LTN Discussion

[Spartacus]

35 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

Also a made up fact. It's legal to own and operate an electric scooter in Paris. As usual the link says something different from what you claim.

https://www.politico.eu/article/paris-bans-e-scooters-in-landmark-referendums/

Hardly made up, this says that when the contracts come to an end in September and rental eScooters will be removed from the streets of Paris. 

As usual Mr Chicken you try and put down other posters who disagree with you. 

 

Personally I can't wait till london bans them as they are just a bl00dy nucience riden by people going back to being 4 again.😅

 

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Hardly made up,😅

 

You said e scooters were banned. That was a made up fact, not a "disagreement". You were objectively, factually wrong with your statement.

I notice you have now amended it to the still incorrect one about rental scooters being banned.

What's actually banned isself serve rental scooters.

That is not the same as scooters being banned. That was your initial claim, and it was a made up fact.

I did like how you substituted a second link which verifies what I'm saying in order to prove me wrong. Nice try but it only works if people don't read the links 😉

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by mr.chicken
spelling

[first mate]

I think we all knew what Spartacus meant. Owned scooters or bikes are unlikely to be dumped around the place willy nilly, in the same way as share or hire scooters and bikes. The behaviour can hardly be said to be 'good' for the environment and it seems that is why they have now been banned in Paris. As is often the case, other cities that have endured these schemes for longer may follow suit.

This thread is meant to be discussion about LTNs.

Edited July 29, 2023 by first mate

[Penguin68]

9 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

Also a made up fact. It's legal to own and operate an electric scooter in Paris. As usual the link says something different from what you claim.

The link actually says:-

Parisians have voted to rid the streets of the French capital of rental electric scooters, with an overwhelming 90% of votes cast supporting a ban, official results show.

...

The ban won between 85.77% and 91.77% of the votes in the 20 Paris districts that published results, according to the City of Paris website on what was billed as a rare “public consultation” and prompted long queues at ballot boxes around the city. The vote was non-binding but city authorities have vowed to follow the result.

So - not that different. True, it is still legal, but the authorities have said 'they would follow' the result.

[malumbu]

Perhaps admin can move the scooters threads to this part of the forum as worthy of further discussion but to also avoid repetition.  Like it or not they are here to stay but heaven knows how you best accommodate them AND riders need training

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

So - not that different. True, it is still legal, but the authorities have said 'they would follow' the result.

It's about as correct as saying "London to ban taxis" when Uber almost lost their license.

[Rockets]

There was definitely a story on the Beeb about a city banning bikes from parts of the centre...was it Utrecht maybe, but sure it was Amsterdam or Berlin, something about protecting historical sites. And definitely bikes not just hire bikes or scooters.

[malumbu]

I think it was Rotterdam, or maybe Liverpool, or Rome

[Spartacus]

24 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I think it was Rotterdam, or maybe Liverpool, or Rome

And everyone is Beautiful ? 

[Rockets]

It was Amsterdam in the De Pijp district...so I was right..ha ha doubt me at your peril! 😉 I can't find the original BBC article but here is one from Bloomberg that discusses it and the reasons for it....seems all so familiar don't you think....(cue Mr Chicken and Malumbu suddenly losing interest in the debate...)

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-27/easing-tension-between-dutch-cyclists-and-walkers

Edited July 29, 2023 by Rockets

[legalalien]

https://news.sky.com/story/rishi-sunak-orders-review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-says-hes-on-the-side-of-motorists-12930344

Apparently there’s an interview with the PM touching on LTNs in today’s Telegraph, I assume behind a paywall.

[malumbu]

Maybe he could get DfT to review private jet use, surely we all depend on these.

What a slimy greaseball.  Well I suppose he has got in before Starmer. 

 

[Spartacus]

13 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Maybe he could get DfT to review private jet use, surely we all depend on these.

What a slimy greaseball.  Well I suppose he has got in before Starmer. 

 

A truly independent, non biased review is what a lot of people on here have been calling for.

If the review finds LTNs are efficient and don't displace traffic or cause additional pollution through driving around them then more LTNs will be given the green light. If the opposite is found then each of the existing ones may need to be reviewed individually. 

Calling someone a "slimey greaseball" for sensibly asking a question of "does this work or not just shows your bias Mal. Maybe you're scared the truth will be finally exposed and the flat LTN world theory isn't true 😅

 

 

[snowy]

Who said this quiz:

“There is clear evidence that for all the controversy they can sometimes cause, ambitious cycling and walking schemes have significant, if quieter, majority support.”

[hpsaucey]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Who said this quiz:

“There is clear evidence that for all the controversy they can sometimes cause, ambitious cycling and walking schemes have significant, if quieter, majority support.”

Ooh - RS??

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Who said this quiz:

“There is clear evidence that for all the controversy they can sometimes cause, ambitious cycling and walking schemes have significant, if quieter, majority support.”

I guess when you are at the top, you rely on people below you feeding information and stats up. 

If those stats are flawed,  incorrectly recorded or reported on then the resultant message they give is also incorrect. 

Therefore it wouldn't surprise me, if due to actually public feedback, that statements that are believed true one day are reversed the next. 

[malumbu]

He's a spineless creep.  That could be the leader of both major parties

In taking forward government policy civil servants assess the costs and impact before the implementation is signed off.

This is what happened when Johnson proposed LTNs.

He then had colly Wobbles As The Mail turned on him  for phase 2 which led to the condition of better consultation

So it's been through two rounds plus the usual scrutiny by select committee, parliamentary debate, post implementation assessment, and ultimately the courts.  

As far as I am aware no judicial review has been successful so it is legal and local authorities are acting within their powers.

He's doing this simply to get votes.  Remind me if it says in the manifesto that government will prioritise cars over health and the environment.

No doubt net zero and meeting air quality standards are government policy as is the legal requirement to meet carbon budgets.

Careful who you side with.  It could be like the Major government who went onto privitise everything.  I'll conveniently ignore Blair

 

[snowy]

4 hours ago, hpsaucey said:

Ooh - RS??

Minister For Transport Grant Shapps!

[malumbu]

He was an rrrsss, had personal dealings with Mick Jones' crook cousin.  The new one has taken this to another level ie is an rrrrrrrrrssssss

[CPR Dave]

Glad they're finally looking into all these schemes.

The schemes by and large are the most effective method of social cleansing that London's ever seen.

[malumbu]

Sounds a bit Orwellian.  Do explain 

[heartblock]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - LTNs are green-washing, Sunak reviewing them for the wrong reasons, but fine by me. Should be reviewing them as no evidence that they reduce air pollution and  I have only seen a marked increase in traffic and idling cars on Croxted and ED Grove.

Won't make me vote Tory... but will vote Green for some REAL Green policies.

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by heartblock

[Bic Basher]

LTNs, approved by the Conservative Party, implemented by cash strapped Labour councils as a way of increasing revenue, then the Tories come back with Sunak's comments on Sunday with the bait in an attempt to regain disenfranchised voters from Labour.

While I'm pleased Sunak is finally saying something about them, it's nothing more than an election tactic and while we still have the mix of councils having to find alternative revenue streams (see TfL with the ULEZ expansion and axing the One Day Travelcard) and ideological Cllrs in the Labour Party, I can't see them going away just yet.

Ironically Tower Hamlets voted for a bunch of socialists on the Corbyn side of the bench who completely scrapped LTNs!

[mr.chicken]

13 hours ago, Bic Basher said:

LTNs, approved by the Conservative Party, implemented by cash strapped Labour councils as a way of increasing revenue, then the Tories come back with Sunak's comments on Sunday with the bait in an attempt to regain disenfranchised voters from Labour.

"as a way of increasing revenue" lol will the daft conspiracies never stop? The LTNs are fantastic for local travel. I find it much easier to get around to places that are really beyond reasonable walking distance.

Sunak's comment's are just another Tory attempt to stir up a culture war to as a last ditch attempt to keep those red wall voters.  Sunak's argument is that the majority own cars so we should pander to them. This means that if you like Sunak's argument you should favour LTNs since the majority of people in Southwark do not own cars.

Or perhaps you just love cars & pollution and will clutch on to any argument that puts the in the top spot. Or maybe not, but I've never seen you advance a suggestion to reduce congestion and pollution that is even vaguely possible to actually implement.

 

[first mate]

Marvellous for some, really bad for others. Not equitable and ceratinly not democratic.