house again, nothing more.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Can someone link to an article about recent rises in pollution? Worrying that this is happening despite ULEZ. Or is it different category of pollutants?
> 
> ETA It seems that the increase observed was pre-ULEZ.


There hasn't been any opposition to the ULEZ from the usual suspects because it is meaningless. A Range Rover Evoque is compliant.


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 15, 2022)

Every Sunday in Brixton


----------



## Not a Vet (Mar 15, 2022)

The original legal challenge appeal fund has stalled at £11775 out of the £14500 needed. Yet more legal challenges are being brought. Are they all being done on a no win, no fee basis?


----------



## alex_ (Mar 15, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> The original legal challenge appeal fund has stalled at £11775 out of the £14500 needed. Yet more legal challenges are being brought. Are they all being done on a no win, no fee basis?



Buy this isn’t the kind of case damages would be awarded in is it ?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 15, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Not in London.
> 
> On the above comment which I assume is from Facebook or something similar, we’ll look at each order as and when it’s made and make a decision on whether/how to challenge based on the merits of that order. As they are all individual then you have to take an individual approach


Where?. And by whom?


----------



## edcraw (Mar 16, 2022)

Someone really should tell Tim Briggs not to start a Tweet with an @:


----------



## edcraw (Mar 16, 2022)

UPDATE: according to someone who was at the meeting the reason is that they are still analysing the data, staff shortages bing one of the issues, and purdah for the elections starts soon. Seems a bit of a conflict that the chairman of Streatham Conservatives is also the vice chair of Streatham Action and putting his own spin on things.

Looks like no decision on Tulse Hill or Streaham Hill LTNs until after the local elections.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 17, 2022)

Fascists eh chowce5382?


Meanwhile a nice positive thread (& call to action at the end).


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 18, 2022)

OneLambeth were outraged that some councillors live in the wards they represent and have supported improvements to them.  Dulwich Onesies (now calling themselves 'Votethemout') are being outraged that the Dulwich Village councillors DONT live in the LTN (whilst simultaneously being outraged that the council leader does.

).


----------



## toblerone3 (Mar 21, 2022)

21 out of the 27 Hackney Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have now been been made permanent.  One was abandoned and a decision is still awaited on 5.


----------



## Cat Fan (Mar 21, 2022)

edcraw said:


> UPDATE: according to someone who was at the meeting the reason is that they are still analysing the data, staff shortages bing one of the issues, and purdah for the elections starts soon. Seems a bit of a conflict that the chairman of Streatham Conservatives is also the vice chair of Streatham Action and putting his own spin on things.
> 
> Looks like no decision on Tulse Hill or Streaham Hill LTNs until after the local elections.



That's interesting. Streatham Hill LTN has been one of the most graffitied from what I can see.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 21, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> That's interesting. Streatham Hill LTN has been one of the most graffitied from what I can see.


Streatham Hill, Tulse Hill & Leander all had pretty bad graffiti. Suspect it was only a few individuals. Not sure its caused any delays in the process though, not at this strange at least.


----------



## edcraw (Mar 28, 2022)

You really do need to ask why no graphic designers seem to oppose LTNs?


----------



## Winot (Mar 28, 2022)

‘genius’


----------



## Ryan2468 (Mar 28, 2022)

Thank you, userwithlotsofnumbers.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2022)

I'm really fed up with anti-LTN people trying to blame everything on LTNs. Like, for example, how 'Stella' insists that the state of the Network Rail owned arches is somehow the fault of LTNs (see comments): 









						In photos: the absolute state of the Brixton Arches on Atlantic Road, seven years after refurbishment plans were announced
					

Back in February 2015, urban75 broke the story that Network Rail was going to redevelop all the arches in Atlantic Road, Brixton, with businesses being given notice to quit. Despite a huge communit…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## thebackrow (Mar 30, 2022)

_as_


editor said:


> I'm really fed up with anti-LTN people trying to blame everything on LTNs. Like, for example, how 'Stella' insists that the state of the Network Rail owned arches is somehow the fault of LTNs (see comments):
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that’s Dave’s partners name so either they’re as bad as each other or it’s just yet another Dave comment account (Writing style suggests it probably is).


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 5, 2022)

They won’t be happy with the High Court.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 5, 2022)

Love Lambeth
					

Judgement re-confirms the High Court's decision that due regard of equalities impacts had been taken




					love.lambeth.gov.uk
				




Not a surprise. What a waste of time and money.

Wonder if OneLambeth will have to pay any costs.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Apr 5, 2022)

snowy_again said:


> They won’t be happy with the High Court.


Nor the Court of Appeal. Wonder whether they will go up another notch.


----------



## Winot (Apr 5, 2022)

mbyrde12 said:


> Nor the Court of Appeal. Wonder whether they will go up another notch.


Unlikely to get permission to appeal to Supreme Court unless there’s a particularly knotty point of law to iron out.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 5, 2022)

mbyrde12 said:


> Nor the Court of Appeal. Wonder whether they will go up another notch.


Surely not. 


chowce5382 said:


> …We're going to court to ask the council to follow legislation which was put in place to protect the rights of those who aren't as able to protect themselves. Whatever the court decides, I'll accept it. This isn't anti-LTN for the sake of it.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Apr 5, 2022)

Winot said:


> Unlikely to get permission to appeal to Supreme Court unless there’s a particularly knotty point of law to iron out.


One Lambeth's statement on their FB group seems to think the judgement effectively 'reduces PSED to zero' so imagine that's what they are going on


----------



## edcraw (Apr 5, 2022)

Tried to post their statement but it’s too many words!

chowce5382 is going to be raising more money to go to the Supreme Court. Hopefully they don’t get permission for everyone’s sake.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 5, 2022)

Sofia Sheakh says she’s liable for £10k of the council’s costs. I hope those that encouraged her to go to court fundraise to pay this.


----------



## nick (Apr 5, 2022)

Removed - EdCraw already tried and failed to C&P the statement


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 5, 2022)

C+P in two?


----------



## nick (Apr 5, 2022)

well you asked:

Sofia Sheakh
2h  · 
STATEMENT RE COURT OF APPEAL JUDGEMENT – Sofia Sheakh
05th April 2022
Dear friends - and all those who have supported our legal case, it is with a heavy heart that I must tell you that we have lost our appeal against Lambeth Labour for their failings re Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) relating to the implementation of discriminatory Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs).
Please disseminate my statement far and wide on social media because the voices of the disabled community must be heard above the cycle lobby, selfish affluent residents and those who purport to govern us.
The Appeal Court judges broadly agreed with Justice Kerr’s High Court judgement that Covid-19 emergency laws allowed the Council to carry out a poor (barely any) assessment of the likely impact on people with disabilities when implementing LTN Experimental Traffic Orders (which can run for up to 18 months) as, in the context of the Pandemic, it was acceptable for EQIAs to be reviewed on a rolling basis. The courts did not consider that residents had already endured 6 months of Temporary Traffic Orders prior to the ETO. Furthermore, the judges agreed that the Council’s delegated decision maker did not even have to personally ‘look at’ or ‘review’ the Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA) himself but could rely on others to undertake this important role on his behalf.
The fact that the Court of Appeal deliberated for almost 3 months shows that this was not a straight forward case and I am afraid that the judgment has grave consequences for all disabled people and others affected by LTNs, as it effectively means Councils can, depending on context and circumstances, put in roadblocks at any time, saying that they are experimental, carry out a basic EQIA, which they can amend as they go along and hold a ‘consultation’ at a later date.
Our barrister has said that ‘they have effectively reduced PSED to zero’ and would like us to take our appeal to the Supreme Court We must first seek permission for this, which we will do as it is a matter of national importance. However, if we are granted permission we will need further community funds, so it is for you all to decide. It may need to be a nationwide campaign.
Many of you will know that I only took legal action out of sheer desperation when I realised that the Council was not remotely interested in making any adjustments/mitigations for people with limited mobility and long-term health conditions. As you may remember, the initial focus of the LTNs was to get everyone riding bikes, even those with severe disabilities. The stress of the last year has taken its toll on my mental health, particularly as I have had to make several aspects of my personal life public and thanks to the Railton LTN, I continuously get caught in traffic wherever I go, which exacerbates my physical symptoms. To compound this, the LTN has effectively made the the road I live on into a huge industrial estate with c180 waste trucks thundering past my home every day, 6 days a week, and industrial vehicles idling outside my home, , all with their associated noise, dust and vibration
Lambeth Council have won the legal battle (for now), but the fact they chose to fight this case at all, against me, a disabled Covid coma survivor with a chronic lung condition, and extremely limited mobility shows how morally bankrupt Lambeth Labour leadership has become. I am now liable for
the Council’s legal costs of £10,000, and although this is a lot of money to you and I it is a paltry sum to the Council who have made over £7 million in LTN PCN fines since 2020!
The Council recently announced LTN ‘dispensations’ for Blue Badge holders - we are now allowed to choose a SINGLE roadblock (in the whole of Lambeth) that we would like to drive through, and accessible taxis are allowed through bus gates only. Councillors and officers must think we live very small lives but then if they really wanted the best for the whole community, they would have taken the concerns of people with mobility impairments (not all of whom have Blue Badges) seriously back in 2020 when the first implemented the scheme
Instead of talking to wide and representative groups of residents and taking advice from a range of disability charities, the Council sought out the views of LTN activists using the Climate Emergency and Pandemic, as a convenient political cover whilst campaigning for the streets they live on to be made ‘no through roads’. I do not believe that it is any coincidence that, at the time of an FOI request in 2020, 16 Councillors (including the then Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council and the Mayor) were living in LTNs or proposed LTNs.........


----------



## nick (Apr 5, 2022)

...............
LTNs are not about the Climate Emergency at all - how could they be when 1000s of vehicles are re-routed onto surrounding roads every single day and each driver has to drive more miles, burn more fuel and emit more CO2 whilst navigating their way around the roadblocks?
LTNs have compounded the misery of the Pandemic for many and over er the last 20 months, anyone raising concerns about LTNs have been demonised by campaigners and dismissed by Councillors. Many campaigners and prominent LTN beneficiaries have been exposed for racist, misogynistic, and anti-Islamic tweets on social media, and a number have resigned as a result of the views they held.
Labour run Lambeth Council first introduced Temporary Traffic Orders (TTOs) in April 2020 with less than 7 days notice to residents, saying it was to enable ‘social distancing’ during a pandemic. Our barrister has said these had no legal basis whatsoever but at the time residents did not have the legal know-how to challenge them, and everyone was distracted by Covid. They clearly exploited this situation. They then slowly started converting these TTOs into Emergency Traffic Orders (ETOs). These revised Traffic Orders stated that LTNs are more important than individual human rights.
The Council admitted in the High Court that Oval Triangle LTN was implemented illegally. With great regret we did not challenge this LTN in the 6-week statutory period due to community financial concerns, so we could not ask the court to remove it. If we had done so, the Oval LTN would have been quashed in June 2021. The Council also quietly introduced the Tulse Hill LTN on 31st December 2021 – without advertising it as required by statutory law and without properly notifying residents and allowing people to incur additional fines as a result. They also did not notify the court or the legal teams, so we were out of time to challenge this.
Sadly, this is typical of Lambeth Labour’s contemptuous behaviour to residents over the last four years. The gloating of some Lambeth Cllrs across social media after their initial high court victory over me, last year was extremely upsetting.
The Council has manipulated LTN consultation results, removing 1000s of (negative) responses, conflated the responses of people who live in the Railton LTN area with those travelling through,
presumably to obtain a marginally positive outcome – they are refusing to answer FOIs requesting resident only data. Ethnicity data was completely omitted from the Railton LTN survey report (in one of the most ethnically diverse places in the UK) but an FOI response showed a huge over representation of white respondents with people who identified as BAME being generally negative about the scheme.
Ethnic minority traders (especially Windrush businesses in Brixton) suffering because of the ridiculous road closures, have been ignored by the Council, yet they virtue-signal by reviewing racist statues. That is not equality. Public money has been wasted on ventures such as Brixton Pop whilst social housing tenants have been left to suffer for years with issues of mould and leaking roofs. JUST FOUR council houses have been constructed in the last 4 years when 1000 were promised. In short, Lambeth Labour do not represent normal working people, struggling in this most difficult of times.
LTNs, which create a situation where the wealthy can own, and store cars in their gated LTN communities AND continue to pollute the poorest on boundary roads, are part of London Labour’s programme of gentrification (which includes building expensive luxury flats, infilling council estates, neglecting council housing), which will no doubt result in working classes and ethnic minorities being priced out of living in inner London but having to commute in to service the needs of those who can afford to live here. I understand that there is now a campaign against diesel drivers which will mainly impact working class tradespeople, who cannot afford to switch.
Finally, you may ask how I feel about this. Words cannot really express the sadness I feel for all those people who will now have to struggle even more from day to day due to this policy. I have always thought the role of those in power is to support and protect the rights of those who need it the most. I’m afraid that I feel completely and utterly let down by our current Lambeth Labour elected representatives. It is also clear to me now that, in the eyes of the councillors who implemented LTNs, that some people are more equal than others. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart for your financial backing and heartfelt support, and I am sorry not to bring you better news. We as a community, raised over £50,000 and were granted legal aid to fight this case, that says a huge amount about our values as a community and our willingness to call out societal injustice
It is always hard to fight the establishment, but in the words of the late Bob Crowe. ‘If you fight, you might lose, but if you never fight you will always lose’ I would hope that now everyone can see Lambeth Labour leadership for what they really are.
I hope that this makes Lambeth residents angry and residents across London and other cities angry and cements your understanding that metropolitan Labour Councils generally do not care about those less fortunate or those severely impacted by the Pandemic, and that many (although not all) councillors seem to be in local politics either for self-gain or to implement schemes based on their flawed ideology or both.
My advice to you all is
DO NOT VOTE LABOUR MAY 2022, TOGETHER WE STAND, TOGETHER WE FIGHT Sofia
 My solicitor, Anne-Marie Irwin, has issued this statement:
‘We feel that we put forward strong arguments on behalf of Sofia and so we are disappointed by to- day’s judgment but thank the Court of Appeal for hearing the case. This judgment does not change the requirement for public bodies to have due regard to the needs of people with protected character- istics – including disabled people – when making decisions. The impact of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods on disabled people remains an important issue in Lambeth and across the country - many individuals and their families have no option but to rely on cars as their primary means of transport and it is vital that their needs are properly considered at every stage of these schemes’
- END-


----------



## edcraw (Apr 5, 2022)

The statement shows it was never really about people with disabilities- some people are just ideological opposed to any restrictions to cars.


----------



## sparkybird (Apr 5, 2022)

Their barrister wants them to go to the supreme court. Of course they do! 🤑🤑🤑🤑
I find it a bit odd that there's a whole list of stuff 'against' Lambeth in the statement, most of it not related to the consideration of the access needs of disabled people in LTNs (IE the challenge)
Of course One Lambeth and Sophia must be disappointed, but twice they have been found to not have a case.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 5, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Their barrister wants them to go to the supreme court. Of course they do! 🤑🤑🤑🤑
> I find it a bit odd that there's a whole list of stuff 'against' Lambeth in the statement, most of it not related to the consideration of the access needs of disabled people in LTNs (IE the challenge)
> Of course One Lambeth and Sophia must be disappointed, but twice they have been found to not have a case.


They never had a case though. And it’s our council tax also that’s been wasted on this, it was spurious from the off.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 5, 2022)

mbyrde12 said:


> One Lambeth's statement on their FB group seems to think the judgement effectively 'reduces PSED to zero' so imagine that's what they are going on


That wasn’t the grounds they appealed on. The appeal was over whether PSED could be considered on a continuous/rolling basis, and the judgement seems unequivocal that it can.

_..We do not accept the argument put forward by Mr Buley(for 1L). It seems to us to be based on a false understanding of the public sector equality duty. 

72    Our conclusion that the judge’s analysis (in the original case) was sound is not undone by the fact that the equality impact assessments for the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods were yet to be finalised. That they were only in draft reflects the reality that they were, as was appropriate, a work in progress. The council’s Transport Strategy, which embraced the concept of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, had itself been the subject of a broadly framed equality impact assessment, which did not pre-empt the assessment for the experimental traffic orders later proposed. The fact that an equality impact assessment had not yet been carried out for each of the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods under consideration on 9 October 2020 does not prevent a conclusion that the council had properly fulfilled the public sector equality duty at that stage_

they’ve comprehensively lost now having spent 50k ? of other peoples money.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 6, 2022)

I sure they would - apparently they’re asking for £2.7k to do so!


----------



## BigTom (Apr 6, 2022)

Just thought I'd post a bit of comic relief from one of Birmingham's LTNs, where I live.

As part of the LTN one small side road off the high street, York Road, has been pedestrianised.

The local anti LTN campaigners are holding a protest... Guess what convenient car free space they have chosen to hold it in...

I'm not on Facebook but I'm sure the irony of this is being pointed out to them... I might have a look on Twitter...


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 6, 2022)

Have to think the QC is taking them for mugs with those probabilities. Just enough to keep them feeding  cash, but not enough they look like a liar when they inevitably lose.

More to the point, since they’d presumably still only be looking at the narrow issue of rolling assessments of equality (which seems like a perfectly sensible approach as a lay person), I still can’t see what they hope to achieve. Even if they won at Supreme Court it wouldn’t change council strategy or lead to any of the LTNs being removed.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 6, 2022)

I'm sure any QC would love to have a case to take to the Supreme Court, especially if someone's paying them to do so. Does seem that what legal advice they're being given is either rather unrealistic or not being communicated to their supporters.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I'm sure any QC would love to have a case to take to the Supreme Court, especially if someone's paying them to do so. Does seem that what legal advice they're being given is either rather unrealistic or not being communicated to their supporters.


They’ve never been honest with their supporters about the basis of the case or what the end result might be. (Matey refused to discuss it on here).


----------



## Winot (Apr 6, 2022)

Fees for running SC case noticeably absent from that tweet.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2022)

nick said:


> it effectively means Councils can, depending on context and circumstances, put in roadblocks at any time, saying that they are experimental, carry out a basic EQIA, which they can amend as they go along and hold a ‘consultation’ at a later date.
> Our barrister has said that ‘they have effectively reduced PSED to zero’





nick said:


> [our barister says] This judgment does not change the requirement for public bodies to have due regard to the needs of people with protected character- istics – including disabled people – when making decisions.



Seems a bit of a contradiction there.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 6, 2022)

Be interesting how it plays out in the local elections. I think a few ward councillors may be in for a battle but I’m not convinced it’s a major voting issue. Much more likely the cost of living crisis and other national issues will be what people will vote on


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2022)

I wonder if the One Lambeth people will be booking their tickets for this.









						Liveable Neighbourhoods 2022 Conference & Exhibition
					

Hosted by the London Borough of Croydon, this conference will showcase the best examples of political leadership, policy, projects and programmes that are delivering Liveable Neighbourhoods.




					www.loveableneighbourhoods.uk


----------



## CH1 (Apr 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The statement shows it was never really about people with disabilities- some people are just ideological opposed to any restrictions to cars.


Well I've got Chronic Pulmonary Obstruction clearly exacerbated by living on a road suffering from increased traffic due to LTN traffic diversion.
I feel confident that when I pop my clogs - based on legal precedent - my nearest and dearest will be able to sue Lambeth Council for maladministration.
Unfortunately this will be of no benefit to me - cast into hell or received into heaven as the case may be.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 7, 2022)

If LTNs are moving the traffic around then I’m not sure they are are the best thing for this particular problem.  But the thing that gets me about anti LTN motorists who go on about traffic and pollution is that this isn’t ultimately caused my the LTNs, it’s caused by all the cars! Think the congestion is bad? Don’t add to by using your car! The mental hoops I see people jump through to justify their car use yet still complain about such measures is astounding.

Similarly I’ve seen incidents like drivers going across zebra crossings despite people walking across them, motorcyclists using pavements and almost running over children etc. as not blamed on the motorist but the LTNs for causing the frustration. Which suggests people’s standards for drivers’ ability to emotionally regulate are worrying low (and don’t apply to cyclists who have almost been knocked off but that’s a different story).

And yes this isn’t all drivers or journeys, some genuinely do need to drive due to mobility reasons or carrying equipment/large amounts of stuff. But it’s most. Having made a life style decision which adds 10 minutes on to a journey if you take public transport is not a genuine need.

Let’s make sure the blame is directed where it really should go. It’s not LTNs, it’s the majority of car journeys.

And frankly as many people couldn’t even wear a bit of frantic across their face in the midst of a global pandemic, sadly people have shown that they aren’t willing to even slightly put themselves out for the common good unless forced.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> If LTNs are moving the traffic around then I’m not sure they are are the best thing for this particular problem.  But the thing that gets me about anti LTN motorists who go on about traffic and pollution is that this isn’t ultimately caused my the LTNs, it’s caused by all the cars! Think the congestion is bad? Don’t add to by using your car! The mental hoops I see people jump through to justify their car use yet still complain about such measures is astounding.
> 
> Similarly I’ve seen incidents like drivers going across zebra crossings despite people walking across them, motorcyclists using pavements and almost running over children etc. as not blamed on the motorist but the LTNs for causing the frustration. Which suggests people’s standards for drivers’ ability to emotionally regulate are worrying low (and don’t apply to cyclists who have almost been knocked off but that’s a different story).
> 
> ...


I don't disagree with you - not least because I don't have a car, have never even learned to drive.
If you want to pigeon hole me, lump me with John Stewart the pubic transport campaigner who since leaving HACAN has taken to tweeting about these local transport issues again.


What is so ghastly about all this LTN stuff and before it the CPZ stuff is it is designed to facilitate car ownership but under strict regulation - in the case of CPZ regulation that affects people who have never had a car.

I have always believed in high quality cheap, even free public transport.
This little clip from Seattle - a place I visited in 1990 and was amazed to find had free buses in the central area. With bus cuts and fare rises due to Covid we are heading in this direction now.








						Warning: Seattle’s free-ride zone coming to an end
					

Metro is ending its downtown Seattle free-ride zone Sept. 29, as part of an extensive service overhaul. The change is expected to cause slowdowns and confusion, while leaving poor people without transportation they depend on.




					www.seattletimes.com


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Be interesting how it plays out in the local elections. I think a few ward councillors may be in for a battle but I’m not convinced it’s a major voting issue. Much more likely the cost of living crisis and other national issues will be what people will vote on











						Election notices
					

Formal election notices will be posted here when published.




					beta.lambeth.gov.uk
				




Council election candidate lists are out.  Main parties running full lists in every seat.  Very few minor party candidates anywhere, no independents.  No names I recognise from any of the One Lambeth(s) anywhere but a few that I recognise as keen supporters of active travel in the non-labour lists.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> I don't disagree with you - not least because I don't have a car, have never even learned to drive.
> If you want to pigeon hole me, lump me with John Stewart the pubic transport campaigner who since leaving HACAN has taken to tweeting about these local transport issues again.



Sorry I wasn’t replying to you specifically/challenging you, this is your lived experience after all and it sounds crap  It was more that the issue you raised inspired my post. Which is quite possibly what I’ve wanted to say for some time on a more anti LTN space I frequent but I really can’t cope with then having to angrily defend a position for hours, when ultimately no one is going to change their minds.

Really it’s drivers who don’t genuinely need to drive as much who need to be held accountable, and should hold themselves accountable. I’m not sure how one achieves this though!


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> What is so ghastly about all this LTN stuff and before it the CPZ stuff is it is designed to facilitate car ownership but under strict regulation - in the case of CPZ regulation that affects people who have never had a car.
> 
> I have always believed in high quality cheap, even free public transport.


It's easy to throw negative comments around like this but have you got any better ideas?  We've had a century of private car use being very lightly regulated and controlled and the tax take on motoring has been steadily falling (compared to income/public transport costs etc).  Lightly regulated to the extent that car ownership and use is significantly subsidised by non car owner/users in terms of public space taken up by parking, externalities (health impacts through pollution and collisions), cost of providing the road network.

LTNs add a little restriction on the routes that can be driven between places (not where you can drive to as everywhere can still be reached by car), and CPZs place some cost on car storages on public land near your home (and make it harder to park at destinations without some payment).  Those are hardly 'strict regulations', they don't substantially change the cost of ownership or use (but increase it slightly). Do you really think it should be free to store a private car on public land?

Personally I'm always wary of anything being completely free as it doesn't encourage efficient use and can lead to a lot of waste.  When stuff is free people use it/take it whether they need it or not.  But heavily subsidised public transport - absolutely - it should be the cheapest option for a family for most trips in my view.  But that has a large cost - so  how are you going to raise that and get it past the electorate?  'High Quality' public transport?  London might not be the absolute best in the world but it's up there amongst the best in terms of coverage speed and options.  Again, how would you make it much better, and pay for that?  Much higher taxes or doing less of something else.

Buses outside London are almost universally terrible, but very few bus routes have been cut in the capital, and the anti-cycle lane FOI that was put in showed that the length of bus lane (which prioritises buses over other traffic) has increased in London in the last five years, not shortened.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

Surely exactly what we _should_ be aiming for is to "facilitate car ownership (and use) under strict regulation"

Want to drive a car in the city? It's going to be small (Japanese style city cars?), speed regulated, minimal emission (not some massive 4x4 wankpanzer)
Want to drive a short distance to the shops rather than walk? It's going to be very difficult and expensive. 
Want to drive your dog to the park rather than walking it there? you're going to find it very hard (and expensive) to park.

Driving is going to be taxed sufficiently to subsidise public transport.

and then you can make exceptions for 'those that really have no option but to drive' with much easements some of those restrictions for them.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It's easy to throw negative comments around like this but have you got any better ideas?  We've had a century of private car use being very lightly regulated and controlled and the tax take on motoring has been steadily falling (compared to income/public transport costs etc).  Lightly regulated to the extent that car ownership and use is significantly subsidised by non car owner/users in terms of public space taken up by parking, externalities (health impacts through pollution and collisions), cost of providing the road network.
> 
> LTNs add a little restriction on the routes that can be driven between places (not where you can drive to as everywhere can still be reached by car), and LTNs place some cost on car storages on public land near your home (and make it harder to park at destinations without some payment).  Those are hardly 'strict regulations', they don't substantially change the cost of ownership or use (but increase it slightly).
> 
> Personally I'm always wary of anything being completely free as it doesn't encourage efficient use and can lead to a lot of waste.  When stuff is free people use it/take it whether they need it or not.  But heavily subsidised public transport - absolutely - it should be the cheapest option for a family for most trips in my view.  But that has a large cost - so  how are you going to raise that and get it past the electorate?  'High Quality' public transport?  London might not be the absolute best in the world but it's up there amongst the best in terms of coverage speed and options.  Again, how would you make it much better, and pay for that?  Much higher taxes or doing less of something else.


No better ideas at the moment.
But it does occur to me that electric vehicles will reduce the tax take on motoring even more - unless we all end up paying a fuel surcharge on our electricity.

Cheap public transport still seems the way to go to me. Ken Livingstone's Fares Fare showed the way until blocked by Bromley Council and Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls.

To be sure the present situation in London is still quite benign public transport-wise. I guess there is one low-hanging fruit yet to be plucked if looking for savings - the so-called Boris Pass. Seems a bit odd that a senior civil servant from Surbiton (say) can travel to work in Whitehall for £.00 if aged 60-66 whereas their cleaner aged 59 or less could pay up to £8.90 each way if travelling at peak times.

In terms of parking cars, I would like to see similar rates imposed to what you would pay in a NCP car park - for parking in residential streets.
And an exemption for deliveries, traders and people doing work on properties.

In my bit of Coldharbour Lane there are people who park vans with the bonnet lid up - pretending to have a fault.
They also sometimes remove their number plates.
I would have such vehicles towed away withoiut mercy!


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> No better ideas at the moment.
> But it does occur to me that electric vehicles will reduce the tax take on motoring even more - unless we all end up paying a fuel surcharge on our electricity.
> 
> Cheap public transport still seems the way to go to me. Ken Livingstone's Fares Fare showed the way until blocked by Bromley Council and Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls.
> ...


Agree with you on most of that but I'm not sure how it relates to LTNs and CPZs being 'ghastly'

Electric vehicles mean some sort of per mile tax/road charging must be inevitable in a few years time.

Pretty sure the over 60's free pass is being phased up to the pension age over the next few years as part of the TfL funding agreement.  I suspect that the real cost of it means it's not actually worth means testing above that (admin costs > savings) but does seem to give free commuting to paid work for over 60s (though of course being off peak only means thats not much of a problem)

How to pay for cheap public transport is the issue - the national government is already beating Mayor Khan up for the fares freeze in recent years.  Higher council tax?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2022)

The other week I was up in Inverness, capital of the car dependent scottish highlands, staying with a family with two small kids.

During covid, Inverness put in various road changes including segregated cycle lanes. They were telling me, this allowed them to take the kids to various places by bike (despite being a two car household, they do use bikes for some journeys) which they wouldn't have tried before, and they started doing this quite regularly, as apparently did others.

But Inverness basically removed pretty much everything and the roads are back to what they were pre-covid. So, they don't do those journeys by bike now. This conversation took place as we drove between a nursery located at a town-periphery retail estate with acres of parking, and a similarly spacious car park at the leisure centre/swimming pool, located on the opposite side of town, again on the periphery. There's a newly built bypass road that now lets you do this journey avoiding the town centre. It's been built with the footpaths designated as cycle paths, so a clear run for drivers, and cyclists and pedestrians can fight over the remainder.

There's lots bad about Lambeth council, but I feel quite lucky to live somewhere, where the local authority hasn't just caved in to pressure to revert everything to the status quo, which is what has happened in the majority of the UK.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> I have always believed in high quality cheap, even free public transport.





thebackrow said:


> Personally I'm always wary of anything being completely free as it doesn't encourage efficient use and can lead to a lot of waste.


thinking about this more, 'free at the point of use' is what we have now for car owners.  With the sunk cost of the car and fuel in the tank it's 'free' to make the next trip and leads to congestion and delays for people who really need to make trips.

Cheaper or free public transport isn't going to take people out of their cars if that's still the case.  And creating more demand isn't going to help - London's public transport is at capacity at peak hours (try getting a tube from Clapham North at rush hour) so making it cheaper or free isn't going to help.  In fact, congestion on northern line (as I think I've pointed out before) is why cycle superhighway 7, following the line of the northern line, was one of the first to be built.  The cheapest way to create capacity on the tube is to get some of the people who use it now to cycle (and then some that drive might take the tube).


----------



## edcraw (Apr 7, 2022)

Good to see chowce5382 is raising money to cover the costs & hope this takes priority of the Supreme Court costs.









						OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

OneLambeth Anti-LTN Court Appeal Fundraiser  On Tuesday 5th April 2022 the Appeal Court j… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge



					www.gofundme.com
				




All still very opaque though especially as there was a legal aid award but noone's said how much that was and how much is being funded for the lawyers.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2022)

Some selfish fucking twat in a big car was completely blocking the pavement outside my block last night, so I had to walk into the road to get past. When I pointed this out to him he was all "what's your fucking problem?"

I remonstrated with equal gusto to the point where his ruddy face indicated fisticuffs were looming so I walked on. Fuck these arrogant car drivers.

That is all for today.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good to see chowce5382 is raising money to cover the costs & hope this takes priority of the Supreme Court costs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed. The costs they detail - 10k for Lambeth, 1200 for stat review and 1500 for appeal conveniently add up to exactly what they’ve raised to date (give or take a few 100)


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> thinking about this more, 'free at the point of use' is what we have now for car owners.  With the sunk cost of the car and fuel in the tank it's 'free' to make the next trip and leads to congestion and delays for people who really need to make trips.
> 
> Cheaper or free public transport isn't going to take people out of their cars if that's still the case.  And creating more demand isn't going to help - London's public transport is at capacity at peak hours (try getting a tube from Clapham North at rush hour) so making it cheaper or free isn't going to help.  In fact, congestion on northern line (as I think I've pointed out before) is why cycle superhighway 7, following the line of the northern line, was one of the first to be built.  The cheapest way to create capacity on the tube is to get some of the people who use it now to cycle (and then some that drive might take the tube).


This is the result of overpopulation caused by the needs of the building industry.
You could kill this at a stroke by putting interest rates up to 8% as they should be, judging by inflation.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> This is the result of overpopulation caused by the needs of the building industry.
> You could kill this at a stroke by putting interest rates up to 8% as they should be, judging by inflation.


Now you’ve completely lost me. You’re saying we don’t have a shortage of homes but actually over population?  How do high interest rates lower the population?

_Ain't you heard of the starving millions
Ain't you heard of contraception
You really want a program of sterilization?
Take control of the population boom!
It's in your living room
Keep a generation gap
Try wearing a cap_


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Now you’ve completely lost me. You’re saying we don’t have a shortage of homes but actually over population?  How do high interest rates lower the population?


It would stop speculative building/buy to let all that sort of thing.
You will no doubt be aware (and possibly approve if you are of a right-wing disposition) that the shortage of homes is in the social housing sector for the lumpen proletariate and lower paid workers.

We have currently a record home building programme from a Con/Labour concensus for "affordable homes" which are actually unaffordable by definition. The housing industry has been plagued with this attitude for years - and the Tory Party at least is in their pockets nationally, as are the Labour Party locally at council level - particularly Lambeth and Southwark.

Of course now lies are the currency of government. It all feels rather debauched to me.

(Art work courtesy of Coldwar Steve)


----------



## Winot (Apr 7, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Indeed. The costs they detail - 10k for Lambeth, 1200 for stat review and 1500 for appeal conveniently add up to exactly what they’ve raised to date (give or take a few 100)


My reading is that the £1500 is for the appeal _request_ i.e. the work to persuade the court to _allow_ the case to go up to the Supreme Court and be heard. If that’s right then there would be (a lot) more to come in costs of actually running the appeal itself.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> It would stop speculative building/buy to let all that sort of thing.
> You will no doubt be aware (and possibly approve if you are of a right-wing disposition) that the shortage of homes is in the social housing sector for the lumpen proletariate and lower paid workers.
> 
> We have currently a record home building programme from a Con/Labour concensus for "affordable homes" which are actually unaffordable by definition. The housing industry has been plagued with this attitude for years - and the Tory Party at least is in their pockets nationally, as are the Labour Party locally at council level - particularly Lambeth and Southwark.
> ...


I’m no clearer as to how this is relevant to transport In Lambeth.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 7, 2022)

The odds of success, the amount of cash and the length of time makes this a puzzling choice. I mean if I had cancer and that was my survival chances for treatment I might go for it but a traffic scheme, no chance. I still don’t understand (and this applies to the cabbies too) whilst they don’t  attempt to work with the council/mayor to improve or get concessions rather than spending someone’s else’s money on failing legal cases. It’s only lobbying like what the cycling groups have achieved


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> The odds of success, the amount of cash and the length of time makes this a puzzling choice. I mean if I had cancer and that was my survival chances for treatment I might go for it but a traffic scheme, no chance. I still don’t understand (and this applies to the cabbies too) whilst they don’t  attempt to work with the council/mayor to improve or get concessions rather than spending someone’s else’s money on failing legal cases. It’s only lobbying like what the cycling groups have achieved


If I wanted to cure my chest condition I would move somewhere like Barbados with no pollution and no pollen etc. Unfortunately I have no money -  or not the sort of money needed to do this.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> I’m no clearer as to how this is relevant to transport In Lambeth.


I'm simply saying if you increase the population you increase the cars - especially if you tilt the population  increase in favour of the more well to do.

I get where you are coming from though. Gramophone record. You didn't train to be a doctor's receptionist did you?


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> If I wanted to cure my chest condition I would move somewhere like Barbados with no pollution and no pollen etc. Unfortunately I have no money -  or not the sort of money needed to do this.


Seems like you need a go fund appeal…


----------



## edcraw (Apr 7, 2022)

What is it'll they'll have raised - neary £70k? They could have done proper campaigning which would have surely been more successful & funded candidates. Really clueless.


----------



## snowy_again (Apr 7, 2022)

They’ve bad mouthed most of the bigger user / experience led disability campaign organisations too. Stuck with Reform Uk and that independent Farah London


----------



## alex_ (Apr 7, 2022)

snowy_again said:


> They’ve bad mouthed most of the bigger user / experience led disability campaign organisations too. Stuck with Reform Uk and that independent Farah London


Suspect this is because they support the aims of ltns


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> I'm simply saying if you increase the population you increase the cars - especially if you tilt the population  increase in favour of the more well to do.


Not really - on the whole, the more densely populated an area is, the lesser the justification and the opportunity to use the private car as transport.

That's not to say densification is necessarily a good thing.

I did a lengthy post some time ago going on about Shakespeare Rd, one of the features of which is that a large portion of it was developed in the 80s or 90s(?) on a relatively suburban model with plentiful offstreet parking and no thought of things like shops or pedestrian through routes. So, what exists there now is a road with a large number of car-owning residents, with rather a long way to walk to any services or public transport, who presumably make up some portion of the traffic that passes your front door. 

That's not a model considered appropriate for this kind of area any more. Much of current development is at least supposed to discourage car ownership, and take things like public transport and services within walking distance into account.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I did a lengthy post some time ago going on about Shakespeare Rd, one of the features of which is that a large portion of it was developed in the 80s or 90s(?) on a relatively suburban model with plentiful offstreet parking and no thought of things like shops or pedestrian through routes. So, what exists there now is a road with a large number of car-owning residents, with rather a long way to walk to any services or public transport, who presumably make up some portion of the traffic that passes your front door.
> 
> That's not a model considered appropriate for this kind of area any more. Much of current development is at least supposed to discourage car ownership, and take things like public transport and services within walking distance into account.


You mean Pablo Neruda Close, Derek Walcott Close etc?
Of course when these were built we were in the Bellos era and the primary issue was to promote "positive image" as regards third world poets - especially if they has been hounded by the Pinochett regime of Chile. 
The Moorlands Estate had been built less than 10 years earlier with ample car ownership provision - which still exists now.
In fact I would venture to suggest that many social housing  developments in the 1980s and earlier saw the car as a human right of the tenants.
Look at this extraordinary Metropolitan Housing development from the late 1980s - replacing a building burnt down in the Cherry Groce riot of 1985
Instead of the ground floor furniture shop we now have a dead zone of a crack-secure parking space, whose cars tend to languish gathering dust and rust.
What a waste of space!


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> You mean Pablo Neruda Close, Derek Walcott Close etc?
> Of course when these were built we were in the Bellos era and the primary issue was to promote "positive image" as regards third world poets - especially if they has been hounded by the Pinochett regime of Chile.
> The Moorlands Estate had been built less than 10 years earlier with ample car ownership provision - which still exists now.
> In fact I would venture to suggest that many social housing  developments in the 1980s and earlier saw the car as a human right of the tenants.
> ...



yes, post war town planning did regard off-street car parking as desirable and maybe even a human right.

On the face of it, as well as being convenient for residents, it might seem like something that's good for the public realm - get the clutter of parked cars off the street. But parking needs a lot of space, and very often what happened is that the parking became a kind of dead zone between buildings and streets, something that is completely unfriendly to pedestrians. Either, as the windswept open car parking areas that have to be walked across to get to the entrance of buildings (there's a little bit of that on the Loughborough Estate, although not as bad as many) or solutions that involve using up the lower floors of the building (Moorlands) or the later example you give of the ex furniture shop. That also creates dead frontages. There's another example of that along acre Lane, presumably from the same era:



All these are just demonstrations of how accommodating large numbers of private vehicles is fundamentally at odds with creating environments that are good for humans to live in.

Postwar, modernist architecture has a bad reputation with many people, because of associations with these kinds of unpleasant environments. I often like to argue that the main problem with that era of architecture/town planning is mostly to do with the fact that it attempted to embrace the private car. Most of the bad things result from that (which determined how buildings were set out in relation to streets) rather than from the architectural style of the buildings themselves. At that time, people were naive to what would actually happen. The images are all of sweeping highways and parkland with no congestion or pollution in sight.

And still in the 80s or 90s, we were building these stupid buildings like the ones above, with car parking built into the ground floor to pretend it didn't exist.

Plus the kind of suburban-style closes that exist along Shakespeare Rd.

None of these approaches result in a good solution because the fundamental problem is: too many cars. These approaches encourage car use _and_ they let it dominate the urban environment.

And it only seems to have been in the last 20 years or so that this has finally been accepted, and it's now quite uncontroversial in somewhere like Lambeth to specify that new devlopments are car free.

Although much of the rest of the UK ploughs on with car-is-king approaches to planning.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> yes, post war town planning did regard off-street car parking as desirable and maybe even a human right.
> 
> On the face of it, as well as being convenient for residents, it might seem like something that's good for the public realm - get the clutter of parked cars off the street. But parking needs a lot of space, and very often what happened is that the parking became a kind of dead zone between buildings and streets, something that is completely unfriendly to pedestrians. Either, as the windswept open car parking areas that have to be walked across to get to the entrance of buildings (there's a little bit of that on the Loughborough Estate, although not as bad as many) or solutions that involve using up the lower floors of the building (Moorlands) or the later example you give of the ex furniture shop. That also creates dead frontages. There's another example of that along acre Lane, presumably from the same era:
> 
> ...


Your picture is of a former council office block converted to residential. Environmental Services I believe.
Not sure if it had parking on the ground floor when it was offices. I guess parking does solve the problem of pavement pedestrians looking into peoples' living rooms!


----------



## edcraw (Apr 7, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Your picture is of a former council office block converted to residential. Environmental Services I believe.


Is that correct? Pretty sure it was built as flats - pretty drastic conversion of not.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Postwar, modernist architecture has a bad reputation with many people, because of associations with these kinds of unpleasant environments. I often like to argue that the main problem with that era of architecture/town planning is mostly to do with the fact that it attempted to embrace the private car.


Although of course it is possible to do well. Blenheim Gardens kept the parking around the edge  (as did cressingham gardens) and without roads running through the estate or past peoples front doors.  - strangely enough both estates very popular with residents.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Is that correct? Pretty sure it was built as flats - pretty drastic conversion of not.


thats what I remember too - that's a completely new building (by Barratt iirc).  a mate rented a flat in there for a while.  Poky, very 80's decor despite being built in the 90's. Ex council building is a bit closer to Brixton, and has really weird ground floor flats


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Is that correct? Pretty sure it was built as flats - pretty drastic conversion of not.


No it was indeed a conversion of an office block - I lived in there for several years


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 8, 2022)

The extension on the corner itself is a new build, but the main bit was the refurb


----------



## edcraw (Apr 8, 2022)

Jesterburger said:


> The extension on the corner itself is a new build, but the main bit was the refurb


You mean the bit on the right? It's a separate building from the one on the left with the car park.


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 8, 2022)

Yes that bit is the new build, and was completed later than the office refurb on the left, but designed to look a similar style


----------



## teuchter (Apr 8, 2022)

So was it an office block built built in the 90s in a kind of imitation faux historic residential block style, and then later converted into an actual faux historical residential block?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 8, 2022)

I know this is very off topic now but was it not the one further down that was council offices & has been turned into flats?


----------



## CH1 (Apr 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I know this is very off topic now but was it not the one further down that was council offices & has been turned into flats?
> 
> View attachment 317719 View attachment 317720


We weren't discussing that one - rather the one Barratts re-styled as St Paul's Court.

I have just dialled up the Lambeth Planning archive on my Chromebook -and there is a decision notice dated 1996 in favour of Barratt Homes Limited to convetrt:

Ellen Kuzwayo House, 138-146 Claphjam Park Road from offices to residential. This adds permission for two extra storeys to the existing 1993 permission.

Here is a council photo of the unveiling of the plaque dedicating the building to Ellen Kuzwayo.
Doesnt say what the building was used for - as I said probably Environmental Services, or maybe Construction Services.
You have to appreciate this dates from Lambeth's long gone socialist/Marxist era

The unveiling of a plaque naming Ellen Kuzwayo House to honour her work 'against racism and aparthied and for the freedon and health of the people of South Africa'. Ellen Kuzwayo (1914-2006) was a South African politician who was President of the ANC Youth League in the 1960s as well as a prominent women's rights activist. The struggle to end apartheid was commemorated by Lambeth Council on several occasions from this naming ceremony on 1st October 1985 to the unveiling of the Soweto memorial in 1998.From Public Relations Photographs


----------



## CH1 (Apr 8, 2022)

NB re the above the Guardian on 12 June 1987 published a job advert from

... Directorate of Environmental Health & Consumer _Services_, London Borough of _Lambeth_, _Ellen Kuzwayo House_, 138-146 _Clapham Park Road_, London SW4 7DD.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 8, 2022)

Thanks - very interesting.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 8, 2022)

I think the confusion is that it was probably a “gut to concrete frame” and rebuild. So little evidence left of previous building.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 8, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> I think the confusion is that it was probably a “gut to concrete frame” and rebuild. So little evidence left of previous building.


Yeah - it looks v ‘90s. Have always hated it particular the weird flat balcony details on the windows & how the ground floor makes the street really bland.


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 10, 2022)

teuchter said:


> So was it an office block built built in the 90s in a kind of imitation faux historic residential block style, and then later converted into an actual faux historical residential block?


it didn't have the faux historic cladding when it was an office block, that was added when it was converted to flats.

The one that edcraw mentions was then also converted later on (in the 00s I think?)


----------



## edcraw (Apr 13, 2022)

The Tories have pledged to remove all LTNs older than 3 years in their manifesto but wll "support walking, cycling and cycle quiet routes". Nice and clear there. 




			https://www.lambethconservatives.org.uk/sites/www.lambethconservatives.org.uk/files/2022-04/Lambeth%20Manifesto.pdf
		


Never heard of their 2 candiates in our ward (one has the twitter handle '@DrBrexit' 😂). Nice that this election will decide once and for all the fate of the LTNs then... or will that be the Supreme Court decision.... 🥱


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The Tories have pledged to remove all LTNs older than 3 years in their manifesto but wll "support walking, cycling and cycle quiet routes". Nice and clear there.
> 
> View attachment 318330


 

Have you actually read what you posted?

It says that they propose to "review all closed roads over three years old in a proper consultation with all local residents." 

Whatever you might feel about that I don't see how it reasonably translates into anything like a pledge to remove all LTNs over three years old.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 13, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Have you actually read what you posted?
> 
> It says that they propose to "review all closed roads over three years old in a proper consultation with all local residents."
> 
> Whatever you might feel about that I don't see how it reasonably translates into anything like a pledge to remove all LTNs over three years old.


Sorry, you're right, they've pledged to consult on all over 3 years. Presumably they'll campaign against these though. Any idea how much those consultations will cost? There must be hundreds in the borough. Will it include proposals to demolish Virgina Walk Estate in Tulse Hill to reopen Beechdale Rd??

They're definelty removing all the ones under 3 years - or is it just the one that "create traffic gridlock & high pollution levels" - or is that all of them? Crystal clear!


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, you're right.


You really need to ask yourself what you are doing when you have to make stuff up to posture against. 



edcraw said:


> Presumably they'll campaign against these though.





edcraw said:


> Will it include proposals to demolish Virgina Walk Estate in Tulse Hill to reopen Beechdale Rd??



Do you see what I mean?

It's just you and your inner boogeyman having it out in public.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 13, 2022)

So they won't consult on opening Beechdale? Going back on manifesto prmises already?

Looking forward to the Josephine Av one.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So they won't consult on opening Beechdale?



You just invented that too 🤣


----------



## Jesterburger (Apr 13, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Have you actually read what you posted?
> 
> It says that they propose to "review all closed roads over three years old in a proper consultation with all local residents."
> 
> Whatever you might feel about that I don't see how it reasonably translates into anything like a pledge to remove all LTNs over three years old.


If they thinking it's worth consulting on (which will cost a fair bit of money), surely the must have some idea of which ones they think might be worth removing - Josephine Avenue? Crescent Lane? Lambert Road?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 13, 2022)

Rushy said:


> You just invented that too 🤣


So they will? All seems v unclear.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 13, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Have you actually read what you posted?
> 
> It says that they propose to "review all closed roads over three years old in a proper consultation with all local residents."
> 
> Whatever you might feel about that I don't see how it reasonably translates into anything like a pledge to remove all LTNs over three years old.


Are you having a laugh?. They pledge to remove the new ones and _review_ the historical ones in the next sentence. Do you think they want to keep them?.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So they will?



And again .


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2022)

Jesterburger said:


> If they thinking it's worth consulting on (which will cost a fair bit of money), surely the must have some idea of which ones they think might be worth removing - Josephine Avenue? Crescent Lane? Lambert Road?


It depends what you mean by worth it. It's an election pledge and they seem to be fairly straightforwardly offering to consult on an issue. They must believe that there are areas where there are enough people who want to be consulted. Otherwise it's a fairly pointless pledge.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 13, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are you having a laugh?. They pledge to remove the new ones and _review_ the historical ones in the next sentence. Do you think they want to keep them?.


Pretty sure the Tories would want to keep Park Hill & Crescent Lane ones. If they believe filters displace traffic than these must push it onto Clapham Park Estate to save the multi million pound houses on Elm Crescent etc.


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 13, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Otherwise it's a fairly pointless pledge.


It's this.


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> It's this.


It might well be. I would not pretend to know for every ward.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2022)

They say "review all closed roads over 3 years old".

Not something like "review historically closed roads where there is a demand to do so".

Is anyone actually going to contend that this is not a silly and rather strange pledge to make?


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 13, 2022)

You're thinking about it wrong if you think this is a well-thought out election pledge. All it is, is a way to try and square being "anti-LTN" with the problem that there are filters all over the place and no one really objects to old ones, just new ones. They don't have have to have a proper answer to whether an old filter is good or bad, as the answer is "dunno, we could ask people I guess".


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2022)

teuchter said:


> They say "review all closed roads over 3 years old".
> 
> Not something like "review historically closed roads where there is a demand to do so".


I'd agree that "where there is a demand to do so" would be more practical. I'm not even sure how they would go about working out what qualifies as a "road closed over three years old".


----------



## Rushy (Apr 13, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> You're thinking about it wrong if you think this is a well-thought out election pledge.


I'm not sure that I suggested that it was. I simply acknowledge that I don't know (and don't really care to know) the ins and outs of every ward so I accept that it might be a hot potato in one, even if I don't know about it.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 13, 2022)

It's odd that they should raise it as a thing, as I am not aware of anywhere that people are asking for a >3 year old closure to be reversed, and it's a question that they normally dodge for that very reason.

It might be that there are a couple of locations where people _do_ want something reversed, but I find it more plausible that it's in there simply because they are completely clueless about coming up with a coherent transport policy.


----------



## Jimbeau (Apr 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Sorry, you're right, they've pledged to consult on all over 3 years. Presumably they'll campaign against these though. Any idea how much those consultations will cost? There must be hundreds in the borough. Will it include proposals to demolish Virgina Walk Estate in Tulse Hill to reopen Beechdale Rd??
> 
> They're definelty removing all the ones under 3 years - or is it just the one that "create traffic gridlock & high pollution levels" - or is that all of them? Crystal clear!


It's a minor point in response to a spectacular bit of poor logic - but Virginia Walk has never been open to cars. Sure, the bit of road that existed there prior to the Blitz was, but old streets get covered up by buildings all the time. That's urban planning rather than traffic engineering.

Even in it's pre-WW2 state, Beechdale just looped back onto Endymion. It was never a through road to Helix and Leander. There's a 3m height difference that dates back to the development of fields from two different farms. The steps at that corner have been there since the 1880s when the streets were first laid out.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 13, 2022)

The go fund me campaign has stalled again after an initial rise following the appeal. It’s all very well saying let’s carry on but if you are not the one who is liable at the end, pity the poor sod that is.


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 13, 2022)

Rushy said:


> I'm not sure that I suggested that it was.


It was a more general "you" to be clear. I'm not posh enough to use "one".


----------



## alex_ (Apr 13, 2022)

Rushy said:


> I'd agree that "where there is a demand to do so" would be more practical. I'm not even sure how they would go about working out what qualifies as a "road closed over three years old".


Yes - Clapham high street sainsburys used to be a tram depot, I demand the road through sainsburys is reopened.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 14, 2022)

The race for Croydon Mayor is hotting up to the point that on LTNs both Val Shawcross and the Tory candidate appear cagily against. Then again this is reported speech.








						Val Shawcross & Jason Perry respond to our questions about "LTNs"
					

Open Our Roads is an independent campaign organised by a group of local cross party residents who care passionately about their community.




					openourroads.org


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 14, 2022)

The questions are very funny.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 14, 2022)

CH1 said:


> The race for Croydon Mayor is hotting up to the point that on LTNs both Val Shawcross and the Tory candidate appear cagily against. Then again this is reported speech.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Neither of them say they will remove any ! Lol

( it’s all cagey “I didn’t say that” answers )


----------



## editor (Apr 14, 2022)

CH1 said:


> You mean Pablo Neruda Close, Derek Walcott Close etc?
> Of course when these were built we were in the Bellos era and the primary issue was to promote "positive image" as regards third world poets - especially if they has been hounded by the Pinochett regime of Chile.
> The Moorlands Estate had been built less than 10 years earlier with ample car ownership provision - which still exists now.
> In fact I would venture to suggest that many social housing  developments in the 1980s and earlier saw the car as a human right of the tenants.
> ...


They never used the floor that was set aside for car parking in the Barrier Block....

Totally agree about the waste of the space in the block opposite. Some cars in there have been gathering dust for years!


----------



## edcraw (Apr 14, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Neither of them say they will remove any ! Lol
> 
> ( it’s all cagey “I didn’t say that” answers )


I like how the Tory says they'll need to work out how to earn another £20m a year if they remove them but has no idea how!!


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I like how the Tory says they'll need to work out how to earn another £20m a year if they remove them but has no idea how!!


Which is better than the Dulwich Village Tories who plan to fund public transport using the fine income from the cameras they say they will remove.


----------



## CH1 (Apr 15, 2022)

This looked interesting


----------



## edcraw (Apr 15, 2022)

CH1 said:


> This looked interesting



No. 3 are basically LTNs which is weird as John actively campaigns against them. 

I wonder how many of the the OneLambeth lot would be in favour of….


----------



## teuchter (Apr 15, 2022)

Meanwhile in Soho....



A lot of replies to this seem basically to be saying that motor traffic is needed to displace outdoor tables which caused noise problems.

There's obviously an argument to be had about whether the noise that comes from outdoors eating/drinking is inappropriate for somewhere like Soho. But even if you agree it's a problem - is there a worse way to solve it, than by using motor vehicles to keep people off the street?


----------



## edcraw (Apr 15, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Meanwhile in Soho....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed - there was an issue with noise but could be easily solved by stopping outside music & limiting outside tables. There’s never been a problem where the solution is more cars!


----------



## liquidindian (Apr 21, 2022)

If I understand correctly then the case may go to the Supreme Court, but if this application to stay fails it may be fighting against a traffic order that's no longer in place. So I guess that means there's a small chance that the appeal wins but it won't matter because it would be asking the council to retake a decision it has no interest in taking again.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 22, 2022)

What's an "application to stay"?


----------



## Winot (Apr 22, 2022)

On local elections and LTNs:









						Will local elections put the brakes on low-traffic neighbourhood schemes?
					

Wider rollout of LTNs has prompted anguished debate, with one former party member standing against Labour over the issue




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## mbyrde12 (Apr 22, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What's an "application to stay"?


I think in legal speak it means to wait for something else before it is decided upon. In this case its probably because the permanent traffic orders have to be challenged within a specific timeframe so One Lambeth want to lodge their challenge but then stay it until they find out about Supreme Court bid. I might be wrong though but looking at their FB group it looks that way.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 22, 2022)

teuchter said:


> What's an "application to stay"?


_“From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary Englishstay an order/ruling/execution etclaw if a judge stays an order, ruling etc, they stop a particular decision from being used or a particular action from happening”_

so I guess they want to stop the traffic orders taking permanent effect (so that they can try to block them).  which is odd, because I thought the point of law they’d appealed on was about process/decisions when the temp orders were made - whether psed could be considered on a rolling basis.
Now the perm orders were made with the benefit of evidence from the trial so surely that appeal would not affect them


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 22, 2022)

Are any of the onesies standing for election to get rid of ltns by democratic means rather than spurious lawsuits?.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 22, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are any of the onesies standing for election to get rid of ltns by democratic means rather than spurious lawsuits?.


They’re all Tories now! Assume they’ll spin even the slightest uptick in their votes as a huge vote against LTNs. 

Here’s their ‘analysis’ of Streatham Hill East. Not sure why they think the Lib Dems are opposed to them though.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 22, 2022)

edcraw said:


> They’re all Tories now! Assume they’ll spin even the slightest uptick in their votes as a huge vote against LTNs.
> 
> Here’s their ‘analysis’ of Streatham Hill East. Not sure why they think the Lib Dems are opposed to them though.
> 
> View attachment 319642


So the new Streatham East ward seems to be old Streatham Hill east of the A23 plus a bit of what was Wells.

Assembly member vote from May (which is probably the most 'neutral' indication of politics) was 48% Labour, 22% Green, 15% Tory, 12% Libdem.  Greens were up vs 2016 council elections, every one else down (labour by c1%, tory down by 2%)


----------



## teuchter (Apr 22, 2022)

At various points the Lambeth Greens seem to have been a bit quiet about the LTN issue - as if hedging their bets on what way opinion was going.

But having just looked at their current "pledges" they seem to be fairy unambiguous -






						Our Pledges - Lambeth
					

Our Pledges Our Green Councillors are the official opposition on Labour-led Lambeth Council. They work tirelessly all year round for a safer, fairer, greener community for us all. We achieve [...]Read More... from Our Pledges



					lambeth.greenparty.org.uk
				






> *Drastically reducing the number of cars on Lambeth’s streets *
> 
> Our vision for Lambeth involves a whole borough/holistic approach to make it safer and more attractive to walk, cycle, scoot or use public transport in Lambeth.
> 
> ...





> *Tackling rat-running *
> 
> Tackling rat-running by the introduction of ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ in order to prioritise walking and cycling and ‘access only’ for residents with cars. Therefore diverting traffic away from these areas.


----------



## mbyrde12 (Apr 22, 2022)

teuchter said:


> At various points the Lambeth Greens seem to have been a bit quiet about the LTN issue - as if hedging their bets on what way opinion was going.
> 
> But having just looked at their current "pledges" they seem to be fairy unambiguous -
> 
> ...


I suppose it is easier now the issue is settling down. Different when the chips are down.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Apr 23, 2022)

I would love to vote green in this election because of the climate crisis and because of the undemocratic nature of progress and the cabinet system, but fuck me if I am going to play into the car nuts / tory cunts’ plans to spin this so I will be holding my nose and voting labour.


----------



## Not a Vet (Apr 23, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are any of the onesies standing for election to get rid of ltns by democratic means rather than spurious lawsuits?.


This is where, again I think the one campaign show either naivety or bad judgment. If they’d used the money raised to date to fund several single issue candidates in some of these wards, it would have forced the issue to be talked about on the doorsteps and might have persuaded voters who have previously voted Labour to vote for them. It’s a hell of a step for a traditional Labour voter to vote conservative, they are more likely to not vote. I think Tim Briggs has tried to spin it to vote Tory, wrong move.


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I would love to vote green in this election because of the climate crisis and because of the undemocratic nature of progress and the cabinet system, but fuck me if I am going to play into the car nuts / tory cunts’ plans to spin this so I will be holding my nose and voting labour.


I can't vote for Lambeth Labour any more.


----------



## Cat Fan (Apr 23, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I would love to vote green in this election because of the climate crisis and because of the undemocratic nature of progress and the cabinet system, but fuck me if I am going to play into the car nuts / tory cunts’ plans to spin this so I will be holding my nose and voting labour.


I think the vast majority of residents in Streatham Hill East will be pro LTN, so I will be surprised if Tories can increase their vote share significantly. They will certainly be far short of Labour and probably short of Greens as well.


----------



## Cat Fan (Apr 23, 2022)

Also let's face it, Boris Johnson's party is not exactly basking in popularity right now, so I would say it's safe to vote for who you want to win rather than voting tactically.

I'd personally love to see more Green councillors to help hold the Labour administration to account on their climate pledges.

As a measure of how low the Tories are in the polls right now there's an article in the Guardian suggesting they might lose Wandsworth.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 23, 2022)

Winot said:


> On local elections and LTNs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My local election (Kings Heath in Birmingham) is the funniest I've seen in local politics, with the anti-LTN vote being split between the tories, lib dems, Worker's Revolutionary Party (Galloway's party) and a local loon who is standing as an independent and seems to have thought that because he was the admin of an anti-LTN facebook group with 2000 members (of which at least two were him, probably more) he would get a lot of votes. Then he opens his mouth on facebook, it's almost amazing how bad he is at communication. This is today's post for St George's day... 


Various people have been pointing out that he's got the wrong flag.


----------



## nagapie (Apr 24, 2022)

editor said:


> I can't vote for Lambeth Labour any more.


A vote for Lambeth Labour is a vote for social cleansing through estate 'regeneration'.

Of course Lambeth have lost my initial support on LTNs too. Their one filter policy for people with blue badges is the most mean spirited reasonable adjustment I've ever come across. They've been forced to concede that they've not been fair to people with disabilities so have given the smallest, most insignificant and tokenistic access they could think of.
Finding it difficult to choose a party to vote for based on LTNs or anything, easier to choose a party not to vote for.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 24, 2022)

I initially thought, why not just give blue badge holders an exemption for all filters, because it wouldn't amount to a large number of extra vehicles.

However, the policy they have gone with allows a blue badge holder to nominate two cars - which can be their own, plus one owned by a carer. That looks to me like a reasonably sensible attempt to address the criticisms that thought should be given to carers and the journeys they need to make.  

That significantly increases the number of exempted cars and also the number of those cars which would be taking advantage of a blanket exemption while on business that isn't related to the caring role.

Remembering (as sometimes seems to get forgotten) that the restrictions don't remove anyone's access to anywhere, but just make some journeys a bit longer, granting a single filter exemption ought really to address a large proportion of journeys to and from a particular location. That is, whenever someone complains legitimately that a journey that used to take 5 minutes now takes 15, the vast majority of those scenarios could be dealt with by removing a single filter close to the start/finish point.

But really it should be Lambeth defending the details of their chosen approach not me. I think they could do with providing a bit more explanation of why they have chosen what they have chosen.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 24, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I initially thought, why not just give blue badge holders an exemption for all filters, because it wouldn't amount to a large number of extra vehicles.
> 
> However, the policy they have gone with allows a blue badge holder to nominate two cars - which can be their own, plus one owned by a carer. That looks to me like a reasonably sensible attempt to address the criticisms that thought should be given to carers and the journeys they need to make.
> 
> That significantly increases the number of exempted cars and also the number of those cars which would be taking advantage of a blanket exemption while on business that isn't related to the caring



There are 2.3 million blue badges in the U.K. vs 32.5m cars - so a general exemption would mean approx 7% of cars would be exempt from all LTNs.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 26, 2022)

CH1 said:


> I have always believed in high quality cheap, even free public transport.



Saw someone had done the sums on this today.  TfL fares income was £4.9bn pre-pandemic which, with 3.4m London households, means you'd need to find £1500 per household per year.  And of course making it free would create a load more demand and with it cost (or just overcrowding), so probably more than that.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 26, 2022)

Even if public transport was super efficient & free I think most people that drive now would still drive.


----------



## Cat Fan (Apr 27, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Saw someone had done the sums on this today.  TfL fares income was £4.9bn pre-pandemic which, with 3.4m London households, means you'd need to find £1500 per household per year.  And of course making it free would create a load more demand and with it cost (or just overcrowding), so probably more than that.


Not sure that the number of London households is the right number to look at here. I would look at the number of regular commuters who use TFL services, plus the number of regular tourists.

Both numbers went way down during the worst of the pandemic but are presumably going to recover over time. Crossrail opening soon will also be a good fare earner.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 27, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Not sure that the number of London households is the right number to look at here. I would look at the number of regular commuters who use TFL services, plus the number of regular tourists.
> 
> Both numbers went way down during the worst of the pandemic but are presumably going to recover over time. Crossrail opening soon will also be a good fare earner.


You’ve missed the point. Was suggested public transport should be free. £1500 is what it would add to council tax bills each year to cover the cost.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 27, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> You’ve missed the point. Was suggested public transport should be free. £1500 is what it would add to council tax bills each year to cover the cost.



The issue would be tube capacity - free buses would make a lot more sense - simplistically more people on buses means less cars ( In lots of the country )


----------



## Cat Fan (Apr 27, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> You’ve missed the point. Was suggested public transport should be free. £1500 is what it would add to council tax bills each year to cover the cost.


Nonsense, why would it be funded through council tax when it's used by millions of commuters and international tourists?

In other more civilised countries there are much higher government subsidies for public transport in major cities.

Big business and big property developers can and should help pay as well.


----------



## nick (Apr 28, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Nonsense, why would it be funded through council tax when it's used by millions of commuters and international tourists?


Not sure if relevant but.... I'm pretty sure I remember we Londoners all helped fund the 2012 Olympics via our council tax, whether or not we attended. Which feels kind of parallel


----------



## nick (Apr 28, 2022)

And yes - I like the idea of free (buses ). But compared to the rest of the UK they are almost a giveaway already.

And no way the current government will allow the mayor to do anything that could be considered a vote winner or him


----------



## felonius monk (Apr 28, 2022)

From the Independent last month

"In France, urban public transport is funded by a system called the "versement transport" or VT. Under this system, cities can levy an employer payroll tax (think employers’ national insurance) of up to 2 per cent on companies with more than 11 employees. The result is that businesses that benefit from public transport end up contributing to it.
It turns out you can do a lot with this cash: in the Ile-de-France...around 40 per cent of transport funding is provided by the VT – with the cash used to keep fares low and invest in new lines. As a result a monthly pass giving unlimited travel on all public transport in the wider Paris region costs just €75 (£62), under half that of London. The VT also gives not just Paris, but other cities around France huge independence to fund their own public transport improvements. French cities have built 21 tram systems since the year 2000, largely funded by introducing their own VTs, from Bordeaux to Besançon. If Leeds could levy a VT, it could have funded and built its own trams, or even a proper metro, decades ago, without waiting for Westminster to make up its mind....
None of this is possible in the UK, where the Treasury jealously guards any and all public subsidy. There are already UK precedents to imposing such levies – a temporary business rate supplement was imposed in London to fund Crossrail work..."









						Opinion: To fix public transport in Britain, we should copy France
					

In Paris’s equivalent of the Greater London area, around 40 per cent of transport funding is provided by the ‘versement transport’ or VT levy – with the cash used to keep fares low




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 28, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Nonsense, why would it be funded through council tax when it's used by millions of commuters and international tourists?
> 
> In other more civilised countries there are much higher government subsidies for public transport in major cities.
> 
> Big business and big property developers can and should help pay as well.


Equally, why would we make public transport free when it's used by millions of international tourists?

Someone was arguing that (locally funded) LTNs are the wrong answer and we should get people out of their cars by making public transport cheap/free (which it's not at all clear is the reason people are driving in London now in any case).  
Because we don't have a national government that's going to make public transport free nationwide, so for London to have free PT it would be a mayoral policy which would mean raising funds from council tax.

'big business can pay' - so you're suggesting a big increase in business rates? 
Property developers - how would this work to get the ongoing income needed? we don't even effectively tax property developers to build 'affordable' housing and already have 'section 106' and 'community infrastructure levy' to fund _capital_ - ie one off - improvements to transport and facilities. It doesn't seem very effective, and developer seem to have clever accountants who 'prove' their developments aren't profitable and so avoid making large payments


----------



## teuchter (Apr 28, 2022)

TfL is actually already part funded via business rates and council tax, via the GLA. This arrangement replaced the previous one, where it got a grant from central government instead, just a year or two before Covid hit.

As i understand it, TfL is quite unusual for a big-city public transport system in being quite heavily reliant on ticket revenue for its funding (about 50% I think). In other countries, a much lower proportion of funding tends to come from farebox revenue.

This is why it was so badly hit by the drop in usership during Covid, and has had to rely on emergency bailouts from central government to compensate.

Also, because it's responsible for London's trunk roads network, it means that their upkeep is funded via business rates / council tax / public transport fares, and not "road tax". So, drivers' claims that VED pays for the upkeep of roads that pedestrians, cyclists and buses dare to use have even less validity in London - effectively none of their VED now comes back to TfL because it goes to central goverment. If they pay congestion charge, some of that does come back to TfL but otherwise their private motoring around London is subsidised by business rates and council tax paid by a population many of who don't own a car - and by public transport users.

On the question of whether public transport should be free - in London it would mean a need to at least double the amount of "subsidy". I don't see why it should be all or nothing - you could have a discount for low income Londoners and still extract revenue from tourists and well-off commuters. And because London does have capacity problems, there's probably a good argument against making it completely free, where the risk is not that people transfer from car to public transport, but from walking/cycling, on journeys or journey legs where it's perfectly feasible to do that. 

I think they found that this switch from walking to public transport was one of the effects of making it free in Tallinn. I'm not any expert on what they did there but you might find some significant differences from London - like the extent to which fares were already subsidised, or the sheer number of people that need to be moved, compared to the system's capacity. One of the features of London is that it needs to shift an enormous number of daily commuters from outside London, on top of the resident population. 

Also, I don't think Tallinn just made public transport free without doing anything else - they changed parking fees, re-allocated road space and so on. In other words they did a lot of the stuff that some people like to think free transport could be _instead of _rather than _as well as._

If you were to make public transport free in London, then it probably would be inevitable that you would increase bus capacity, because there's little space to increase it on tube/rail. And to do that you'd probably need to increase the allocation of road space for buses, whether the new bus users were switching from car or from walking, or just making journeys they wouldn't have made otherwise.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> On the question of whether public transport should be free - in London it would mean a need to at least double the amount of "subsidy". I don't see why it should be all or nothing - you could have a discount for low income Londoners and still extract revenue from tourists and well-off commuters. And because London does have capacity problems, there's probably a good argument against making it completely free, where the risk is not that people transfer from car to public transport, but from walking/cycling, on journeys or journey legs where it's perfectly feasible to do that.


Completely agree - subsidy for public transport across the UK should be increased.  But the most socially just way to fund it it to significantly increase the cost of private motoring to pay for it - we've had decades where the effective cost of PT has increased while the total cost of motoring has decreased (if in no other way the freezing of fuel duty for the last decade while there have been annual above inflation fare increases).


----------



## nick (Apr 28, 2022)

teuchter said:


> On the question of whether public transport should be free - in London it would mean a need to at least double the amount of "subsidy". I don't see why it should be all or nothing - you could have a discount for low income Londoners and still extract revenue from tourists and well-off commuters. And because London does have capacity problems, there's probably a good argument against making it completely free, where the risk is not that people transfer from car to public transport, but from walking/cycling, on journeys or journey legs where it's perfectly feasible to do that.


Maybe they could call it "Fares Fair" ?


----------



## editor (Apr 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Even if public transport was super efficient & free I think most people that drive now would still drive.


Then make them pay dearly for the privilege if it's just one person in a big car going to the shops.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 28, 2022)

editor said:


> Then make them pay dearly for the privilege if it's just one person in a big car going to the shops.


Yep - unfortunately we’ve got a government that continuously cuts the cost of fuel/driving though and people just take the loss by getting stupidly big cars.

As said before - the continued backlash to even the frankly modest LTN changes is really depressing.


----------



## nick (Apr 29, 2022)

Dunno if this sits better in the Local Election thread, but suspect this ask from the London Cycle Campaign may not be universally popular with the "Ones"


WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN LAMBETH​



1. Deliver FOUR new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) per year from Lambeth’s existing prioritisation plan, with at least one safe crossing between adjacent LTNs so that more cross-London journeys can be cycled easily, safely and efficiently.
2. Deliver SIX Healthy Routes to create safer cycling conditions along high-cycle-demand roads which are under Council control, by 2026.
3. Implement a new kerbside strategy that prioritises active travel and inclusive pedestrian spaces. The kerbside strategy should start from 2023.
4. A rapid rollout of a dense network of shared mobility points.​


----------



## Winot (Apr 30, 2022)

nick said:


> Dunno if this sits better in the Local Election thread, but suspect this ask from the London Cycle Campaign may not be universally popular with the "Ones"
> 
> ​
> WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN LAMBETH​
> ...


I sent that to the parties via LCC. The Greens have signed up to it. Tories and Labour didn’t reply. Lib Dems gave ‘fence sitting’ response.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2022)

Love how Briggs has started referring to the ‘discredited LCC’ 😜. Very chowce5382 

Also, how people keep using #defundtheLCC. Do they get any govt funding?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Love how Briggs has started referring to the ‘discredited LCC’ 😜. Very chowce5382
> 
> Also, how people keep using #defundtheLCC. Do they get any govt funding?


They have 10,000+ members. At £55 for an adult, £80 family and £27.50 concessions. 

They also have advertising revenue and large donors.

I'm pretty sure that gives them enough revenue to fund the size of organisation we see. They don't appear to do anything like cycle training or group rides like British cycling or cycling UK do which might get funding.

I'm saying no, they don't. I'm not in a position to actually know.


----------



## BusLanes (Apr 30, 2022)

Well if Tim loses his election he can spend more time campaigning against cycle advocacy groups fundraising


----------



## Cat Fan (Apr 30, 2022)

Winot said:


> I sent that to the parties via LCC. The Greens have signed up to it. Tories and Labour didn’t reply. Lib Dems gave ‘fence sitting’ response.


It's a really good idea to have some designated safe crossings between LTNs because that's the main thing stopping me from cycling to work at the moment (+laziness).

Greens are really way out in front for me in this election.

Labour still haven't organised the council tax rebates yet and our local playground is falling to bits despite council promises to repair it. I'm not sure they could organise their way out of a paper bag.


----------



## thebackrow (Apr 30, 2022)

BigTom said:


> They have 10,000+ members. At £55 for an adult, £80 family and £27.50 concessions.
> 
> They also have advertising revenue and large donors.
> 
> ...


They’re a charity - accounts are public 








						LONDON CYCLING CAMPAIGN - Charity 1115789
					

Charity details for LONDON CYCLING CAMPAIGN - Charity 1115789




					register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> They’re a charity - accounts are public
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So how is anyone planning on defunding them?! Or is it just that it sounds like ‘defund the BBC’ which these people probably also want to do?


----------



## alex_ (Apr 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So how is anyone planning on defunding them?! Or is it just that it sounds like ‘defund the BBC’ which these people probably also want to do?



I thought they were against cancel culture ?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 30, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> They’re a charity - accounts are public
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Total income includes £90,173 from 4 government contract(s)

a little under £1m in total income so it's not insignificant but it's not like LCC would collapse without it.

They probably think it's wholly or mostly funded because of the way the anti LTN brigade portray active travel charities as being essentially part of the council, like the councils funded LCC in order that they could have a pressure group to get them to build cycling infrastructure.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2022)

BigTom said:


> Total income includes £90,173 from 4 government contract(s)
> 
> a little under £1m in total income so it's not insignificant but it's not like LCC would collapse without it.
> 
> They probably think it's wholly or mostly funded because of the way the anti LTN brigade portray active travel charities as being essentially part of the council, like the councils funded LCC in order that they could have a pressure group to get them to build cycling infrastructure.


And surely contracts is v different from grants which they don’t receive any.


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2022)

Yet another driver can’t tell where the pavement is at the corner of Brixton Hill & Dumbarton Rd is.

Just crazy that some people are happy with this rather than slightly inconveniencing some drivers.


----------



## alex_ (Apr 30, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yet another driver can’t tell where the pavement is at the corner of Brixton Hill & Dumbarton Rd is.
> 
> Just crazy that some people are happy with this rather than slightly inconveniencing some drivers.
> 
> View attachment 320733



That bollard could easily have been a pedestrian - the car is 50cm onto the pavement.

Good news is this will totally fuck their insurance.


----------



## nick (Apr 30, 2022)

Best wishes to the bollard. Hope it recovers soon ( although appears to have survived well)


----------



## edcraw (Apr 30, 2022)

nick said:


> Best wishes to the bollard. Hope it recovers soon ( although appears to have survived well)


It’s actually got a hole in it from all the previous crashes… I think that pole at the rear wheel had been stuck in it to make it more obvious! People actually try and defend this by saying it’s not obvious enough as it’s too low. It’s on the fucking pavement!!


----------



## alex_ (May 1, 2022)

edcraw said:


> People actually try and defend this by saying it’s not obvious enough as it’s too low.



Toddler height


----------



## nick (May 1, 2022)

Passed that bollard today - you're right, it looks rather "overwhelmed" at the constant abuse it has suffered


----------



## thebackrow (May 2, 2022)

just saw this posted by BrixtonHatter on the twitters. No surprise on the Tory line and I’m not sure what votes the libdems are trying to attract with that sort of vagueness. They don’t even seem to have a manifesto and few of the candidate profiles go beyond a summary of their employment history - gives no idea of where they stand on any of the issues facing the borough.









						Party positions on Climate Safe Streets – get out and vote on Thursday!
					

The local elections are now just a few days away. We’ve asked all of the parties to sign up to our Climate Safe Streets asks (which you can read here). Our view is that these are the minimum …




					lambethcyclists.org.uk


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (May 2, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> just saw this posted by BrixtonHatter on the twitters. No surprise on the Tory line and I’m not sure what votes the libdems are trying to attract with that sort of vagueness. They don’t even seem to have a manifesto and few of the candidate profiles go beyond a summary of their employment history - gives no idea of where they stand on any of the issues facing the borough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lib Dems in we-stand-for-nothing shocker!


----------



## snowy_again (May 2, 2022)

I had the Onesies leaflet through the door. 

Includes the line “local politics for local people’.


----------



## edcraw (May 2, 2022)

snowy_again said:


> I had the Onesies leaflet through the door.
> 
> Includes the line “local politics for local people’.


I understand that its probably breaking electoral law by not declaring who’s publishing it. Its seems to be Ian Armstrong who has been campaigning for the Tories.


----------



## Cat Fan (May 5, 2022)

Lambeth Green party clearly in favour of LTNs according to their website. Also in favour of segregated cycle lanes, workplace parking levies etc.





						Our Pledges - Lambeth
					

Our Pledges Our Green Councillors are the official opposition on Labour-led Lambeth Council. They work tirelessly all year round for a safer, fairer, greener community for us all. We achieve [...]Read More... from Our Pledges



					lambeth.greenparty.org.uk


----------



## snowy_again (May 5, 2022)

That’s not quite what their canvasser said on my door step.


----------



## thebackrow (May 5, 2022)

This statement seems pretty unequivocal though there always seem to be some individual green activists way off message on various things (look at Lord Jenny Jones ffs)









						Green Party backs Climate Safe Streets
					

The Lambeth Green Party have made a solid pledge of support for our Climate Safe Streets asks, which you can read below. You can view their full manifesto here Alongside the retrofitting and insula…




					lambethcyclists.org.uk


----------



## BusLanes (May 5, 2022)

The Greens I have met seem as divided as the other parties on LTNs.


----------



## Cat Fan (May 5, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> The Greens I have met seem as divided as the other parties on LTNs.


Are those standing for election Greens or just random members of the public? The standing for election Greens seem to have a clear pro LTN platform.


----------



## BusLanes (May 5, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Are those standing for election Greens or just random members of the public? The standing for election Greens seem to have a clear pro LTN platform.



Activists I have met. Not councillors, yet anyway


----------



## BusLanes (May 5, 2022)

"Not rip up LTNs, they're literally apartheid" types I hasten to add. Just don't like Lambeth Labour's way of implementing


----------



## thebackrow (May 5, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> "Not rip up LTNs, they're literally apartheid" types I hasten to add. Just don't like Lambeth Labour's way of implementing


There was some criticism of “process” by greens the Herne Hill hustings. I never hear a clear plan fo how they’d do it differently - you’ll never get consensus and agreement from everyone. The history of Rosendale Road and Dulwich Village shows that - through 6 years of consultation the same voices have objected to every type of scheme you can imagine, even just to a signposted route through the area without anything but painted symbols.  a load of voices attacking LTNs are just as much against even 20mph speed limits.

i can’t think of a better, fairer, way to make changes than to implement them as trials and see what the real impacts are. And to make changes based on feedback. That’s surely better than en paper consultations that never lead to anything actually changing. Unless your objective is to maintain the status quo.

but all this has been said many times before in this thread.


----------



## edcraw (May 5, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> There was some criticism of “process” by greens the Herne Hill hustings. I never hear a clear plan fo how they’d do it differently - you’ll never get consensus and agreement from everyone. The history of Rosendale Road and Dulwich Village shows that - through 6 years of consultation the same voices have objected to every type of scheme you can imagine, even just to a signposted route through the area without anything but painted symbols.  a load of voices attacking LTNs are just as much against even 20mph speed limits.
> 
> i can’t think of a better, fairer, way to make changes than to implement them as trials and see what the real impacts are. And to make changes based on feedback. That’s surely better than en paper consultations that never lead to anything actually changing. Unless your objective is to maintain the status quo.
> 
> but all this has been said many times before in this thread.


The one thing I agree could have been done better is communication beforehand, but they needed to be rushed to get the funding. 

The new proposed ones - Brixton Hill & Streatham Wells - have had really good engagement. Yet the same people will oppose an say the weren't consulted....


----------



## thebackrow (May 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The one thing I agree could have been done better is communication beforehand, but they needed to be rushed to get the funding.
> 
> The new proposed ones - Brixton Hill & Streatham Wells - have had really good engagement. Yet the same people will oppose an say the weren't consulted....


How could comms be better? This stuff is in the council mags they deliver, it’s on BrIxton Buzz and Brixton Blog. There are letters sent to every home

how little attention engagement do th complainers have with their local area? ( I remember years back at a new park road meeting someone saying they threw away without reading anything that looked like it came from the council).


----------



## edcraw (May 5, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> How could comms be better? This stuff is in the council mags they deliver, it’s on BrIxton Buzz and Brixton Blog. There are letters sent to every home
> 
> how little attention engagement do th complainers have with their local area? ( I remember years back at a new park road meeting someone saying they threw away without reading anything that looked like it came from the council).


I mean the emergency covid ones. There wasn't time for consultation beforehand.


----------



## thebackrow (May 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I mean the emergency covid ones. There wasn't time for consultation beforehand.


Except the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood consultation that was underway  - as shown by the start of this thread in may 2019, more than a year before the trial LTNs went in.

Thread 'Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists'
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

_At the heart of our proposal is transforming Atlantic Road in the town centre, but the ambition goes well beyond this, with proposals to create ‘low traffic neighbourhoods’ in adjacent residential areas that link communities together and ‘healthy routes’ for walking and cycling._


----------



## Cat Fan (May 5, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> "Not rip up LTNs, they're literally apartheid" types I hasten to add. Just don't like Lambeth Labour's way of implementing


Makes sense, I think generally it is possible to have a nuanced position on LTNs without being a climate change denier or similar


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (May 5, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Except the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood consultation that was underway  - as shown by the start of this thread in may 2019, more than a year before the trial LTNs went in.
> 
> Thread 'Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists'
> Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
> ...


When do we get a livable Atlantic road ??


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (May 5, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Makes sense, I think generally it is possible to have a nuanced position on LTNs without being a climate change denier or similar


Try to espouse a nuanced opinion online, however, and Ian Armstrong and the rest of his lot will soon be gaslighting you in the most unpleasant terms. Which you might find makes you less interested in finding common ground with them.  Kinda like ukippers that way.


----------



## thebackrow (May 5, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> When do we get a livable Atlantic road ??


It feels like through traffic count is way down due to the Railton LTN. What it needs now (in my view) is wider pavements/repaving (expensive and will be attacked as gentrification ) and ruthless parking enforcement.  Traffic volumes and speeds aren’t high but it’s not fun to walk along or cross it

All the onesie complaints about the impact of the Railton LTN on custom for the shops there suggests parking enforcement will be seen by some as an attack on BAME businesses. Buses and Emergency Services are held up all the time due to illegal parking on Atlantic Road but we never hear a word of concern about it. 

This is electric avenue on a typical Sunday. Supposedly “no stopping/parking” at any time.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 6, 2022)

In Southwark, where there is a lot of anger about LTNs, Labour are up 2….


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> In Southwark, where there is a lot of anger about LTNs, Labour are up 2….


and looks like the Dulwich Village Labour councillors have increased their vote share! Maybe the anger is actually mostly from people not from the area!


----------



## alex_ (May 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> and looks like the Dulwich Village Labour councillors have increased their vote share! Maybe the anger is actually mostly from people not from the area!



Maybe the onesies tweeting that the vote was going to be fixed wasn’t the best way of getting out their support ?

Sounds like LTNs are the will of the people - Southwark should crack on


----------



## thebackrow (May 6, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Maybe the onesies tweeting that the vote was going to be fixed wasn’t the best way of getting out their support ?
> 
> Sounds like LTNs are the will of the people - Southwark should crack on



this seems a decent analysis of Dulwich


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2022)

Wandsworth tory council abandoned their LTNs - and have been voted out for the first time in decades.

And Westminster have not tended to be very supportive of changes in favour of pedestrians & cyclists.

Were LTNs / traffic measures presented as major issues in either of these areas?

Of course it's difficult to untangle it from all the other reasons people have turned against the Tories.


----------



## snowy_again (May 6, 2022)

Wandsworth put LTNs back in but just didn’t call them that


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

Strong support for the Streatham Hill LTN. The Tory candidates campaigned hard against is and only managed a few hundred votes.


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

Tulse Hill LTN extremely popular!


----------



## teuchter (May 6, 2022)

So - Tim Briggs has lost his seat? Oh dear.


----------



## colacubes (May 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Tulse Hill LTN extremely popular!
> 
> View attachment 321468


Whilst I’m a fan of LTNs, I think interpreting the result in such a way is dodgy. I could equally argue that the redevelopment of Cressingham Gardens is obviously extremely popular on that basis. And it’s clearly not.


----------



## thebackrow (May 6, 2022)

colacubes said:


> Whilst I’m a fan of LTNs, I think interpreting the result in such a way is dodgy. I could equally argue that the redevelopment of Cressingham Gardens is obviously extremely popular on that basis. And it’s clearly not.


If the conservatives and onesies hadn’t made this central to their campaigning and canvassing in these wards I’d have more sympathy, but these results clearly demonstrate that. It really is a tiny number who care enough to register a protest vote.


----------



## colacubes (May 6, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> If the conservatives and onesies hadn’t made this central to their campaigning and canvassing in these wards I’d have more sympathy, but these results clearly demonstrate that. It really is a tiny number who care enough to register a protest vote.


Did they actually campaign much in that ward.? I have some sympathy with your argument in Dulwich Village for example with this result where there was a heavy campaign on this, but I just don’t think you can interpret in this way across all wards. And I’m super pro LTNs.


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

colacubes said:


> Did they actually campaign much in that ward.? I have some sympathy with your argument in Dulwich Village for example with this result where there was a heavy campaign on this, but I just don’t think you can interpret in this way across all wards. And I’m super pro LTNs.


In Streatham Hill East they did.


----------



## thebackrow (May 6, 2022)

colacubes said:


> Did they actually campaign much in that ward.? I have some sympathy with your argument in Dulwich Village for example with this result where there was a heavy campaign on this, but I just don’t think you can interpret in this way across all wards. And I’m super pro LTNs.




And a load of others on the Streatham candidate feeds. And OneLambeth out campaigning with them.

And it’s the first point on their leaflet.


----------



## colacubes (May 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> In Streatham Hill East they did.





edcraw said:


> In Streatham Hill East they did.


Sure but what about in Brixton Rush Common? I’m not trying to have a row here but just don’t think you can extrapolate so strongly In all cases.


----------



## thebackrow (May 6, 2022)

colacubes said:


> Sure but what about in Brixton Rush Common? I’m not trying to have a row here but just don’t think you can extrapolate so strongly In all cases.


That’s where one Lambeth claim the consultation was fixed and there was much more opposition.


----------



## edcraw (May 6, 2022)

colacubes said:


> Sure but what about in Brixton Rush Common? I’m not trying to have a row here but just don’t think you can extrapolate so strongly In all cases.


No I don’t think they did and I was being slightly tongue in cheek. Fact is this is how our democracy works and this was the chance for people to vote against them if they wanted and they haven’t done in any sort of significant numbers.


----------



## colacubes (May 6, 2022)

edcraw said:


> No I don’t think they did and I was being slightly tongue in cheek. Fact is this is how our democracy works and this was the chance for people to vote against them if they wanted and they haven’t done in any sort of significant numbers.


I agree in a lot of ways. But I think if you go down the “ this is a pro LTN vote” in all constituencies, you could send a slightly dodgy message about other council policies.

Anyway, I think what I’m saying is perhaps it would help to be a bit more discerning across wards.


----------



## Not a Vet (May 6, 2022)

So 281 pages in a quick summary:
Charge-we weren’t consulted, survey done, response, no that’s not right
Charge-there’s no data, data published, no not that data
Charge-its illegal, court case 1, lost, appeal, lost
Charge-its not popular, mayoral election, khan elected, local elections, comprehensive Labour win 
There’s obviously other factors in play in the local elections but it’s just not enough of an issue to make people vote otherwise.


----------



## nagapie (May 6, 2022)

I do actually think the LTNs were key in the Lambeth Labour victory as they are very popular with many who voted.
Unfortunately I think this detracted from some of the worrying issues with Lambeth Labour, like Cressingham and their estate'regeneration' policy.
I'm not anti LTN, I'm pro them aside from the blue badge issue, but I don't see the point of policies to save the planet if you're going to continue to fuck over the people who live in it.


----------



## alex_ (May 6, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> And a load of others on the Streatham candidate feeds. And OneLambeth out campaigning with them.
> 
> And it’s the first point on their leaflet.




Is that Neil “7%” Salt ?


----------



## edcraw (May 7, 2022)

Good to see that OneLambeth, realising that after the election they actually just speak for a tiny fraction of Lambeth, have decided to change their name!


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 7, 2022)

It's protected anyway, so only their followers..


----------



## alex_ (May 7, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good to see that OneLambeth, realising that after the election they actually just speak for a tiny fraction of Lambeth, have decided to change their name!
> 
> View attachment 321553



They could have gone with  “none Lambeth”


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 7, 2022)

Streatham mum’s network is full of bitter council election comments such as “a sad day for Streatham/Lambeth/Wandsworth”, “well done to those who voted for POLLUTION”, and “looking forward to council tax going up”. I’ve decided the best thing to do is to sarcastically use the laughing reaction. I’ve never really done that before, it’s quite satisfying! 

(Of course I will hunt down anyone who does a sarcastic laugh react to this post)


----------



## Agent Sparrow (May 7, 2022)

nagapie said:


> I do actually think the LTNs were key in the Lambeth Labour victory as they are very popular with many who voted.
> Unfortunately I think this detracted from some of the worrying issues with Lambeth Labour, like Cressingham and their estate'regeneration' policy.
> I'm not anti LTN, I'm pro them aside from the blue badge issue, but I don't see the point of policies to save the planet if you're going to continue to fuck over the people who live in it.


Yeah, I feel very mixed about the result to be honest, for those reasons. And this was the first election in ages I didn’t vote in (though that was also partly because I was running out of time and didn’t know where our new poling station was ).

Also I don’t think the protest vote against the more national governmental Tory party can be ignored in any analysis.


----------



## edcraw (May 7, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Yeah, I feel very mixed about the result to be honest, for those reasons. And this was the first election in ages I didn’t vote in (though that was also partly because I was running out of time and didn’t know where our new poling station was ).
> 
> Also I don’t think the protest vote against the more national governmental Tory party can be ignored in any analysis.


I think it’s more that this is how our democracy works. It was very clear that Lambeth Labour supports LTNs and will introduce more and they got reflected with no seeming backlash.

It really shouldn’t be that surprising that in a borough where the majority don’t own cars that most are either ambivalent or in favour of LTNs.

But yeah, Tim Briggs, lost his seat not because of LTNs but because of the awful party he’s proudly a member of.


----------



## nagapie (May 7, 2022)

Interestingly all the people I know who support LTNs and who voted on this point have cars. They just don't use them as every day transport and most prefer to cycle.
On the other hand I work with a lot of people without cars who don't really care about this issue, it's not on their agenda because it hasn't changed their daily lives.
With only 32% voting anyway, it doesn't really prove much about what the majority favour.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (May 8, 2022)

nagapie said:


> With only 32% voting anyway, it doesn't really prove much about what the majority favour.



Over in Southwark  / dulwich though there was apparently 60% turnout, unheard of in a local election, and that was pretty much a referendum on LTNs.  It really does seem that LTNs are popular, action on climate is popular, and active transport is popular.  

Nevertheless I’m sure the national media will keep calling it “controversial” as long as  20 white middle class pro-pollution activists keep moaning. Since even fake “controversy” generates clicks.


----------



## nagapie (May 8, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Over in Southwark  / dulwich though there was apparently 60% turnout, unheard of in a local election, and that was pretty much a referendum on LTNs.  It really does seem that LTNs are popular, action on climate is popular, and active transport is popular.
> 
> Nevertheless I’m sure the national media will keep calling it “controversial” as long as  20 white middle class pro-pollution activists keep moaning. Since even fake “controversy” generates clicks.


Don't get me wrong, I think a lot of that 32% turned out to vote pro LTN. Certainly that's the case for the people where I live and the people I know from my son's Lambeth primary.
However the above are all middle class. So I don't think LTN support or against can be described as a class thing, it seems a very middle class issue on both sides.


----------



## edcraw (May 8, 2022)

OneLambeth prioritising funding their Supreme Court application over the £10k legal fees which need to be paid by the end of the month doesn’t seem the smartest move. I’m guessing someone’s agreed to pay them in the event they haven’t raised the money by then or they want to force the council to take enforcement action.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (May 9, 2022)

edcraw said:


> OneLambeth prioritising funding their Supreme Court application over the £10k legal fees which need to be paid by the end of the month doesn’t seem the smartest move. I’m guessing someone’s agreed to pay them in the event they haven’t raised the money by then or they want to force the council to take enforcement action.
> 
> View attachment 321811


I hope they take care of sophia, having used her for their car-hugging purposes on a misguided legal effort that was never going to impact the LTN rollout. Since I am a strong supporter of LTNs, I guess I should be happy that they are that dumb.


----------



## alex_ (May 9, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> I hope they take care of sophia, having used her for their car-hugging purposes on a misguided legal effort that was never going to impact the LTN rollout. Since I am a strong supporter of LTNs, I guess I should be happy that they are that dumb.



Prioritising the court case over who they are exploiting, doesn’t make it seem likely that she gets looked after.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2022)

It may risk being a little patronising, to assume that she is being exploited and needs to be "looked after". As far as I can see she takes a pretty active role in things.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (May 9, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It may risk being a little patronising, to assume that she is being exploited and needs to be "looked after". As far as I can see she takes a pretty active role in things.


Fair point.

What a colossal waste of money.


----------



## snowy_again (May 10, 2022)

The works on the permanent LTN at the top of Railton Road have started.


----------



## alex_ (May 10, 2022)

snowy_again said:


> The works on the permanent LTN at the top of Railton Road have started.



The people have spoken


----------



## alex_ (May 10, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It may risk being a little patronising, to assume that she is being exploited and needs to be "looked after". As far as I can see she takes a pretty active role in things.



I just hope she doesn’t get left 10k in the hole ( or worse ) when this is all over


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (May 11, 2022)

alex_ said:


> I just hope she doesn’t get left 10k in the hole ( or worse ) when this is all over


Me too. But I also hope they lose.


----------



## alex_ (May 11, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Me too. But I also hope they lose.



They will lose, and once they do i can’t imagine commitments to disabled ladies will be on the top of their todo lists.


----------



## Rushy (May 11, 2022)

The plants in the Coldharbour Rd / Atlantic junction planters seem to be doing well. Much better than those in some others. Are they managed by different teams?


----------



## sparkybird (May 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> The plants in the Coldharbour Rd / Atlantic junction planters seem to be doing well. Much better than those in some others. Are they managed by different teams?


I think they are 'managed' by local residents


----------



## edcraw (May 12, 2022)

🥳


----------



## edcraw (May 17, 2022)

I know chow isn’t round these parts now but the motor oil from his art installation has really won out unfortunately.

Hopefully it’ll be made permanent soon and a proper filter put in.


----------



## edcraw (May 27, 2022)

Streatham Hill & Tulse Hill LTNs to be made permanent!!!!! 🎉🍾









						Love Lambeth
					

Lambeth Council is proposing the temporary Streatham Hill and Tulse Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) should become permanent.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## Not a Vet (May 27, 2022)

I noticed that the go fund me campaign is still short by about £5.6k. However, Lambeth’s costs that Sofia is liable for are due on 31/5. They’ve got enough money raised to cover the £10k but she only gets it, if they raise the full amount, £27k. Bit rough that she’s left at the bottom of the creditor list.


----------



## edcraw (May 27, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> I noticed that the go fund me campaign is still short by about £5.6k. However, Lambeth’s costs that Sofia is liable for are due on 31/5. They’ve got enough money raised to cover the £10k but she only gets it, if they raise the full amount, £27k. Bit rough that she’s left at the bottom of the creditor list.



Maybe chowce5382 can shed some light?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 27, 2022)

How do you mean, she only gets it if the ful 27k is raised?


edcraw said:


> Maybe chowce5382 can shed some light?


----------



## Not a Vet (May 27, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> How do you mean, she only gets it if the ful 27k is raised?


Oh I’m just going on what Ian Armstrong has said on Nextdoor. If that’s not actually the case, I stand corrected


----------



## Not a Vet (May 27, 2022)

5 DAYS TO GO BEFORE LAMBETH COUNCIL
WANT £10k FROM SOPHIA - WE NEED TO
ENSURE SHE IS NOT LEFT TO DEAL WITH THIS
We are just over £5.6k from the target so the
costs for the Supreme Court application
requesting permission to appeal are now covered
and we need to raise that final £10k to cover the
legal fees that Sophia has been asked to pay to
Lambeth council by 31st May 2022!


----------



## edcraw (May 27, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> How do you mean, she only gets it if the ful 27k is raised?



Ian Armstrong has said you’re prioritising the Supreme Court action over paying Sofia’s costs so currently haven’t raised that full amount. Is that correct?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 27, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Ian Armstrong has said you’re prioritising the Supreme Court action over paying Sofia’s costs so currently haven’t raised that full amount. Is that correct?


The legal costs need to be paid by a certain date. That’s a fact and so, they will be paid. It doesn’t mean that Sofia will be left with the leftover costs as money seems to be coming in. The council could either not demand the 10k (which they won’t do and that is their prerogative) and Sofia would technically have that liability, or the community can pay. At present, the community is paying and there isn’t the hard deadline on the legal costs that there is on the council costs so there is time. 

Simply, if it seems harsh that Sofia is having the pay this, then the council can either not enforce the legal costs on a disabled woman or the community can pay. It’s really in the gift of the council and they have made their decision.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 27, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Oh I’m just going on what Ian Armstrong has said on Nextdoor. If that’s not actually the case, I stand corrected


The time frames on the two levels of costs are not the same so understand the confusion


----------



## alex_ (May 27, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> The legal costs need to be paid by a certain date. That’s a fact and so, they will be paid. It doesn’t mean that Sofia will be left with the leftover costs as money seems to be coming in. The council could either not demand the 10k (which they won’t do and that is their prerogative) and Sofia would technically have that liability, or the community can pay. At present, the community is paying and there isn’t the hard deadline on the legal costs that there is on the council costs so there is time.
> 
> Simply, if it seems harsh that Sofia is having the pay this, then the council can either not enforce the legal costs on a disabled woman or the community can pay. It’s really in the gift of the council and they have made their decision.



Loving that you are trying to frame the council as the bad guys exploring the disabled lady.

Alex


----------



## chowce5382 (May 27, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Loving that you are trying to frame the council as the bad guys exploring the disabled lady.
> 
> Alex


Or even exploiting. Point still stands, they have the option so it’s up to them. In any event, the local community will continue to look after her


----------



## Rushy (May 27, 2022)

I once took Lambeth Council to court in an individual capacity and represented myself. Whilst waiting for the hearing their solicitor sought me out in the lobby and started to threaten that if I didn't withdraw my case I'd loose (he already knew apparently) and they would pile their legal costs on top of me and bankrupt me. He kept telling me what an experienced lawyer he was and that he didn't want to crush me but once we were in court the gloves would be off. I walked away several times but he followed me around the room. I suggested several times that he back off and give me some space but he kept on and on. He was so aggressive that my partner was in tears. In the end we walked into chambers, Lambeth asked for the case to be adjourned and offered a settlement in my favour out of court. If I'd not had a legal background and been financially stable I may well have given in - it's fucking disgraceful behaviour for a local council against a resident.

I guess my point is that Lambeth Council likes to bully the little people with financial threats even when they are spurious and they are in the wrong. So it's a bit unrealistic to expect them not to enforce a settlement when they are genuinely entitled to it! (And rightly IMO - they know it is not Sofia's money anyway).


----------



## Rushy (May 27, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Loving that you are trying to frame the council as the bad guys exploring the disabled lady.
> 
> Alex


Your post certainly makes them sound like the bad guys.


----------



## edcraw (May 27, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> The legal costs need to be paid by a certain date. That’s a fact and so, they will be paid. It doesn’t mean that Sofia will be left with the leftover costs as money seems to be coming in. The council could either not demand the 10k (which they won’t do and that is their prerogative) and Sofia would technically have that liability, or the community can pay. At present, the community is paying and there isn’t the hard deadline on the legal costs that there is on the council costs so there is time.
> 
> Simply, if it seems harsh that Sofia is having the pay this, then the council can either not enforce the legal costs on a disabled woman or the community can pay. It’s really in the gift of the council and they have made their decision.



So you’re paying Sofia’s costs first? Good. Maybe get Ian to correct his statements.

Maybe the council won’t demand the costs but it’s seems fair enough if you guys are raising tens of thousands and the judge has awarded these. Surely you were advised that this was a risk. One could argue that you’ve wasted tens of thousands of council tax payer’s money by bringing the case and appealing it.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 27, 2022)

Rushy said:


> I once took Lambeth Council to court in an individual capacity and represented myself. Whilst waiting for the hearing their solicitor sought me out in the lobby and started to threaten that if I didn't withdraw my case I'd loose (he already knew apparently) and they would pile their legal costs on top of me and bankrupt me. He kept telling me what an experienced lawyer he was and that he didn't want to crush me but once we were in court the gloves would be off. I walked away several times but he followed me around the room. I suggested several times that he back off and give me some space but he kept on and on. He was so aggressive that my partner was in tears. In the end we walked into chambers, Lambeth asked for the case to be adjourned and offered a settlement in my favour out of court. If I'd not had a legal background and been financially stable I may well have given in - it's fucking disgraceful behaviour for a local council against a resident.
> 
> I guess my point is that Lambeth Council likes to bully the little people with financial threats even when they are spurious and they are in the wrong. So it's a bit unrealistic to expect them not to enforce a settlement when they are genuinely entitled to it! (And rightly IMO - they know it is not Sofia's money anyway).


Interesting insight. However you’re wrong on one point, at the end of the day they know full well that Sofia is legally liable so, if costs aren’t met, their only recourse is against her. Interesting that you say that it’s fucking disgraceful behaviour for a council against a resident but then seem to say that it’s fine for them to recover those costs…esp when you look at the 5-6m in fines that have benefited from. Personally I’d take the political route and write it off


----------



## chowce5382 (May 27, 2022)

edcraw said:


> So you’re paying Sofia’s costs first? Good. Maybe get Ian to correct his statements.
> 
> Maybe the council won’t demand the costs but it’s seems fair enough if you guys are raising tens of thousands and the judge has awarded these. Surely you were advised that this was a risk. One could argue that you’ve wasted tens of thousands of council tax payer’s money by bringing the case and appealing it.


No Ed, we’re meeting the legal costs (to the council) first as these fall first and form part of a court order and so have a fixed time period on when they are due.

Lambeth have made it very clear that they will demand the costs and expect them to be paid on the due date and they will avail themselves of every legal right they have to recover those costs directly from Sofia if they are not met (baliffs etc…)


----------



## edcraw (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> No Ed, we’re meeting the legal costs (to the council) first as these fall first and form part of a court order and so have a fixed time period on when they are due.
> 
> Lambeth have made it very clear that they will demand the costs and expect them to be paid on the due date and they will avail themselves of every legal right they have to recover those costs directly from Sofia if they are not met (baliffs etc…)



Why are you saying no when you’ve just confirmed what I said? Glad to hear it anyway. Might want to let Ian know.

Think the council are entitled to persue this, especially when they know the money is there.


----------



## alex_ (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> No Ed, we’re meeting the legal costs (to the council) first as these fall first and form part of a court order and so have a fixed time period on when they are due.
> 
> Lambeth have made it very clear that they will demand the costs and expect them to be paid on the due date and they will avail themselves of every legal right they have to recover those costs directly from Sofia if they are not met (baliffs etc…)



So your view is that Lambeth's tax payers ( of whom the overwhelming majority just voted for parties which support LTNs ) should subsidise your hobbyhorse because otherwise you will accuse lambeth of persecuting a disabled lady ?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

alex_ said:


> So your view is that Lambeth's tax payers ( of whom the overwhelming majority just voted for parties which support LTNs ) should subsidise your hobbyhorse because otherwise you will accuse lambeth of persecuting a disabled lady ?


I was just correcting the view that the council might decide not to enforce the costs order


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Why are you saying no when you’ve just confirmed what I said? Glad to hear it anyway. Might want to let Ian know.
> 
> Think the council are entitled to persue this, especially when they know the money is there.


I think this goes to the misunderstanding that all the money needs to be raised or none of it is raised. There are some gofundme campaigns that work like that but not this one.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

alex_ said:


> So your view is that Lambeth's tax payers ( of whom the overwhelming majority just voted for parties which support LTNs ) should subsidise your hobbyhorse because otherwise you will accuse lambeth of persecuting a disabled lady ?


It’s really not a hobbyhorse, not for me and certainly not for Sofia. I’m not sure how going through this is fun/enjoyable but your opinion.

I understand the tax payer points. It think it works out at about £0.03 per head of the population or, if looking at figure as a % of income on fines, it’s 0.000015%. Hardly an imposition but , as I’ve said, it’s completely up to them. Personally I wouldn’t enforce if I was them just for humanitarian reasons. If I wasn’t part of this, I’d also be fine with the sacrifice of £0.03 and wouldn’t see it as a massive imposition.


----------



## Winot (May 28, 2022)

Of course the costs order should be enforced. You shouldn’t go into legal proceedings without being prepared to pay up if you lose.


----------



## edcraw (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I think this goes to the misunderstanding that all the money needs to be raised or none of it is raised. There are some gofundme campaigns that work like that but not this one.



Only misunderstanding comes from your supporters saying incorrect statements. 

Do you know when the money owed is being paid to the council?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Only misunderstanding comes from your supporters saying incorrect statements.
> 
> Do you know when the money owed is being paid to the council?


I was referring to this statement “They’ve got enough money raised to cover the £10k but she only gets it, if they raise the full amount, £27k.” I was just pointing out that some gofundme campaigns only allow you to have the money if you raise the full amount and that this isn’t one of them. That’s the misunderstanding to which I was referring.

I expect the council will get the money before the due date


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Streatham Hill & Tulse Hill LTNs to be made permanent!!!!! 🎉🍾
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There’s some simply glorious meltdowns happening on twitter as a result of this news


----------



## DaphneM (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Or even exploiting. Point still stands, they have the option so it’s up to them. In any event, the local community will continue to look after her


you lost, cant you people just shut up


----------



## edcraw (May 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> There’s some simply glorious meltdowns happening on twitter as a result of this news


 Just seems to be the same usual few. Notable that lots of the OneLambeth signs outside houses have started coming down since the election.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> you lost, cant you people just shut up


Intelligent


----------



## alex_ (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s really not a hobbyhorse, not for me and certainly not for Sofia. I’m not sure how going through this is fun/enjoyable but your opinion.
> 
> I understand the tax payer points. It think it works out at about £0.03 per head of the population or, if looking at figure as a % of income on fines, it’s 0.000015%. Hardly an imposition but , as I’ve said, it’s completely up to them. Personally I wouldn’t enforce if I was them just for humanitarian reasons. If I wasn’t part of this, I’d also be fine with the sacrifice of £0.03 and wouldn’t see it as a massive imposition.



I’d rather Lambeth spent nothing on legal fees and spent all of this money on something useful.

Alex


----------



## thebackrow (May 28, 2022)

alex_ said:


> I’d rather Lambeth spent nothing on legal fees and spent all of this money on something useful.
> 
> Alex


10k is a capped cost - I’m sure it cost Lambeth taxpayers far more than that already. 



chowce5382 said:


> Whatever the court decides, I'll accept it. This isn't anti-LTN for the sake of it.


Just putting this back out there.


----------



## Rushy (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Interesting insight. However you’re wrong on one point, at the end of the day they know full well that Sofia is legally liable so, if costs aren’t met, their only recourse is against her. Interesting that you say that it’s fucking disgraceful behaviour for a council against a resident but then seem to say that it’s fine for them to recover those costs…esp when you look at the 5-6m in fines that have benefited from. Personally I’d take the political route and write it off


I've never been particularly convinced by the strength of the case and even whether it would have been all that effective had it been won. But on balance I support Lambeth's decision making processes being challenged and not just when there is 100% chance of success. Sofia either chose or was chosen to head up this challenge, as is required by the JR process. I am currently the name on a parked JR so have some idea of the obligations and risk and hopefully she was too.

The example I gave above was Lambeth using face to face intimidation to frighten residents so as to discourage them from  having their complaints heard in court in order to protect the council from being found in the wrong. In another case recently (a leasehold tribunal) the council brought in five barristers against a single mum and tried to win on a technicality (IIRC a response being a matter of hours late - caused by their own fannying). The adjudicating panel had to ask Lambeth whether hey were trying to find a fair price for the lease extension or rinse the resident for every penny they could and adjourned the hearing to allow the resident to get legal representation (in the end Lambeth back-tracked out of court).  But these are small cases where people tend to represent themselves and have little idea what to expect. In your case (or Sofia's case), the hearing was had and the council won fair and square (or as fair and square as can be in the court process). I find it staggering that anyone going into a JR, with all the high level legal advice that you need in order to do so, would do so without being prepared for the other party to claim from them the costs which they are entitled to claim as a result of winning the case. 

There are many things wrong with the JR system and the expense is one of them. But it is the system we have. Until another one is found it seems daft to take action under this system and then shout "unfair" when it is properly followed but didn't go the way you hoped. I get no satisfaction from her having lost but a "Lambeth cruelly claims costs awarded to them in court against disabled woman" campaign would be cringeworthy.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 28, 2022)

alex_ said:


> I’d rather Lambeth spent nothing on legal fees and spent all of this money on something useful.
> 
> Alex


Exactly, all that money spent fighting spurious nonsense.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> 10k is a capped cost - I’m sure it cost Lambeth taxpayers far more than that already.
> 
> 
> Just putting this back out there.


I haven’t changed that opinion. Costs will be paid.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

Rushy said:


> I've never been particularly convinced by the strength of the case and even whether it would have been all that effective had it been won. But on balance I support Lambeth's decision making processes being challenged and not just when there is 100% chance of success. Sofia either chose or was chosen to head up this challenge, as is required by the JR process. I am currently the name on a parked JR so have some idea of the obligations and risk and hopefully she was too.
> 
> The example I gave above was Lambeth using face to face intimidation to frighten residents so as to discourage them from  having their complaints heard in court in order to protect the council from being found in the wrong. In another case recently (a leasehold tribunal) the council brought in five barristers against a single mum and tried to win on a technicality (IIRC a response being a matter of hours late - caused by their own fannying). The adjudicating panel had to ask Lambeth whether hey were trying to find a fair price for the lease extension or rinse the resident for every penny they could and adjourned the hearing to allow the resident to get legal representation (in the end Lambeth back-tracked out of court).  But these are small cases where people tend to represent themselves and have little idea what to expect. In your case (or Sofia's case), the hearing was had and the council won fair and square (or as fair and square as can be in the court process). I find it staggering that anyone going into a JR, with all the high level legal advice that you need in order to do so, would do so without being prepared for the other party to claim from them the costs which they are entitled to claim as a result of winning the case.
> 
> There are many things wrong with the JR system and the expense is one of them. But it is the system we have. Until another one is found it seems daft to take action under this system and then shout "unfair" when it is properly followed but didn't go the way you hoped. I get no satisfaction from her having lost but a "Lambeth cruelly claims costs awarded to them in court against disabled woman" campaign would be cringeworthy.


We were all completely aware and have the money to pay. I’m just pointing out that enforcement is up to them.


----------



## alex_ (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I haven’t changed that opinion. Costs will be paid.



From all of the other behaviours we’ve seen from your friends at oneLambeth, I’m expecting the disabled lady to be getting a visit from the bailiffs.


----------



## Rushy (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> We were all completely aware and have the money to pay. I’m just pointing out that enforcement is up to them.


Whether or not they need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce. 

I can't see any logical argument for them to write it off. If they did write it off what would Sofia do with the cash in the fund? It is presumably ringfenced (the fund I manage is) so fund further legal action? 

You say that in their position you would write it off - why?


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Whether or not they need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.
> 
> I can't see any logical argument for them to write it off. If they did write it off what would Sofia do with the cash in the fund? It is presumably ringfenced (the fund I manage is) so fund further legal action?
> 
> You say that in their position you would write it off - why?


Incorrect. The court ruling is as a result of filing of a petition by Lambeth. Not the other way round


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Incorrect. The court ruling is as a result of filing of a petition by Lambeth. Not the other way round





Rushy said:


> Whether or not they need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.
> 
> I can't see any logical argument for them to write it off. If they did write it off what would Sofia do with the cash in the fund? It is presumably ringfenced (the fund I manage is) so fund further legal action?
> 
> You say that in their position you would write it off - why?


Lambeth have a very bad reputation for the way they behave in legal cases. Recent examples where they take residents up to the day of trial, make them incur costs, then drop the case only to lodge another one a week later on slightly different points of law knowing that the residents just don’t have the money to cover endless legal costs thus bleeding then dry without them actually getting to court. All so they can tear down flats and replace them with private buildings. 

Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs). It would go some way towards trying to improve their standing. It’s a PR thing but, as I’ve said, totally up to them. It would have completely foxed us and allowed them to control the narrative and come across as the caring council for almost no cost. If I was putting myself in their shoes I’d look at the PR cost benefit and would have tagged OneLambeth, stating that they have done this  and point out that it’s hardly the actions of a vile dictator


----------



## edcraw (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> We were all completely aware and have the money to pay. I’m just pointing out that enforcement is up to them.



Why is Ian Armstrong saying you haven’t raised it yet then?


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Lambeth have a very bad reputation for the way they behave in legal cases. Recent examples where they take residents up to the day of trial, make them incur costs, then drop the case only to lodge another one a week later on slightly different points of law knowing that the residents just don’t have the money to cover endless legal costs thus bleeding then dry without them actually getting to court. All so they can tear down flats and replace them with private buildings.
> 
> Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs). It would go some way towards trying to improve their standing. It’s a PR thing but, as I’ve said, totally up to them. It would have completely foxed us and allowed them to control the narrative and come across as the caring council for almost no cost. If I was putting myself in their shoes I’d look at the PR cost benefit and would have tagged OneLambeth, stating that they have done this  and point out that it’s hardly the actions of a vile dictator


Tbh, it’s a shame they can only claim back 10k of the taxpayers money that was spent fighting this. I wonder what their total costs were?.

There is no narrative going against them, did you miss the elections recently?


----------



## edcraw (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs). It would go some way towards trying to improve their standing. It’s a PR thing but, as I’ve said, totally up to them. It would have completely foxed us and allowed them to control the narrative and come across as the caring council for almost no cost. If I was putting myself in their shoes I’d look at the PR cost benefit and would have tagged OneLambeth, stating that they have done this  and point out that it’s hardly the actions of a vile dictator



Only OneLambeth calls Claire Holland a ‘vile dictator’s - why should the council doing anything to favour your completely unhinged nasty campaign?


----------



## Rushy (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Lambeth have a very bad reputation for the way they behave in legal cases. Recent examples where they take residents up to the day of trial, make them incur costs, then drop the case only to lodge another one a week later on slightly different points of law knowing that the residents just don’t have the money to cover endless legal costs thus bleeding then dry without them actually getting to court. All so they can tear down flats and replace them with private buildings.
> 
> Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs). It would go some way towards trying to improve their standing. It’s a PR thing but, as I’ve said, totally up to them. It would have completely foxed us and allowed them to control the narrative and come across as the caring council for almost no cost.


Yes - they have a bad reputation. They regularly behave like cunts. I don't disagree with you. But they won his case on the point of law. So why expect them not to take costs where they are available to them to take? You say it costs them nothing not to. It costs them £10,000 not to. 



> If I was putting myself in their shoes I’d look at the PR cost benefit and would have tagged OneLambeth, stating that they have done this  and point out that it’s hardly the actions of a vile dictator



Personally, I'd look at that cost benefit of that as zero. One Lambeth is as polar and blinkered as the loony LTNvangelists. Writing costs off for them is (quite rightly) not going to convince anyone of anything. It seems remarkably naïve to believe that it would. In fact, I think Lambeth Legal probably quite likes being seen as intimidating and ruthless.


----------



## Rushy (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Incorrect. The court ruling is as a result of filing of a petition by Lambeth. Not the other way round


You are agreeing with me, you Rodney. The court has made a ruling in Lambeth's favour. Whether or not Lambeth need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Why is Ian Armstrong saying you haven’t raised it yet then?


It’s simple. We have the money to pay the legal costs of Lambeth which fall due on 31st. Then there is are fees for our solicitor. All legal fees just two different buckets. I hope that helps to explain


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Yes - they have a bad reputation. They regularly behave like cunts. I don't disagree with you. But they won his case on the point of law. So why expect them not to take costs where they are available to them to take? You say it costs them nothing not to. It costs them £10,000 not to.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd look at that cost benefit of that as zero. One Lambeth is as polar and blinkered as the loony LTNvangelists. Writing costs off for them is (quite rightly) not going to convince anyone of anything. It seems remarkably naïve to believe that it would. In fact, I think Lambeth Legal probably quite likes being seen as intimidating and ruthless.


That’s a fair view. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t I’m just saying its an option. We have expected to pay hence why we have raised the money


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

Rushy said:


> You are agreeing with me, you Rodney. The court has made a ruling in Lambeth's favour. Whether or not Lambeth need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.


No, my point is that Lambeth didn’t need to file to have that ruling in the first place. I’m talking about the step before the one you are. Point of legal process, if you didn’t know the system it’s not always entirely transparent exactly which party has to do what at whichever time. Hope that helps explain


----------



## edcraw (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> It’s simple. We have the money to pay the legal costs of Lambeth which fall due on 31st. Then there is are fees for our solicitor. All legal fees just two different buckets. I hope that helps to explain


No it doesn’t explain it. He says you haven’t raised the legal costs Sofia owes the council.


----------



## Rushy (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> No, my point is that Lambeth didn’t need to file to have that ruling in the first place. I’m talking about the step before the one you are. Point of legal process, if you didn’t know the system it’s not always entirely transparent exactly which party has to do what at whichever time. Hope that helps explain


But they DID file it. As they are entitled to do. And the court ruled in their favour. Whether or not Lambeth need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

He should probably have said overall target then to reach all the fees that are owed to both sides. As Sofia is liable overall. In any event, the council costs will be met. Does that alleviate your concerns?


edcraw said:


> No it doesn’t explain it. He says you haven’t raised the legal costs Sofia owes the council.
> 
> View attachment 324427


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 28, 2022)

“We’ve got the money”

“Hey social media followers, we haven’t got all the money, send donations”

Grifters gonna grift


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> “We’ve got the money”
> 
> “Hey social media followers, we haven’t got all the money, send donations”
> 
> Grifters gonna grift


We’ve got the money to pay the council costs. Not the money to pay all the costs. 

Not sure what you mean about grifters unless you’re implying something


----------



## DaphneM (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> We’ve got the money to pay the council costs. Not the money to pay all the costs.
> 
> Not sure what you mean about grifters unless you’re implying something


I’m sure you can work it out if you try really hard


----------



## chowce5382 (May 28, 2022)

DaphneM said:


> I’m sure you can work it out if you try really hard


Oh, it’s an implication that there is something untoward going on and the this fundraising isn’t actually going towards the stated aim? Very clever 🙄


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Oh, it’s an implication that there is something untoward going on and the this fundraising isn’t actually going towards the stated aim? Very clever 🙄


I’m sure the motives of all involved are utterly pure.


----------



## edcraw (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Oh, it’s an implication that there is something untoward going on and the this fundraising isn’t actually going towards the stated aim? Very clever 🙄



Well it’s Ian constantly saying the opposite to what you’ve said. Fair to ask why that is, no?


----------



## Not a Vet (May 28, 2022)

I was reading one of the reports that the decision on whether to permanently approve the tulse hill LTN is taking into account and it had a few recommendations, such as changing the traffic light phasing at the junction of water lane and tulse hill and introducing a yellow box at the junction of Josephine and water lane. I haven’t got the link I’m afraid but it’s on Lambeth’s website


----------



## teuchter (May 28, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs).



You like to keep mentioning the income from the LTNs.

Is it just because you think that an appropriate use for it is to fund JRs or is this part of the general strategy of mentioning it as often as possible to try and focus people on the idea that the council is making loads of cash from these schemes, and maybe that's really what this is all about, an underhand scheme to fleece motorists?

The way it looks to anyone who's generally supportive of the LTNs is that it's made up of voluntary payments from people who want to try and ignore the traffic restrictions. If this provides the council with some revenue then why object. I'd be interested to know how much it offsets the costs of implementing and maintaining the various measures necessary to protect Lambeth residents from unhindered vehicle use. Including of course the costs of the continual vandalism and sabotage of cameras etc.

Actually I really wish that councils were allowed to keep revenue from speed cameras too. Then we'd see more speed cameras, more revenue that go towards public services, and maybe even a slight reduction in drivers who believe they can drive around whatever speed they feel like with virtually no concern about any consequence.


----------



## edcraw (May 30, 2022)

Here’s a letter regarding Tulse Hill LTN and further improvements. Crossing of Tulse Hill at Crassi than Gardens would be very welcome as well as improving the streets where the shops are on Upper Tulse Hill & Elm Park. 

Still crazy that some still can’t see what an obviously good thing LTNs are and what cars everywhere!


----------



## Cat Fan (May 30, 2022)

Got a similar letter for Streatham Hill LTN. Some good suggestions for improvements, especially the pedestrian/cyclist road crossing.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 3, 2022)

New OneLambeth video!! Showing lots of congestion (not in Lambeth), a rather pleasant looking cycle lane (not sure what they have to do with LTNs - any ideas chowce5382  ) and some references to the American legal system 🫤



			https://videostew.com/v/b5f4025v2r5yerk


----------



## alex_ (Jun 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> New OneLambeth video!! Showing lots of congestion (not in Lambeth), a rather pleasant looking cycle lane (not sure what they have to do with LTNs - any ideas chowce5382  ) and some references to the American legal system 🫤
> 
> 
> 
> https://videostew.com/v/b5f4025v2r5yerk



Nice piano house sound track.

 “the Supreme Court case stands a 55% chance of success”

Very precise


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 3, 2022)

edcraw said:


> New OneLambeth video!! Showing lots of congestion (not in Lambeth), a rather pleasant looking cycle lane (not sure what they have to do with LTNs - any ideas chowce5382  ) and some references to the American legal system 🫤
> 
> 
> 
> https://videostew.com/v/b5f4025v2r5yerk


No idea. Haven’t seen it


----------



## edcraw (Jun 3, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> No idea. Haven’t seen it


 But you took the time to reply rather than just watch it 👏

The reason OneLambeth has included a cycle lane in the video is clear - it’s because this was never just about LTNs for them & their supporters but about stopping any restrictions on cars.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> New OneLambeth video!! Showing lots of congestion (not in Lambeth), a rather pleasant looking cycle lane (not sure what they have to do with LTNs - any ideas chowce5382  ) and some references to the American legal system 🫤
> 
> 
> 
> https://videostew.com/v/b5f4025v2r5yerk


And then they start going on about the appeal, which they lost!. Bizarre.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> No idea. Haven’t seen it


Is this another One Lambeth?


----------



## alex_ (Jun 4, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> Is this another One Lambeth?



I guarantee that despite funding them, chowce5382 knows nothing about them.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

alex_ said:


> I guarantee that despite funding them, chowce5382 knows nothing about them.


I’ve been funding them 😳


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

Notice that the same people that tell you to go and live in a village when you complain about our neighbourhoods being over run by cars also complain about music from the festivals in Brockwell Park disrupting their peace & quiet 🤔


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Notice that the same people that tell you to go and live in a village when you complain about our neighbourhoods being over run by cars also complain about music from the festivals in Brockwell Park disrupting their peace & quiet 🤔


Not entirely sure about that. The people who really support the LTNs on my road are also very annoyed about the music/use of in the Park. I’m not actually that close but it’s is very loud but most people seem annoyed about the fact that it’s on for so long but there is only 15k spend on remedial work which they expect won’t be enough. They’ve also complained led that the council won’t say if it will make a profit or not.

Completely different issues it seems with different supporters/detractors. Mostly around us it’s been parents with young kids feeling that their local amenity is being used, without guarantee of pecuniary benefit and without it being put back to how it was


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Not entirely sure about that. The people who really support the LTNs on my road are also very annoyed about the music/use of in the Park. I’m not actually that close but it’s is very loud but most people seem annoyed about the fact that it’s on for so long but there is only 15k spend on remedial work which they expect won’t be enough. They’ve also complained led that the council won’t say if it will make a profit or not.
> 
> Completely different issues it seems with different supporters/detractors. Mostly around us it’s been parents with young kids feeling that their local amenity is being used, without guarantee of pecuniary benefit and without it being put back to how it was



Yes - different issues. But many tell LTN supporters they need to put up with busy traffic in a city and then complain about disruption from this.

Here’s the council’s info sheet including how much money they get for it.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yes - different issues. But many tell LTN supporters they need to put up with busy traffic in a city and then complain about disruption from this.
> 
> Here’s the council’s info sheet including how much money they get for it.
> View attachment 325567


Interesting. The guy on our road who used to work for the council and is always very positive said that, when he has tried to find out specifically what they are getting this year, they won’t answer. I suppose the figures above are non specific, undefined and don’t state how long the period covers. Last year, last 15? You won’t know either I suppose.  The only reason I was interested is that he thinks everything the council does is generally great, including labour/cabinet councillors, but the amount they were getting from this vs remedial work seemed to cause him concern and he was annoyed that he could get a straight answer, just number like above


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Interesting. The guy on our road who used to work for the council and is always very positive said that, when he has tried to find out specifically what they are getting this year, they won’t answer. I suppose the figures above are non specific, undefined and don’t state how long the period covers. Last year, last 15? You won’t know either I suppose.  The only reason I was interested is that he thinks everything the council does is generally great, including labour/cabinet councillors, but the amount they were getting from this vs remedial work seemed to cause him concern and he was annoyed that he could get a straight answer, just number like above



The money’s all from this year - the info sheet relates to this year only. 

More information here as well including confirmation of the.above:



			https://moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk/documents/s137481/Brockwell%20Live.pdf
		










						Thurlow Park News
					

Local news and opportunities to get involved from your local Labour and Co-operative councillors in Thurlow Park.




					thurlowparklabour.org
				




Always a lot of suspicion towards the council but answers are generally out there and councillors very responsive to any queries. 

Anyway very off topic - let’s get back on. Can you say why OneLambeth is using footage of a cycle lane in its fundraising video?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The money’s all from this year - the info sheet relates to this year only.
> 
> More information here as well including confirmation of the.above:
> 
> ...


Yup, he was looking at expected profit and was frustrated that no one would give a figure. 

As to your question, no.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2022)

Is there any point in being bothered about what One Lambeth are or aren't doing now? I don't see that there is.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Is there any point in being bothered about what One Lambeth are or aren't doing now? I don't see that there is.


Ed seems to follow them more than anyone else on here. It obviously still consumes parts of his day


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Ed seems to follow them more than anyone else on here. It obviously still consumes parts of his day



I certainly seem to take more of an interest in it than you Charlie 🤣


----------



## teuchter (Jun 4, 2022)

Also, it's true that Lambeth can be pretty opaque about stuff and that was a legitimate objection to some of the LTN info too. It bothered me at times, as someone who basically wants to support the interventions but had to go digging for stuff myself in order to answer various arguments against them. The decision making process that led to the eventual policy on blue badge exemptions is just one example of this.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Is there any point in being bothered about what One Lambeth are or aren't doing now? I don't see that there is.



For shits and giggles really - but yeah time to move on.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I certainly seem to take more of an interest in it than you Charlie 🤣


This is very true Ed, always has been 😂!


----------



## lordnoise (Jun 4, 2022)

Sitting on my balcony in Dalberg Rd getting  a double whammy. Being forced to listen to yet more music other people like from the park and being forced to breath in increased exhaust particulates from displaced traffic due the Railton LTN. Happy Bank Holiday!!!


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup, he was looking at expected profit and was frustrated that no one would give a figure.



Well hope you pass on the info above that sets it out then.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> This is very true Ed, always has been 😂!



What a great organisation you’re “treasurer” of then 👏


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well hope you pass on the info above that sets it out then.


I would if it was profit based rather than income. They could bring in £1m in income and still make a loss that’s the point. With the council is all about the exact wording they use. This was why he was annoyed as there was no answer to the profit figure. Only one based on income which (most people assume) equates to profit.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What a great organisation you’re “treasurer” of then 👏


Yup, as I’ve always said, I just pay the bills. Money comes in, I pay the invoice when it arrives


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I would if it was profit based rather than income. They could bring in £1m in income and still make a loss that’s the point. With the council is all about the exact wording they use. This was why he was annoyed as there was no answer to the profit figure. Only one based on income which (most people assume) equates to profit.



Not sure what you mean - this is the relevant bit here:


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure what you mean - this is the relevant bit here:
> 
> View attachment 325582


Income is not profit is it. No. So, you can ring fence the £100k and make a loss. Have a look at the above and tell me how much profit is being made from the event. That’s the point my neighbour was making. Can you tell him from the relevant bit above?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Income is not profit is it. No. So, you can ring fence the £100k and make a loss. Have a look at the above and tell me how much profit is being made from the event. That’s the point my neighbour was making. Can you tell him from the relevant bit above?



The income is the income of the council not the event overall and they say they expect around £45k for their costs.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The income is the income of the council not the event overall and they say they expect around £45k for their costs.


So, 55k profit then? I suppose it bepends how you mean management costs. Could just be third party security or cover every cost for the event. I don’t know. I had a chat with him about this and he was generally pissed off that he couldn’t get any kind of straight answer from them or clarification of how these costs were defined. 

He seemed ok with it when it was the farmers market event (which was much more of a family event and which I pointed out definitely lost money) but was annoyed that he could get an answer about profit and that it was no longer as family focussed. I don’t think that really bothers me hugely (although I would probably prefer the over all family event I think as it was a nice community event) but the lack of transparency (when you dig into some of the details) is frustrating for a number of people


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> So, 55k profit then? I suppose it bepends how you mean management costs. Could just be third party security or cover every cost for the event. I don’t know. I had a chat with him about this and he was generally pissed off that he couldn’t get any kind of straight answer from them or clarification of how these costs were defined.
> 
> He seemed ok with it when it was the farmers market event (which was much more of a family event and which I pointed out definitely lost money) but was annoyed that he could get an answer about profit and that it was no longer as family focussed. I don’t think that really bothers me hugely (although I would probably prefer the over all family event I think as it was a nice community event) but the lack of transparency (when you dig into some of the details) is frustrating for a number of people



£350k+ - £45k does not equal £55k. Hope you’ve managed to pay the correct sum for Sofia’s invoice!

Anyway - head over here if you want to discuss further: Mighty Hoopla, Cross The Tracks, Wide Awake & Field Day festivals,  Brockwell Park  -  discussion


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> £350k+ - £45k does not equal £55k. Hope you’ve managed to pay the correct sum for Sofia’s invoice!
> 
> Anyway - head over here if you want to discuss further: Mighty Hoopla, Cross The Tracks, Wide Awake & Field Day festivals,  Brockwell Park  -  discussion


Can you confirm what you think it is and I’ll let him know as I said I’d let him know if anyone had a better idea


----------



## Cat Fan (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yes - different issues. But many tell LTN supporters they need to put up with busy traffic in a city and then complain about disruption from this.
> 
> Here’s the council’s info sheet including how much money they get for it.
> View attachment 325567


The improvements in the top left are fairly anemic. Is that all £100k buys?


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Can you confirm what you think it is and I’ll let him know as I said I’d let him know if anyone had a better idea



£350k+ minus £45k is £305k+

Any more over here please: Mighty Hoopla, Cross The Tracks, Wide Awake & Field Day festivals,  Brockwell Park  -  discussion

Have you paid Sofia’s share of Lambeth’s legal costs yet?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> £350k+ minus £45k is £305k+
> 
> Any more over here please: Mighty Hoopla, Cross The Tracks, Wide Awake & Field Day festivals,  Brockwell Park  -  discussion
> 
> Have you paid Sofia’s share of Lambeth’s legal costs yet?


Minus the 100k costs as well for park investment? So 205k income, or profit.

Yup Lambeth costs paid, just as I told you they would be


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Minus the 100k costs as well for park investment? So 205k income, or profit.
> 
> Yup Lambeth costs paid, just as I told you they would be



Not sure how the £100k could be described as costs. The organises have to pay to repair any damage caused by the event.

Do you know what Lambeth’s profit/loss was from the court costs?


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not sure how the £100k could be described as costs. The organises have to pay to repair any damage caused by the event.
> 
> Do you know what Lambeth’s profit/loss was from the court costs?


 No, can’t get hold of those figures either 😂


----------



## edcraw (Jun 4, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> No, can’t get hold of those figures either 😂



Yeah - big joke! 🙄

Maybe you could tell your neighbour the festivals will help pay for Lambeth’s legal costs!


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 4, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yeah - big joke! 🙄
> 
> Maybe you could tell your neighbour the festivals will help pay for Lambeth’s legal costs!


LTN fines already done that by many multiples of times


----------



## alex_ (Jun 4, 2022)

My understanding of Lambeth events on Clapham Common is that the remediation is fully paid for by the event organiser, rather than a fixed budget.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 5, 2022)

CH1 said:


> I have always believed in high quality cheap, even free public transport.





edcraw said:


> Even if public transport was super efficient & free I think most people that drive now would still drive.





alex_ said:


> The issue would be tube capacity - free buses would make a lot more sense - simplistically more people on buses means less cars ( In lots of the country )



Saw someone post some research on free public transport and is appears to be counter productive in many ways.  Expensive, worsens experience for existing users and doesn't result in shift from trips that are currently driven.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016604622030301X


			https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=cutr_nctr
		



			Free Fares Policies: Impact on Public Transport Mode Share and Other Transport Policy Goals
		


three papers - but this is the most recent, from European cities,


----------



## CH1 (Jun 5, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Saw someone post some research on free public transport and is appears to be counter productive in many ways.  Expensive, worsens experience for existing users and doesn't result in shift from trips that are currently driven.
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016604622
> ...


The middle one comes from Florida - using old data from the early 1990s. Florida is a state where even Anglican vicars belong to gun clubs - as such would query the ethics of this report.
One sample conclusion being that free fares would lead to "nuisance riders" - just like large benches in Windrush Square.

The first report is on a faulty link.
The third one seems supports edcraw - big increase in ridership by people who would otherwise walk.
Massive obesity explosion.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 5, 2022)

CH1 said:


> The middle one comes from Florida - using old data from the early 1990s. Florida is a state where even Anglican vicars belong to gun clubs - as such would query the ethics of this report.
> One sample conclusion being that free fares would lead to "nuisance riders" - just like large benches in Windrush Square.
> 
> The first report is on a faulty link.
> ...


Link corrected in first one but it's a not the best data source.
The attitudes to 'undesirables' in the second are pretty unpleasant but I don't think that changes the findings, nor does the age of the paper as far as I can see.

The third is the definitely the most comprehensive.  Also potentially relevant to the U16 free bus passes we have in London now - there are potentially negative side effects from many policies that seem attractive or popular.  

The key thing is it completely fails as a way of reducing car use - price of public transport is clearly not the barrier to use for city public transport use.


----------



## CH1 (Jun 5, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Link corrected in first one but it's a not the best data source.
> The attitudes to 'undesirables' in the second are pretty unpleasant but I don't think that changes the findings, nor does the age of the paper as far as I can see.
> 
> The third is the definitely the most comprehensive.  Also potentially relevant to the U16 free bus passes we have in London now - there are potentially negative side effects from many policies that seem attractive or popular.
> ...


The Covid campaign certainly cut passengers though - only one per seat, none near the driver etc.
So I guess you must be angling for an information campaign aimed at drivers "is that journey really necessary?"
Perhaps the only democratic way of enforcing driver controls would be road pricing.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 5, 2022)

CH1 said:


> The Covid campaign certainly cut passengers though - only one per seat, none near the driver etc.
> So I guess you must be angling for an information campaign aimed at drivers "is that journey really necessary?"
> Perhaps the only democratic way of enforcing driver controls would be road pricing.



Definitely think some sort of road pricing is needed even if it’s just a flat fee of a few quid a day to make people think a bit more. The money would be huge for TfL. Seems that the mayor looked at it though and has chosen otherwise. Imagine the backlash would be HUGE!


----------



## Cat Fan (Jun 5, 2022)

They're planning on extending ULEZ to all of London. It's exactly the flat fee per day that you're proposing except limited to the most polluting vehicles only.

Maybe once it's in place though they can gradually expand it to cover more and more types of vehicles, the tech will be there.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 5, 2022)

CH1 said:


> The Covid campaign certainly cut passengers though - only one per seat, none near the driver etc.
> So I guess you must be angling for an information campaign aimed at drivers "is that journey really necessary?"
> Perhaps the only democratic way of enforcing driver controls would be road pricing.


How can  you take that from what I’ve written? This was purely some research that seems to show free public transport is a bad idea in most situations

Personally I think most information campaigns are a waste of money. Asking people nicely to drive less / cycle more / obey the speed limit doesn’t seem to have been a successful strategy up to now.


----------



## alex_ (Jun 5, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Maybe once it's in place though they can gradually expand it to cover more and more types of vehicles, the tech will be there.



Exactly this - once the infrastructure is in, it’s easy to expand its scope.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 5, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Definitely think some sort of road pricing is needed even if it’s just a flat fee of a few quid a day to make people think a bit more. The money would be huge for TfL. Seems that the mayor looked at it though and has chosen otherwise. Imagine the backlash would be HUGE!


Main roads in London are maintained by TfL which means they are paid for out of TfL budget rather than from central govt (unlike everywhere else in the UK).

This of course means that while bus fares contribute to road maintenance, private motorists are free-loading! Time for them to pay up!


----------



## Winot (Jun 9, 2022)

Report of big new report from Centre for London on LTNs. 


cycling up and driving down in LTNs
road casualty decrease within LTNs
more time needed to measure displacement but looks unlikely
no evidence that policy harms poor and benefits rich; demographics inside and outside zones broadly matched
councils should have done better with consultation/explanation
should now introduce other measures to complement eg toad pricing/more segregated cycle lanes









						Low-traffic neighbourhoods make roads safer but need a rebrand – report
					

Exclusive: study of London schemes says local communication should be improved but that benefits are clear




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Rushy (Jun 9, 2022)

Winot said:


> Report of big new report from Centre for London on LTNs.
> 
> 
> cycling up and driving down in LTNs
> ...


So it's official. Toad pricing ... are there no limits to this madness?!

If it ain't croak don't fix it.


----------



## Winot (Jun 9, 2022)

Rushy said:


> So it's official. Toad pricing ... are there no limits to this madness?!
> 
> If it ain't croak don't fix it.


Parp parp!


----------



## Jesterburger (Jun 9, 2022)

edcraw said:


> New OneLambeth video!! Showing lots of congestion (not in Lambeth), a rather pleasant looking cycle lane (not sure what they have to do with LTNs - any ideas chowce5382  ) and some references to the American legal system 🫤
> 
> 
> 
> https://videostew.com/v/b5f4025v2r5yerk


Ealing, westminster, bayswater, ealing again, embankment and then off to america, no footage of lambeth at all


----------



## edcraw (Jun 10, 2022)

Missed this - Hot Chip support LTNs!


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 10, 2022)

I see the cameras/planters etc have been removed from Streatham hill and tulse hill LTN because the legislation expired. New permanent changes being written but it’s back to 2019 for the moment. Explains why a couple of extra planters arrived in Railton this week and are being used by Sam the wheels.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 13, 2022)

First draft of the permanent designs for the rest of the Railton filters are on the website now.  Shakespeare Road especially looks like it will make it a really nice spot.  I wonder if whoever it is cuts down all the flowers in the planters will keep it up when the permanent planting is in.  









						Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood
					

A space to learn about and feed into the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood.




					rtstreets.commonplace.is


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> First draft of the permanent designs for the rest of the Railton filters are on the website now.  Shakespeare Road especially looks like it will make it a really nice spot.  I wonder if whoever it is cuts down all the flowers in the planters will keep it up when the permanent planting is in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I saw that and sort of wondered how the emergency services/bin lorries/exempted vehicles are going to negotiate through all those plants


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 13, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Yes I saw that and sort of wondered how the emergency services/bin lorries/exempted vehicles are going to negotiate through all those plants


Slowly.


----------



## Cat Fan (Jun 14, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> First draft of the permanent designs for the rest of the Railton filters are on the website now.  Shakespeare Road especially looks like it will make it a really nice spot.  I wonder if whoever it is cuts down all the flowers in the planters will keep it up when the permanent planting is in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's an interesting one, very ambitious to aim for a new "workshop space" under the bridge, with no amenities such as food/public toilets nearby and the chance that an exempt vehicle could drive through at any moment.

Fingers crossed it's well looked after and loved by the community. I doubt the council will spend money on regularly maintaining it so it may come down to volunteers.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 14, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> It's an interesting one, very ambitious to aim for a new "workshop space" under the bridge, with no amenities such as food/public toilets nearby and the chance that an exempt vehicle could drive through at any moment.



what do you do with a space under a bridge. Nothings going to grow.  a good place for a hire bike station?

there shouldn’t be many vehicles driving through. I’ve never seen a bin lorry using it. Biggest issue is the supposely large number of criminals driving on cloned plates. This was in private eye recently.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 14, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> It's an interesting one, very ambitious to aim for a new "workshop space" under the bridge, with no amenities such as food/public toilets nearby and the chance that an exempt vehicle could drive through at any moment.
> 
> Fingers crossed it's well looked after and loved by the community. I doubt the council will spend money on regularly maintaining it so it may come down to volunteers.


Think Van Gogh Walk is a good example how spaces can be used with low traffic & Shakespere Rd is even quiter as Van Gogh Walk still allows all vehicles through part of it.









						London’s Alleys: Van Gogh Walk, SW9
					

This verdant walkway near Kennington was until a few years ago a rather non-descript residential road, but in 2013 it was pedestrianised and renamed.



					www.ianvisits.co.uk


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> what do you do with a space under a bridge. Nothings going to grow.  a good place for a hire bike station?
> 
> there shouldn’t be many vehicles driving through. I’ve never seen a bin lorry using it. Biggest issue is the supposely large number of criminals driving on cloned plates. This was in private eye recently.
> View attachment 327131


That's if they don't just cover their plates as the skip lorries have been doing several times a day (until the road was closed for repairs).

I suppose that the space under the bridge could just be a space under a bridge.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 14, 2022)

I see motorbikes with covered up plates going through the UTH gate all the time. Sometimes a rag tied on, sometimes gaffataped cardboard, one time the rider had a specially made flap on a stick which he whipped out and held behind him as he rode through. Very enterprising.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2022)

Yep - no photographic evidence is taken if the plate cannot be read. Seems like a bit of an oversight.


----------



## Cat Fan (Jun 14, 2022)

I have seen motorbikes being wheeled along the pavement instead. Not sure if it worked or not to avoid the fine.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Yep - no photographic evidence is taken if the plate cannot be read. Seems like a bit of an oversight.


What’s the alternative though?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> I have seen motorbikes being wheeled along the pavement instead. Not sure if it worked or not to avoid the fine.


People drive motorbikes through the park to avoid the Hurst Street one


----------



## Rushy (Jun 14, 2022)

Winot said:


> What’s the alternative though?


Take photo evidence - like others do. If you have a branded skip truck driving through it is pretty easy to identify.


----------



## Winot (Jun 14, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Take photo evidence - like others do. If you have a branded skip truck driving through it is pretty easy to identify.


would be a lot more expensive to administer - but yeah that’s probably the only solution


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 14, 2022)

Winot said:


> What’s the alternative though?


Automatic sniper rifles that shoot the cunts.


----------



## urbanspaceman (Jun 14, 2022)

There are meetings on 25 and 29 June


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 14, 2022)

Winot said:


> What’s the alternative though?


Physical barrier that cannot be driven through.  Locked bollard or gate for emergency service access.

No solution is perfect but if lawbreakers are causing danger then should be addressed. Perhaps if those who claim to be worried about emergency service and blue badge access hadn't spent so much time vandalising signs and encouraging people to drive through before the cameras were in place this would have been less of an issue.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 15, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Physical barrier that cannot be driven through.  Locked bollard or gate for emergency service access.
> 
> No solution is perfect but if lawbreakers are causing danger then should be addressed. Perhaps if those who claim to be worried about emergency service and blue badge access hadn't spent so much time vandalising signs and encouraging people to drive through before the cameras were in place this would have been less of an issue.


I think blue badge access would stop gates being added. Don’t forget taxis are exempt (not Uber) too. Cctv cameras as well as a anpr would probably make it easier to identify serial abusers.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 15, 2022)

Our friendly skip lorry just covering up his plates again. Third trip today


----------



## Cat Fan (Jun 15, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Our friendly skip lorry just covering up his plates again. Third trip today


Have you tried sending photos to the council?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 15, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Have you tried sending photos to the council?


Yeah. They know about it but I think it’s a case of catching him in the act. Technically, covering your number plate is one for the cops


----------



## Rushy (Jun 16, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> Yeah. They know about it but I think it’s a case of catching him in the act. Technically, covering your number plate is one for the cops


Is JD still "all over this" since the election?


----------



## Rushy (Jun 16, 2022)

urbanspaceman said:


> There are meetings on 25 and 29 June


Interesting that they originally put two sets of barriers in on St Matthews Road with a pedestrian area in between opposite the tenants hall. Almost immediately they removed one of the gates because the pedestrian area was taking up too much parking space (according to the LTN team). Now that they are making it permanent, they are putting back the two gate scheme rather than the one they tested. From the drawing it looks like a much larger pedestrian area. Whichever proposal anyone "feels" is best - it looks like they are going with the one which they decided was a bad idea and did not test.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 16, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Physical barrier that cannot be driven through.  Locked bollard or gate for emergency service access.
> 
> No solution is perfect but if lawbreakers are causing danger then should be addressed. Perhaps if those who claim to be worried about emergency service and blue badge access hadn't spent so much time vandalising signs and encouraging people to drive through before the cameras were in place this would have been less of an issue.


Blaming people driving through on someone who painted over a handful of signs is a hopeful distraction from reality. The fault is poor implementation and lack of enforcement. If you try to engage with Lambeth about it it the responses are at best unhelpful or at worst obstructive. (Surely?) we know there is always going to be a core of people who will try to get away with things simply because they know that consequences are extremely unlikely. Brixton has always been so. Shrugging shoulders at it or blaming it on a bogeyman undermines the whole scheme.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 16, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Interesting that they originally put two sets of barriers in on St Matthews Road with a pedestrian area in between opposite the tenants hall. Almost immediately they removed one of the gates because the pedestrian area was taking up too much parking space (according to the LTN team). Now that they are making it permanent, they are putting back the two gate scheme rather than the one they tested. From the drawing it looks like a much larger pedestrian area. Whichever proposal anyone "feels" is best - it looks like they are going with the one which they decided was a bad idea and did not test.


Not sure what you need to test. Think the church weren’t keen about the lack of parking outside, and was an easy change, but not really their call. Makes sense to pedestrianise outside the church and community centre in my view.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 16, 2022)

Rushy said:


> The fault is poor implementation and lack of enforcement.



Implementation seems to make no difference - if you leave enough space for someone to squeeze a car through, then people on cloned plates, who cover their plates or who are just too stupid to understand the signage will drive through.  In Dulwich Village with full road closures people drove over the pavement until additional blocks were put in.  It's now been been altered 'for emergency services access' and now almost every time I go there I see someone driving through, despite the cameras.  Came through Ferndale today and a driver covered their (rear) plate to drive through towards Brixton and then stopped under the bridge to remove the cover.

the other day it was a woman trying to squeeze her Discovery to the left of the planter in the middle. "can I not go through here now? I've not been this way for ages"
Are there really not enough clues there?


So the 'poor implementation', as far as I can see, appears to be having weakened the scheme by allowing any vehicles to physically drive through the filters.

Enforcement of this is much like speeding - how are you going to enforce it without it becoming prohibitively expensive to resource?  Double the number of ANPR cameras?  AND standard video? AND staff to review the video?  The physical solution is far simpler - it's not exactly scientific but I've seen far more skip lorries drive through Shakespeare with covered plates than iv'e ever seen emergency services or bin trucks.  If there is far more illegal use than legal I think the current solution is wrong.


----------



## Cat Fan (Jun 16, 2022)

I see lots of vehicles doing U turns at the entrance to the Streatham Hill LTN and very few if any attempting to drive through anymore.

It probably depends how much of a saving it is to try to cheat the cameras vs driving around. Streatham Hill LTN is quite small and easy to circumvent.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 16, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Implementation seems to make no difference - if you leave enough space for someone to squeeze a car through, then people on cloned plates, who cover their plates or who are just too stupid to understand the signage will drive through.  In Dulwich Village with full road closures people drove over the pavement until additional blocks were put in.  It's now been been altered 'for emergency services access' and now almost every time I go there I see someone driving through, despite the cameras.  Came through Ferndale today and a driver covered their (rear) plate to drive through towards Brixton and then stopped under the bridge to remove the cover.
> 
> the other day it was a woman trying to squeeze her Discovery to the left of the planter in the middle. "can I not go through here now? I've not been this way for ages"
> Are there really not enough clues there?
> ...


Implementation is not limited to the physical gate design. Like you say - illegal use of the Shakespeare one is rife. People have sent in numerous photos and videos which clearly identify culprits including names on vehicles and number plates and photos of individuals. For months. Lambeth does not know what to do about it. So they obstruct enquiries and shrug. In the end they will probably park a CCTV car covered in warning signs by the gate and when no one drives through that day they'll say that there is no problem.

Motorbikes tearing through the park near the Herne Place gate is not just an unfortunate consequence which people should have to tolerate..


----------



## Rushy (Jun 16, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> I see lots of vehicles doing U turns at the entrance to the Streatham Hill LTN and very few if any attempting to drive through anymore.
> 
> It probably depends how much of a saving it is to try to cheat the cameras vs driving around. Streatham Hill LTN is quite small and easy to circumvent.


I don't see people driving through the St Matthews one all that often anymore.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 16, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Implementation is not limited to the physical gate design. Like you say - illegal use of the Shakespeare one is rife. People have sent in numerous photos and videos which clearly identify culprits including names on vehicles and number plates and photos of individuals. For months. Lambeth does not know what to do about it. So they obstruct enquiries and shrug. In the end they will probably park a CCTV car covered in warning signs by the gate and when no one drives through that day they'll say that there is no problem.
> 
> Motorbikes tearing through the park near the Herne Place gate is not just an unfortunate consequence which people should have to tolerate..


isn't the issue likely to be that the motorbikes in the park (and the covered number plates) are a police matter so, like speeding, it comes down to police resources?

What do _you_ think should be done about it - what do you want done to prevent it?


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2022)

Predictably, this article about SUVs has turned into an irresistible magnet for comments from the _utterly obsessed _anti LTN brigade.









						Climate change activists let down the tyres of luxury SUV vehicles in Dulwich
					

Climate activists The Last Gasp deflated the tyres of environmentally unfriendly SUV vehicles around Dulwich last night.  They told Brixton Buzz:



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Cat Fan (Jun 18, 2022)

editor said:


> Predictably, this article about SUVs has turned into an irresistible magnet for comments from the _utterly obsessed _anti LTN brigade.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bizarre comments that completely miss the point.


----------



## editor (Jun 18, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Bizarre comments that completely miss the point.


Someone has compared the activists to the Taliban now.

They are seriously fucking unhinged.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

editor said:


> Someone has compared the activists to the Taliban now.
> 
> They are seriously fucking unhinged.


It is really crazy. I’m obviously a big supporter but if there is any valid arguments against LTNs it gets drowned out by the vast number of nutters and no one (including chowce5382) calls them out.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 18, 2022)

Cat Fan said:


> Bizarre comments that completely miss the point.


Think OneLambeth’s Ian Armstrong posting it to his weird Nextdoor group explains the comments.


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> It is really crazy. I’m obviously a big supporter but if there is any valid arguments against LTNs it gets drowned out by the vast number of nutters and no one (including chowce5382) calls them out.


I haven’t seen this. I’ve said time and time again that these comparisons are stupid and nonsensical. However, i’ll do it again. The activists are nothing like the Taliban. That is a pretty idiotic thing to say


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I haven’t seen this. I’ve said time and time again that these comparisons are stupid and nonsensical. However, i’ll do it again. The activists are nothing like the Taliban. That is a pretty idiotic thing to say


🙄 you wouldn’t even call out the vile OneLambeth Twitter account.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 19, 2022)

editor said:


> Predictably, this article about SUVs has turned into an irresistible magnet for comments from the _utterly obsessed _anti LTN brigade.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both of them. Pretty sure Stella is just Davey on another account


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 19, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🙄 you wouldn’t even call out the vile OneLambeth Twitter account.


I did Ed. I told you I didn’t agree with what they were saying but that I didn’t control it or have any control over what was posted. I mentioned it a numbers of times to the person(s) running it that the posts were ridiculous and, at times, offensive. What you didn’t seem to like was the idea that I didn’t control it. What I had to do was decide to make a stand and leave or stay and carry on supporting the one person who mattered in all this. Given that Twitter is 90% shit-hole hell fest and the account was only talking to a tiny number of people, the more humane thing to do was to stick around and support sofia.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 19, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I did Ed. I told you I didn’t agree with what they were saying but that I didn’t control it or have any control over what was posted. I mentioned it a numbers of times to the person(s) running it that the posts were ridiculous and, at times, offensive. What you didn’t seem to like was the idea that I didn’t control it. What I had to do was decide to make a stand and leave or stay and carry on supporting the one person who mattered in all this. Given that Twitter is 90% shit-hole hell fest and the account was only talking to a tiny number of people, the more humane thing to do was to stick around and support sofia.


🙄


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 20, 2022)

edcraw said:


> 🙄


I know, life is tricky when you don’t just think about yourself


----------



## edcraw (Jun 20, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I know, life is tricky when you don’t just think about yourself


Seriously? ➡


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> I haven’t seen this. I’ve said time and time again that these comparisons are stupid and nonsensical. However, i’ll do it again. The activists are nothing like the Taliban. That is a pretty idiotic thing to say


they'd have taken over the country if they were


----------



## chowce5382 (Jun 20, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Seriously? ➡


Yup. I’m against a policy which benefits me because it’s makes the lives of others pretty miserable. When was the last time you campaigned, gave money/time to something that was directly against your personal interests?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup. I’m against a policy which benefits me because it’s makes the lives of others pretty miserable. When was the last time you campaigned, gave money/time to something that was directly against your personal interests?


every day when i go to work. like every other worker in the country i'm exploited by my boss who expects me to be happy about the fact


----------



## edcraw (Jun 20, 2022)

chowce5382 said:


> Yup. I’m against a policy which benefits me because it’s makes the lives of others pretty miserable. When was the last time you campaigned, gave money/time to something that was directly against your personal interests?


Seriously Charlie, you know nothing about me.

You’ve also said you ‘just sign the cheques’ but now you’re an active part of the campaign - what is it?


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 20, 2022)

I can't help thinking most of those who have campaigned against the LTNs were probably just as joyless and miserable before.

“If you run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. If you run into assholes all day, you're the asshole.” comes to mind.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 20, 2022)

_"When was the last time you campaigned, gave money/time to something that was directly against your personal interests"_

Isn't this pretty much all environmental campaigners?  The reality of addressing the climate crisis is that we all need to consume less, fly less, probably just travel less - our long term interests are best served by less convenience and luxury in the short term.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 20, 2022)

This comment from Tim Briggs shows how he feels about campaigning for something that is against your own personal interests - or being a Tory for shorthand. Remind me which party campaigned against Lambeth LTNs 🤔


----------



## BusLanes (Jun 20, 2022)

Good to see two ex Lambeth politicians keeping in touch after politics


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 20, 2022)

As they make the schemes permanent the wooden planters can be recycled into a cross for our martyr. Call it public art, maybe.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 27, 2022)

The huge bike locker provided on St Matthews Road has not been particularly popular for bikes with most of the space unused. For the past couple of weeks it has been acting as storage for folding chairs and tables, I suspect belonging to the Tenants Hall?


----------



## teuchter (Jun 28, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> isn't the issue likely to be that the motorbikes in the park (and the covered number plates) are a police matter so, like speeding, it comes down to police resources?


I think that's right.

Has anyone tried harassing the safer neighborhoods team about these things?



			https://www.met.police.uk/a/your-area/met/lambeth/herne-hill?tab=Overview


----------



## madolesance (Jun 28, 2022)

Rushy said:


> The huge bike locker provided on St Matthews Road has not been particularly popular for bikes with most of the space unused. For the past couple of weeks it has been acting as storage for folding chairs and tables, I suspect belonging to the Tenants Hall?


This bike locker is currently being used by the St Mathews bicycle project which aims are to offer free cycle training to estate residents (there are bicycles that have been donated for the project  being stored in the locker). Lambeth also offer this training for free. The lockers are paid for by the funding that SMETA got granted. Their long time goal is to offer spaces in them for local estate residents.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 28, 2022)

madolesance said:


> This bike locker is currently being used by the St Mathews bicycle project which aims are to offer free cycle training to estate residents (there are bicycles that have been donated for the project  being stored in the locker). Lambeth also offer this training for free. The lockers are paid for by the funding that SMETA got granted. Their long time goal is to offer spaces in them for local estate residents.


I take it that the project has not started yet? My son always asks why the bikes never move. Then the tables and chairs appeared!


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I think that's right.
> 
> Has anyone tried harassing the safer neighborhoods team about these things?
> 
> ...


That seems an odd way of looking at it. Surely if you are managing or designing a project and know that police / safer neighbourhood won't have resources (or indeed inclination) to police it and your own resources for monitoring are insufficient, it is the project manager's responsibility to design out problems. For instance, simply moving the gate to the other side of Herne place would solve the motorbikes in the park issue and practically deliver the same Railton LTN in every regard. I don't think many project designers of any sort would have the luxury of creating a hazard and arguing that because that hazard constitutes a criminal offence it should fall to someone else to rectify.

Re covering number plates, enforcement has to be central to the scheme. Of course it is not the scheme's fault that people choose to break the law. But it is very foreseeable that they will and that this creates a potential hazard. A plan should have been in place for how to deal with this, even if it is for instance a dedicated roaming LTN monitoring role, perhaps even shared with another borough. Or funding for an additional officer, or even shared officer, in the department which monitors such things. I'm not being specific - there are lots of options for various budgets. What is very disappointing is the apparent lack of preparation and assumption that someone else will deal with it.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2022)

Rushy said:


> That seems an odd way of looking at it. Surely if you are managing or designing a project and know that police / safer neighbourhood won't have resources (or indeed inclination) to police it and your own resources for monitoring are insufficient, it is the project manager's responsibility to design out problems. For instance, simply moving the gate to the other side of Herne place would solve the motorbikes in the park issue and practically deliver the same Railton LTN in every regard. I don't think many project designers of any sort would have the luxury of creating a hazard and arguing that because that hazard constitutes a criminal offence it should fall to someone else to rectify.
> 
> Re covering number plates, enforcement has to be central to the scheme. Of course it is not the scheme's fault that people choose to break the law. But it is very foreseeable that they will and that this creates a potential hazard. A plan should have been in place for how to deal with this, even if it is for instance a dedicated roaming LTN monitoring role, perhaps even shared with another borough. Or funding for an additional officer, or even shared officer, in the department which monitors such things. I'm not being specific - there are lots of options for various budgets. What is very disappointing is the apparent lack of preparation and assumption that someone else will deal with it.


Definitely raise the park issue with the councillors as moving the gate would solve this but would need a whole new traffic order.

The council has said it’s working with police about the number plate issue - it’s not just covered ones though, fake ones are huge! Not sure you can blame these on the LTN though presumably they’re for congestion charge, ULEZ, speeding etc etc the LTNs just make the issue more obvious.


----------



## liquidindian (Jun 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> fake ones are huge


Surely that should make them easier to spot.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Definitely raise the park issue with the councillors as moving the gate would solve this but would need a whole new traffic order.


As I said very early on in this thread, poor planning by inexperienced "enthusiasts", poor engagement and then the LTN team focus would be on to somewhere so it would be a battle to get attention to make changes.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2022)

Apparently the Dulwich scheme was changed to camera enforcement as people were concerned about emergency access and now has cars going through with fake plates. Really depressing but shows what a problem we have with private cars in a city. So much selfishness.


----------



## edcraw (Jun 29, 2022)

Rushy said:


> As I said very early on in this thread, poor planning by inexperienced "enthusiasts", poor engagement and then the LTN team focus would be on to somewhere so it would be a battle to get attention to make changes.


Have you raised it? How will they know it’s an issue unless people raise it, there’s been tons of consultation.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2022)

Rushy said:


> That seems an odd way of looking at it. Surely if you are managing or designing a project and know that police / safer neighbourhood won't have resources (or indeed inclination) to police it and your own resources for monitoring are insufficient, it is the project manager's responsibility to design out problems. For instance, simply moving the gate to the other side of Herne place would solve the motorbikes in the park issue and practically deliver the same Railton LTN in every regard. I don't think many project designers of any sort would have the luxury of creating a hazard and arguing that because that hazard constitutes a criminal offence it should fall to someone else to rectify.
> 
> Re covering number plates, enforcement has to be central to the scheme. Of course it is not the scheme's fault that people choose to break the law. But it is very foreseeable that they will and that this creates a potential hazard. A plan should have been in place for how to deal with this, even if it is for instance a dedicated roaming LTN monitoring role, perhaps even shared with another borough. Or funding for an additional officer, or even shared officer, in the department which monitors such things. I'm not being specific - there are lots of options for various budgets. What is very disappointing is the apparent lack of preparation and assumption that someone else will deal with it.



I'm talking about the numberplate issue really - if the Herne Place motorbike issue could be resolved through design changes then yes that should be for Lambeth to deal with.

However, the issue of covered/fake numberplates is a wider one that Lambeth have little power to do anything about directly, because it has to be enforced by the police and yes that relies on police resources which in turn rely on political incentives to properly resource the police so that they can take action on this and a whole load of other things like speeding and dangerous driving in general.

People like me see that wider issue as one resulting from a general societal atittude that doesn't want drivers' freedoms restricted, but also hope that these attitudes are gradually changing, at least in London. Things can very slowly change if more and more people make a fuss about them, sufficient to make them an issue when GLA or westminster elections come around, because those are the bodies which decide how the police is resourced and what they should concentrate on.

Therefore - I'd prefer LTNs implemented in the knowledge that there will be some contraventions that people get away with under the current regime, than that they are not implemented at all. The number of people willing to risk doing things like covering numberplates is relatively limited and the number of people passing through the filters/gates will still be substantially reduced.

I would imagine this is effectively the view that Lambeth have taken - they know some people will break the rules and get away with it, but it won't render the schemes ineffective. I'm not sure exactly what they can do, really. As I understand it, local authorities are not allowed to take any revenue from speed cameras (it must go to central government) therefore they are unwilling to pay for them - would the same apply to cameras that could record numberplates being covered? If Lambeth were unable to reclaim any of the cost of running such things through fines then I can see why they would be reluctant to implement it. I am ready to be better informed on the technicalities of this, however.

The reason I suggest hassling the safer neighbourhoods team about it is that even if they have limited resources, they will tend to apply them where they think there's demand for them. I know that they get requests for dealing with various things that I'd consider less important than covered numberplates being regarded as a low risk activity, and they do go and deal with those things or at least give the impression of making an effort. Maybe even a sporadic enforcement action around LTN filters is outside of their scope or outside of what they can request assistance with from the wider met police... I don't know. I do know that sufficient numbers of residents complaining about speeding in specific locations can produce the occasional speeding enforcement.

Going back to what Lambeth can do via design measures - well, I'd be interested to know if the design of filter locations can affect driver behaviour to some extent. The one at Van Gogh Walk was mentioned upthread and this is one of the most successful examples of such a thing that I've seen. It somehow remains well maintained, and well used. I pass through it from time to time and there are very often people using it, whether it's kids kicking balls around, people sitting chatting or reading or having small scale barbecues. Driving past some temporary planters and a bunch of signage, hoping you'll get away with it is one thing - driving through a more extensive street redesign with a meandering route, and people around watching you, is another. Would it affect the behaviour of the fake/covered numberplate crew? I don't know but it might.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 29, 2022)

Rushy said:


> That seems an odd way of looking at it. Surely if you are managing or designing a project and know that police / safer neighbourhood won't have resources (or indeed inclination) to police it and your own resources for monitoring are insufficient, it is the project manager's responsibility to design out problems. For instance, simply moving the gate to the other side of Herne place would solve the motorbikes in the park issue and practically deliver the same Railton LTN in every regard. I don't think many project designers of any sort would have the luxury of creating a hazard and arguing that because that hazard constitutes a criminal offence it should fall to someone else to rectify.


I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it looks like the gates have been put where they have least impact on access to properties and the greatest opportunity to create a pleasant space (extending out from the existing park, with the current fences removed if the mock up images are accurate.  Sticking it to the north of Herne Place would mean the most you could do would be something like the plans for Marcus Garvey Way. 
wouldn't necessarily stop motorcyclists riding around on the pavement in any case. I'd argue theres a balance to be struck between 'designing out crime' and making the place shittier than it needs to be because some might break the law if we make it nice and it kind of feels like a lot of the problems we're getting all over the place with motorbikes is a result of the proliferation of home delivery services that's really happened over the last 2.5 years since this was planned.
Most don't need to be on motorbikes - you'd hope more and more will shift to legal electric bikes - and it seems quite likely a lot of those companies will disappear once the venture capital money runs out and they have to start charging a real cost for the service.  









Rushy said:


> As I said very early on in this thread, poor planning by inexperienced "enthusiasts", poor engagement and then the LTN team focus would be on to somewhere so it would be a battle to get attention to make changes.


Really?   That's straight out of the Onesie nutter conspiracy script. Googling for 'lambeth transport planner jobs' the first thing I clicked on was this from 2019 which says they were recruiting "an experienced and resourceful Transport Planner to help drive forward the delivery of sustainable transport infrastructure projects across the borough...[with]...A relevant qualification in town planning, engineering, transport planning, or related subject."
That doesn't sound like the council officers who designed and implemented this scheme are "inexperienced enthusiasts".  But at the same time, based on the post above, you think you know better and it should have been done differently - your own experience and expertise in street design is??


			https://www.jobsgopublic.com/vacancies/58386?ga_client_id=ec6aaec5-b0d6-40dc-9fe6-1c1b15fa9a0a


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it looks like the gates have been put where they have least impact on access to properties and the greatest opportunity to create a pleasant space (extending out from the existing park, with the current fences removed if the mock up images are accurate.  Sticking it to the north of Herne Place would mean the most you could do would be something like the plans for Marcus Garvey Way. wouldn't necessarily stop motorcyclists riding around on the pavement in any case. I'd argue theres a balance to be struck between 'designing out crime' and making the place shittier than it needs to be because some might break the law if we make it nice.
> 
> View attachment 329517View attachment 329518
> 
> ...



Yup. Onesie nutter me. Obviously.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 29, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Yup. Onesie nutter me. Obviously.


Read the post - I didn't say you were.  But that, ridiculous, line of attack is one that they use all the time - just the same as their claims that schemes went in where people shouted the loudest despite the council having published a strategy and explained how were going to prioritise LTNs some time before the pandemic started.  And the idea that there was no (or poor) engagement when you're on a thread going back years that's picked up all the various stuff that's been done -
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood wants your feedback on how your streets could be improved

Back in feb 2020 when it looks like a number of events and commonplace stuff had already gone on. 

"They didn't do what I personally thought should be done" is not the same as "poor engagement".  There has been a shit load of opportunities for comment and feedback over the whole course of this.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Read the post - I didn't say you were.  But that, ridiculous, line of attack is one that they use all the time - just the same as their claims that schemes went in where people shouted the loudest despite the council having published a strategy and explained how were going to prioritise LTNs some time before the pandemic started.  And the idea that there was no (or poor) engagement when you're on a thread going back years that's picked up all the various stuff that's been done -
> Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood wants your feedback on how your streets could be improved
> 
> "They didn't do what I personally thought should be done" is not the same as "poor engagement".  There has been a shit load of opportunities for comment and feedback over the whole course of this.



It almost seems like you are taking critique of the project ... a bit personally.


----------



## thebackrow (Jun 29, 2022)

Rushy said:


> It almost seems like you are taking critique of the project ... a bit personally.


It almost seems like I attended some of those early, public, sessions and am tired of people insinuating things that clearly are not true, that onesie twat   has repeatedly identified me on here so It’s hardly any secret. And I can confirm that that nothing was designed by enthusiastic amateurs (unless you think a public event at which people are invited to contribute ideas - you know the  “public engagement” you’re saying didn’t happen despite it actually happening - shouldn’t have done)


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I'm talking about the numberplate issue really - if the Herne Place motorbike issue could be resolved through design changes then yes that should be for Lambeth to deal with.


Yes I agree.



> However, the issue of covered/fake numberplates is a wider one that Lambeth have little power to do anything about directly, because it has to be enforced by the police


I don't entirely agree with this. The same offence is still being committed by going through the gate. The additional offence does not change that.  Of course it's not as straightforward as someone driving through and having their number plate recorded on ANPR. But at the moment they produce no evidence at all even when there are multiple truck journeys a day, for instance. I'm generally thinking of covering of plates rather than fake ones.



> I'd prefer LTNs implemented in the knowledge that there will be some contraventions that people get away with under the current regime, than that they are not implemented at all.



Of course the argument is that polar at the extremes where the loons reside, but it would be unfair to write off all critique as an existential threat as some seem inclined to do.


----------



## teuchter (Jun 29, 2022)

Rushy said:


> I don't entirely agree with this. The same offence is still being committed by going through the gate. The additional offence does not change that.  Of course it's not as straightforward as someone driving through and having their number plate recorded on ANPR. But at the moment they produce no evidence at all even when there are multiple truck journeys a day, for instance. I'm generally thinking of covering of plates rather than fake ones.


Are you proposing that Lambeth set up cameras that can automatically record number plates being covered up, and then driven through, such that the evidence they provide is sufficient for a fine to be issued?

I don't have much idea of how technically/legally difficult that would be to implement but presumably it would require additional infrastructure compared to what's already there.


----------



## Rushy (Jun 29, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Are you proposing that Lambeth set up cameras that can automatically record number plates being covered up, and then driven through, such that the evidence they provide is sufficient for a fine to be issued?
> 
> I don't have much idea of how technically/legally difficult that would be to implement but presumably it would require additional infrastructure compared to what's already there.



From what I understand they certainly can't do anything with what they have there. I doubt there is only one solution and would have thought that the most practical might be some limited permanent infrastructure with mobile / temporary additions. I understand that the TCPR in LBKC have permanent cameras set up to deal with this - I don't know the details.


----------



## Not a Vet (Jun 29, 2022)

I see the bishopgate appeal by I’m assuming the LTDA, has failed at the Supreme Court. Court refused permission to appeal.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 6, 2022)

The traffic order to make Streatham Hill LTN has been posted which gives people an opportunity to object to it until 22nd July.



			https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4109044
		


As far as I’m aware any objects to stop it would be over a technical or process kind rather than I don’t like it as the public consultation has already happened.

This hasn’t stopped Ian Armstrong from pushing OneLambeth’s handy objection form pre populated with all your concerns.









						SAY NO! TO LAMBETH LTNs. OPEN OUR ROADS.
					

Thank you for visiting...we urgently need your help! Please enter your email address to continue:




					docs.google.com
				




Interestingly Ian has shared the ‘results’ on Nextdoor but left off any for people with disabilities 🤔


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 9, 2022)

One Lambeth are back in the telegraph after a FOI request revealed Lambeth has made almost £22 million in fines in the last year! A spokesman for One Lambeth said, "It's an awful lot of money and it's probably more than any other council has made.” Anonymous source again


----------



## alex_ (Jul 11, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> One Lambeth are back in the telegraph after a FOI request revealed Lambeth has made almost £22 million in fines in the last year! A spokesman for One Lambeth said, "It's an awful lot of money and it's probably more than any other council has made.” Anonymous source again



Nice of all the knobheads to pay more than 5% of lambeths budget.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 12, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Nice of all the knobheads to pay more than 5% of lambeths budget.


can't believe this non-story has been covered by the BBC.



> "But anti-LTN group OneLambeth, which has been approached for comment by the BBC, told the Telegraph: "It's an awful lot of money.
> "People are struggling to pay their bills, striking because of low wages, struggling with fuel costs, so to have these fines in this excessive climate is slightly grotesque.
> "It's an abuse of power in a climate where people are struggling financially."


If your'e struggling to pay your bills you could, you know, drive legally and not pay fines. Should we suspend speeding cameras when people are hard up?

OneLambeth seems to have neither a website nor a twitter account anymore.  Seems to be little more than Ian Armstrong and Dave McCall posting the same message day after day (whether under his own name or as Stella Sawyer).


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 12, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> One Lambeth


Does this even exist any more?


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 12, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Does this even exist any more?


NoneLambeth


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> can't believe this non-story has been covered by the BBC.
> 
> 
> If your'e struggling to pay your bills you could, you know, drive legally and not pay fines. Should we suspend speeding cameras when people are hard up?
> ...


Plus if you're actually poor (and I know that's subjective) you probably can't afford a car in the first place. Car owning households in Lambeth have fallen and now 60% have no car. Car free are the majority.


----------



## sparkybird (Jul 12, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Does this even exist any more?


People are still donating to the fundraiser, even thought it's not been updated since early April.
So I guess so. I don't know if they decided to appeal again?


----------



## Not a Vet (Jul 13, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Does this even exist any more?


They’ve been active on Facebook as Lambeth posted a couple of times about the have your say on the permanent design which triggered them


----------



## alex_ (Jul 13, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> They’ve been active on Facebook as Lambeth posted a couple of times about the have your say on the permanent design which triggered them



Presumably unless all pavements were removed and all front gardens were zoned for parking the car-liban weren’t happy ?


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 13, 2022)

Not a Vet said:


> have your say


If Lambeth had a "have an incoherent rant" they'd be happier.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 18, 2022)

I went on a protest march in Bow in Tower Hamlets against the immediate removal of a much needed traffic filter on a local road (Antill Road) which was one of the main rat runs with traffic coming off the A12.  The debate about LTNs in Tower Hamlets where Luftur Rahman has vowed to open all roads to cars is a toxic hornet's nest with personal abuse being thrown around.

Have suffered some pretty upsetting abuse and harrassment on 'Living in Bow' Facebook group this afternoon. Including one poster bring my five year old son's name into the argument (child stalking don't know how they found out the name) for not being working class enough.

Have screengrabbed and reported the posts. Might delete this post later.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 18, 2022)

Its pretty low but I do need to tighten my privacy settings I think.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 18, 2022)

toblerone3 said:


> I went on a protest march in Bow in Tower Hamlets against the immediate removal of a much needed traffic filter on a local road (Antill Road) which was one of the main rat runs with traffic coming off the A12.  The debate about LTNs in Tower Hamlets where Luftur Rahman has vowed to open all roads to cars is a toxic hornet's nest with personal abuse being thrown around.
> 
> Have suffered some pretty upsetting abuse and harrassment on 'Living in Bow' Facebook group this afternoon. Including one poster bring my five year old son's name into the argument (child stalking don't know how they found out the name) for not being working class enough.
> 
> Have screengrabbed and reported the posts. Might delete this post later.


Sorry to hear that & unfortunately not surprising. Think they tend to be harmless but really not nice.

Crazy to see on a day like today so many driving in ridiculous SUVs and tons of idling engines.


----------



## alex_ (Jul 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Sorry to hear that & unfortunately not surprising. Think they tend to be harmless but really not nice.
> 
> Crazy to see on a day like today so many driving in ridiculous SUVs and tons of idling engines.



AC doesn’t work on batteries Ed !


----------



## teuchter (Jul 18, 2022)

toblerone3 said:


> I went on a protest march in Bow in Tower Hamlets against the immediate removal of a much needed traffic filter on a local road (Antill Road) which was one of the main rat runs with traffic coming off the A12.  The debate about LTNs in Tower Hamlets where Luftur Rahman has vowed to open all roads to cars is a toxic hornet's nest with personal abuse being thrown around.


Good on you for going to the protest though.

I was wondering if any of these reopenings could actually provide a good demonstration of the purpose of the restrictions. People will notice if currently quiet streets suddenly become refilled with traffic, and it's unlikely there's going to be a magic reduction in congestion elsewhere.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 19, 2022)

Apparently Charlie Chaplin would’ve been dead against LTNs!


----------



## BusLanes (Jul 19, 2022)

Good to see he's still keeping an interest


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 20, 2022)

He’s a one isn’t he?

“Poor housing and services, high tax and low social mobility” 
after 12 years of Conservative government


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 20, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> He’s a one isn’t he?
> 
> “Poor housing and services, high tax and low social mobility”
> after 12 years of Conservative government


Apart from his own eviction services company of course.


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2022)

How did OneLambeth (AKA Ian Armstrong) fail to notice the consultations for all the LTNs?


----------



## teuchter (Jul 20, 2022)

The repeated use of ?!!! very characteristic of the genre.


----------



## thebackrow (Jul 20, 2022)

Railton and Oval were made permanent back in December and the engagement on the final designs has ended. Streatham Hill and Tulse Hill decision was made on June 8 22.  I suppose the Ferndale decision is still due (they've not published a consultation report yet) but what's the significance of this Friday?

[edit - I see it's the end of the Tulse Hill and Streatham Hill permanent traffic order statutory consultation]

Given that there has been a public consultation and they're just submitting the same objections again, which the council has already responded to in the consultation report and had visibility of when making the decision to make permanent this seems a total waste of effort.  They're starting to look like those Japanese soldiers still out in the jungle fighting the Second World War decades after it had ended. 60 years after the war ends, two soldiers emerge from the jungle


----------



## edcraw (Jul 20, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Railton and Oval were made permanent back in December and the engagement on the final designs has ended. Streatham Hill and Tulse Hill decision was made on June 8 22.  I suppose the Ferndale decision is still due (they've not published a consultation report yet) but what's the significance of this Friday?
> 
> [edit - I see it's the end of the Tulse Hill and Streatham Hill permanent traffic order statutory consultation]
> 
> Given that there has been a public consultation and they're just submitting the same objections again, which the council has already responded to in the consultation report and had visibility of when making the decision to make permanent this seems a total waste of effort.  They're starting to look like those Japanese soldiers still out in the jungle fighting the Second World War decades after it had ended. 60 years after the war ends, two soldiers emerge from the jungle


Yep - Ian’s very confused. It’s that people have until 22nd July to the Streatham Hill traffic order. Presumably this is about procedure rather than just not liking it.



			https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4109044
		


Given the rampant fraud of antis filling out the actual consultations one can only image you hat their own skewed survey results will be like.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 20, 2022)

Is that bit.ly link working?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 20, 2022)

As ever, Pratchett was right:

“Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind”


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jul 21, 2022)

Does anyone know if there are any plans furthered for that proposed LTN that would prevent New Park Road being used as a rat run?


----------



## edcraw (Jul 21, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Does anyone know if there are any plans furthered for that proposed LTN that would prevent New Park Road being used as a rat run?


Haven’t heard any updates for a while but this is the page for it.









						Have your say
					

Have your say and help shape the future of your community.




					brixtonhillltn.commonplace.is
				




You could email Rezina Chowdhury to voice your support and ask for an update.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 1, 2022)

Just as everyone else is testing the water on free public transport/ deep discounted fares, Brexit Britain  is going the other way The Case for Making Public Transit Free Everywhere


----------



## edcraw (Aug 1, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Just as everyone else is testing the water on free public transport/ deep discounted fares, Brexit Britain  is going the other way The Case for Making Public Transit Free Everywhere


Just getting decent subsidisation would be a start.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 4, 2022)

This has shaken out all the usual suspects on Twitter. 









						Ignore the culture warriors – low traffic neighbourhoods don’t close streets, they liberate them | George Monbiot
					

Some drivers are so enraged they’ve resorted to violence in my home town of Oxford, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## edcraw (Aug 6, 2022)

.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> .


Rishi's gonna get you lot!
Cyclists who kill face tougher jail terms after crackdown on 'legal loophole'​A "death by dangerous cycling" law is being planned by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps who has reportedly said that current legislation is "archaic" and a legal loophole needs to be closed


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

I'm not against this, but I really don't know how prisons will cope with a massive influx of killer cyclists.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I'm not against this, but I really don't know how prisons will cope with a massive influx of killer cyclists.



It’s ok, it’ll never happen


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Rishi's gonna get you lot!
> Cyclists who kill face tougher jail terms after crackdown on 'legal loophole'​A "death by dangerous cycling" law is being planned by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps who has reportedly said that current legislation is "archaic" and a legal loophole needs to be closed


it'd be rather better if instead of focussing on matters after the event there was a requirement for cyclists to have training and insurance before using the roads and the law on cycling on the pavement tightened up


----------



## edcraw (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> it'd be rather better if instead of focussing on matters after the event there was a requirement for cyclists to have training and insurance before using the roads and the law on cycling on the pavement tightened up


Rather off topic isn’t this as with your posts in the anti-car thread. Perhaps you could start your own cyclist hatred thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Rather off topic isn’t this as with your posts in the anti-car thread. Perhaps you could start your own cyclist hatred thread.


I responded directly to article cited by CH1 In his post


----------



## CH1 (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> it'd be rather better if instead of focussing on matters after the event there was a requirement for cyclists to have training and insurance before using the roads and the law on cycling on the pavement tightened up


I remember having to do cycling proficiency aged about 10. Can't remember if I passed.
But this press release or whatever was presumably aimed at Tory pensioners worried about pavement cycling.
Which Lambeth and Lambeth police have refused to control since the 1980s.

Personally I'm worried about Tory pensioners on giant mobility scooters on the pavement  - and in Sainsburys.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

CH1 said:


> I remember having to do cycling proficiency aged about 10. Can't remember if I passed.
> But this press release or whatever was presumably aimed at Tory pensioners worried about pavement cycling.
> Which Lambeth and Lambeth police have refused to control since the 1980s.
> 
> Personally I'm worried about Tory pensioners on giant mobility scooters on the pavement  - and in Sainsburys.


Yeh they're a hazard too, unlikely to kill but still dangerous. But having seen cops cycling where they shouldn't loads of times I doubt they'll ever do anything about it


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 8, 2022)

I don't think I've seen any pavement cycling on Railton Road or Shakespeare Road since I started commuting that way. Hard to say if it's a pattern, but maybe unfair to say that the council has done nothing about it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I don't think I've seen any pavement cycling on Railton Road or Shakespeare Road since I started commuting that way. Hard to say if it's a pattern, but maybe unfair to say that the council has done nothing about it.


i have to say in all fairness i can't recall seeing pavement cycling in brixton, certainly none so egregious it sticks in my mind


----------



## CH1 (Aug 8, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I don't think I've seen any pavement cycling on Railton Road or Shakespeare Road since I started commuting that way. Hard to say if it's a pattern, but maybe unfair to say that the council has done nothing about it.


I guess they don't need to. From juvenile experience though I had though pavements allow faster cycling - something to do with surface 

For your amusement here is the answer to the opposite question (American style) from Quora:
Jesse Johnston
Just some dude Updated 3y

Originally Answered: Why do bikes insist on riding in the road instead of the sidewalk or shoulder?

Because I’m my locale, it’s illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk in excess of 10 mph. On flat ground I cruise about 24–25mph. 235 pounds doing 24mph, on a sidewalk? Christ, if I hit someone they are going to the hospital.
On the bike I don’t putter around. I ride like I race, and I race like I ride. I’m way too fast to be on a sidewalk or a multi use “bike path” full of kids or casual riders. my fitness rides are 12 - 80 miles long, at the highest speeds I can sustain.
If I’m meeting or exceeding the speed limit on a road, I take the whole lane as if I’m a motorbike, I have a right to. On some twisty decents it’s common for me to pass cars on the left… because I’m faster than they are.
if I’m slower than traffic I keep to the right, but only as far right as the good paving is. If the shoulder pavement is lousy or there are parked cars on it, I stay well left of the poor paving or parked cars (open door distance)
if that means you need to go around me… sorry. I have just as much right to use the road as you do… I do own a car, and I do pay taxes. So I’ll use the road as I see fit within the confines of the law… thank you.


----------



## felonius monk (Aug 8, 2022)

Even the escooters are now mostly on the road.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i have to say in all fairness i can't recall seeing pavement cycling in brixton, certainly none so egregious it sticks in my mind


You should try outside the Beehive/Nationwide building Society. Very dodgy. And you never know whether it's because they want to snatch a mobile or use the pedestrian crossing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 8, 2022)

CH1 said:


> You should try outside the Beehive/Nationwide building Society. Very dodgy. And you never know whether it's because they want to snatch a mobile or use the pedestrian crossing.


forewarned is forearmed


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

CH1 said:


> I remember having to do cycling proficiency aged about 10. Can't remember if I passed.
> But this press release or whatever was presumably aimed at Tory pensioners worried about pavement cycling.
> Which Lambeth and Lambeth police have refused to control since the 1980s.
> 
> Personally I'm worried about Tory pensioners on giant mobility scooters on the pavement  - and in Sainsburys.




You almost certainly need to be a lot more worried about being hit by a tory pensioner in a car than you do a cyclist. 



And guidance has repeatedly been given to the Police that they should not prosecute responsible pavement cycling, which is sensible when a lot of existing cycling infrastructure is 'shared use' pavement which is very poorly marked (so hard to know where it starts and ends). 






						What’s legal - and what’s not - on your bike? | Cycling UK
					

The single file and alternative facts




					www.cyclinguk.org


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 8, 2022)

CH1 said:


> You should try outside the Beehive/Nationwide building Society. Very dodgy. And you never know whether it's because they want to snatch a mobile or use the pedestrian crossing.


and that's exactly the sort of place where many people would be 'afraid to cycle on the road', and where there is no safe route to get between Ferndale Road and Atlantic Road

This is all of the bugbears in one image isn't it?  Legally cycling the wrong way down a one way street, cycling on the pavement (that direction to turn onto the pavement is, if I remember rightly, beasue there is/was a cycle route down the alleyway to the right - edit -- see below), going through a red light (you have to if you want to turn left onto Brixton Road here to head north)




Edit

extract from the OpenCycleMap.  Whover put this together thought cycling down that alleyway was both legal and presumably signed in some way.


And of course the completely inconsistency and confusion of trying to sign small areas of pavement as shared use, while other identical areas mere metres away are in theory verboten.
as it is now - a no cycling sign immediately before an area cyclists are directed onto.

and the old layout (pre department store) when the cycle route down the alley was very clearly marked, but still appeared to be forbidden by a no cycling sign in the same place as now.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 9, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Does anyone know if there are any plans furthered for that proposed LTN that would prevent New Park Road being used as a rat run?


The council’s holding a session tomorrow afternoon about this on Lyham Road.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 10, 2022)

Brixton Hill LTN badly needed.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 10, 2022)

Do cars fall over when traffic density gets too high?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2022)

More an indicator of driver density I'd say.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 11, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Brixton Hill LTN badly needed.
> 
> View attachment 336908



Dumbarton Brixton hill again, how does this even happen ?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 11, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Dumbarton Brixton hill again, how does this even happen ?


Yep - guess it’s a mixture of bad driving & vehicles with poor visibility. It’s a dangerous rat run and makes that junction very bad for pedestrians & cyclists.

Here’s the greatest “hits”!


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 11, 2022)

That bollard is made of strong stuff! And what was the driver of that massive truck even doing thinking of going down Dumbarton road? Sat nav over common sense I guess?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 11, 2022)

Posted once about this on Nextdoor and had a load of Onsies saying they should make the bollard more visible rather than if drivers can’t even tell where the pavement is perhaps we shouldn’t allow them to rat run freely everywhere.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2022)

You can see how the old kerbline could be misleading to people not paying attention.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Aug 11, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> That bollard is made of strong stuff! And what was the driver of that massive truck even doing thinking of going down Dumbarton road? Sat nav over common sense I guess?


I’m now enjoying singing “Psycho Bollard, Qu’est-ce que c’est” in my head


----------



## Jimbeau (Aug 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You can see how the old kerbline could be misleading to people not paying attention.


I remember when that speed table and extended kerb section first went in. It had taller reflective bollards and there were litter bins and Sheffield stand bike racks too. It got wiped out bit by bit by rat-running vehicles and there were often sad-looking bent bikes around. The badass bell bollard is normally a solution of last resort, designed to deflect HGV tyres.

Interestingly, the St Saviour's Rd turning just down the hill was done at the same time and it still has all its original street furniture. Far less of an obvious rat run though.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> You can see how the old kerbline could be misleading to people not paying attention.



Emphasis on “not paying attention”


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 11, 2022)

Jimbeau said:


> I remember when that speed table and extended kerb section first went in. It had taller reflective bollards and there were litter bins and Sheffield stand bike racks too. It got wiped out bit by bit by rat-running vehicles and there were often sad-looking bent bikes around. The badass bell bollard is normally a solution of last resort, designed to deflect HGV tyres.
> 
> Interestingly, the St Saviour's Rd turning just down the hill was done at the same time and it still has all its original street furniture. Far less of an obvious rat run though.


Only a rat run as an exit I guess, and a right  turn out of it.


----------



## editor (Aug 11, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Rishi's gonna get you lot!
> Cyclists who kill face tougher jail terms after crackdown on 'legal loophole'​A "death by dangerous cycling" law is being planned by Transport Secretary Grant Shapps who has reportedly said that current legislation is "archaic" and a legal loophole needs to be closed


Anyone got a figure for the amount of people killed by cyclists every year?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 11, 2022)

Jimbeau said:


> I remember when that speed table and extended kerb section first went in. It had taller reflective bollards and there were litter bins and Sheffield stand bike racks too. It got wiped out bit by bit by rat-running vehicles and there were often sad-looking bent bikes around. The badass bell bollard is normally a solution of last resort, designed to deflect HGV tyres.


Well remembered - looking at streetview the tall bollard lasted about a year and the bike racks two. Bloody depressing.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2022)

__





						Number of accidents to UK pedestrians on pavements and footways - Office for National Statistics
					





					www.ons.gov.uk
				





editor said:


> Anyone got a figure for the amount of people killed by cyclists every year?


----------



## CH1 (Aug 11, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More than I though, actually.
Remember what "Rishi" and "Liz" say is hot button stuff. Facts don't come into it.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Facts don't come into it.


I've been voting since 1997. I get it.


----------



## CH1 (Aug 11, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> I've been voting since 1997. I get it.


Well I hope you voted for me in 2014 then, Geography permitting.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Well I hope you voted for me in 2014 then, Geography permitting.


Nah, I was in Reading, used to cycle to work on the path by the stadium. Didn't kill anyone, to my knowledge.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 11, 2022)

editor said:


> Anyone got a figure for the amount of people killed by cyclists every year?


On average 3 a year....
I wonder how that compares with motor vehicle drivers?
Edit, just checked it's 500


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 11, 2022)

It doesn't have exact numbers but PACTS has a "who kills who" report.



			https://www.pacts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/PACTS-What-kills-most-on-the-roads-Report-15.0.pdf


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 11, 2022)

editor said:


> Anyone got a figure for the amount of people killed by cyclists every year?


Post in thread 'Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.'
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 11, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Yep - guess it’s a mixture of bad driving & vehicles with poor visibility. It’s a dangerous rat run and makes that junction very bad for pedestrians & cyclists.
> 
> Here’s the greatest “hits”!
> 
> View attachment 336941View attachment 336942View attachment 336944View attachment 336945View attachment 336947View attachment 336949View attachment 336948View attachment 336946View attachment 336943



Might just nab the pics of this hardworking little fellah for the "bollard appreciation group" on Facebook...


----------



## Jimbeau (Aug 11, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Well remembered - looking at streetview the tall bollard lasted about a year and the bike racks two. Bloody depressing.
> 
> View attachment 336993


Yeah - years ago now. I recall it was all connected to the removal of the gyratory around St Matthews and several turnings off Brixton Hill were done at once to the same spec. I lived right next to one while it was going in.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 11, 2022)

Many people think that Van Gogh Walk is a fantastic example of how urban neighbourhoods can look when traffic is reduced - but maybe its actually just a ghetto of weeds & crime.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 11, 2022)

I wonder if he's ever actually been there, the idiot.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I wonder if he's ever actually been there, the idiot.


I very much doubt he has. Most Onsies seem to have very little knowledge of our local areas (subtweeting chowce5382) presumably because they drive everywhere.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2022)

A desperate cry for attention from Tim. 

Conservatives - it's free public space - the quicker they can stamp that out and find some way to completely privatise it the better (that's surely the implication of his view that a public park reduces wealth and opportunities) 

Most of the onesie hatred of 'pocket parks' and street greening comes down to the potential for 'undesirables' to 'hang around' there which seems somewhat at odds with their concern about the 'poor and disadvantaged'.  But conservatives again - help the poor with 'tax cuts' when 40% of adults don't pay tax (unemployed, retired, or just paid so little the fall below the tax threshold).

Found out the other day that Thatcher herself lived in a gated estate on the A205 at Dulwich, which seems rather appropriate.  And the tory Dulwich councillor candidate who helped secure the worst ever tory result in Dulwich Village ward (sorry, worst result so far) lives on a literal private road too.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 12, 2022)

Ferndale LTN to be permanent.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 12, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Ferndale LTN to be permanent.



Strong support for it in the consultation which is great as it was presented by many as one with more opposition.



Anyone know what OneLambeth’s reaction is? Not even sure any of them have noticed. Perhaps they’ve all starting realising that LTNs just make sense.


----------



## Winot (Aug 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Strong support for it in the consultation which is great as it was presented by many as one with more opposition.
> 
> View attachment 337204
> 
> Anyone know what OneLambeth’s reaction is? Not even sure any of them have noticed. Perhaps they’ve all starting realising that LTNs just make sense.


Too busy wanking over Liz Truss.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 12, 2022)

I guess this is an opportunity to fix the cycling problems described upthread?


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 12, 2022)

Winot said:


> Too busy wanking over Liz Truss.


Close. 

I had an apple get bruised in the shipping bag and go a bit mank. Fucking LTNs.


----------



## BusLanes (Aug 12, 2022)

That is a surprisingly positive result. I no longer live in Ferndale so not really sure what people do/think there about it but walking through/past it and reading stuff online made me think it was pretty unpopular. Turns out not I guess


----------



## alex_ (Aug 13, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> That is a surprisingly positive result. I no longer live in Ferndale so not really sure what people do/think there about it but walking through/past it and reading stuff online made me think it was pretty unpopular. Turns out not I guess



Is that purely residents ?


----------



## BusLanes (Aug 13, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Is that purely residents ?



I don't think so as when I did the Tulse Hill one and it did ask questions about connection to the area. E.g live, work, travel through


----------



## alex_ (Aug 14, 2022)

Any news on the Brixton hill LTN yet ?


----------



## DaphneM (Aug 15, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Ferndale LTN to be permanent.



good


----------



## edcraw (Aug 16, 2022)

Maybe OneLambeth could lend some of their ‘expertise’!


----------



## alex_ (Aug 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Maybe OneLambeth could lend some of their ‘expertise’!
> 
> View attachment 338008



Have any of the oneAstroturf groups been successful with their legal campaigns ?


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Have any of the oneAstroturf groups been successful with their legal campaigns ?


Not that I know of. Several law firms seem to have done rather well though…

Worth remembering that the OneLambeth one was only ever about the implementation rather than whether than the actual legality of LTNs.

Hopefully “Reconnecting Oxford” follow the antis in Dulwich and realise its a lost cause rather than wasting £60k like OneLambeth. Maybe they could raise money to support actual worthwhile causes instead!


----------



## alex_ (Aug 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Not that I know of. Several law firms seem to have done rather well though…
> 
> Worth remembering that the OneLambeth one was only ever about the implementation rather than whether than the actual legality of LTNs.
> 
> Hopefully “Reconnecting Oxford” follow the antis in Dulwich and realise its a lost cause rather than wasting £60k like OneLambeth. Maybe they could raise money to support actual worthwhile causes instead!



Yes I’m sure we’d have heard all about it from them if they had been.

Alex


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 17, 2022)

True it's all gone very quiet. Maybe they realised that after loosing the court cases and appeals it was time to call it a day and work with Lambeth instead. I see their Twitter account seems to have been taken over by their opposition


----------



## alex_ (Aug 17, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> True it's all gone very quiet. Maybe they realised that after loosing the court cases and appeals it was time to call it a day and work with Lambeth instead. I see their Twitter account seems to have been taken over by their opposition



I think that was a parody account if you mean - https://mobile.twitter.com/onelambeth_just?lang=en


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Worth remembering that the OneLambeth one was only ever about the implementation rather than whether than the actual legality of LTNs.



All of the anti-LTN legal cases were judicial reviews - they've ALL been about implementation.  JR is effectively a claim that some part of the council decision making process hasn't been followed properly. A council/government can completely legally make decisions people don't agree with, or even 'bad decisions' that don't deliver the things that they're meant to (look at all the shit the tories have done in the last 12 years) but that doesn't make them "illegal".  Which is why it's all the more amazing that people keep throwing money at these cases - even if they 'win' it's going to be a pyrrhic victory - "we've shown the council acted 'illegally' because they forgot to fill in form 131/45c".  Whoopee - the council fills in form 131/45c and carries on.  there was next to zero chance of any of these cases ever resulting in more than a very short term suspension of a scheme while traffic orders were reissued.  (which is effectively what seems to have happened in Streatham where Lambeth ran out the 18 month experimental order time limits.  New traffic orders have been published and the scheme will be back in place before long. 









						High Court throws out Mini-Holland challenge
					

A legal challenge against Waltham Forest's Mini-Holland programme has been rejected at the High Court today. Campaign group E17Streets4All had objected to Mini-




					www.transportxtra.com
				











						OneChiswick still going ahead with Judicial Review of C9 - Chiswick Calendar News
					

OneChiswick Ltd have confirmed they are still going ahead with a Judicial Review of LB Hounslow’s decision to install C9, the cycle lane which runs through Chiswick High Rd, despite […]




					chiswickcalendar.co.uk
				





			https://www.shepherdsbushw12.com/#!pages/actonw3:info:conroad009
		









						Hackney LTN legal challenge defeated
					

A legal challenge by residents to the controversial low traffic network scheme in Hackney has been thrown out by the High Court. The...




					www.hackneygazette.co.uk
				











						‘Judge wrong to condemn low-traffic scheme’
					

A judge was wrong to describe a scheme that created extra space for cyclists and pedestrians at the start of the pandemic as “extreme” and declare it illegal, the Court of Appeal has ruled.




					www.standard.co.uk
				




and I'm sure there are others.


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 17, 2022)

alex_ said:


> I think that was a parody account if you mean - https://mobile.twitter.com/onelambeth_just?lang=en


Ah, thanks. I got a bit confused then as it's being followed by some of those I know who are opposed to LTNs. I don't know what's happened to the original account.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 17, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Ah, thanks. I got a bit confused then as it's being followed by some of those I know who are opposed to LTNs. I don't know what's happened to the original account.


They made it private. Really great campaigning that! 🤪


----------



## edcraw (Aug 18, 2022)

Looks like OneLambeth is going to the Local Government Ombudsman because the council haven’t listened to them.

Wonder if they’ll need to raise some more funds for that..


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 18, 2022)

That sounds like they've accepted the legal case is dead? 

They're not going to get anywhere with this one anyway - somelambeth's comments were all listed and responded to in the consultation reports. 

It seems the onesie vandals are back in Ferndale - every time I've come through recently at least one of the filters has had the signs removed and camera cables cut or tipped.   Concanon Road first, and now Ferndale too.


----------



## alex_ (Aug 18, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It seems the onesie vandals are back in Ferndale - every time I've come through recently at least one of the filters has had the signs removed and camera cables cut or tipped.   Concanon Road first, and now Ferndale too.



This is going to end up with the filters being permanently closed - the vandalism is so pointless and ultimately makes the thing they object to more permanent you have to wonder if these people are alright.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 18, 2022)

alex_ said:


> This is going to end up with the filters being permanently closed - the vandalism is so pointless and ultimately makes the thing they object to more permanent you have to wonder if these people are alright.


Have they put CCTV cameras up round these? They’ve got them on all the Tulse Hill ones and the vandalism stopped straightaway.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Have they put CCTV cameras up round these? They’ve got them on all the Tulse Hill ones and the vandalism stopped straightaway.


Looked to me like they’ve attacked the cctv as well.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 18, 2022)

alex_ said:


> This is going to end up with the filters being permanently closed - the vandalism is so pointless and ultimately makes the thing they object to more permanent you have to wonder if these people are alright.


Which is the right answer. Stops the wankers with covered or cloned plates then.


----------



## BusLanes (Aug 18, 2022)

CCTV was attacked on Tulse Hill as well.

I saw several with some sort of brown paint last year.


----------



## mrlogical (Aug 22, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> That bollard is made of strong stuff! And what was the driver of that massive truck even doing thinking of going down Dumbarton road? Sat nav over common sense I guess?





liquidindian said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don’t know, but I hope they remove everything goes back to normal, those LTN barriers are awful, and ferndale is a dangerous place, the cyclists have gone mad, i go ferndale once a week to cut my hair, cyclists hit my work colleague in June, and by august I was visiting my barbers and cyclists nearly hit my 13 year old daughter. The cyclists have lack of regard for pedestrians, also all the low traffic neighborhoods do is move the traffic to other areas. Like acre lane and Brixton high street. I’ve never actually met anyone personally that actually likes the LTNs. and I don’t believe all the comments on this page are genuine.


----------



## liquidindian (Aug 23, 2022)

Every week, you say?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 23, 2022)

A haircut every week? Fuck off


----------



## sparkybird (Aug 23, 2022)

mrlogical said:


> I don’t know, but I hope they remove everything goes back to normal, those LTN barriers are awful, and ferndale is a dangerous place, the cyclists have gone mad, i go ferndale once a week to cut my hair, cyclists hit my work colleague in June, and by august I was visiting my barbers and cyclists nearly hit my 13 year old daughter. The cyclists have lack of regard for pedestrians, also all the low traffic neighborhoods do is move the traffic to other areas. Like acre lane and Brixton high street. I’ve never actually met anyone personally that actually likes the LTNs. and I don’t believe all the comments on this page are genuine.


Welcome to the forum. I'm sorry your daughter was nearly hit by a cyclist. This week a cyclist was hit by a car at the end of my street and is still in a coma. The fact of the matter is that a few tonnes of metal going at speed will do much more damage to the human body than a bicycle. 
Can I ask why you think some of the comments here are not genuine?


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 25, 2022)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A haircut every week? Fuck off


Same as it ever was. This one on nextdoor is a “regular” at a tyre place

do car tyres need changing more than once every few years now?


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Aug 25, 2022)

mrlogical said:


> I don’t know, but I hope they remove everything goes back to normal, those LTN barriers are awful, and ferndale is a dangerous place, the cyclists have gone mad, i go ferndale once a week to cut my hair, cyclists hit my work colleague in June, and by august I was visiting my barbers and cyclists nearly hit my 13 year old daughter. The cyclists have lack of regard for pedestrians, also all the low traffic neighborhoods do is move the traffic to other areas. Like acre lane and Brixton high street. I’ve never actually met anyone personally that actually likes the LTNs. *and I don’t believe all the comments on this page are genuine.*


That’s quite fitting given my first thoughts on your post were “troll!” And an unoriginal one at best.


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 25, 2022)

noticed this under the bridge at Shakespeare Road the other day. Seems appropriate...


----------



## edcraw (Aug 25, 2022)

Good to see Tim’s making the most of the holidays 😂


----------



## thebackrow (Aug 25, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Good to see Tim’s making the most of the holidays 😂



that is just plain weird.


----------



## edcraw (Aug 29, 2022)

Onesies in Oxford are trying to raise £30k for unspecified legal costs. When will these groups learn and why do none of them have any idea about graphic design?


----------



## alex_ (Aug 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Onesies in Oxford are trying to raise £30k for unspecified legal costs. When will these groups learn and why do none of them have any idea about graphic design?
> 
> View attachment 340189



Presumably they have learned…. that it’s easy to grift money and exploit people by setting unrealistic expectations and using emotion to manipulate people.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 29, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Onesies in Oxford are trying to raise £30k for unspecified legal costs. When will these groups learn and why do none of them have any idea about graphic design?
> 
> View attachment 340189


Grifters gotta grift…


----------



## edcraw (Sep 1, 2022)

Looks like OneLambeth have now reached their funding target as they received a £2.5k private donation and have less than that to reach the target. Presumably they’ll close it now rather than keep asking for money….









						OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

OneLambeth Anti-LTN Court Appeal Fundraiser  On Tuesday 5th April 2022 the Appeal Court j… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge



					www.gofundme.com


----------



## editor (Sep 5, 2022)

They'd be better of spending the money on drugs. At least then they could have a good time while throwing people's money away.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sep 8, 2022)

I think I’ve now perfected my very balanced analysis of LTNs when questioned by chatty taxi drivers. 😭


----------



## sparkybird (Sep 8, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I think I’ve now perfected my very balanced analysis of LTNs when questioned by chatty taxi drivers. 😭


Please share your secrets!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 14, 2022)

Phase 2 of the Oval ltn is going ahead:









						Decision - Oval to Stockwell Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) - Phase 2 | Lambeth Council
					






					moderngov.lambeth.gov.uk


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 5, 2022)

More active travel, The Big Shift.









						Love Lambeth
					

Lambeth Council has announced a huge new investment in sustainable travel as part the borough’s ongoing and ambitious efforts to cut air pollution, make our roads safer and to tackle the borough’s health inequalities.




					love.lambeth.gov.uk
				




Seven new LTNs!


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> More active travel, The Big Shift.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So looks like the 7 LTNS are 3 (already underway?) trials



And then 4 further ones


----------



## edcraw (Oct 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> View attachment 345968


These sound like they’re going to be great!


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> So looks like the 7 LTNS are 3 (already underway?) trials
> 
> View attachment 345967
> 
> ...


The 3  new ones are apparently at design stage (Streatham Wells, Brixton Hill and West Dulwich) and residents have been told they will be in place by the end of the financial year.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 6, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> The 3  new ones are apparently at design stage (Streatham Wells, Brixton Hill and West Dulwich) and residents have been told they will be in place by the end of the financial year.



End of which financial year ?


----------



## DaphneM (Oct 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> So looks like the 7 LTNS are 3 (already underway?) trials
> 
> View attachment 345967
> 
> ...


brilliant


----------



## nick (Oct 6, 2022)

Recommend the objection report

I just took a look as I was concerned that of 1,049 responses, 1,008 were objections: 
It seemed to me that, with that bias to  objections, (even accepting that objectors are more likely to respond than supporters) there may be something to said objections.

I infer from table 2 that about half of these objections were on the One Lambeth template

Report claims that many of the objections had multiple reasons. Here are some of the goodies (the ones I have selected obviously reflect my own bias);:

I pity the poor council officer who had to respond to these with a straight face (these from the Generic Objection table)


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 6, 2022)

nick said:


> Recommend the objection report
> 
> I just took a look as I was concerned that of 1,049 responses, 1,008 were objections:
> It seemed to me that, with that bias to  objections, (even accepting that objectors are more likely to respond than supporters) there may be something to said objections.
> ...


“There were 1049 individual responses received during the consultation, of these:  1008 were template objections (96.1%)”


----------



## alex_ (Oct 6, 2022)

nick said:


> Recommend the objection report
> 
> I just took a look as I was concerned that of 1,049 responses, 1,008 were objections:
> It seemed to me that, with that bias to  objections, (even accepting that objectors are more likely to respond than supporters) there may be something to said objections.
> ...



55% of them go to work and 54.7% of them also go to school.

Interesting dataset.


----------



## nick (Oct 6, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> “There were 1049 individual responses received during the consultation, of these:  1008 were template objections (96.1%)”


Suspect you are right. 
I gave benefit of doubt and assumed that this meant 1008 were objections on an official complaint template, rather than a free form letter, or whatever. 
But irrelevant since table 2 implies that at least 600 were onesie generic objections (largest number in table 2)


----------



## nick (Oct 6, 2022)

alex_ said:


> 55% of them go to work and 54.7% of them also go to school.
> 
> Interesting dataset.


TBF they could work at a school, or have to drop the littleuns at school (in a car) before coming home for a cup of tea and then driving to work


----------



## alex_ (Oct 6, 2022)

nick said:


> TBF they could work at a school, or have to drop the littleuns at school (in a car) before coming home for a cup of tea and then driving to work



That’s a separate question 18.7% of them are affected - so 18.7% + 55% report issues affecting getting themselves or their kids to school.

I left the 18.7 out as they very likely do overlap with the 55% who work.

Tbh - we are looking at the 55% of respondents who selected every option.

Remember these people are the ones who wipe their arse on the consultation efforts, and then complain they aren’t consulted.


----------



## nick (Oct 6, 2022)

alex_ said:


> That’s a separate question 18.7% of them are affected - so 18.7% + 55% report issues affecting getting themselves or their kids to school.
> 
> I left the 18.7 out as they very likely do overlap with the 55% who work.
> 
> ...


It's a good point, well made.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 6, 2022)

alex_ said:


> End of which financial year ?


The current one


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2022)

teuchter said:


> And then 4 further ones
> 
> View attachment 345968


Myatt's Fields is huge. About 125 hectare vs. 20 for the Stockwell Gardens one. Badly needed though, cos the ratruns through here are horrible for cycling. While they're at it make Patmos Road two way for bicycles, all the way to Vassall Road please.

Would be nice if the cycle lanes on Loughborough Road were better integrated. The road is so wide it could easily support full segregation, and there's already tons of parking on the estates either side.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2022)

Crispy said:


> Myatt's Fields is huge. About 125 hectare vs. 20 for the Stockwell Gardens one. Badly needed though, cos the ratruns through here are horrible for cycling. While they're at it make Patmos Road two way for bicycles, all the way to Vassall Road please.
> 
> Would be nice if the cycle lanes on Loughborough Road were better integrated. The road is so wide it could easily support full segregation, and there's already tons of parking on the estates either side.


I think Loughborough Road is considered delicate ground following the earlier LJ closures trials.

Kind of interesting to note that what's now proposed is almost the opposite to that early scheme, which attempted to make Loughborough Road a non through route. Now it's specifically identified as a through route - a boundary road for/between the Myatts and Angell LTNs. And Loughborough Junction is destined to remain centred on a 4 way through-road junction. Hopefully with gradually less traffic over time though.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 6, 2022)

nick said:


> TBF they could work at a school, or have to drop the littleuns at school (in a car) before coming home for a cup of tea and then driving to work


If you’ve got time to stop for a cup of tea, you’ve got time to walk your kids to school. Particularly given in this part of London, primary schools should be in walking distance for most people (obviously there are some exceptions like families who move, kids who regularly stay with different carers/go to specialist provision schools/have mobility considerations etc).

Never really got the “I’ve got to drop my kids off before work” reasoning. I spent two years doing a school/childminder > nursery  > work commute via public transport - it should really be possible in zone 2/3 London.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 6, 2022)

alex_ said:


> 55% of them go to work and 54.7% of them also go to school.
> 
> Interesting dataset.



Self-improving adult education types.  Is to be applauded.
They worked out that if they've got time to stop for a cup of tea, they've got time for education.


----------



## BusLanes (Oct 6, 2022)

Not sure what to think about it all


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 6, 2022)

Crispy said:


> Myatt's Fields is huge. About 125 hectare vs. 20 for the Stockwell Gardens one. Badly needed though, cos the ratruns through here are horrible for cycling. While they're at it make Patmos Road two way for bicycles, all the way to Vassall Road please.
> 
> Would be nice if the cycle lanes on Loughborough Road were better integrated. The road is so wide it could easily support full segregation, and there's already tons of parking on the estates either side.


There seem to be decent looking plans for Loughborough Road 









						Loughborough Road Healthy Route – your views wanted!
					

Ambitious plans to improve health and safety in our community are being unveiled by Lambeth Council. If approved, the scheme — for a ‘healthy route’ on Loughborough Rd — wil…




					myattsfieldslabour.uk


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> There seem to be decent looking plans for Loughborough Road
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's a good start, but they have obviously been cowed by the botched previous scheme. They retain on-street parking, right next to the cycle lane with only a row of bollards between. Not safe.



They even do this ridiculous thing where the cycle lane goes _in front _of the bus stop, which just invites collisions between peds and cycles. If there was no on-street parking, the road lanes could simply shift out of the way for a regular bus island.



The road is more than wide enough. Compromises should not be neccesary. If that much parking is needed (which I'd argue it's not) then there's tons of space off-street. Obviously, the council can't make that happen so.... sigh.

The junction at fiveways pinches what should be a continuously protected route through the junction. Akerman Road is plenty wide enough, but again car parking must be protected. No idea why they're pinching the North end of Loughborough Road. Southbound cycles and vehicles are forced to share space, when there's plenty of room for both side by side. EDIT: I suppose this will become more pleasant once Akerman becomes part of an LTN. In that case, Northbound cycles will need their own green phase to avoid being hooked by through traffic turning left.



The junction with Coldharbour Lane is notably absent.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 6, 2022)

Especially as car ownership is falling in the borough. Time to reclaim that road space for public rather than private use


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 6, 2022)

I’m not sure the floating parking spaces are better, it might just hide cyclists coming to the junction, I’d still be cycling on the road.

Crispy Are you sure Ackerman rd is that wide?.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2022)

sleaterkinney said:


> I’m not sure the floating parking spaces are better, it might just hide cyclists coming to the junction, I’d still be cycling on the road.
> 
> Crispy Are you sure Ackerman rd is that wide?.


Yep, just measured it at 13m  12.5m off google maps, which is accurate to the degree needed for this sort of thing. I could go and get the OS to be sure...


----------



## teuchter (Oct 6, 2022)

Crispy said:


> It's a good start, but they have obviously been cowed by the botched previous scheme. They retain on-street parking, right next to the cycle lane with only a row of bollards between. Not safe.
> 
> View attachment 346076
> 
> ...


Agree with everything you say, although I think it's a fair improvement on what's there just now.

Those floating parking bays at least appear to have a buffer zone alongside them that should give room for car doors opening without encroaching on the cycle lane.

Looks like there's still time to comment on the fiveways junction.









						Road Improvements - HAVE YOUR SAY (26 Sep to 6 Nov)
					

A few improvements will make it safer and healthier for pedestrians and cyclists. Find out more here.




					ljstreets.commonplace.is


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 7, 2022)

Crispy said:


> It's a good start, but they have obviously been cowed by the botched previous scheme. They retain on-street parking, right next to the cycle lane with only a row of bollards between. Not safe.
> 
> View attachment 346076
> 
> ...


That's a pretty harsh review of it - it's going to be a massive improvement over what there is at the moment.

A lane running behind parked cars (with a buffer) feels really safe where I've ridden on them.  Yes, you've got a small risk of someone opening a door on you (but you've got that everywhere you ride on the outside of parked cars now, and at least here you're not going to get knocked into moving traffic.  Somewhere it says they've done a parking survey and this retains what is currently 'needed'.  Removing parking is a guaranteed way to stir up opposition to any scheme so I'd take some reduction over none. 

Likewise bus boarders - it's a request only stop for the P5 which runs every 14 minutes at peak, every 20 off peak.  It doesn't feel like it's going to be significant conflict there.  And theres scope to come back and put in your proposal later (removing more parking...) 

Lets hope the junction gets an update in future - at the moment this doesn't go anywhere.  Neither left down the next section of Loughborough Road to join Brixton Road, nor onward through Myatts Fields are much fun at the moment  - but these areas are next on the list for LTNs so that could all change.  But you've got to build one link at a time.  I'm guessing maybe there will be an advance green light for cyclists at the junction so that you can clear it ahead of motor traffic.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 7, 2022)

Yeah I did put the boot in a bit, on reflection  The reality is that yes this is the best that can be achieved in the political climate.
The trouble with advance green is that it's only any use if you arrive at the junction on red. It has to be a whole separate green phase to work.

The drawing says two-stage right turn, but it _feels_ like a straight ahead if you're headed for Akerman. When the LTN comes in, the junction will feel (for drivers) more like a through road with two RH turns. Maybe if the junction is designed with that in mind it would make more sense. Not going to go drawing lanes and things, but like this:


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 7, 2022)

Crispy said:


> Yeah I did put the boot in a bit, on reflection  The reality is that yes this is the best that can be achieved in the political climate.
> The trouble with advance green is that it's only any use if you arrive at the junction on red. It has to be a whole separate green phase to work.
> 
> The drawing says two-stage right turn, but it _feels_ like a straight ahead if you're headed for Akerman. When the LTN comes in, the junction will feel (for drivers) more like a through road with two RH turns. Maybe if the junction is designed with that in mind it would make more sense. Not going to go drawing lanes and things, but like this:
> ...


The two stage rights are lifford to Ackerman and Loughborough to Loughborough aren’t they?  (I’m never convinced by them - confidant cyclists won’t want uk wait and will turn right in traffic. Unconfidant cyclists can do a two stage right at any junction whether it’s marked or not (there are places I do it on multi lane roads). And they’re nearly impossible to sign in a way that someone hitting the junction for the first time will understand (which is when they need it most).


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 8, 2022)

The trouble is also not seeing when the light changes behind you.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 8, 2022)

Motorists excelling themselves at Herne Hill this afternoon, stationary traffic managing to block both pedestrian crossings simultaneously.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Oct 9, 2022)

Part of Ackerman rd used to be a double carriageway, that was a missed opportunity.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 9, 2022)

The DfT last week published a review of its road traffic data for 2009-2019. This is the data which reported (amongst other things) that traffic on C and U roads in London had spiked by an astonishing 72% in that decade, after only minor change in the preceding decade. Across the country as a whole the reported increase of small road traffic was 25%.

This data  sparked intense speculation about the effect of GPS on traffic behaviour and was used to highlight the urgency of LTNs.



Review of the DfT's figures discovered that the reported increases were not reflected anywhere in the raw data. TfL had apparently also expressed misgivings about the original report as it did not reflect their own data. The review discovered not only methodological flaws but more _basic errors such as using the wrong data in any particular year._

After review the change in traffic on small roads across the country in the ten years to 2019 was last week reviewed down from 25% to 9.8% (almost exactly in line with overall traffic on all roads). *For London the figure for the change in traffic on U and C roads in the decade to2019 has been reviewed down from 72% to … zero.* Precisely none of the alarming uptick shown in the graph above had actually happened.

They also compared the data for London’s B, C and U roads combined (as this is the new category for small roads). This was also reduced from 60% to zero.

Whatever one's feelings on LTNs, this is quite remarkable.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 9, 2022)

Rushy said:


> The DfT last week published a review of its road traffic data for 2009-2019. This is the data which reported (amongst other things) that traffic on C and U roads in London had spiked by an astonishing 72% in that decade, after only minor change in the preceding decade. Across the country as a whole the reported increase of small road traffic was 25%.
> 
> This data  sparked intense speculation about the effect of GPS on traffic behaviour and was used to highlight the urgency of LTNs.
> 
> ...


The 'no increase in London' actually hides a fall in inner London and a rise in Outer London. 

Unhelpfully the DFT report doesn't break out minor and major London roads.   

It is interesting to posit why there may have been a fall because it's definitely not what it feels like on minor roads over the last decade and anyone trying to claim that satnav use hasn't had a significant impact on the routes people drive on really isn't serious. Personal experience suggests they significantly increase rat running. Averages can hide a lot and rat running tends to most affect only a subset of minor roads.  

However, the fall in traffic miles in central London suggests that TfL's transport strategy, which has focused spend on inner London (and of which LTNs form a part) - is having an impact which should surely be seen as good news.

But I'm not sure why anyone is suggesting (and I know that you haven't) that this should drive a change in approach - the current Lambeth Transport and Climate plans are aiming for a 27% reduction in vehicle miles by 2030 so theres an awful lot further to go. And that was based on the data from before that 2019 revision - I can't see that Lambeth have ever used that data as a key factor in their strategy (I can't see it referred to anywhere in the Low Traffic Neighbourhood Plan, (published pre-Covid)


----------



## edcraw (Oct 9, 2022)

Looks like OneLambeth’s treasurer miscalculated or something 🤷


----------



## alex_ (Oct 9, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Looks like OneLambeth’s treasurer miscalculated or something 🤷
> 
> View attachment 346522



Good to hear the lady they took advantage off hasn’t been left hanging.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2022)

Quite difficult to understand exactly what has happened with this revision of the minor/major road numbers.

Is it that a "re-benchmarking" (which is routinely done every 10 years?) was carried out in 2018 which produced this apparent very large rise in London, this was noted as unexpected, and what's been published just now is a review of that 2018 excercise?

I see it's mentioned in TfL's 2021 "Travel In London" Report on page 143.





So does this mean that there was a window of 2-3 years where this erroneous data was being used in reports and so on?

Or was anyone making use of it to draw conclusions on certain questions already aware that it was questionable?

It would be interesting to read a summary of what exactly it means, from someone who knows what they are talking about. Which probably exists out there somewhere on a niche transport modelling blog or similar.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 10, 2022)

My very shallow top line understanding, courtesy of Tim Harford on More or Less, is that the raw data was requested by a chap (who had some understanding of such things) in the course of challenging his local LTN. He felt that the reported increase did not mirror his own experience.

When supplied with the raw data he could not see the reported patterns of 70% traffic increases reflected anywhere in the numbers and asked for clarification of how the statistics had been calculated. This led the DfT to review their own data and recognise the mistakes - both methodological and basic data entry. Among other data, they reviewed the reported increase of traffic on London's local roads over the preceding decade down from 70% to zero.

The same guy also FoI'd correspondence and received emails showing that TfL had previously questioned the DfT's results because they were so different to their own data. The implication seemed to be that this was was not investigated at the time.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 10, 2022)

I had a listen to the R4 thing. It's this chap



Some of the FOI info seems to be in this tweet.



He's clearly strongly against the principle of LTNs but fair play to him for challenging the data and also to the DfT for going ahead and correcting it.

Obviously there will be lots of people who used those wrong figures as parts of justifications for and against things but they will have done so in good faith.

I shall watch all the ensuing arguments with interest. For me personally, I don't think it changes anything. I want to see less traffic everywhere and this doesn't affect the basic reasoning behind LTNs or LTN-like measures.

In amongst that chap's tweets and TfL reports is something else interesting which I wasn't aware of, which is that there seems to be some indication that traffic in London is plateauing post-pandemic at a lower level than it was before. Cue much discussion (I expect) about whether this is influenced by traffic measured introduced during Covid or changed travel habits resulting from other Covid related stuff like WFH. Seems to me that a much closer look at what is happening in inner/outer London, at borough level, and by road type is needed.


----------



## nick (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I had a listen to the R4 thing. It's this chap


Being Googly challenged I had a little trouble locating this.

For benefit of others.
More or Less: 5th Oct "Teens and Antidepressant" - 21 minutes in


----------



## Rushy (Oct 11, 2022)

nick said:


> Being Googly challenged I had a little trouble locating this.
> 
> For benefit of others.
> More or Less: 5th Oct "Teens and Antidepressant" - 21 minutes in


The interview with Dr Krause of charity Stem 4 about the antidepressants stats is also worth a listen. (Warning - it's not LTN related. Although it does also question stats reporting an unexpected spike...)


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 11, 2022)

The best things the LTNs have done IMPO is reduce the number of speeding wankers on residential roads, and the number of outright dangerous drivers on Railton Road. Reduced mind you, not stopped completely. 

I’d really like a system where if you’re caught speeding 3 times in a fixed period that’s an automatic month ban. The one time after that it’s a 2 month ban etc. Won’t ever happen but that’s on my road rules wish list anyway.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 11, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> The best things the LTNs have done IMPO is reduce the number of speeding wankers on residential roads, and the number of outright dangerous drivers on Railton Road. Reduced mind you, not stopped completely.


I agree - it's not stopped them. Still get them on my street as it is split in two by the LTN and both the remaining stretches are long and straight. As rat runners have been stopped, it does seem to suggest that it is largely local residents, which is a shame. I think I said on this thread a couple of years ago that I'd welcome a 10mph homezone over an LTN as the improvement to my quality of life would be far greater. As it is, when my child is cycling to school I find myself walking defensively in the middle of the road - it's a bit safer; but it's still not safe.



Agent Sparrow said:


> I’d really like a system where if you’re caught speeding 3 times in a fixed period that’s an automatic month ban. The one time after that it’s a 2 month ban etc. Won’t ever happen but that’s on my road rules wish list anyway.



That sounds rather lenient! It's hard enough getting caught once. If you are caught repeatedly speeding you must be doing it constantly - especially on small back roads - and that merits an impactful ban IMO.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Oct 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> That sounds rather lenient! It's hard enough getting caught once. If you are caught repeatedly speeding you must be doing it constantly - especially on small back roads - and that merits an impactful ban IMO.


Oh I’ve have a lot more speed cameras up, and hidden ones too if I were Ruler Of The Roads! But yes, I agree there needs to be a proper disincentive for speeding on residential roads. 

Some of my mum’s friends (not her thankfully) say they shouldn’t abide by the newish 20mph rules because “who is going to police it anyway?”


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)

If there were a realistic chance of a 10mph limit being enforced and observed, then I'd probably be happy to have LTNs converted to 10mph zones too.

There's currently not the slightest chance of a 10mph limit being enforced or observed though. Maybe that could change if/when we eventually get to the point of having in-vehicle speed limiters.


----------



## BusLanes (Oct 11, 2022)

Given the Met are too busy doing stuff they think more important I wonder if a separate traffic police service would work.

Obviously we won't do it due to cost at the very least but in somewhere like London maybe it could work.

We have BTP for trains and stations after all!


----------



## alex_ (Oct 11, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Given the Met are too busy doing stuff they think more important I wonder if a separate traffic police service would work.
> 
> Obviously we won't do it due to cost at the very least but in somewhere like London maybe it could work.
> 
> We have BTP for trains and stations after all!



You have to suspect it could be self funding.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> If there were a realistic chance of a 10mph limit being enforced and observed, then I'd probably be happy to have LTNs converted to 10mph zones too.
> 
> There's currently not the slightest chance of a 10mph limit being enforced or observed though. Maybe that could change if/when we eventually get to the point of having in-vehicle speed limiters.



Speed limiters are already mandatory in all new vehicles (not perfect as they can be temporarily overridden).

Homezones are more than just a speed limit on a sign. It's quite different to changing a straight road from 30 to 20.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 11, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Given the Met are too busy doing stuff they think more important I wonder if a separate traffic police service would work.
> 
> Obviously we won't do it due to cost at the very least but in somewhere like London maybe it could work.
> 
> We have BTP for trains and stations after all!



I suspect that the cheapest way to do this would be citizen / community based if tech could be sorted. Tech which made reasonably accurate recording of speed using phones connected to relatively affordable peripherals. Probably tricky for likes of 22 in a 20 but can't be beyond the ability of man to measure 30 in a 20 with enough confidence. Drivers already get prosecuted on the basis of citizen phone evidence.

In fact, this seems to suggest it is already possible? (ETA Judging by the reviews some refinement is required!)


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 11, 2022)

have been travelling.  Great to see the new LTNs mooted.  

Has anyone got a map of these? I cannot make sense of the boundaries of the myatts field one.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Speed limiters are already mandatory in all new vehicles (not perfect as they can be temporarily overridden).
> 
> Homezones are more than just a speed limit on a sign. It's quite different to changing a straight road from 30 to 20.


As I understand it the new speed limiters can simply be turned off (at the beginning of each journey if you want to).

But things may change in time. Maybe insurers will start to require that it's always turned on.

It looks to me like in-vehicle speed limiters might have a significant effect on speeding in the future, but it's not going to happen immediately.

I'd be on board with any Home Zones proposed for residential streets. But a properly implemented one is a much more extensive intervention than an LTN. So I assume a lot more expensive to implement, and they would also be faced with resistance and most of the same objections. We've ended up with LTNs because they are the type of intervention that seems most likely to actually get implemented, even if there are potentially better solutions. And they may well serve as tepping stones towards better solutions like Home Zone type approaches. But I think we already did this discussion however many hundred years ago near the start of the thread.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> As I understand it the new speed limiters can simply be turned off (at the beginning of each journey if you want to).
> 
> But things may change in time. Maybe insurers will start to require that it's always turned on.



Within 10 years they will be in >50% of vehicles and it’s such a no brainer for insurers, 3rd party  cover only if your limiter was switched off.

Why wouldn’t you put this in as a policy exclusion ?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Within 10 years they will be in >50% of vehicles and it’s such a no brainer for insurers, 3rd party  cover only if your limiter was switched off.
> 
> Why wouldn’t you put this in as a policy exclusion ?


Possibly if there is sufficient resistance to anything that records your driving habits, location etc.

I know that there are already insurance options with "black box" recorders. So obviously some people are OK with it, but I wonder how long it will take for it to be accepted as standard?

There is of course still the problem of cars that simply aren't insured at all and my impression is that they are well represented amongst south london's worst and most dangerous drivers.


----------



## Rushy (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> There is of course still the problem of cars that simply aren't insured at all and my impression is that they are well represented amongst south london's worst and most dangerous drivers.


Sure. But LTNs are similarly vulnerable to unregistered vehicles, fake number plates, simple covering of plates, etc.. I'm only guessing but presume that this tends not be the done thing amongst our more upstanding drivers. Yet this imperfection has not prevented LTNs from making a worthwhile impact, so I'm led to believe.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Sure. But LTNs are similarly vulnerable to unregistered vehicles, fake number plates, simple covering of plates, etc.. I'm only guessing but presume that this tends not be the done thing amongst our more upstanding drivers. Yet this imperfection has not prevented LTNs from making a worthwhile impact, so I'm led to believe.


Yes, LTNs are vulnerable to this.
Enforcement of speed limits by in-car means is vulnerable to this, and additionally is not yet available.
Extensive streetscape modifications (eg Home Zone type schemes) are a bit less vulnerable because they try and make it difficult to drive fast regardless of insurance or registration, but are expensive and likely to raise a lot of resistance.

So this is why we currently have a focus on LTN type schemes, in my view.

They don't preclude in-car speed limiting systems, or more extensive modifications to residential street design, playing an increasing role in the future, and maybe we'll one day get to a point where there's no need to fully restrict access at certain points and police it with ANPR systems and so on.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Possibly if there is sufficient resistance to anything that records your driving habits, location etc.
> 
> I know that there are already insurance options with "black box" recorders. So obviously some people are OK with it, but I wonder how long it will take for it to be accepted as standard?
> 
> There is of course still the problem of cars that simply aren't insured at all and my impression is that they are well represented amongst south london's worst and most dangerous drivers.



It’ll just take for territories to mandate them - EU Requires Event Data Recorders in Automobiles


----------



## teuchter (Oct 11, 2022)

alex_ said:


> It’ll just take for territories to mandate them - EU Requires Event Data Recorders in Automobiles


Wonder how long that will take though.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 11, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Wonder how long that will take though.
> 
> View attachment 346762



Probably not very long, but the longer they wait the more attractive it is ( as the greater % of cars will have it ).

Also - insurors will make it mandatory for you to share it with them, and you will be high risk if you don’t.

Alex


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 11, 2022)

That says it’s a 13 period rolling average. Doesn’t that mean the “latest” figure is the average of that last 13 months? So gives no real idea of current keels


Rushy said:


> Sure. But LTNs are similarly vulnerable to unregistered vehicles, fake number plates, simple covering of plates, etc.. I'm only guessing but presume that this tends not be the done thing amongst our more upstanding drivers. Yet this imperfection has not prevented LTNs from making a worthwhile impact, so I'm led to believe.


only if they’re camera enforced. If you just have bollards, as done widely elsewhere, those problems go away.


----------



## Ryan2468 (Oct 12, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Motorists excelling themselves at Herne Hill this afternoon, stationary traffic managing to block both pedestrian crossings simultaneously.
> 
> View attachment 346368


Needs a yellow box and a camera in that part just like what exists further down the road.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 12, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> have been travelling.  Great to see the new LTNs mooted.
> 
> Has anyone got a map of these? I cannot make sense of the boundaries of the myatts field one.


Anyone? The roads in their description don’t close a polygon.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 12, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Anyone? The roads in their description don’t close a polygon.


Does it not make this area? Which seems ambitious.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 13, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Does it not make this area? Which seems ambitious.



Not least enclosing the parts of that that are southwark! I’ve mailed the council for clarification.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 13, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Not least enclosing the parts of that that are southwark! I’ve mailed the council for clarification.


Good point - guessing a boundary of Denmark & Florence Red then.

Stopping through traffic on Ackerman, Vassal & Foxley Rds would be transformational!


----------



## BusLanes (Oct 13, 2022)

Looks like they have encircled the Party Manifesto


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Oct 13, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> Looks like they have encircled the Party Manifesto


_Fußgänger aller Länder, vereinigt euch!_


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2022)

Fucking drivers. This selfish twat blocked a Coldharbour Lane pavement all fucking night.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 14, 2022)

Interesting change in LTN approach in Hammersmith and Fulham. Borough residents are exempt.









						Jon Stone (@joncstone)
					

huge 🚲 news from Hammersmith and Fulham, which says it will introduce Clean Air Neighbourhoods (basically LTNs, with one difference I'll explain) across the whole borough within two years. South Fulham West and Brackenbury apparently going live next month...




					nitter.it
				




Apparently trials have still resulted in significant falls in traffic.

This approach is interesting as sat navs will have to route around these as they won’t know you have an exclusion.

Also there will be lots of places where people from the other side of the borough are exempt - but people across the road ( in a different borough ) are not exempt.

This is potentially quite a good way of killing local opposition and if it results in routes being removed from satnavs, reducing a lot of traffic


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 14, 2022)

editor said:


> Fucking drivers. This selfish twat blocked a Coldharbour Lane pavement all fucking night.View attachment 347044View attachment 347045


Knock the mirrors off. The driver of that car won’t ever use them anyway


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 14, 2022)

They


beesonthewhatnow said:


> Knock the mirrors off. The driver of that car won’t ever use them anyway


They won’t be able see them due to the illegal window tint anyway


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 14, 2022)

editor said:


> Fucking drivers. This selfish twat blocked a Coldharbour Lane pavement all fucking night.View attachment 347044View attachment 347045


You can report it here


			Report a parking violation or request parking enforcement, including idling
		

If you don't want to/CBA then give me the date and times of the offence and I'll do it if you're ok with me using your pics


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> You can report it here
> 
> 
> Report a parking violation or request parking enforcement, including idling
> ...


If you don't mind doing it, I noticed the car was parked there around 9.20pm and it was still there blocking the pavement at 12.15am


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Interesting change in LTN approach in Hammersmith and Fulham. Borough residents are exempt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This approach has been discussed at various points through the thread.

One of the (claimed) objections from anti-LTN people is that they create privileged enclaves which enjoy reduced traffic while those on "boundary roads" see the opposite. Making these kinds of exemptions (assuming they still work in reducing traffic) makes those enclaves even more privileged because residents gain the benefits without any inconvenience to themselves.


----------



## edcraw (Oct 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> This approach has been discussed at various points through the thread.
> 
> One of the (claimed) objections from anti-LTN people is that they create privileged enclaves which enjoy reduced traffic while those on "boundary roads" see the opposite. Making these kinds of exemptions (assuming they still work in reducing traffic) makes those enclaves even more privileged because residents gain the benefits without any inconvenience to themselves.


Yeah - really don’t like it, it seems a very Tory thing to do.

Also boroughs really shouldn’t mean that much in London and this is the opposite.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2022)

Also, if it becomes used in a lot of places, I expect sat nav systems will adapt to allow drivers to enter their exemptions and they will start sending people through these areas again.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Also, if it becomes used in a lot of places, I expect sat nav systems will adapt to allow drivers to enter their exemptions and they will start sending people through these areas again.



But only for the people in that borough - population of HF is 180k, it’s 2% of London population.

It’s a smart way to nullify local opposition.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2022)

alex_ said:


> But only for the people in that borough - population of HF is 180k, it’s 2% of London population.
> 
> It’s a smart way to nullify local opposition.


It's an easy way. Basically giving in to the car owning portion of the local population at the expense of the rest. But if it proves that it can still reduce traffic and car use then perhaps it can be accepted as better than nothing.


----------



## alex_ (Oct 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> It's an easy way. Basically giving in to the car owning portion of the local population at the expense of the rest. But if it proves that it can still reduce traffic and car use then perhaps it can be accepted as better than nothing.



H&F are planning to cover the whole borough in 2 years, if they do that they will improve a huge number of peoples quality of life


----------



## teuchter (Oct 14, 2022)

alex_ said:


> H&F are planning to cover the whole borough in 2 years, if they do that they will improve a huge number of peoples quality of life


You could say that about any type of watered down proposal; it ignores the opportunity cost of not doing something more.

Maybe it's the only politically feasible choice in which case ok.

I just think it should be recognised that it's more than a tweak - it gives up on one of the intended aims which is to discourage short car journeys that could be made by other means.

For a borough resident this doesn't make it any more inconvenient to drive to the shops that are ten minutes' walk away. Arguably it might make it more convenient, if they can continue to use back road routes that out-of-borough journeys are removed from. It doesn't actually remove capacity from the road network, just allocates it to different people.

Have a think about what Railton Rd would be like now, if it were available as a through route to all Lambeth residents.

Anyway, Fulham's decision should at least serve as a useful experiment to see what the real world results of such an approach are.


----------



## nick (Oct 14, 2022)

Presumably it results in more mega local car journeys: good for helping  local business models.  less good for reducing pollution as, I assume, a  greater proportion of those journeys will be short and using a cold engine.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 14, 2022)

editor said:


> If you don't mind doing it, I noticed the car was parked there around 9.20pm and it was still there blocking the pavement at 12.15am


done, although it didn't ask for times or dates....


----------



## alex_ (Oct 14, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Anyway, Fulham's decision should at least serve as a useful experiment to see what the real world results of such an approach are.



In about 18 months they will know


----------



## Hollis (Oct 18, 2022)

My borough - Haringey -  just implemented 3 schemes - worse traffic in my non-LTN area... can anyone teuchter point to any studies showing long-term impact on displaced traffic - not just on boundary roads - but where traffic shifts to other adjacent areas.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 21, 2022)

Hollis said:


> My borough - Haringey -  just implemented 3 schemes - worse traffic in my non-LTN area... can anyone teuchter point to any studies showing long-term impact on displaced traffic - not just on boundary roads - but where traffic shifts to other adjacent areas.


Sounds like a plan for the whole borough so get behind it and encourage them to roll it out quickly. 


			https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/adopted_walking_and_cycling_action_plan_2022.pdf


----------



## Winot (Oct 24, 2022)

alex_ said:


> It’s a smart way to nullify local opposition.


Oh look - turns out it’s not enough. It’s never enough:

“Some residents and business owners have claimed it would unfairly affect non-locals and worsen congestion elsewhere.”









						Hammersmith and Fulham: Drivers could face fines for taking shortcut routes
					

Hammersmith and Fulham Council claims its plans would improve air quality and ease congestion.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## teuchter (Oct 24, 2022)

Maybe a concession could be granted for all londoners. In the interests of ultimate fairness and concern for local businesses.


> One resident Caroline Brooman-White said: "I am very concerned for the local businesses in south Fulham."
> She asked: "Would it be possible to allow residents in the neighbouring boroughs of Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea to travel freely on our roads in Hammersmith and Fulham without paying fines for going through the traffic cameras?"


----------



## Hollis (Oct 24, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Sounds like a plan for the whole borough so get behind it and encourage them to roll it out quickly.
> 
> 
> https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/adopted_walking_and_cycling_action_plan_2022.pdf
> ...



I think the problem with rolling it out quickly is... money.   

I can't quite imagine what the main roads would be like if this was implemented - grid lock I assume.  Though a lot of it is external traffic - something like over 40% households don't have access to a car.

They're stating another one 1st November - Bruce Grove.. i'm just waiting for the day there's a traffic jam in my road.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 25, 2022)

Hollis said:


> I think the problem with rolling it out quickly is... money.
> 
> I can't quite imagine what the main roads would be like if this was implemented - grid lock I assume.  Though a lot of it is external traffic - something like over 40% households don't have access to a car.


Money and staff resource I'd have thought.  But 'we can't do it all at once' seems a very bad reason to do nothing.

As for 'gridlock' - probably not.  A lot of rat running traffic is going to be rejoining a major road anyway, and turning traffic causes delays (and collisions, which results in really big delays) so after some initial disruption it will almost certainly settle down.


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 26, 2022)

I’ve triggered the Lambeth onesies on another social media platform. Two years in and the arguments continue.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2022)

Quiet spot for a drive-by Bloodbath in Brixton as two men are killed in drive-by shooting


----------



## Winot (Oct 31, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Quiet spot for a drive-by Bloodbath in Brixton as two men are killed in drive-by shooting


Not funny


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 31, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Quiet spot for a drive-by Bloodbath in Brixton as two men are killed in drive-by shooting


Of what relevance is this to traffic reduction schemes? There is already a dedicated thread for this tragic incident, would it not be more appropriate there?


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> Of what relevance is this to traffic reduction schemes? There is already a dedicated thread for this tragic incident, would it not be more appropriate there?


People on here previously pointed out that crime could be an issue with LTNs. I think there are several issues actually (as a non-driver)
1. How did the shooters access this LTN in a car - were they making a delivery or visiting friends?
2. We have heard that ambulances etc are impeded in coming to LTNs. Was this the case here? Did anyone die because the ambulance was late?

I know the thread is for true believers - but can one not raise questions?


----------



## Winot (Oct 31, 2022)

CH1 said:


> People on here previously pointed out that crime could be an issue with LTNs. I think there are several issues actually (as a non-driver)
> 1. How did the shooters access this LTN in a car - were they making a delivery or visiting friends?
> 2. We have heard that ambulances etc are impeded in coming to LTNs. Was this the case here? Did anyone die because the ambulance was late?
> 
> I know the thread is for true believers - but can one not raise questions?


Oh do fuck off.


----------



## Winot (Oct 31, 2022)

Desperately trying to claw back from an unfunny comment about a tragic incident. You should have just deleted and apologised.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2022)

Winot said:


> Desperately trying to claw back from an unfunny comment about a tragic incident. You should have just deleted and apologised.


You have Trump/Putinesque powers of paranoid projection. A true believer.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 31, 2022)

CH1 said:


> People on here previously pointed out that crime could be an issue with LTNs. I think there are several issues actually (as a non-driver)
> 1. How did the shooters access this LTN in a car - were they making a delivery or visiting friends?
> 2. We have heard that ambulances etc are impeded in coming to LTNs. Was this the case here? Did anyone die because the ambulance was late?
> 
> I know the thread is for true believers - but can one not raise questions?


1. Why does it matter and of what possible relevance is it to anything?
2. Have you not been along Railton road in the past two years? It's completely open to ambulances at both ends, just like it's completely open to the 322 bus, and most likely the ambulance could make its way along the road much faster than had it been full of traffic.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2022)

teuchter said:


> 1. Why does it matter and of what possible relevance is it to anything?
> 2. Have you not been along Railton road in the past two years? It's completely open to ambulances at both ends, just like it's completely open to the 322 bus, and most likely the ambulance could make its way along the road much faster than had it been full of traffic.


Thank you for a rational response answering one of the points.


----------



## thebackrow (Oct 31, 2022)

And on your other point everywhere in an LTN is accessible to anyone by car. Have you really been contributing to these discussions for this long without understanding anything about what’s actually been implemented? 

Amazing things LTNs. Simultaneously both privatised roads and gentrified white middle class newbie enclaves whist being magnets for crime and antisocial behaviour.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 31, 2022)

CH1 said:


> People on here previously pointed out that crime could be an issue with LTNs. I think there are several issues actually (as a non-driver)
> 1. How did the shooters access this LTN in a car - were they making a delivery or visiting friends?
> 2. We have heard that ambulances etc are impeded in coming to LTNs. Was this the case here? Did anyone die because the ambulance was late?
> 
> I know the thread is for true believers - but can one not raise questions?


I guess you're not aware but drivers can access anywhere within an LTN. You don't have to be visiting friends or making a delivery.
The filters that are enforced by cameras are there so that emergency vehicles can pass through. 
I'm really unsure why you are speculating all this.


----------



## CH1 (Oct 31, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> I guess you're not aware but drivers can access anywhere within an LTN. You don't have to be visiting friends or making a delivery.
> The filters that are enforced by cameras are there so that emergency vehicles can pass through.
> I'm really unsure why you are speculating all this.


Actually it would be nice to know if the cameras can pick up people and faces. I mean then they could help solve real crime. Rather than money-making civil infractions.

I bet there aren't cameras on Railton Road near Barnwell Road though. It's right in the middle of the LTN.


----------



## Not a Vet (Oct 31, 2022)

Funnily enough as a Railton resident, I can tell you pre-LTN, road traffic accidents, which also happened here (moped vs car by the look of the crash scene), were common. I think I previously posted on urban about a car barrel rolling one Saturday morning landing outside my front garden wall caused by some fool who’d borrowed his mate’s car and fancied a bit of driving but lost control. Three of my neighbours have had cars written off by other drivers doing something similar. Since Railton went into an LTN, this is the first time this has happened and I think it looks pretty clear that the crash part was only a bit part to the violence that followed.


----------



## sparkybird (Oct 31, 2022)

CH1 said:


> Actually it would be nice to know if the cameras can pick up people and faces. I mean then they could help solve real crime. Rather than money-making civil infractions.
> 
> I bet there aren't cameras on Railton Road near Barnwell Road though. It's right in the middle of the LTN.


The cameras are for Automatic Number Plate Recognition - I'm not an expert, but I guess that's all done by software and only captures the numberplate. It is against to law to ignore road traffic signs - if people don't want to pay the fines, then they could just obey the signs and not drive thought the filters. That would stop the 'money making' real quick.
There are of course plenty of monitored CCTV cameras around used to gather info in cases of other types of crimes.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 5, 2022)

No reintruduction of LTNs in Wandsworth?


----------



## alex_ (Nov 5, 2022)

teuchter said:


> 1. Why does it matter and of what possible relevance is it to anything?



It’s highly relavent, I’m pretty sure gangsters on their way to whack someone are highly likely to be driving a car registered to their home address, and therefore have to be 100% au-fait with traffic regulations.

Alex


----------



## edcraw (Nov 5, 2022)

CH1 said:


> No reintruduction of LTNs in Wandsworth?



Yep - disappointing and very unambitious. Hopefully they’ll be LTNs but by another name. Luckily Lambeth isn’t so influenced by the evil car lobby.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 8, 2022)

Someone's done a LTN film feat. Railton Road (as an LTN) première at Morley College on November 16th


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 8, 2022)

New research from Imperial College London finds 

LTNS reduce air pollution within and around intervention areas
traffic volumes reduced both internally AND at boundary sites.



Islington found Air Quality improving on boundary roads too.


Now some of this may down to ULEZ  (which of course many tories and many of  the anti-LTN bunch are also against), some due to buses being replaced with cleaner models but it does put another unevicendce  onesie complaint in the bin.  (though I've seen some tortured logic along the lines of 'it would have improved more if it hadn't been for the LTNs).


----------



## Rushy (Nov 8, 2022)

Is it a bit ungenerous to acknowledge that "some of this may be down to ULEZ" and busses?  

I'm no statistician but the graph seems to imply that almost all of the improvement is in the period to 2020 (ULEZ and busses) and improves consistently and quickly across the borough. From 2020 onwards (when LTNs were installed) NO2 levels continued to decline in 2no. LTNs but at a much reduced rate, plateaued in 1no. and saw increased in 2no. LTNs  - one by about 10% - whilst the wider borough without LTNs plateaued.

But the Tweeters seem terribly excited, so have I misread it?


----------



## edcraw (Nov 8, 2022)

Brixton Hill LTN can’t come soon enough to stop the dangerous rat running traffic on Dumbarton Rd!


----------



## Hollis (Nov 8, 2022)

Rushy said:


> Is it a bit ungenerous to acknowledge that "some of this may be down to ULEZ" and busses?
> 
> I'm no statistician but the graph seems to imply that almost all of the improvement is in the period to 2020 (ULEZ and busses) and improves consistently and quickly across the borough. From 2020 onwards (when LTNs were installed) NO2 levels continued to decline in 2no. LTNs but at a much reduced rate, plateaued in 1no. and saw increased in 2no. LTNs  - one by about 10% - whilst the wider borough without LTNs plateaued.
> 
> But the Tweeters seem terribly excited, so have I misread it?



It's being retweeted like its the 5th gospel.  I'm particularly interested in what it defines as the boundary area - i.e. within 500m - as the traffic displacement can be much broader than that.

Like any academic article it needs to be treated with a healthy degree of sceptism:  unfortunately that is unlikely in the hyper-charged world of the LTN debate.


----------



## nick (Nov 9, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Brixton Hill LTN can’t come soon enough to stop the dangerous rat running traffic on Dumbarton Rd!
> 
> View attachment 350763


yet again. Possibly the hardest working bollard in London.

It deserves a medal and a quite retirement to somewhere quiet, where it can live out the rest of its life in peace


A history of service


----------



## edcraw (Nov 9, 2022)

Another failed anti-LTN court case in Enfield. I wonder how much the lawyers made this time?






						Sophia Bouchti v London Borough of Enfield - Find case law
					






					caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 9, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Another failed anti-LTN court case in Enfield. I wonder how much the lawyers made this time?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks like £43k here - STOP the LTN's - Fox Lane & Enfield, organized by One  Community
1.5k here - Help raise £2500 to avoid Enfield LTNs being made permanent (due Autumn 2021) by engaging ALL local residents, workers & students. Please HELP US to Help YOU :)
2.6k here - Help raise £5000 to Stop Enfield LTNs - fundraise for resources to reach the full community, loudly communicating our views to Undemocratic Council Leaders.

That's c48 if my quick google brought them all up and it looks like their claimant was someone running a dog walking business who spends her days driving peoples dogs to the park and back.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 13, 2022)

What an awful account this is. These people are just going to carry on spewing bile - how would shit like this every help their ‘cause’. They really are clueless.


----------



## CH1 (Nov 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> What an awful account this is. These people are just going to carry on spewing bile - how would shit like this every help their ‘cause’. They really are clueless.



I wondered what Transport for All had to say on this issue (as a Brixton based organisation).
Their website is quite flashy - but their address is given as "336 Brixton Rd, Ferndale, London SW9 7AA" which seemed a bit old fashioned - considering they are now bang in the middle of Brixton North Ward and Ferdale has been abolished for some time.


			https://beta.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/Brixton-North.pdf
		


Transport for All do mention LTNs,, here: Pave The Way » Transport for All
There is quite long report


			https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf
		

and the conclusions (as summed up in the report) are:
"It is clear from our findings that, although some disabled people are experiencing benefits as a result of LTNs, many disabled people are being disproportionally and negatively impacted, compounded by the many existing barriers that disabled people face in many aspects of their lives. In addition, disabled people are often prevented from accessing the Active Travel measures that LTNs are meant to encourage, meaning they have no option but to drive and are then penalised for doing so.
LTNs, in their current format, are too much ‘stick’ and not enough ‘carrot’: they bring negative impacts for those who continue to use cars, and too few incentives or changes that increase disabled people’s opportunities to access Active Travel. The lack of consultation and meaningful engagement with disabled residents has created a toxic and divided atmosphere where disabled people feel ignored and demonised.
However, some disabled people do benefit greatly from these schemes, and the aims of reducing pollution, reducing traffic, and reducing road danger are important to disabled people. We don’t believe ripping them out and returning to normal is the way forward. Indeed, the ‘normal’ we had before was not accessible enough either. Instead, what we need is a series of short-term measures to address and mitigate the negative impacts arising from LTNs. This needs to happen alongside some wide-reaching long-term solutions - to address the many barriers that disabled people face to Active Travel and to encourage take up of walking, wheeling and cycling, and to create an accessible public transport system as a viable alternative to car-use. Local authorities and transport bodies alike must demonstrate that co-production with disabled people is at the heart of all consultations and policy-making."

This work was done during Covid - which possibly made it more of an issue. But then without Covid we wouldn't have LTNs would we?


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 18, 2022)

Lets go round again.


CH1 said:


> I wondered what Transport for All had to say on this issue (as a Brixton based organisation).


January 2021








						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

Some changes in consequence of consultation and feedback, then?




					www.urban75.net
				






CH1 said:


> But then without Covid we wouldn't have LTNs would we?


May 2019








						Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
					

About Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood  Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood aims to realise the great potential Brixton has for walking and cycling while improving air quality, reducing congestion, supporting local businesses and providing for the growth in jobs and homes planned for the area.  We...




					www.urban75.net


----------



## CH1 (Nov 18, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Lets go round again.
> 
> January 2021
> 
> ...


Of course - I should have been reading on 21st January 2021. No harm done I hope.


----------



## sparkybird (Nov 18, 2022)

CH1 said:


> But then without Covid we wouldn't have LTNs would we?


No, LTNs have been in Lambeths transport strategy since at least 2019. The first two to be introduced outside of COVID emergency measures (Brixton Hill and Streatham Wells) are to be trialed before the end of the financial year (March 2023)


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2022)

sparkybird said:


> No, LTNs have been in Lambeths transport strategy since at least 2019. The first two to be introduced outside of COVID emergency measures (Brixton Hill and Streatham Wells) are to be trialed before the end of the financial year (March 2023)


I think CH1 knows that but seems to be a usual anti argument - “now covid is over (?!) no need for LTNs anymore” 🥱


----------



## CH1 (Nov 18, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I think CH1 knows that but seems to be a usual anti argument - “now covid is over (?!) no need for LTNs anymore” 🥱


If you want to pigeon-hole me call me a (John) Stewart supporter.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 18, 2022)

CH1 said:


> If you want to pigeon-hole me call me a (John) Stewart supporter.


Well he’s a prat - trying to characterise LTN supporters as SUV drivers that don’t care about main roads which is so far from the truth.


----------



## editor (Nov 20, 2022)

Been sent this








						The Undersigned Lambeth Residents Using 2011 Localism Act Want Lambeth’s Current Cabinet Dissolved So We Can Rescind all Lambeth LTNs
					

LET’S GET LAMBETH LTN’s CANCELLED!!! Lambeth council UNLAWFULLY disregarded THOUSANDS of residents’ complaints?! LTNs were purportedly introduced in Lambeth to encourage "active travel”?!! However London driver miles INCREASED London drive miles by 41 million/11.4% in 2021 - Dept for Transport...



					www.petitiononline.uk
				




And this is unforgiveable



> *LTN’S CREATE DEAD ZONES - ENDANGERING WOMEN
> 
> Women are disproportionately affected by crime E.g. Sarah Everard - Sarah Everard: How a woman's death sparked a nation's soul-searching*


----------



## edcraw (Nov 20, 2022)

editor said:


> Been sent this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really unhinged - group behind it seems to be in Streatham and started a fundraiser to stop a monstrous 3 storey development that would imprison then in their homes. Nutters.









						Help raise £8000 to save our right to light
					

Weʼre raising money to save our right to light. Support this JustGiving Crowdfunding Page.




					www.justgiving.com


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 20, 2022)

editor said:


> Been sent this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't really rate their chances - this approach has already failed -  One of the OneLambeth's became Lambeth Referendum and despite flying in the street and coverage and pushing it for well over a year (?) never got beyond 1100 of the 12000 signatures they said they needed (and this petition thinks they need 17000 signatures).  And even if it somehow succeeded it's a big reach to think that the council would then go against their published, consulted on, strategy and plans to rip out LTNs. 

Lambeth Referendum looks to replace Lambeth’s cabinet system with a more open, democratic and accountable committee system


----------



## alex_ (Nov 20, 2022)

Also it’s classic onelambeth simplistic bullshit.

“A local council must hold a referendum on whether the council should change to a different form of governance if at least 5 per cent of the local government electors in that area petition the local council to do so.”

So if they get to the 5%, Lambeth then have to hold a referendum on LTNs.

I don’t think these people are very clever.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 20, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Also it’s classic onelambeth simplistic bullshit.
> 
> “A local council must hold a referendum on whether the council should change to a different form of governance if at least 5 per cent of the local government electors in that area petition the local council to do so.”
> 
> ...


Not my words but "It's the deadly combination of dishonesty and stupidity that makes them such brilliantly ineffective campaigners"


----------



## liquidindian (Nov 21, 2022)

Great start.


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2022)

Feedback wanted on Streatham Wells and Brixton Hill low traffic neighbourhoods









						Lambeth asks for feedback on Streatham Wells and Brixton Hill low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs)
					

Lambeth Council is asking for peoples’ feedback on proposals to create two new low traffic neighbourhoods which they say will, “cut traffic, improve air quality and encourage walking, cycling…



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Nov 24, 2022)

Good article in the Guardian today about the anti-LTN, anti-cycling lobby’s latest distortions of fact.

A time reminder that recent improvements must be constantly defended!









						Ignore false claims and bad journalism – most LTNs do reduce traffic | Andrew Gilligan
					

Objections to active travel infrastructures are now picking and choosing data to fit the narrative




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 24, 2022)

Phase 2 of the Railton Road LTN infrastructure at the Marcus Garvey Way end has been approved.


----------



## nagapie (Nov 24, 2022)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> Good article in the Guardian today about the anti-LTN, anti-cycling lobby’s latest distortions of fact.
> 
> A time reminder that recent improvements must be constantly defended!
> 
> ...


Nothing about disability though. Guess that's because neighbouring Southwark and other LAs have given blue badge holders unlimited access.
It shouldn't surprise me, I work in Lambeth and am often shocked at the lack of understanding of disability, very much a blind spot.


----------



## editor (Nov 24, 2022)

snowy_again said:


> Phase 2 of the Railton Road LTN infrastructure at the Marcus Garvey Way end has been approved.


Do you have a source for that, please? I'd like to post up about it on Buzz.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 24, 2022)

editor said:


> Do you have a source for that, please? I'd like to post up about it on Buzz.


nothing on that but but sounds like work starts on Shakespeare next week. 



			https://rtstreets.commonplace.is/en-GB/news/shakespeare-road-works


----------



## snowy_again (Nov 25, 2022)

editor said:


> Do you have a source for that, please? I'd like to post up about it on Buzz.


I'll dig it out


----------



## Rushy (Nov 25, 2022)

ULEZ to be expanded across the whole of greater London in August.
Weirdly the Guardian article did not provide any stats about the success of ULEZ on pollution in central London.

Where is the best source for tracking air quality in Brixton?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 25, 2022)

There's this



			https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/advgraphssiteplot.asp?CBXSpecies1=NOm&day1=1&month1=jan&year1=2012&day2=1&month2=nov&year2=2022&period=daily&graphtype=Java&Submit=replot+the+graph&site=LB4&res=6&cm-djitdk-djitdk=


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 25, 2022)

Rushy said:


> ULEZ to be expanded across the whole of greater London in August.
> Weirdly the Guardian article did not provide any stats about the success of ULEZ on pollution in central London.
> 
> Where is the best source for tracking air quality in Brixton?


Because it was announced so far in advance most of the impact of ULEZ happened before it went live.  
Some info here from a month after the expansion to the south circular - 





						92 per cent of vehicles comply with expanded ULEZ one month on
					

First month of Mayor’s expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone sees an impressive 92 per cent of vehicles comply




					www.london.gov.uk
				





> In the first month of operation the vehicle compliance rate with the ULEZ standards was around 92 per cent.
> Compared to compliance levels of 39 per cent in 2017, the percentage of vehicles now meeting the required standard has more than doubled.
> On average there were around 47,000 fewer older, more polluting vehicles seen each day in the zone compared to the two weeks before the scheme was introduced, a reduction of 37 per cent. There were also 11,000 fewer vehicles driving at all, each day. As a result of these changes, we estimate there will be a 5 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions from cars and vans in the newly expanded zone in its first year. This is on top of the 6 percent reduction in CO2 emissions in the central London ULEZ area since 2019.
> Compliance with the ULEZ standards in the rest of London outside the zone has reached 82 per cent, an increase of 2 percentage points since the scheme went live in October, demonstrating the wider benefits of the scheme. This compares to compliance levels of 39 per cent in February 2017, an increase of 43 percent since the ULEZ was announced.


But of course it's pretty difficult to create a counter-factual to compare to what the 'fleet' of vehicles driving in London would look like if ULEZ had never even been proposed as theres a natural replacement cycle for vehicles.  And air quality/pollution depends on many other factors (notably the weather) so short term or even year to year comparisons are somewhat unreliable. 








						London pollution has improved with evidence for small initial ULEZ effect: study | Imperial News | Imperial College London
					

London’s ULEZ reduced the city’s nitrogen dioxide levels by a few per cent during the first few weeks of its implementation.




					www.imperial.ac.uk
				





> London’s ULEZ reduced the city’s nitrogen dioxide levels by a few per cent during the first few weeks of its implementation.
> This is according to a study by Imperial College London researchers who say their findings highlight that ULEZs are not a silver bullet and that sustained improvements in air pollution require multiple measures.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 25, 2022)

Disappointingly Heart Streatham magazine has come out vehemently against the proposed Streatham Wells LTN.

One of the reasons they give is supposed poor public transport. There’s at least 2 and arguably 4 train stations in walking distance and several bus routes.

Also low car ownership in most of the area.

Wish people were more honest with their reasons for opposing.


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 27, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Disappointingly Heart Streatham magazine has come out vehemently against the proposed Streatham Wells LTN.
> 
> One of the reasons they give is supposed poor public transport. There’s at least 2 and arguably 4 train stations in walking distance and several bus routes.
> 
> ...


It's better than that.  Heart Streatham are protesting there has been 'no engagement' - only to be reminded by the local councillor that they'd carried an advert about the scheme in their publication!


----------



## alex_ (Nov 27, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It's better than that.  Heart Streatham are protesting there has been 'no engagement' - only to be reminded by the local councillor that they'd carried an advert about the scheme in their publication!




Not that type of consultation !

This is a great example
 of the disingenuousness of the antis.


----------



## edcraw (Nov 27, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It's better than that.  Heart Streatham are protesting there has been 'no engagement' - only to be reminded by the local councillor that they'd carried an advert about the scheme in their publication!



Think so many equate consultation/being listened to with just getting their own way so there will never be enough.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 27, 2022)

Anti LTN types - “our concerns are actually all about pollution,  they make it worse on boundary roads”

_ULEZ gets expanded to cover all roads in London_

“Noooooo, not like that”


----------



## BusLanes (Nov 27, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It's better than that.  Heart Streatham are protesting there has been 'no engagement' - only to be reminded by the local councillor that they'd carried an advert about the scheme in their publication!




Ok that was quite well done by that councillor


----------



## edcraw (Nov 27, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It's better than that.  Heart Streatham are protesting there has been 'no engagement' - only to be reminded by the local councillor that they'd carried an advert about the scheme in their publication!



They also seem to have written about it in that issue 🙄


----------



## alex_ (Nov 30, 2022)

Not LTN or Brixton, but suspect as a tasty revenue stream, this is the beginning of the end of speeding in London.









						Council erects speed cameras to fine drivers exceeding 20mph
					

Drivers caught exceeding the limit by Labour-run Wandsworth Council will be hit with a £130 'Penalty Charge Notice'




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




These are going to be all over the place in 5 years


----------



## Winot (Nov 30, 2022)

Excellent and about time.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 30, 2022)

The article doesn't explain what's allowed this - has there been a change in legislation, or is this a one off trial with a possible change in legislation if seen as successful?


----------



## thebackrow (Nov 30, 2022)

Change in legislation and pilot. 


			https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/councils-in-england-to-get-new-powers-over-traffic-offences/
		










						London council is first in the UK to have power to issue 20mph speed fines
					

The trial scheme is to be launched by Wandsworth next week




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 30, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Not LTN or Brixton, but suspect as a tasty revenue stream, this is the beginning of the end of speeding in London.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good


----------



## Crispy (Nov 30, 2022)

Excellent news indeed.


----------



## Ryan2468 (Dec 1, 2022)

With a lot of modern cars now it's easier to drive at this speed too - they'll either be automatic or have cruise control/speed limiters. Set it and just calm down.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Dec 6, 2022)

Leaving this here…


----------



## alex_ (Dec 7, 2022)

There is some great stuff on this twitter feed.

Apparently this was a petition 

“ We the undersigned petition the council to Stop blocking the roads cause traffic and remove traffic speed 20mph to 30mph enough is enough”

Does anyone know what this means ?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 8, 2022)

Well the Streatham Wells LTN meeting last night seems to have gone well.


----------



## nick (Dec 8, 2022)

Although I do not know of Martin Abrams nor his views on LTNs etc, I am pretty sure I can work out where his sympathies now lie, following the experience as he reports it


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 8, 2022)

Theres a reason that people who support these schemes don't turn up to these meetings - yet another one where it sounds like anyone speaking in favour was shouted down and abused.  

OneLambeth had protest after protest where almost no-one showed up, all the onesie 'votethemout' rhetoric saw councillors returned with increased majorities across London. Yet they then think that a show of angry hands by a tiny minority of the population of the area is somehow representative.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 8, 2022)

It seems the Haringey onesies held a protest the other night, complete with Hearse.  A couple of dozen protestors is all they managed..


----------



## nick (Dec 8, 2022)

why is it driving on the pavement?


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 8, 2022)

nick said:


> why is it driving on the pavement?


Because it’s displaying an illegal number plate


----------



## BusLanes (Dec 8, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Theres a reason that people who support these schemes don't turn up to these meetings - yet another one where it sounds like anyone speaking in favour was shouted down and abused.
> 
> OneLambeth had protest after protest where almost no-one showed up, all the onesie 'votethemout' rhetoric saw councillors returned with increased majorities across London. Yet they then think that a show of angry hands by a tiny minority of the population of the area is somehow representative.




From Twitter it sounded a bit grim. 

I wonder what will happen with that one. On one hand they seem quite organised and passionate, on the other hand they just re-elected 2 Labour councillors on a broadly pro LTN platform, borough wide at least.


----------



## Rushy (Dec 8, 2022)

BusLanes said:


> I wonder what will happen with that one. On one hand they seem quite organised and passionate, on the other hand they just re-elected 2 Labour councillors on a broadly pro LTN platform, borough wide at least.


If the figure is reliable, more than 250 attendees is a surprising number of people.

I don't know what the political make up is in those wards but  if it is anything like here, very little is going to shift an election result. I rather suspect that Labour councilors could propose removal of the LTNs and would still get elected, such is voter intransigence. And lack of credible choice. Which is I guess why such a proportion of people feel that they are poorly represented. If councilors did this it would just mean a different group of "passionate" residents vying loudly for attention.


----------



## Winot (Dec 8, 2022)

Rushy said:


> If the figure is reliable, more than 250 attendees is a surprising number of people.
> 
> I don't know what the political make up is in those wards but  if it is anything like here, very little is going to shift an election result. I rather suspect that Labour councilors could propose removal of the LTNs and would still get elected, such is voter intransigence. And lack of credible choice. Which is I guess why such a proportion of people feel that they are poorly represented. If councilors did this it would just mean a different group of "passionate" residents vying loudly for attention.


I think that’s probably true if they had stood on that ticket. What they would have trouble with would be arguing for removal after standing on the ticket of supporting LTNs.


----------



## BusLanes (Dec 8, 2022)

Streatham Wells had been Labour since 2014, like a lot of places in Lambeth. Before that it was Lib Dem and I assume it was Conservative before that.

Lib Dems got an ok second there in last two elections but like the Greens there's only so many places they can run an effective campaign against Lambeth Labour's domination. 

I had thought between mid 2020 till early 2022 it might have been possible for a party or organised pressure group could win seats off Labour but the Conservatives went all in on the anti campaign and lost badly and One Lambeth proved to be a busted flush.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 8, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Theres a reason that people who support these schemes don't turn up to these meetings - yet another one where it sounds like anyone speaking in favour was shouted down and abused.
> 
> OneLambeth had protest after protest where almost no-one showed up, all the onesie 'votethemout' rhetoric saw councillors returned with increased majorities across London. Yet they then think that a show of angry hands by a tiny minority of the population of the area is somehow representative.



A friend of mine went and left after 30 minutes as she was starting to get frightened by the anger of the people sitting next to her. She supports the LTN but I bet if she had stayed when they asked for a show of hands in support she would have kept hers down ☹️


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 11, 2022)

It seems they accept they’re just battling the community now


----------



## Smick (Dec 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> It seems they accept they’re just battling the community now
> 
> View attachment 355321


How much money was raised for those court cases?


----------



## Jesterburger (Dec 12, 2022)

At least £60k across these two:








						OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

In May 2020, Lambeth Council began closing residential roads to create “Low Traffic Neighb… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Legal Challenge



					www.gofundme.com
				











						OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge, organized by One Lambeth
					

OneLambeth Anti-LTN Court Appeal Fundraiser  On Tuesday 5th April 2022 the Appeal Court j… One Lambeth needs your support for OneLambeth LTN Appeal Challenge



					www.gofundme.com


----------



## alex_ (Dec 12, 2022)

So probably a couple of mil nationwide across all LTNs ?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 12, 2022)

Jesterburger said:


> At least £60k across these two:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There was a third one before as well. Never seen it explained why they needed different fundraisers. Seems suspect tbh.


----------



## Jesterburger (Dec 12, 2022)

The first one the two I shared was the original court action, the second for the appeal so as much as I think it's a waste of money I do think that makes sense


----------



## Jesterburger (Dec 12, 2022)

50k from Enfield STOP the LTN's - Fox Lane & Enfield, organized by One  Community & Bounds&BowesVoice - fundraising to oppose LTN, organized by BoundsandBowes Voice
11k from Edinburgh Stop East Craigs LTN, organized by Get Edinburgh Moving
70k (so far) from Oxford HELP END ROAD CLOSURES IN OXFORD, organized by Reconnecting Oxford & Stop Oxford's Traffic Filters, organized by OBAG, ROX, OHSA and The Oxford Collection
5k from Islington Ludicrous Road Closures, organized by Wilma Cullen & Stop Un Democratic Road Closures in Islington, organized by Jody Graber
24k from Hackney Stop Hackney's Undemocratic Road Closures!, organized by Niall Crowley & https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/horrendous-hackney-road-closures/

and that's just with a few minutes of googling I'm sure there's more. Nearly a quarter of a million pounds.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Not LTN or Brixton, but suspect as a tasty revenue stream, this is the beginning of the end of speeding in London.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Love it.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> Theres a reason that people who support these schemes don't turn up to these meetings - yet another one where it sounds like anyone speaking in favour was shouted down and abused.
> 
> OneLambeth had protest after protest where almost no-one showed up, all the onesie 'votethemout' rhetoric saw councillors returned with increased majorities across London. Yet they then think that a show of angry hands by a tiny minority of the population of the area is somehow representative.





This part of a press release I received:



> Streatham Action - the community forum for Streatham - hosted a packed public meeting of *upwards of 300* at St Peter’s Church, Leigham Court Road on Tuesday evening.



Anyone confirm this figure?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 12, 2022)

editor said:


> This part of a press release I received:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone confirm this figure?


The figure’s obviously beeping up - Streatham Action’s vice chair just said around 300.


----------



## editor (Dec 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The figure’s obviously beeping up - Streatham Action’s vice chair just said around 300.



I wonder what percentage of that crowd own cars....


----------



## Jesterburger (Dec 12, 2022)

I wonder what percentage of that crowd live in Streatham Wells


----------



## edcraw (Dec 12, 2022)

Tbf I think most would live in Streatham Wells but yeah most were probably car owners. It’s just the same arguments in each new area and car owners never want to admit how they’ve had they’re way and been pandered to for decades despite being in the minority.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> The figure’s obviously beeping up - Streatham Action’s vice chair just said around 300.



I see about 10 rows of pews with about 5 people on either side of the aisle. And maybe 15 or do standing. 120 odd people I reckon.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 12, 2022)

editor said:


> This part of a press release I received:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone confirm this figure?


I've seen written 200 to 240. But I didn't go. I think 300 is an overestimate
One of my friends left after 30 mins as she was frightened by the anger of those next to her...☹️


----------



## alex_ (Dec 12, 2022)

Ll





sparkybird said:


> I've seen written 200 to 240. But I didn't go. I think 300 is an overestimate
> One of my friends left after 30 mins as she was frightened by the anger of those next to her...☹️



In the recent Lambeth elections 160k people voted for parties which support LTNs, and 21k voted for parties which didn’t.

I don’t think it really matters if 100 or 300 people turned up at the debate.


----------



## Jesterburger (Dec 12, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Tbf I think most would live in Streatham Wells but yeah most were probably car owners. It’s just the same arguments in each new area and car owners never want to admit how they’ve had they’re way and been pandered to for decades despite being in the minority.


There were definitely anti-LTN campaigners there from outside Lambeth (John Stewart being the highest profile) and also from elsewhere in Lambeth (my loudest local non-Streatham anti was there I believe and promoting it to other antis acrosss the borough). I'm sure the majority there were local but some of thge angriest and most passionate antis will turn up to anything and help bolster the overall anti mood


----------



## BigTom (Dec 12, 2022)

I just thought I'd share one recent thought from someone in the anti-LTN group near me:






edit: I just thought I should add that the Kings Heath LTN is all planter blocks, there's no ANPR cameras that they might be talking about with the money grab bit. Just in case you thought any of this might have any basis in, you know, reality. or at least something adjacent to reality.


----------



## alex_ (Dec 12, 2022)

BigTom said:


> I just thought I'd share one recent thought from someone in the anti-LTN group near me:



“The council is taking over your street, in future you will need to call them about maintenance issues rather than fixing it yourself”


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 13, 2022)

BigTom said:


> I just thought I'd share one recent thought from someone in the anti-LTN group near me:


These idiots are fucking insane


----------



## edcraw (Dec 13, 2022)

Noticed that the butchers in Balham is a full on nut case that has a bee in his bonnet about LTNs - along with a TON of other strange views.


----------



## lang rabbie (Dec 13, 2022)

alex_ said:


> Ll
> 
> In the recent Lambeth elections 160k people voted for parties which support LTNs, and 21k voted for parties which didn’t.
> 
> I don’t think it really matters if 100 or 300 people turned up at the debate.


A pedant writes: 

It would be glorious if 181,000 local people had voted in May's Local elections, as that would have been an 80% turnout!

In fact the turnout was only 72,000 people (32% of an eligible electorate of 224,000)

You need to divide the number of votes cast in each ward by the number of places up for election (two or three councillors in each ward) before totalling up any figures for borough wide counts of party support.


----------



## lang rabbie (Dec 13, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> I see about 10 rows of pews with about 5 people on either side of the aisle. And maybe 15 or do standing. 120 odd people I reckon.


My recollection from going to Streatham Choral Society concerts is that St Peter's has at least a dozen rows of pews, and each row has a similar sized set of pews in each aisle as well as the pews either side of the nave.  So a figure of 250 or more seated plus some standing is certainly credible.


----------



## alex_ (Dec 14, 2022)

lang rabbie said:


> A pedant writes:
> 
> It would be glorious if 181,000 local people had voted in May's Local elections, as that would have been an 80% turnout!
> 
> ...



( this means even less people voted for parties which support LTNs )


----------



## Jesterburger (Dec 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Noticed that the butchers in Balham is a full on nut case that has a bee in his bonnet about LTNs - along with a TON of other strange views.



His twitter feed is scary. Full on conspiracy theorist about several topics.


----------



## BusLanes (Dec 14, 2022)

I used to live up the road from their butcher so went quite regularly. Seemed ok but then we never discussed politics. I used to follow his twitter account back and then and it used to be more butchery related.

I wonder if covid broke him?


----------



## Jesterburger (Dec 14, 2022)

Looks like it but he's now embraced all kinds. Climate change conspiracy, chemtrails, WEF nonsense, homophobic / transphobic 'groomer' conspiracies it's the full set sadly.


----------



## BusLanes (Dec 14, 2022)

Jesterburger said:


> Looks like it but he's now embraced all kinds. Climate change conspiracy, chemtrails, WEF nonsense, homophobic / transphobic 'groomer' conspiracies it's the full set sadly.



Wow, just had a quick look and yes, that's pretty messed up.


----------



## Ryan2468 (Dec 14, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Noticed that the butchers in Balham is a full on nut case that has a bee in his bonnet about LTNs - along with a TON of other strange views.



Great way to advertise your business! Timeline's a mess.


----------



## editor (Dec 14, 2022)

Jesterburger said:


> His twitter feed is scary. Full on conspiracy theorist about several topics.


Guy's a fucking moron.


----------



## DaphneM (Dec 14, 2022)

Jesterburger said:


> His twitter feed is scary. Full on conspiracy theorist about several topics.


You kinda think he might have mental health issues don’t you.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 15, 2022)

Proposed Brixton Hill LTN here. Unfortunately looks like New Park Road will still be a through road from Brixton Hill to Sth Circular but otherwise looks great.


----------



## teuchter (Dec 15, 2022)

edcraw said:


> Proposed Brixton Hill LTN here. Unfortunately looks like New Park Road will still be a through road from Brixton Hill to Sth Circular but otherwise looks great.


Doesn't look that way to me?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 15, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Doesn't look that way to me?


New Park Road seems to be exit only on to the Sth Circular (the one way arrow). Is that what you mean?


----------



## teuchter (Dec 16, 2022)

edcraw said:


> New Park Road seems to be exit only on to the Sth Circular (the one way arrow). Is that what you mean?


I am taking it to be a filter blocking new park road close to its end, and the filter symbol has been plonked on top of an arrow that refers only to "purple" traffic exiting here.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 16, 2022)

teuchter said:


> I am taking it to be a filter blocking new park road close to its end, and the filter symbol has been plonked on top of an arrow that refers only to "purple" traffic exiting here.


You maybe right but it says “no access to NPR from Sth Circular” which with the one way arrow implies that there is access to the Sth Circular from NPR.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 16, 2022)

I was wrong - they are filtering it but only allowing a left turn on to the Sth Circular. Great stuff!


----------



## Crispy (Dec 16, 2022)

I think it's quite simple. These two blocks of flats need access to their carpark, which will be onto the SC via the stub end of NPR. The filter symbol is blocking off the other end of the two-way arrow. The filter would go on the red line, between purple and yellow:


----------



## Crispy (Dec 16, 2022)

Where are you getting the info ed? Do you have a link?


----------



## edcraw (Dec 16, 2022)

Crispy said:


> Where are you getting the info ed? Do you have a link?


All up on the Commonplace site now: https://brixtonhillltn.commonplace.is/


----------



## teuchter (Dec 16, 2022)

Actually like this I think (with access to/from SC off stage to the left), otherwise residents of those blocks wouldn't be able to get in.


----------



## editor (Dec 16, 2022)

Post time to first anti LTN comment now down to an impressive five minutes 








						Lambeth launches Brixton Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) consultation
					

This morning, Lambeth launched a consultation on their initial designs for a trial Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) in Brixton Hill.



					www.brixtonbuzz.com


----------



## Crispy (Dec 16, 2022)

https://brixtonhillltn.commonplace.is/proposals/modal-filters/step7
		



> Following engagement with TfL, southbound motor vehicle flows will be allowed between the A23 and the South Circular. Northbound motor vehicles flows will not be allowed here.


So yeah, they're letting it remain a shortcut across the corner for traffic coming South. That's rubbish!
If there's no oncoming traffic, drivers will be able to put their foot down and get up to 40 past the school, no problem.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 17, 2022)

edcraw said:


> I was wrong - they are filtering it but only allowing a left turn on to the Sth Circular. Great stuff!
> 
> View attachment 355872


I still don't think that's correct.  

My reading of the info is this is 



no entry into New Park Road from the South Circular
New Park Road itself remains two way but all traffic exiting from the yellow area will have to do so from Dumbarton Road
(I'm not clear why they're not allowing exit from the lights at New Park Road as at present - that would seem safe and controlled and no good reason to restrict I can see)

So NPR is going to have very little northbound traffic, but is going to be at least as busy as before southbound but will probably be quieter and safer than before (but would really benefit from some zebra crossings and bollards to stop drivers cutting over the pavement on the 'chincane' things that got built a few years back)

It's 'blamed' on Tfl so I'm guessing they were worried about capacity on the right turn onto the south circular at the top of Brixton Hill.  Dumbarton should still be a lot better than it is now as you won't get the traffic that was rat running north or south on Lyham Road.  It's a trial - I guess wait and see what it feels like on those roads. 




-


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 17, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> So NPR is going to have very little northbound traffic, but is going to be at least as busy as before southbound *but will probably be quieter and safer than before* (but would really benefit from some zebra crossings and bollards to stop drivers cutting over the pavement on the 'chincane' things that got built a few years back)


Is it? I can’t think it’s going to make much difference at all to the traffic, on one of the few roads in the area with a school and which desperately needs pedestrian right of way (crossings as you say). 

It seems really badly thought out although to be clear, should it make no difference/make things worse then I’ll be placing  the bulk of responsibility on the actual drivers and their entitlement.


----------



## Winot (Dec 17, 2022)

Have been looking at the comments on Commonplace. Lots of people objecting to new filters on the basis that “The filter will restrict my ability to drive through the area”. Err yeah that’s the point.


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 17, 2022)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Is it? I can’t think it’s going to make much difference at all to the traffic, on one of the few roads in the area with a school and which desperately needs pedestrian right of way (crossings as you say).
> 
> It seems really badly thought out although to be clear, should it make no difference/make things worse then I’ll be placing  the bulk of responsibility on the actual drivers and their entitlement.


There will be no northbound rat running, of which there Is definitely some (though less than southbound). I’d be surprised if total north  + south wasn’t down by a third


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Dec 17, 2022)

thebackrow said:


> There will be no northbound rat running, of which there Is definitely some (though less than southbound). I’d be surprised if total north  + south wasn’t down by a third


Less traffic doesn’t always mean slower traffic though. Tbf most of the traffic I see comes from the way that’s still allowed anyway. And that’s the issue with that road - crossing families and children (some unaccompanied) plus cars refusing to give way to them and often driving way too fast for the circumstances.

And I wonder if being part of the LTN will mean it’s less likely it will get that zebra crossing/school road status in the future?


----------



## Winot (Dec 17, 2022)

Filter at bottom of Branksome Rd is interesting - no entry from Acre Lane. Definitely need to stop rat running Acre Lane-Branksome-Lambert-Brixton Hill. Lots of residents complaining though that they’ll need to drive to town hall then up Brixton Hill to access that area.


----------



## Winot (Dec 17, 2022)

What I can’t work out is what will happen to people who park cars at north end of Branksome - will this mean it becomes two-way there with a U turn at filter or will they get rid of parking spaces north of Sudbourne junction?


----------



## alex_ (Dec 17, 2022)

Winot said:


> Have been looking at the comments on Commonplace. Lots of people objecting to new filters on the basis that “The filter will restrict my ability to drive through the area”. Err yeah that’s the point.



They are just antis who’ve given the same answer to every question, they will be ignored.


----------



## Ol Nick (Dec 18, 2022)

I noticed that Railton Road is now called “C48”. This is the onset of fascism. Will nobody think of the boundary roads??!


----------



## edcraw (Dec 18, 2022)

Found platinumsage on Twitter!


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 18, 2022)

This is a new conspiracy.


----------



## Winot (Dec 18, 2022)

Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Dec 18, 2022)

Absolutely bonkers


----------



## thebackrow (Dec 18, 2022)

“I’m so surprised we didn’t win in court after spending so much money” is exquisite


----------



## nick (Dec 19, 2022)

Because that the thing with your average terrorist. 

Waste all their money on suicide vests and don't put anything aside to pay the LTN fines inevitably incurred when they are making their getaway


----------



## Ryan2468 (Dec 19, 2022)

Railton Road pre-LTN you'd be risking your life almost every time you cycled down it. Drivers wouldn't give way. It still happens sometimes, but nowhere near to the same level it used to be.

It's similar with Lyham Road currently if you dare to go down there. Hopefully this can help calm things down.


----------



## edcraw (Dec 19, 2022)

Ryan2468 said:


> Railton Road pre-LTN you'd be risking your life almost every time you cycled down it. Drivers wouldn't give way. It still happens sometimes, but nowhere near to the same level it used to be.
> 
> It's similar with Lyham Road currently if you dare to go down there. Hopefully this can help calm things down.


Yep - and it was the same with Upper Tulse Hill. Drivers speeding to overtake on the wrong side of the central islands and barrelling down the narrower bit outside Holy Trinity and not giving way.

Really can’t understand how people don’t see how awful our roads so often are and why we need action. I suspect it’s because many of them only see them from the sage cocoon of a car.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 6, 2023)

New kerbside strategy’s just drop!! 🔥🔥🔥


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2023)

edcraw said:


> New kerbside strategy’s just drop!! 🔥🔥🔥



I LIKE it.


----------



## edcraw (Jan 6, 2023)

editor said:


> I LIKE it.


Obv LTNs have been divisive & can be difficult to grasp. This is a lot clearer in aims and how they’ll be achieved. It’ll be interesting to see how people respond.


----------



## alex_ (Jan 6, 2023)

editor said:


> I LIKE it.



Especially a tree every 25 meters


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2023)

Resident anti-LTN loon is now blaming the water leaks on LTNs


----------



## edcraw (Jan 6, 2023)

editor said:


> Resident anti-LTN loon is now blaming the water leaks on LTNs



What can’t be blamed on LTNs?!!


----------



## edcraw (Jan 6, 2023)

Loving the new census data showing car ownership in Lambeth bucks the national trend and households with car or can access remain very low.

Lots of antis claimed the last (2011) data was too old to count…









						Number of cars or vans - Census Maps, ONS
					

Census maps is an interactive tool to explore Census 2021 data across England and Wales for different topics down to a neighbourhood level.




					www.ons.gov.uk


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2023)

edcraw said:


> What can’t be blamed on LTNs?!!


Anything that Corbyn is responsible for.


----------



## editor (Saturday at 12:44 PM)




----------



## thebackrow (Saturday at 5:05 PM)

editor said:


> Resident anti-LTN loon is now blaming the water leaks on LTNs



He's a proper loon that one.

I like his video of a speeding  'blue light' vehicle that is clearly driving slowly without it's blue lights on


It's the combination of stupidity and dishonesty that makes them such gloriously ineffective campaigners...


----------



## scmwalsh (Saturday at 11:18 PM)

The Kerbside strategy and vision is great and not something I'd ever really thought about.

At the heart it is actually pretty basic, reclaim the kerbside from cars where possible. Am not sure how many other councils have a dedicated Kerbside Strategy so does feel quite innovative.

When you dig into the details there are 3 objectives that really excited me. Secure cycle storage every 100m, trees every 25 meters and 10% of permeable surfaces. However, they deserve some scrutiny.

Secure cycle storage minimum every 100m would mean 2900 cycle cycle hangers by my calculations. There are currently a little more than 334. This is probably not right on my calculations as that won't happen.

Trees every 25 metres on the kerbside would mean 12,000 trees. Many roads have street trees already so this suddenly becomes much lower. The Tree Planting Strategy aims for 5,000 trees this electoral cycle, not all of which will be kerbside and presumably not all street trees will be kerbside. Hope this is delivered but I remain sceptical that this scale is achieved by 2030.

SuDS are probably one of, if not, the best uses for kerbside. 10% of Lambeths kerbs to be permeable is fantastic but not sure if that specifically means SuDS and is 145kms which sounds massive. Using their sq meter numbers the £6mill program announced earlier this year would only cover 2.5% of the space needed and that SuDS program is not only using kerbspace. So this aim could be a mammoth expense and so I suspect from the wording will not all be SuDS - interested to see how this is implemented as am not an expert.

I deliberately haven't commented on the space for people as I personally don't see the kerbside as a space we should be prioritising as reclaiming for people - should better fund parks and community spaces. Council funded parklets is a waste of money in my opinion. However, if communities or businesses want a parklet give them as is better than car parking.

Overall, great to see the vision and marks a positive step as the current 6% sustainable uses is very meh - don't think they'll deliver 25% but there has obviously been no impetus to use this space in the past so an amazing opportunity.


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 8:12 AM)

scmwalsh said:


> The Kerbside strategy and vision is great and not something I'd ever really thought about.
> 
> At the heart it is actually pretty basic, reclaim the kerbside from cars where possible. Am not sure how many other councils have a dedicated Kerbside Strategy so does feel quite innovative.
> 
> ...



Is it possible they mean secure bike storage within 100m of every property as that would be quite different ?

For anyone else Suds = Sustainable drainage system


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sunday at 8:20 AM)

Where would the cars park out of interest?


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 8:30 AM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Where would the cars park out of interest?



Against the 75% of remaining kerb.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sunday at 8:39 AM)

But presumably if 95% of the kerbside is regularly used for parking, where would the cars on the 20% go? 

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of fewer parked cars by the kerb. However, unlike LTNs where the hope was that drivers would use their cars less, unless the aim is to encourage people to _give up_ their cars period, there’s going to a lot of residents who won’t be able to park their car anywhere. Even if they hardly use them because of their commitment to clean air/the impact of clean air etc.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 8:59 AM)

Personally I’d argue that if you can’t demonstrate you have a suitable place to park it you shouldn’t own a car


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 9:28 AM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> But presumably if 95% of the kerbside is regularly used for parking, where would the cars on the 20% go?
> 
> Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea of fewer parked cars by the kerb. However, unlike LTNs where the hope was that drivers would use their cars less, unless the aim is to encourage people to _give up_ their cars period, there’s going to a lot of residents who won’t be able to park their car anywhere. Even if they hardly use them because of their commitment to clean air/the impact of clean air etc.


I guess it’s a combination of (a) the 95% isn’t fully utilised so everyone squeezes up and (b) over time the policy dissuades people from buying cars / persuades them to get rid of their existing car.


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 9:28 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I’d argue that if you can’t demonstrate you have a suitable place to park it you shouldn’t own a car


How would that work in practice?


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 9:44 AM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> But presumably if 95% of the kerbside is regularly used for parking, where would the cars on the 20% go?



But is 100% of available street space on100% of streets used for parking cars ?

Because looking out of my window right now, it isn’t.

Alex


----------



## teuchter (Sunday at 9:52 AM)

The aim will be to gradually reduce car ownership.

However, note that an "EV bay" counts as a "sustainable" use. So it looks like they could increase their sustainable use percentage simply by switching existing parking places to EV only ones. Seeing as people are already switching to EVs, this would have no impact on the overall number of vehicles... depending I guess on exactly what they mean by an EV bay. If they are for charging purposes only - so more expensive to discourage use simply for parking, then that would be better.

It's good to see an official policy to end, in principle, the idea of a right to free residential parking. And to see proposals to charge for parking based on vehicle size.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 10:22 AM)

Winot said:


> How would that work in practice?


Either show you have a private driveway or pay for a specific residential space. If none are available, no car.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sunday at 10:23 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I’d argue that if you can’t demonstrate you have a suitable place to park it you shouldn’t own a car


I reckon most terraced streets round here  could park a small to medium size car by their house. But then when you throw multiple car/occupancy households into things, the space runs out. It would be nice if the multiple car households shared your train of thought but that’s unlikely, causing problems for others parking their single  car. 

The neighbouring roads to us became residents only and the consequence was that our cul-de-sac, which was managing well before, suddenly got jam packed. Double parking/blocking people in the bays is now a common occurrence. 

I definitely agree that car use needs to come down and that all but essential use needs to be discouraged, but the infrastructure isn’t there yet for certain people to get rid of cars completely.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sunday at 10:25 AM)

teuchter said:


> The aim will be to gradually reduce car ownership.
> 
> However, note that an "EV bay" counts as a "sustainable" use. So it looks like they could increase their sustainable use percentage simply by switching existing parking places to EV only ones. Seeing as people are already switching to EVs, this would have no impact on the overall number of vehicles... depending I guess on exactly what they mean by an EV bay. If they are for charging purposes only - so more expensive to discourage use simply for parking, then that would be better.
> 
> It's good to see an official policy to end, in principle, the idea of a right to free residential parking. And to see proposals to charge for parking based on vehicle size.


Is an EV bay an electric charge point? More of those is something I’d hugely welcome. We’ve got nothing on our street and no way of having a dedicated space to look into getting one set up ourselves.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 10:28 AM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I reckon most terraced streets round here  could park a small to medium size car by their house. But then when you throw multiple car/occupancy households into things, the space runs out. It would be nice if the multiple car households shared your train of thought but that’s unlikely, causing problems for others parking their single  car.
> 
> The neighbouring roads to us became residents only and the consequence was that our cul-de-sac, which was managing well before, suddenly got jam packed. Double parking/blocking people in the bays is now a common occurrence.
> 
> I definitely agree that car use needs to come down and that all but essential use needs to be discouraged, but the infrastructure isn’t there yet for certain people to get rid of cars completely.


I guess my view is that yes, we need to hugely inconvenience/piss off car drivers. We need to make using one such a pain in the arse that people are forced to turn to alternatives. If those alternatives and infrastructure aren’t available then the political pressure to put them in place will increase.

It’s going to be a bumpy ride, and certain groups will fight it every step of the way. But we don’t have any other choice.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 10:29 AM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Is an EV bay an electric charge point? More of those is something I’d hugely welcome. We’ve got nothing on our street and no way of having a dedicated space to look into getting one set up ourselves.


EV’s are a dead end and solve nothing. We shouldn’t be encouraging them.


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 10:42 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> pay for a specific residential space


This would involve a _huge_ administrative burden for the local authority. You’d need to map and log every potential space in the borough, have a marketplace for renting/buying them, and then have an enforcement system for checking that the right cars were parked in the right place.


----------



## teuchter (Sunday at 10:54 AM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I reckon most terraced streets round here  could park a small to medium size car by their house. But then when you throw multiple car/occupancy households into things, the space runs out. It would be nice if the multiple car households shared your train of thought but that’s unlikely, causing problems for others parking their single  car.
> 
> The neighbouring roads to us became residents only and the consequence was that our cul-de-sac, which was managing well before, suddenly got jam packed. Double parking/blocking people in the bays is now a common occurrence.



The answer is to make everywhere CPZ which essentially is what this policy seems to be proposing.



Agent Sparrow said:


> I definitely agree that car use needs to come down and that all but essential use needs to be discouraged, but the infrastructure isn’t there yet for certain people to get rid of cars completely.


The infrastructure for _many_ people to get rid of cars is definitely already there in Lambeth.


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 10:58 AM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Is an EV bay an electric charge point? More of those is something I’d hugely welcome. We’ve got nothing on our street and no way of having a dedicated space to look into getting one set up ourselves.



street chargers are a fuckload more expensive than charging from domestic power though - I’m looking at one now which is 45p per kwhr and 79p per kwhr peak !

These guys are making a fortune when you charge overnight.


----------



## thebackrow (Sunday at 11:00 AM)

scmwalsh said:


> Secure cycle storage minimum every 100m would mean 2900 cycle cycle hangers by my calculations. There are currently a little more than 334. This is probably not right on my calculations as that won't happen.











						Celebrating ten years of the Bikehangar® | Cyclehoop
					

The first Cyclehoop Bikehangar was installed ten years ago in Lambeth, providing safe, secure cycle parking for residents




					cyclehoop.com
				




says 374 at oct22. Plans for another 5000 spaces (1000 hangers?) by 2026. if they hit the 2026 target they’d be on track for 2030.


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 11:04 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> EV’s are a dead end and solve nothing. We shouldn’t be encouraging them.



EVs are a dead end ?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 11:07 AM)

alex_ said:


> EVs are a dead end ?


Petrol powered cars in a city:





EV’s in a city:


----------



## thebackrow (Sunday at 11:08 AM)

Winot said:


> How would that work in practice?


There is the Tokyo model Finding a Monthly Parking Space in Tokyo | Tokyo Cheapo


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 11:11 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Petrol powered cars in a city:
> 
> View attachment 358753
> 
> ...



How are you proposing people get around ?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 11:12 AM)

Winot said:


> This would involve a _huge_ administrative burden for the local authority. You’d need to map and log every potential space in the borough, have a marketplace for renting/buying them, and then have an enforcement system for checking that the right cars were parked in the right place.


So, doable then.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 11:14 AM)

alex_ said:


> How are you proposing people get around ?


No idea. There’s obviously no other way to move people around a city than private cars. None at all.


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 11:20 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No idea. There’s obviously no other way to move people around a city than private cars. None at all.



Your pictures above includes trucks, taxis and private hire vehicles.

So I’ve got no idea what you are proposing


----------



## DaphneM (Sunday at 11:20 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> EV’s are a dead end and solve nothing. We shouldn’t be encouraging them.


you shouldnt need a private vehicle in a city


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 11:21 AM)

DaphneM said:


> you shouldnt need a private vehicle in a city



Are you an Uber shareholder ?


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 11:22 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, doable then.


Of course, at a cost. Presently Lambeth can barely manage to administer parking permits.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 11:27 AM)

alex_ said:


> Your pictures above includes trucks, taxis and private hire vehicles.
> 
> So I’ve got no idea what you are proposing


A brief summary would be “make the use of private cars in a city become so incredibly expensive and miserable as to make doing so an utterly ridiculous choice, because the alternatives are so much cheaper and easier”


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 11:37 AM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A brief summary would be “make the use of private cars in a city become so incredibly expensive and miserable as to make doing so an utterly ridiculous choice, because the alternatives are so much cheaper and easier”


It’s happening in London*. We just disagree on how fast it can practically go. It’s easy to post on the internet (“Just make it happen!”); harder to persuade voters to vote for you, get the funding and follow through without a political backlash.

*An illustration - I needed to pick some bulky objects up from work (central London) before Christmas. So I borrowed the neighbour’s car and drove in on a Saturday afternoon. First time I’d done it since lockdown. There’s a greatly reduced road space available to private cars; you had to pay for parking (in a bit of town that’s basically closed at the weekend); and I got clobbered for the congestion charge fine because I’d forgotten it now applies at the weekend . All of which I agree with. So next time I’ll go up by tube and book a minicab or Uber to get me home.


----------



## DaphneM (Sunday at 11:50 AM)

alex_ said:


> Are you an Uber shareholder ?


no i'm a cyclist


----------



## Hollis (Sunday at 11:56 AM)

Well, it may be happening in central london - but while you have large municipal car parks cheaply available people are effectively incentivised to drive.  My borough is implementing LTNs, has a problem with through traffic, yet has 1800+ cheap car parking spaces available for the local shopping centre.  (Some run by the council). 



Car parking and travel information for The Mall Wood Green

I don't know the practicalities of car-free shopping, but it would seem a move away from 'the weekly shop' would deal with grocery shopping and similarly white goods could be left to home delivery - as ikea are doing.


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 11:57 AM)

thebackrow said:


> There is the Tokyo model Finding a Monthly Parking Space in Tokyo | Tokyo Cheapo


As I say, a massive administrative burden. As you probably know, Tokyo works very differently to London when it comes to zoning and administration.

I’d love to see London move closer to the Tokyo model but it wouldn’t be as straightforward as decreeing “no one can buy a car unless they have a parking space”.


----------



## teuchter (Sunday at 12:18 PM)

alex_ said:


> Your pictures above includes trucks, taxis and private hire vehicles.
> 
> So I’ve got no idea what you are proposing


The point is that EVs are better than petrol/diesel on emissions but don't make any difference to the multiplicity of other problems caused by widespread private vehicle ownership.

Things like public transport, taxis and car share clubs of course should go electric asap.


----------



## teuchter (Sunday at 12:22 PM)

Winot said:


> As I say, a massive administrative burden. As you probably know, Tokyo works very differently to London when it comes to zoning and administration.
> 
> I’d love to see London move closer to the Tokyo model but it wouldn’t be as straightforward as decreeing “no one can buy a car unless they have a parking space”.


You can get some way there via CPZs for which the necessary admin structures already exist. You could simply stop issuing new permits.


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 12:30 PM)

teuchter said:


> You can get some way there via CPZs for which the necessary admin structures already exist. You could simply stop issuing new permits.


Yes that’s a neat way of stopping new cars from having a parking space. It’s not a solution to the problem of allowing new cars but only if they have a parking space.


----------



## Crispy (Sunday at 12:43 PM)

Instead of reducing car parking by (say) 15% across an area with scattershot parklets, trees, cycle hangers etc. I'd much rather remove on-street parking entirely from some specific roads that would benefit from reallocating an entire lane's worth of space to dedicated cycle or pedestrian space. Samre reduction in parking spaces, but a much more concentrated benefit.


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 12:52 PM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A brief summary would be “make the use of private cars in a city become so incredibly expensive and miserable as to make doing so an utterly ridiculous choice, because the alternatives are so much cheaper and easier”



Sounds good to me.

I think to do this you need to start to enable the replacements, which to be fair with things like electric car club bays they are.

Also at scale,  car clubs can make sure their cars only charge at super off peak - which will 
Make them cheaper than domestic products electric car charging


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sunday at 12:55 PM)

Winot said:


> It’s happening in London*. We just disagree on how fast it can practically go. It’s easy to post on the internet (“Just make it happen!”); harder to persuade voters to vote for you, get the funding and follow through without a political backlash.
> 
> *An illustration - I needed to pick some bulky objects up from work (central London) before Christmas. So I borrowed the neighbour’s car and drove in on a Saturday afternoon. First time I’d done it since lockdown. There’s a greatly reduced road space available to private cars; you had to pay for parking (in a bit of town that’s basically closed at the weekend); and I got clobbered for the congestion charge fine because I’d forgotten it now applies at the weekend . All of which I agree with. So next time I’ll go up by tube and book a minicab or Uber to get me home.


Yet cities like Paris are showing that these things can be done with surprising speed. It just takes someone in power to be suitably bold and ignore the naysayers, because very quickly it becomes the norm, and those naysayers just look ridiculous.

Change has to be forced, if you wait for general consent you’ll be there forever.


----------



## Hollis (Sunday at 12:59 PM)

Crispy said:


> Instead of reducing car parking by (say) 15% across an area with scattershot parklets, trees, cycle hangers etc. I'd much rather remove on-street parking entirely from some specific roads that would benefit from reallocating an entire lane's worth of space to dedicated cycle or pedestrian space. Samre reduction in parking spaces, but a much more concentrated benefit.



It makes far more sense to get proper cycling infrastructure in place before spending money on parklets.. Tbh - I get rather tired of the excitement of parklets.. we have one locally and nobody uses it accept to post photos up on twitter saying how wonderful it is. .


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sunday at 1:50 PM)

DaphneM said:


> you shouldnt need a private vehicle in a city


I’d broadly agree with that, with noted exceptions for disability access and alongside affordable provision of things like zip car for when personal transport is unavoidable (eg heavy lifting). But what about journeys from London to elsewhere in circumstances where public transport isn’t an option (eg takes an incredibly long time, does not even reach the location and/or there’s too much stuff to carry on  PT)? Even if a car is used a handful of times a year for inter city journeys, it needs to live somewhere the rest of the time. 

Reducing parking as a blanket action is not one that specifically targets those who use their cars routinely across the city. Increasing residents parking would possibly  be fairer.


----------



## sparkybird (Sunday at 2:13 PM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Where would the cars park out of interest?


Car ownership in Lambeth has been falling steadily for 40 years. We are in the top 10 lowest car owning boroughs in the UK. 58% of households don't have access to a car. This is a rise of 35% since 2001. I expect the trend to continue.
Blanket CPZs across the borough is a brilliant idea as partial implementation just pushes the free parking to someone else's street


----------



## sparkybird (Sunday at 2:16 PM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I’d broadly agree with that, with noted exceptions for disability access and alongside affordable provision of things like zip car for when personal transport is unavoidable (eg heavy lifting). But what about journeys from London to elsewhere in circumstances where public transport isn’t an option (eg takes an incredibly long time, does not even reach the location and/or there’s too much stuff to carry on  PT)? Even if a car is used a handful of times a year for inter city journeys, it needs to live somewhere the rest of the time.


If you only use your car for occasional trips out of London it's probably cheaper  hire a car and or use a combo of public transport and car hire, which is what I do now. The cost of keeping a car just to use it a handful of times did not make economic sense.


----------



## teuchter (Sunday at 3:51 PM)

Winot said:


> Yes that’s a neat way of stopping new cars from having a parking space. It’s not a solution to the problem of allowing new cars but only if they have a parking space.


I don't think I follow what you mean.


----------



## thebackrow (Sunday at 4:39 PM)

Winot said:


> Yes that’s a neat way of stopping new cars from having a parking space. It’s not a solution to the problem of allowing new cars but only if they have a parking space.


there's a whole load of different ways you can achieve it.  There are always two basic levers - cost and convenience.

Simply reducing the number of spaces increases the difficulty of finding a parking space, means you might have to park further from your home, decreases the convenience of car ownership which might nudge you into thinking its more hassle than it's worth (I remember reading years ago about places in posh west London with high car ownership where people said they were lucky to park within a couple of streets)

On cost you can increase the charge for permits (which looks like is in the kerbside strategy).
I've seen someone suggest that new residents shouldn't be able to apply for a parking permit (and there are already car free developments where residents can't). 
You could set a limit on the number of permits and then reduce that number each year but some how you've got an allocate them. Again, market driven solution would be to auction them which would find the true 'value'  - at some level people would judge costs of a personal car didn't outweigh the benefits and rentals/car share/public transport was enough for them. You'd probably need some trade permit scheme for people whose work genuinely justifies a motor vehicle (although again, price incentives might make some of them more likely to look at non-motorised alternatives.  The local washing machine repair guy who has a VW camper van with full camper fit out internally as his 'works vehicle' comes to mind.



Agent Sparrow said:


> But what about journeys from London to elsewhere in circumstances where public transport isn’t an option (eg takes an incredibly long time, does not even reach the location and/or there’s too much stuff to carry on PT)? Even if a car is used a handful of times a year for inter city journeys, it needs to live somewhere the rest of the time.


Almost certainly doesn't make financial sense for those people to own a car. A friend of mine in Bristol was looking at buying a car so she could visit friends in other cities recently and it just didn't make sense vs renting for the amount she was going to use it.

Basic ownership costs - Servicing, tax, insurance  at least £1000 (Car ownership costs 2022). exclude fuel as thats the same whether you rent or own.
Lease costs (as a proxy for depreciation) - small engined smallish car, 48 month lease to keep it cheap.  £263 per month = £3168 p.a. (Seat Ibiza 1.0 TSI 110 Xcellence Lux MY23 Lease | Nationwide Vehicle Contracts)
So that's over £4200 a year. 

Europcar 8 day rental (Saturday morning to Monday morning)  for a Ford Focus (similar sized car) is £627 so 4 weeks of holidays spread over the year  has only cost you £2500.  That leaves you £1700 for weekends and odd zipcar trips at short notice.
Longer rentals are cheaper - it's only £1200 to rent that same car for a full month in one go.

People massively underestimate how much it costs to have a car sitting there doing nothing.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sunday at 5:06 PM)

Tbf sparkybird and edcraw I’m not the hard sell to convince. I’m having an amusing moment to myself thinking about how this conversation would go down on Streatham Mum’s Network


----------



## DaphneM (Sunday at 5:09 PM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> I’d broadly agree with that, with noted exceptions for disability access and alongside affordable provision of things like zip car for when personal transport is unavoidable (eg heavy lifting). But what about journeys from London to elsewhere in circumstances where public transport isn’t an option (eg takes an incredibly long time, does not even reach the location and/or there’s too much stuff to carry on  PT)? Even if a car is used a handful of times a year for inter city journeys, it needs to live somewhere the rest of the time.
> 
> Reducing parking as a blanket action is not one that specifically targets those who use their cars routinely across the city. Increasing residents parking would possibly  be fairer.


If you only need a car a handful of times a year then it’s going to be cheaper to get a taxi or hire a zip car for those times


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 6:51 PM)

teuchter said:


> I don't think I follow what you mean.


My scepticism is solely about the practicality of this idea:



beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I’d argue that if you can’t demonstrate you have a suitable place to park it you shouldn’t own a car


which I took to mean that you have to have a direct link between a specific car and a parking space.

Your idea is a borough-wide CPZ (which I agree with) and then stopping granting permits for it. That means that people with existing cars/permits are fine but that no one living in the borough can park there because there are no new permits being given out. That means (under the beesonthewhatnow scheme) that they aren't allowed to own a car because they can't demonstrate that they  have a stable place to park it.

thebackrow your post is also just about dissuading people from parking/owning cars - I agree with doing that.


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 6:54 PM)

dp


----------



## teuchter (Sunday at 7:09 PM)

Winot said:


> My scepticism is solely about the practicality of this idea:
> 
> 
> which I took to mean that you have to have a direct link between a specific car and a parking space.
> ...



It's effectively the same end result isn't it - if you have a car, and there's a CPZ and you don't have a permit, you can't park it on the street. No need for anyone to "demonstrate" they have a space, either they do or they don't.

Of course an issue either way is that anyone with off street parking bypasses the restrictions, and I suspect it's the more wealthy who are more likely to have off street parking, just because they'll tend to have bigger properties.


----------



## Winot (Sunday at 7:19 PM)

teuchter said:


> It's effectively the same end result isn't it - if you have a car, and there's a CPZ and you don't have a permit, you can't park it on the street. No need for anyone to "demonstrate" they have a space, either they do or they don't.
> 
> Of course an issue either way is that anyone with off street parking bypasses the restrictions, and I suspect it's the more wealthy who are more likely to have off street parking, just because they'll tend to have bigger properties.


OK I see the confusion - you are happy with people being prevented from buying their own car. I was trying to think of a solution which would allow them to buy a car by demonstrating that they had a space. 

Your system does work then. I’m not sure I’d be prepared to go that far yet (and I am sure that - at the moment - it would be political suicide).


----------



## sparkybird (Sunday at 7:33 PM)

Agent Sparrow said:


> Tbf sparkybird and edcraw I’m not the hard sell to convince. I’m having an amusing moment to myself thinking about how this conversation would go down on Streatham Mum’s Network


Like leaded petrol....🤣. One of the admins recently saying the census data on car ownership can't be true as she looked on her street and every house has a car....


----------



## teuchter (Sunday at 8:00 PM)

Winot said:


> OK I see the confusion - you are happy with people being prevented from buying their own car. I was trying to think of a solution which would allow them to buy a car by demonstrating that they had a space.
> 
> Your system does work then. I’m not sure I’d be prepared to go that far yet (and I am sure that - at the moment - it would be political suicide).


I'm not actually saying I'd necessarily propose it: just that it would be possible to do without major additional admin burden. 

For someone with their own off street parking, it wouldn't prevent them from buying a car.


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 8:33 PM)

sparkybird said:


> Like leaded petrol....🤣. One of the admins recently saying the census data on car ownership can't be true as she looked on her street and every house has a car....



Yeah, obvs the one parked straight outside, plus I asked all of the girls at Prosecco club and they all have cars.


----------



## alex_ (Sunday at 8:35 PM)

Quite a lot of these are fundamentally “if you earn less than 60k you aren’t allowed a cars”

Alex


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Sunday at 11:14 PM)

alex_ said:


> Quite a lot of these are fundamentally “if you earn less than 60k you aren’t allowed a cars”
> 
> Alex


It does remind me of arguments to push up the cost of all aeroplane tickets to reduce flying, which of course wouldn’t stop rich and cooperate frequent flyers (the main problem) but would penalise those less well off who fly occasionally. Arguably emission zones do similar though.

I don’t have an acceptable option btw.* I just think it’s a shame that there’s a core group of drivers who speed, disregard other road users and flat refuse to consider alternatives to driving so that all of this feels necessary. 

*I do have a completely unacceptable fantasy option but I’m not posting that 20 minutes before bedtime


----------



## Winot (Monday at 8:29 AM)

Interesting graphic:


----------



## liquidindian (Monday at 10:14 AM)

alex_ said:


> Quite a lot of these are fundamentally “if you earn less than 60k you aren’t allowed a cars”


If you're not minted you there should be alternatives so you don't have to spend a hudge wodge of money on a car.


----------



## alex_ (Monday at 10:21 AM)

liquidindian said:


> If you're not minted you there should be alternatives so you don't have to spend a hudge wodge of money on a car.



There should be shouldn’t there ?


----------



## liquidindian (Monday at 10:24 AM)

alex_ said:


> There should be shouldn’t there ?


There are for me, we need to keep going so there are for many more.


----------



## alex_ (Monday at 10:25 AM)

liquidindian said:


> There are for me, we need to keep going so there are for many more.



Yes









						‘Entrenched car culture’ leaves millions of Britons in transport poverty
					

Study finds drivers spending up to a fifth of pre-tax income on running a car as lack of infrastructure deters people from cycling




					www.theguardian.com
				




But effectively banning cars in cities and hoping everything else fixes itself is a shit solution.


----------



## liquidindian (Monday at 10:27 AM)

Solving the biggest problem before tackling others seems pretty sensible to me.


----------



## teuchter (Monday at 10:42 AM)

alex_ said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's news to me that cars are being banned in any uk cities. Or that it's even been seriously proposed anywhere.


----------



## alex_ (Monday at 11:17 AM)

teuchter said:


> It's news to me that cars are being banned in any uk cities. Or that it's even been seriously proposed anywhere.



A surprising number of people here seem to be advocating it, but yes - no sensible people are advocating this.


----------



## teuchter (Monday at 11:48 AM)

alex_ said:


> A surprising number of people here seem to be advocating it, but yes - no sensible people are advocating this.


As far as I can see, no-one here is advocating it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Monday at 2:15 PM)

alex_ said:


> A surprising number of people here seem to be advocating it, but yes - no sensible people are advocating this.


You don’t need to ban them, you make using them utterly stupid.


----------



## Jimbeau (Tuesday at 2:37 PM)

nick said:


> yet again. Possibly the hardest working bollard in London.
> 
> It deserves a medal and a quite retirement to somewhere quiet, where it can live out the rest of its life in peace
> 
> ...


Noticed that the famous Dumbarton Rd bollard had claimed another victim this morning. Truly a grafter, that one.


----------



## Cat Fan (Tuesday at 3:19 PM)

My family didn't have a car and we just hired one when we needed one. Then we had children (plural) and that was a complete game changer. Hiring a car is possible but it's inconvenient, having to fit in car seats and there is a possible safety/breakdown issue as some people use and abuse rentals.

The more rubbish we make life for car owners, the more we end up punishing those with limited mobility who rely on them. Obviously makes life difficult for small traders as well.

I would be interested in seeing stats on the percentage of traffic in Lambeth that is through traffic vs residents anyway.

Punishing residents does nothing to help the bigger problem of through traffic that clogs all the main roads. 

As soon as you reduce traffic by residents it gets replaced by people driving in/out of London as their sat navs route them through the streets with the least traffic on.


----------



## BigTom (Tuesday at 3:57 PM)

Cat Fan said:


> My family didn't have a car and we just hired one when we needed one. Then we had children (plural) and that was a complete game changer. Hiring a car is possible but it's inconvenient, having to fit in car seats and there is a possible safety/breakdown issue as some people use and abuse rentals.
> 
> *The more rubbish we make life for car owners, the more we end up punishing those with limited mobility who rely on them*. Obviously makes life difficult for small traders as well.
> 
> ...



This just depends on how we make it rubbish for car owners.

For instance, if we make car ownership very expensive, then people with limited mobility can continue to access vehicles through the motability scheme and be unaffected by extra charges for car ownership, and/or can have additional payments through benefit systems to cover extra costs of car usage (and yes, I know, currently we won't see anything done to help disabled people on the benefits side of the equation and there are many people who have been wrongly excluded from getting DLA/PIP but then we're also not going to see car ownership made very expensive either).

Or when we are talking about something like LTNs or other general, non-financial based, traffic reduction measures, then if they work, those who are left needing to drive have fewer other drivers around clogging up roads and journeys become easier. school holidays see a reduction in traffic of around 10-15%, it's not a huge number but when you look at the effect it has on congestion it's massive. If you can get those people who don't need to drive out of their cars, it makes it much better for those who do need to drive.
Or like if we're talking about removing kerbside parking, then you leave spaces for blue badge holders (I think that is part of what has been proposed by Lambeth council in their kerbside strategy). You exempt blue badge holders from the need to have a specific parking space and things like that. 

I have no idea what the ratio is but I would be willing to place a very large bet that the number of people without mobility issues that could use another form of transport but currently choose to drive vastly outweighs the number of people with mobility or other issues which mean driving is the only reasonable option for them.

On your last sentence, if you are blocking those streets with LTN implementations, then satnavs can't re-route through traffic down those roads


----------



## thebackrow (Tuesday at 4:08 PM)

BigTom said:


> This just depends on how we make it rubbish for car owners.
> 
> For instance, if we make car ownership very expensive, then people with limited mobility can continue to access vehicles through the motability scheme and be unaffected by extra charges for car ownership, and/or can have additional payments through benefit systems to cover extra costs of car usage (and yes, I know, currently we won't see anything done to help disabled people on the benefits side of the equation and there are many people who have been wrongly excluded from getting DLA/PIP but then we're also not going to see car ownership made very expensive either).
> 
> ...


It’s not the whole answer but this report is what you’re getting at. 
_In total, 4.3 million trips per average day have been identified as potentially cyclable, equivalent to 23 per cent of trips by all modes and 35 per cent of trips by mechanised modes. Analysis of the characteristics of these trips shows that:
Nearly two thirds of potentially cyclable trips are currently made by car with the remainder largely made by bus;
Four in ten potentially cyclable trips are made for shopping and leisure purposes and just under a quarter for work purposes; and
Of the 4.3 million potentially cyclable trips made every day, 3.5 million would take less than 20 minutes for most people to cycle._


			https://content.tfl.gov.uk/analysis-of-cycling-potential.pdf


----------



## teuchter (Tuesday at 5:45 PM)

Cat Fan said:


> My family didn't have a car and we just hired one when we needed one. Then we had children (plural) and that was a complete game changer. Hiring a car is possible but it's inconvenient, having to fit in car seats and there is a possible safety/breakdown issue as some people use and abuse rentals.


What about people who have children but can't afford a car or are unable to drive? How do you think their convenience of everyday life is affected by decisions that make things more convenient for car owners?


----------



## Winot (Tuesday at 6:18 PM)

Cat Fan said:


> My family didn't have a car and we just hired one when we needed one. Then we had children (plural) and that was a complete game changer. Hiring a car is possible but it's inconvenient, having to fit in car seats and there is a possible safety/breakdown issue as some people use and abuse rentals.
> 
> The more rubbish we make life for car owners, the more we end up punishing those with limited mobility who rely on them. Obviously makes life difficult for small traders as well.
> 
> ...


We don’t own a car now and didn’t before having kids but did when we had young kids.

You are right that it makes life much easier and that owning is easier than renting. The provision of hire/club cars which can safely convey young children is appalling.

It seems to me that this is actually something that could be fixed with government invention - the technology isn’t difficult - it just takes some regulation.

However, there’s a bit of a logical leap in your post from “my life was made easier owning a car when I had kids” (yes, mine too) to:


> punishing those with limited mobility


It is possible to have children and move them about London without owning a car. Lots of people do it. And those of us that choose to do it by car have to take the rough with the smooth if London is to keep moving and not be polluted.


----------



## Torpid Scorpion (Tuesday at 8:01 PM)

We raised two kids in London without a car. In fairness I did have a motorbike which I used to commute and to take them to footie, etc. At no point did I feel the need for a car. Most of my friends had cars, and they were always late to things. On the odd occasion I needed to move kit that woudlnt fit on the motorbike, I would rent a zipvan.

The kids have grown and moved out and now we do have a car, which we use to visit them in far-flung parts of the UK.

I dont get why people think getting around london in a car is a convenience. Its an expensive, annoying nightmare that sucks up your time.

Our streets should be for people, trades, and those who cannot move around without cars.


----------



## Hollis (Tuesday at 9:26 PM)

BigTom said:


> Or when we are talking about something like LTNs or other general, non-financial based, traffic reduction measures, then if they work, those who are left needing to drive have fewer other drivers around clogging up roads and journeys become easier. school holidays see a reduction in traffic of around 10-15%, it's not a huge number but when you look at the effect it has on congestion it's massive. If you can get those people who don't need to drive out of their cars, it makes it much better for those who do need to drive.
> Or like if we're talking about removing kerbside parking, then you leave spaces for blue badge holders (I think that is part of what has been proposed by Lambeth council in their kerbside strategy). You exempt blue badge holders from the need to have a specific parking space and things like that.
> 
> I have no idea what the ratio is but I would be willing to place a very large bet that the number of people without mobility issues that could use another form of transport but currently choose to drive vastly outweighs the number of people with mobility or other issues which mean driving is the only reasonable option for them.
> ...


This is just the exact opposite of what's happening in Haringey at the moment - main roads clogged up - new rat runs generated via satnavs/waze in residential roads outside the LTNs.  Reason - cause Haringey has low car ownership and shed  loads of through  traffic.  

Currently the 3 LTNs are abit like chucking 3 pebbles into a stream..  and is just displacing traffic.    The solution seems to be to either implement them across the whole borough or have a rather pointless scheme that just makes some areas nicer to live in and others less so.


----------



## editor (Tuesday at 9:38 PM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Either show you have a private driveway or pay for a specific residential space. If none are available, no car.


Much as I support this policy, it'll probably drive more car owners to completely pave over their gardens and turn streets even uglier.


----------



## sparkybird (Tuesday at 9:47 PM)

editor said:


> Much as I support this policy, it'll probably drive more car owners to completely pave over their gardens and turn streets even uglier.


But Lambeth hold the trump card.... They have to give you permission to create a driveway if you need to cross the public footpath. 💪


----------



## editor (Tuesday at 10:27 PM)

sparkybird said:


> But Lambeth hold the trump card.... They have to give you permission to create a driveway if you need to cross the public footpath. 💪


I wonder how many households have ever been refused. It's utterly depressing seeing London's front gardens turned into car parks rammed full of vehicles.


----------



## nick (Tuesday at 10:52 PM)

editor said:


> I wonder how many households have ever been refused.


shuffles feet awkwardly and hesitantly raises hand.


----------



## sparkybird (Tuesday at 11:10 PM)

editor said:


> I wonder how many households have ever been refused. It's utterly depressing seeing London's front gardens turned into car parks rammed full of vehicles.


Many will be historical. I'm pretty certain they are very strict now and it costs thousands to get the dropped curb. So fingers crossed


----------



## sparkybird (Tuesday at 11:11 PM)

My neighbour recently put in an unofficial one. I'm still wondering whether to dob him in.


----------



## Cat Fan (Tuesday at 11:26 PM)

editor said:


> I wonder how many households have ever been refused. It's utterly depressing seeing London's front gardens turned into car parks rammed full of vehicles.


Conservation areas normally mean automatic refusal


----------



## Cat Fan (Tuesday at 11:27 PM)

Torpid Scorpion said:


> We raised two kids in London without a car. In fairness I did have a motorbike which I used to commute and to take them to footie, etc. At no point did I feel the need for a car. Most of my friends had cars, and they were always late to things. On the odd occasion I needed to move kit that woudlnt fit on the motorbike, I would rent a zipvan.


Sorry should have said motorised vehicle then, not car, lol


----------



## Cat Fan (Tuesday at 11:46 PM)

teuchter said:


> What about people who have children but can't afford a car or are unable to drive? How do you think their convenience of everyday life is affected by decisions that make things more convenient for car owners?


Public transport provision in London is pretty good thankfully, and kids travel free. It's more for journeys outside of London where a private car really comes in useful. Getting two small kids from A to B on buses is doable but hard, and if the pushchair space is taken when the bus rolls up then you have to wait for the next one. If it helps I drive a battery electric vehicle and I respect the speed limit, so at least from an air quality perspective it's better for those around me

I would never do school drop off with a car and I don't commute by car, so you could say I'm an off peak driver.

I would be very tempted to get rid of the car once the kids are older and don't need so much ferrying around.

I know a lot of middle aged men and women who are mad into cycling, but London is never going to be Amsterdam, sorry. Far too many hills for a start, and ebikes are too expensive for most people.

That said I'd love to see more segregated cycle lanes, because more people and particularly more families and young people would be encouraged to cycle if it was less dangerous

I hope we will see a gradual shift over the next 50 years. Maybe better safety features in cars (AI) can improve road safety for everyone. Maybe people will all be on electric scooters


----------



## teuchter (Wednesday at 12:56 AM)

Cat Fan said:


> Public transport provision in London is pretty good thankfully, and kids travel free. It's more for journeys outside of London where a private car really comes in useful. Getting two small kids from A to B on buses is doable but hard, and if the pushchair space is taken when the bus rolls up then you have to wait for the next one. If it helps I drive a battery electric vehicle and I respect the speed limit, so at least from an air quality perspective it's better for those around me
> 
> I would never do school drop off with a car and I don't commute by car, so you could say I'm an off peak driver.
> 
> ...


Ok, but none of this answers the question I asked. What you've written is all about what is or isn't convenient for you, and your justifications for your car use.


----------



## edcraw (Wednesday at 5:36 AM)

editor said:


> I wonder how many households have ever been refused. It's utterly depressing seeing London's front gardens turned into car parks rammed full of vehicles.


I suspect most that do it haven’t asked for permission and the council doesn’t enforce due to lack of resources.


----------



## BigTom (Wednesday at 6:42 AM)

Hollis said:


> This is just the exact opposite of what's happening in Haringey at the moment - main roads clogged up - new rat runs generated via satnavs/waze in residential roads outside the LTNs.  Reason - cause Haringey has low car ownership and shed  loads of through  traffic.
> 
> Currently the 3 LTNs are abit like chucking 3 pebbles into a stream..  and is just displacing traffic.    The solution seems to be to either implement them across the whole borough or have a rather pointless scheme that just makes some areas nicer to live in and others less so.



Ah, sure i see what you/they mean and what i think should be done is that you start in the place(s) with the worst issues, and reduce traffic there then move on to places where displacement has created new/more issues - as you say it needs to be borough wide. Block one rat run, creating another then block that until none are left, just roads suitable for all the through traffic (if such roads exist without being purpose built).

But through traffic should also reduce as you make it less convenient to drive through and people change mode of transport for their journey because cycling or public transport becomes relatively more attractive.

As long as with each step you are reducing traffic overall, you are making a positive difference to reduce traffic and thereby pollution, much of which is particulate pollution from tires and brakes and not addressed by emissions standards/EVs. You start somewhere and then move on to the next place that needs it most afterwards.


----------



## Cat Fan (Wednesday at 11:10 AM)

BigTom said:


> Ah, sure i see what you/they mean and what i think should be done is that you start in the place(s) with the worst issues, and reduce traffic there then move on to places where displacement has created new/more issues - as you say it needs to be borough wide. Block one rat run, creating another then block that until none are left, just roads suitable for all the through traffic (if such roads exist without being purpose built).
> 
> But through traffic should also reduce as you make it less convenient to drive through and people change mode of transport for their journey because cycling or public transport becomes relatively more attractive.
> 
> As long as with each step you are reducing traffic overall, you are making a positive difference to reduce traffic and thereby pollution, much of which is particulate pollution from tires and brakes and not addressed by emissions standards/EVs. You start somewhere and then move on to the next place that needs it most afterwards.


Problem is that the council can only put restrictions on the roads that they manage, and a lot of the bigger roads which handle the most traffic are managed by TFL.


----------



## Cat Fan (Wednesday at 11:14 AM)

teuchter said:


> Ok, but none of this answers the question I asked. What you've written is all about what is or isn't convenient for you, and your justifications for your car use.


_What about people who have children but can't afford a car or are unable to drive?_
As I said, public transport is imperfect but it's available.
_How do you think their convenience of everyday life is affected by decisions that make things more convenient for car owners?_
There is a balance to be struck. For the most part I think LTNs are a step in the right direction, but I think a more joined up solution working with TFL is required so all the traffic doesn't get diverted onto boundary roads.

As someone who lives in a LTN I haven't seen any reduction in car ownership/use by residents since the LTN came in. If anything the opposite.


----------



## teuchter (Wednesday at 12:02 PM)

Cat Fan said:


> _What about people who have children but can't afford a car or are unable to drive?_
> As I said, public transport is imperfect but it's available.
> _How do you think their convenience of everyday life is affected by decisions that make things more convenient for car owners?_
> There is a balance to be struck. For the most part I think LTNs are a step in the right direction, but I think a more joined up solution working with TFL is required so all the traffic doesn't get diverted onto boundary roads.
> ...


Your original statement was about how hiring cars is inconvenient for people who have children and who want to use a car. I don't dispute that having your own car will be more convenient for many people, compared to hiring. And there are probably things that could be done to make use of hire cars more convenient. But my point was that you are viewing these questions of convenience from the position of someone who has the option of having their own car, and I was asking you to think about what things look like to people with kids who don't have a car. We were discussing the pavement policy. In broad terms, improving pavement space, reducing the amount of traffic in general, reducing the number of parked cars, increasing the availability of car club cars, these are all things that can make daily life more convenient for those who don't own a car.

In other words, I don't think we should be losing too much sleep about the idea that some changes in policy might make things _less convenient _for car owning parents, because I think they are already in a much better position than those parents who have to make do without their own car. 

Your responses above are just standard issue LTN waffle - "there is a balance to be struck" "a step in the right direction _but". _The whole point is where the balance should be struck, and it needs to be struck in a place that will make certain things less convenient than what the status quo provides for car owners. 

You acknowledge that getting small kids from A to B by bus is "doable but hard" but you then use this point to justify your own use of a car, rather than thinking about how things can be made better for those that have to get small kids from A to B without a car.


----------



## liquidindian (Wednesday at 12:30 PM)

Cat Fan said:


> all the traffic doesn't get diverted onto boundary roads.


That doesn't happen.


----------



## Cat Fan (Wednesday at 9:52 PM)

teuchter said:


> You acknowledge that getting small kids from A to B by bus is "doable but hard" but you then use this point to justify your own use of a car, rather than thinking about how things can be made better for those that have to get small kids from A to B without a car.


I was more trying to explain why many families with small kids may see running a car as essential or borderline essential.

Particularly in the more suburban areas where public transport is not as fabulous.

Much is made of the majority of households in Lambeth being car free.

But in fact TFL's stats show that 68% of households in London with children own a car. And excluding low incomes the figure is over 85%, which implies that almost all households with children would like to have a car, but not all can afford one.

While Lambeth is on the lower end of car ownership viewed across all London boroughs it actually is above average for an "inner borough".

The south of Lambeth blends into Croydon and Merton where car ownership is 64%. Public transport is also generally less good.

So it's unrealistic to extend blanket policies penalising car ownership into the south of the borough otherwise it's probably going to disproportionately impact families with children, while retired households and younger adult households (e.g. students) are less likely to be impacted.

All in all we can certainly try and discourage car ownership and make it less convenient but it's divisive and there will be winners and losers. Eliminating private cars from London entirely is a pipe dream except for in the most built up urban parts of the city. I prefer the mayor's approach of congestion charge/ULEZ which punishes the most frequent drivers and most polluting. There are worse things than a few parked cars in suburban, residential areas.

If we're going back to the original point on reducing parking spaces to plant more trees and have more cycling storage, it seems like a good policy. No objections from me.

Agree with other posters that parklets are a bit crap. But more tree planting and more cycle hangars have to be good. More electric charging infrastructure would help too.


----------



## teuchter (Wednesday at 10:28 PM)

Well, good luck to anyone who hopes to extract any coherent points from all that.


----------



## alex_ (Yesterday at 7:29 AM)

teuchter said:


> Well, good luck to anyone who hopes to extract any coherent points from all that.



I think this is the “I agree with the aims of the scheme but it’s unfair because the minority of better off people with cars are negatively impacted. If you could do it without impacting me I’d be fully in favour” technique


----------



## thebackrow (Yesterday at 3:06 PM)

Cat Fan said:


> As someone who lives in a LTN I haven't seen any reduction in car ownership/use by residents since the LTN came in. If anything the opposite.


In terms of ownership its a lot to expect that people immediately sell their car when an LTN is implemented - it's either a sunk cost (ie paid for) or a lease or loan that has some time to run.  I'd guess the point at which people might decide not to own a car any longer is when they one they have needs replacing. (that's whats' happened with all the people I've known who've owned a car and then not).  Thats going to be a pretty gradual change. I'd guess it also affects where people choose to live - if your car is a massive status symbol and part of your identity you'd logically think about moving to a different area in the same way that new car free developments are going to, by definition, to only attract non-car owners. 

In terms of use your anecdata doesn't seem to chime with the normal anti-LTN line that people are trapped in their homes, unable to travel, lives being made more difficult, having to drive the long way round. I don't think either usage or ownership is something that any of us can measure to any useful degree based on casual observation.  I do think that the LTNs have a made a lot of people pay more attention to traffic whereas they'd just accepted it before - so many claims of huge (observed) increases that are completely contradicted by traffic counts and of choking on unbreathable air whereas all of the data shows that London's air has been getting cleaner year on year for some time (due to ever tighter emission standards on vehicles, accelerated by the ULEZ).


----------



## thebackrow (Yesterday at 3:33 PM)

alex_ said:


> I think this is the “I agree with the aims of the scheme but it’s unfair because the minority of better off people with cars are negatively impacted. If you could do it without impacting me I’d be fully in favour” technique





Cat Fan said:


> I prefer the mayor's approach of congestion charge/ULEZ which punishes the most frequent drivers a


If you think LTNs penalise drivers then surely they also have most impact on those who drive frequently.  

For people in an LTN it's likely that some trips by car will be a bit longer (not all - because presumably in some directions they'll still be exiting the area in the direction they're travelling in, and even for some trips further away that are altered driving around the edge of the LTN won't be the most direct route).  

If you only drive once or twice a week that's no great shakes really. 

It's only really a big deal if you're driving a short trips frequently.  Like 'the school run', or driving your dog to shit in the park twice a day, or the people I see driving and coming back with one bag of shopping from the supermarket. Or who seem to have driven to buy a takeaway coffee.


----------



## alex_ (Yesterday at 3:35 PM)

Don’t forget driving to the gym.

The whole point of the LTN is that local drivers are sufficiently inconvenienced they don’t drive and that not local drivers follow major routes rather than rat run.

Alex


----------



## editor (Yesterday at 3:42 PM)

Why do traffic reduction schemes attract so many conspiracy theories? | Peter Walker
					

Plan to restrict car journeys in Oxford becomes lightning rod for fears of global assault on freedoms




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Yesterday at 4:23 PM)




----------



## 8ball (Yesterday at 4:33 PM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>






Yeah, definitely not fake.


----------



## teuchter (Yesterday at 5:08 PM)

Here's the "action against unfair ULEZ" page if anyone is interested in reading about the various SUVs and trucks that mayor Khan is forcing londoners to sell to people in the provinces.









						Action Against Unfair ULEZ | Facebook
					

Whilst we appreciate the sentiment on another group, we cannot wait until February to start action.  We need to act NOW. We need ideas,  proposals and people who can actually do something. Please add...




					www.facebook.com


----------



## 8ball (Yesterday at 5:16 PM)

teuchter said:


> Here's the "action against unfair ULEZ" page if anyone is interested in reading about the various SUVs and trucks that mayor Khan is forcing londoners to sell to people in the provinces.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll bet my brother-in-law is on there already picking up Range Rovers for a song and selling them on.


----------



## Cat Fan (Yesterday at 6:23 PM)

alex_ said:


> I think this is the “I agree with the aims of the scheme but it’s unfair because the minority of better off people with cars are negatively impacted. If you could do it without impacting me I’d be fully in favour” technique


I am pro LTN but I do think there's a limit to what they can achieve on their own, so we need more restrictions, ideally ones that apply equally to non residents like a stricter ULEZ or road pricing.

Also car owners are not the minority in the more suburban, outer areas of London in fact there are a strong majority and that includes the most deprived boroughs. Which makes the political challenge even harder sadly.


----------



## Cat Fan (Yesterday at 6:25 PM)

thebackrow said:


> If you think LTNs penalise drivers then surely they also have most impact on those who drive frequently.
> 
> For people in an LTN it's likely that some trips by car will be a bit longer (not all - because presumably in some directions they'll still be exiting the area in the direction they're travelling in, and even for some trips further away that are altered driving around the edge of the LTN won't be the most direct route).
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's spot on to be fair.


----------



## Cat Fan (Yesterday at 6:30 PM)

thebackrow said:


> In terms of ownership its a lot to expect that people immediately sell their car when an LTN is implemented - it's either a sunk cost (ie paid for) or a lease or loan that has some time to run.  I'd guess the point at which people might decide not to own a car any longer is when they one they have needs replacing. (that's whats' happened with all the people I've known who've owned a car and then not).  Thats going to be a pretty gradual change. I'd guess it also affects where people choose to live - if your car is a massive status symbol and part of your identity you'd logically think about moving to a different area in the same way that new car free developments are going to, by definition, to only attract non-car owners.
> 
> In terms of use your anecdata doesn't seem to chime with the normal anti-LTN line that people are trapped in their homes, unable to travel, lives being made more difficult, having to drive the long way round. I don't think either usage or ownership is something that any of us can measure to any useful degree based on casual observation.  I do think that the LTNs have a made a lot of people pay more attention to traffic whereas they'd just accepted it before - so many claims of huge (observed) increases that are completely contradicted by traffic counts and of choking on unbreathable air whereas all of the data shows that London's air has been getting cleaner year on year for some time (due to ever tighter emission standards on vehicles, accelerated by the ULEZ).


Yes, I do see a lot of 21/22 reg cars on the street and the LTN was put in place during lockdown. But I have no idea if there would have been more or less it the LTN hadn't gone in.

Lambeth should have the stats on how many cars have registered for their CPZs that are inside LTNs and how that changes over time. It will be interesting to see.


----------



## Hollis (Yesterday at 6:33 PM)

alex_ said:


> Don’t forget driving to the gym.
> 
> The whole point of the LTN is that local drivers are sufficiently inconvenienced they don’t drive and that not local drivers follow major routes rather than rat run.
> 
> Alex



Yeah - unfortunately when you have only a few of them implemented as in Haringey, you have junctions clogged up and they find new rat runs through the areas that aren't in LTNs.   Especially when the areas chosen in Haringey were apparently based on low car ownership + existing rat running (per local Living Streets group).  So the evarporation within the areas will be less substantial than a high car ownring area.


----------



## Hollis (Yesterday at 6:39 PM)

thebackrow said:


> In terms of use your anecdata doesn't seem to chime with the normal anti-LTN line that people are trapped in their homes, unable to travel, lives being made more difficult, having to drive the long way round. I don't think either usage or ownership is something that any of us can measure to any useful degree based on casual observation.  I do think that the LTNs have a made a lot of people pay more attention to traffic whereas they'd just accepted it before - so many claims of huge (observed) increases that are completely contradicted by traffic counts and of choking on unbreathable air whereas all of the data shows that London's air has been getting cleaner year on year for some time (due to ever tighter emission standards on vehicles, accelerated by the ULEZ).



I have some questions with the studies and data being collected.  The data seems to focus on the LTNs and boundary roads - which for example in some studies is defined as within 500m.  Again, in Haringey, we're seeing displaced traffic much beyond 500m..   

The evaluation study which is being planned isn't going to capture this - as it's selected control areas far removed from the boundary areas and LTNs - because there's an expectation that there will be traffic displacement  (Haringey Council's own evaluation plan..).  Surely regardless of where you sit in relation to LTNs data beyond 500m should be included within the evaluation.

University of Westminster to lead major £1.5m new study on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London


----------



## Cat Fan (Yesterday at 6:47 PM)

Hollis said:


> I have some questions with the studies and data being collected.  The data seems to focus on the LTNs and boundary roads - which for example in some studies is defined as within 500m.  Again, in Haringey, we're seeing displaced traffic much beyond 500m..
> 
> The evaluation study which is being planned isn't going to capture this - as it's selected control areas far removed from the boundary areas and LTNs - because there's an expectation that there will be traffic displacement  (Haringey Council's own evaluation plan..).  Surely regardless of where you sit in relation to LTNs data beyond 500m should be included within the evalutation.
> 
> University of Westminster to lead major £1.5m new study on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London


Don't be surprised that councils spin the data to get the outcome they want.

Lambeth has been culprits of this, for example:

not collecting data on major boundary roads because they're TFL managed
not measuring pollution outside important schools/care homes on boundary roads
showing all numbers as % change not absolute change when the absolute numbers are far less impressive, given that boundary roads have higher absolute numbers

Again, I'm in favour of LTNs but it's typical of the council to twist numbers in this way


----------



## alex_ (Yesterday at 9:12 PM)

beesonthewhatnow said:


>




I can’t believe anyone thought these people weren’t very clever.


----------



## teuchter (Today at 12:30 AM)

Cat Fan said:


> I am pro LTN but I do think there's a limit to what they can achieve on their own, so we need more restrictions, ideally ones that apply equally to non residents like a stricter ULEZ or road pricing.



I'd got the impression that you weren't keen on restrictions because of this bit of a previous post -



Cat Fan said:


> So it's unrealistic to extend blanket policies penalising car ownership into the south of the borough otherwise it's probably going to disproportionately impact families with children, while retired households and younger adult households (e.g. students) are less likely to be impacted.



So what policies in particular are you worried about?


----------

