LTN Discussion

[Spartacus]

Ex

You are not wrong with your assessment on the impact of social media.

I'm talking more about television, cinema and printed media messages, rather than pure social media.

I'll always remember the "scary" 1970s films to discourage children from playing on the railways or climbing electricity pylons.

It's a bit like the lack of keep Britain tidy messages, which has resulted in litter everywhere and people getting fined for dropping it.

If there is continous messaging then eventually it will start to sink in, as in your example with drinking and driving.

Enforcement can be done in different ways, not just coppers on corners. For example PCSOs could be given powers to arrest / fine for some traffic infractions and the fines could sustain their roles.

Problem is at the moment cars do seem to be the easy option to fine as they are tracable via their number plates so drivers do feel victimised. If fines were given to all road users for infringements then the cry of "cars are cash cows" would be muted but as it currently appears that cyclists are mostly not fined for breaking the rules then it's obvious why car drivers feel disadvantaged.

The concept of stopping knife crime vs stopping idiots on the road is important and a balance needs to be found to enforce both and make the streets safe for all, guess that's something for very clever people to resolve (or people with common sense)

[malumbu]

I know shed loads about all of this and in the past enjoyed these wider conversations on the Lounge when that was much more active. I'm less bothered/knowledgeable about local schemes - they affect me in good and less good ways but I support the need to intervene to reduce car use.

The difficulty is getting people to change their habits. I'd venture that it took twice the time to get the don't drink and drive message embedded, look back the late 60's and the older gent returning from the country pub "well of course I drive far more sensible when I've had a skinfull" Personally I noticed a step change in the naughties and not before.

But other campaigns have had quicker results - eg seat belt wearing being. The Think campaign was also a good one even if we only think motorbike rather than push bike as well. If you are talking about clunk click etc that is very much an over 50's generation, if not older, and sadly the most popular voice over artists of the 70s and 80s were Savile and Harris. Although the only a fool breaks the two second rule is back. And Petunia and the coast guard. Bless.

Particularly since the coalition there has been less public information, one reason is there are no longer ten million people watching the 6 o'clock news and there is also resistance as this is being seen to nanny. Although after it was put on hold government went ahead with the guidance on reducing domestic energy and you will see other campaigns eg pay your self assessment both on the bill board and YouTube.

I like the proposal by IAM road smart that there should be continued training for drivers and riders (motorbikes but they could say the same for pushbikes) but this got no traction. Happy to give anyone a driving, motorbiking or cycling lesson. Most obvious thing is anticipation and use the throttle as a brake as well as an accelerator. My favourite game on my occasional car journey is to see how long I can not brake for, often comparing to the driver in front - accelerate/brake, accelerate/brake, adding to air pollutant and carbon emissions, wear and tear and fuel wastage. Oh dear I appear to be vexed like a wet hen.

But I can look back to myself as a youth where I have the speeding points to show that I was one of these entitled motorists that I go on about. nothing like a born again Christian/ex smoker to evangelise!

[ab29]

Interesting. I hope they dismiss Aldred & Co from the review.

You’re receiving this email because you signed this petition: “Carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)”.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748

The Petitions Committee (the group of MPs who oversee the petitions system) have considered the Government’s response to this petition. They felt that the response did not directly address the request of petition and have therefore written back to the Government to ask them to provide a revised response.

When the Committee have received a revised response from the Government, this will be published on the website and you will receive an email. If you would not like to receive further updates about this petition, you can unsubscribe below.

[legalalien]

Most recent batch of minor traffic schemes here

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?Id=7845&LLL=0

Various DYLs locally, and blips on the DYL on the corner of Calton and Townley, where parents have been stopping to do school drop offs.

[Sally Eva]

Malumbo,

I think the "don't drink and drive" rules were effective because they were so inflexible.

I was a junior reporter (in a magistrates court) in about 1976 when this guy was in court, charged with being drunk in charge of a car. He had come out of the pub, opened the car door, and passed out in the front seat with his keys in his hand.

He was a travelling salesman and his defence lawyer pleaded that he would lose his job if he was banned from driving. The magistrates actually apologised to him but said that they had no choice but to ban him for a year.

Self-evidently they would have let him carry on driving if they had been able to. But they weren't.

It's this absence of wriggle-room to which I attribute the law-change's rapid success -- supported by peer pressure I agree -- plus police enforcement. All those Christmas campaigns

[Bic Basher]

How hard is it for some people to understand the basics of road safety is that we ALL share the road, whether we're car, van, truck, cycle or pedestrian users.

Motor vehicle users have to understand that cycle users can use the road and that cycle lanes are useful, while cyclists need to understand that they don't have an automatic right to restrict cars from using shared roads.

There are bad drivers on two and four wheels.

[Spartacus]

I am wondering if the rethoric from the Mayor "ULEZ challenge a waste of taxpayers' money" is hype and spin to try and deflect from the fact that outer boroughs have genuine concerns. 

BBC News - Sadiq Khan: ULEZ challenge a waste of taxpayers' money
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65273972

 

I did read on twitter that some people are using foam to disable the cameras 😞

 

 

[malumbu]

So do you agree with this direct action?  To me it is sign that Thatchers Britain is alive and well.  Me first and sod society. 

I don't hear motorists and motorists' groups talking about the £100 the typical motorist is saving a year due to the cut in fuel duty, that is money that could go on hospitals, schools social care etc, or the 10s of Billions that the country could have benefited from over the last twenty years or so,

Here's a nice lefty article on why the rich benefit from all of this

https://www.smf.co.uk/commentary_podcasts/fuel-duty-cut-giveaway-to-rich/

Sadly it is not just middle England that whinges on about anything that costs motorists or disuades driving, it is lefty metropolitan types too,

Step back from self interests please.  (same argument for CPZs as well.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spartacus]

Mal 

I'm indifferent to the action being taken against ULEZ cameras. 

I am, however, fully behind the action to stop / delay the expansion by outer London councils as the Mayor ignored the results of his own consultation and the advice that it's the wrong time to implement as there is a cost of living crisis. I agree it should happen but at a time when it's affordable to the thousands who will have to scrap / buy new cars and those who visit London from outside. (It is a tax on motorists, if you look what the expansion does around Chessington world of adventures, you can see he's trying to earn extra cash from visitors to a major London attraction) 

The freezing of fuel duty is red herring as the government makes more out if freezing it then they would by rising it and people buying less fuel because they can't afford it. 

Its the same principle behind why smoking isn't banned, Duty on tabacco is income for the government.  

[malumbu]

The logic on vastly suppressed demand is nonsense I'm afraid, high fuel prices will reduce demand a little but not as in a classical market response (a difficult to read paper on this is attached - good luck to anyone reading it but hopefully there is an economist out there who can translate)  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/395119/road-traffic-demand-elasticities.pdf  Tax incomes have fallen by 10s of billions since the end of fuel duty escalation factor in the early noughties.  Some of that money will be returned to the exchequer through other goods (and services) and no doubt have other benefits but does not fully compensate for the loss from fuel duty - and as said this policy generally benefits the wealthy.

As for fags the number of smokers has gone down by a third in the last 50 years, and I expect typical consumption has fallen in a similarly drastic manor.  But this will be to numerous factors including ostracizing smokers (ban on workplace, places of entertainment et), public attitudes, peer pressure, understanding of the health impacts, as well as a massive increase in cost as duty has escalated.  But cigarette smoking is a leisure activity (or addiction), much of motoring is utility (although addiction and pleasure also come into car use)

As for consultation outer London would never vote for the ULEZ, we don't do government by referendum - you wouldn't want to do this due to the risk of great harm eg something daft like leaving the EU.  Oh.....  Consultation is the opportunity to finesse things a little and look to greater buy in.

As for something with less impact on those less well off who need a car - linking it to expendable income would be a better option such as enforcement of motoring offences through the courts but that is rather clunky for something like the ULEZ.  As others have agreed in the past on this thread smart road user charging makes the greatest sense from virtually angle apart from public acceptance.  But a braver government would impost it unlike those in the last 20 years.  Just badge it as a more equitable way to collect private motor vehicle taxation in your next manifesto.

There's a wider conversation on enforcement and proportionality and I may actually agree with many in that it the penalty was a little lower there would be much greater acceptance of the measures.  I get caught from time to time in my occasional drive, my own fault but a slap on the wrist (say £25) in some parts of the country hurts much less than the costs in the capital (I'd argue the same on getting things wrong on public transport).

I used to get quite excited by this and there was a commitment under I think a Cameron government to address excessive penalties - but this was aimed at private clampers not local authorities.  In a former life I got a few penalties going into excess on meter parking in central London (remember feeding them with coins?) but it was a relatively low amount and I can't remember the last time I parked in central London. 

 

[Administrator]

FYI I've made the decision to Lounge this mammoth LTN topic.

I would prefer to keep the General ED Issues / Gossip content fresh, with issues related to the local area. Stuff that people would have a quick read of in the mornings, rather than a 87 page behemoth 😅

The LTN topic (and even its predecessor) has had the tendency over the years to veer of into a more political and London wide discussion about LTNs. Not surprising given the subject.

Going forward, if anyone has fresh news/updates/decisions from Southwark Council about an LTN which would affect local residents, or wants to share opinions about a specific LTN in ED, then feel free to create a new topic about it in the General ED Issues / Gossip board. Otherwise, feel free to continue here without my interference 🙃

[malumbu]

It looks as if everyone is now happy with LTNs.  I'm not going to do my dead parrot alternative sketch again.  As amusing as it is.  We could play Where's Rockets! 

[Rockets]

Careful Malumbu - you'll get this thread lounged 😉 or you may even get banned by admin for being nasty to people who wear red striped jumpers....!;-)

[first mate]

Malumbu said "It looks as if everyone is now happy with LTNs."

Don't know how you decided that? Clearly everyone is not.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Good article in the Guardian today on LTNs and some of the tactics being adopted by the pro car growth lobby: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/18/how-opponents-of-ltn-are-adopting-the-climate-sceptic-playbook 

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Good article in the Guardian today on LTNs and some of the tactics being adopted by the pro car growth lobby: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/18/how-opponents-of-ltn-are-adopting-the-climate-sceptic-playbook 

“Using anecdotes to cast doubt on the evidence? Check. Focusing on single datapoints while ignoring the weight of evidence from more comprehensive studies? Of course. Making appeals to social justice that conveniently ignore the available evidence on equity? Yes. Painting problems with current solutions as insurmountable barriers to action? Naturally. Trying to undermine the credibility of data collection methods, by highlighting flaws that scientists are well aware of and already take into account? You bet! Launching personal attacks on scientists carrying out the relevant research? Inevitably, yes. Uncritical reporting of claims pushed by campaign groups that refuse to reveal the source of their funding, while ignoring alternativeevidence and explanations? Tick. Platforming small protest groups as if they are representative of wider views? That too.”

[first mate]

Yep, saw this. Straight out of the pro LTN lobby playbook...all the usual disclaimers.

[heartblock]

"Air pollution is a killer and the LTNs we’ve seen implemented by Labour in Croydon are not the answer when they displace traffic and pollution from one part of the community to another. We plan to install proper air quality monitoring and work with the data and community to help improve air quality for everyone.”

So - who said this.. a climate denier? anti-vaxer?

No a Green Party Parliamentary Candidate. 

I'm a Green Party member too and I agree with her. Grouping people together due to an opinion and writing, promoting that they all think the same and are the same is a very dangerous ploy, one used by the far right - I suggest that those who believe themselves to be more 'liberal' stay away from this.

I imagine that some percentage of people who think that LTNs are great, also have a variance of other beliefs and thoughts.

The article is terrible, but actually The Guardian has gone downhill over the last 10 years - a sad demise of one a great left-wing publication.

This statement for a starter 'many anti-LTN attacks ignore the damages caused by rising road traffic' 

In fact almost all the 'traffic' on this subject from people anti LTNs in East Dulwich is because we know the damage of rising road traffic because it's now been diverted onto our Resedential road. These writers know it, you know it.. but so much easier to ignore.

 

 

 

[mr.chicken]

8 hours ago, heartblock said:

"Air pollution is a killer and the LTNs we’ve seen implemented by Labour in Croydon are not the answer when they displace traffic and pollution from one part of the community to another. We plan to install proper air quality monitoring and work with the data and community to help improve air quality for everyone.”

So - who said this.. a climate denier? anti-vaxer?

No a Green Party Parliamentary Candidate. 

Being a Green party candidate doesn't mean being correct about everything to do with pollution an traffic engineering. It's not like the Green Party has always called it correctly. Besides if there's insufficient monitoring, then how does this person know?

But anyway, the LTN was never going to be the last action in transforming transport in London (Amsterdam started in the 1970s and they are arguably still going). The LTN has reduced total car journeys and once the borough wide CPZ is in place, that will further reduce car use and make other forms of transport more practical.

 

[Bic Basher]

45 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

But anyway, the LTN was never going to be the last action in transforming transport in London (Amsterdam started in the 1970s and they are arguably still going). The LTN has reduced total car journeys and once the borough wide CPZ is in place, that will further reduce car use and make other forms of transport more practical.

 

Oh yes, so much that I was in a traffic jam on a 185 this afternoon where it took 20 mins to get from Melbourne Grove to Goose Green.

[malumbu]

I've looked at the evidence.  There are thousands of posts on this thread, the earlier one, and many others such as CPZs and the like that drift into LTNs.  But I haven't got the inclination to wade through all of them to give a detailed analysis.  So I will go on my empirical views.

Firstly returning to the Guardian article, whilst sadly some opportunist conspiracy theorists, climate change deniers and haters have attached them to anything anti-car, I doubt whether most concerned about restrictions on motor vehicles are in this camp.  It's like saying that those with a good reason to vote Brexit align with Farage, Rees-Mogg and Tommy Robinson.

I reckon it is about 60/40 those opposed to restrictions and those like myself know that there is a need.  Although in terms of posts it is skewed due to one or two who are rather excessive.  You know who you are!

So I think it is loosely

Those who oppose restrictions on private cars as a whole and believe they should be able to drive where they like, when they like, how they like and where they like.  The petrol heads

Those who are affected by LTNs either because of where they live, or where they travel

And those who seen to have an obsession with Southwark Council

These are not mutually exclusive but I expect the most are in the latter two categories  and understand the climate emergency and harm from poor air quality, but don't agree with the measures being introduced.

The challenge is it is so hard to break the habit of driving for perceived convenience (or oddly enough enjoyment).  Fiscal measures ie charging people and increasing the general costs of motoring eg fuel duty don't have a significant impact.  Nor the whole public duty, community, environment etc.  And reducing the convenience - longer journeys/time, reduced parking (back to Bic's point about congestion around Goose Green).  Not sure what the answer is.  Well apart from road user charging, but that aint going to happen in the short term.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by malumbu

[first mate]

14 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

Being a Green party candidate doesn't mean being correct about everything to do with pollution an traffic engineering. It's not like the Green Party has always called it correctly. Besides if there's insufficient monitoring, then how does this person know?

But anyway, the LTN was never going to be the last action in transforming transport in London (Amsterdam started in the 1970s and they are arguably still going). The LTN has reduced total car journeys and once the borough wide CPZ is in place, that will further reduce car use and make other forms of transport more practical.

 

And yet, as you so helpfully pointed out in an earlier post, despite this long history of transport change Amsterdam has nearly the same level of cars as we do in Southwark. Moreover, there are moves to now ban cycling from large sections of the Dutch city, as bicycles too are deemed a nuisance and safety issue. Is this what you envisage here?

[mr.chicken]

18 minutes ago, first mate said:

And yet, as you so helpfully pointed out in an earlier post, despite this long history of transport change Amsterdam has nearly the same level of cars as we do in Southwark.

So? You're assuming that I'm coming from a position wanting to win a war on cars and drivers. But haha! There are drivers in Amsterdam! CHECKMATE! Trouble is, while you're playing a game of chess, I'm playing a game of SimCity.

Thing is you're comparing the whole of Amsterdam to just the very heavily urbanised area of Southwark, and even in that, they still have fewer cars. You're also not actually looking at the metrics which make the city liveable, like the pollution levels, journey times, that sort of thing. It's hard to do Apples to Apples comparisons, because every city is different. And yet, we can tell quite easily that London is congested and polluted.

Cars aren't going away entirely, there are always going to be journeys which are most practical by car. At the moment, many journeys which could be practical by other means aren't so people go by car. That has the combined effect of making all journeys (by car and otherwise) less practical because cars are not efficient. Quite a lot of car journeys are short.

I don't bike at the moment (don't believe everything @Rockets says like his weird and untrue claim about me owning a cargo bike), because the roads are too dangerous and polluted (though I've now tried a number of routes e.g. to Streatham, Brixton, and I'm probably going to get a bike because with all the connected LTNs those look OK now. I don't have a car, and it's pretty annoying sitting on a bus stuck in traffic, especially as bus usage is still down from pre-covid levels with car usage up, which is making bus journey times worse, so people are sticking to their cars forming a nasty feedback loop.

18 minutes ago, first mate said:

Moreover, there are moves to now ban cycling from large sections of the Dutch city, as bicycles too are deemed a nuisance and safety issue. Is this what you envisage here?

Are you talking about pedestrianised areas? Those are not a new idea and to my knowledge have always excluded bicycles in most implementations. From what I gather, the Dutch have a lower threshold for pedestrianising areas than we do on the whole.

If you look at how the traffic system is designed, it's not as simple as "cars are a problem" or "bikes are dangerous". The core idea is to reduce conflict between different transport modalities and make most efficient use of the space. This is why separated bike lanes are often provided on roads busy with cars, and why mass transit gets priority over everything else at traffic lights. Sometimes the best solution is separation and where different modalities are strongly encouraged to take different routes.

 

[first mate]

Two links for you to explain the issues with cycling and proliferation of e-bikes in Amsterdam

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/21/trouble-cyclists-paradise-amsterdam-accused-favouring-pedestrians

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/14/amsterdam-crackdown-souped-up-e-bikes-dangerous-streets

In terms of the e-bikes, I think it is only a matter of time before we get the same issue here. We live in a 'fast' city. Our 'communities' are fragmented, we don't have everything we need within walking distance; that is just the way our western lifestyle has evolved. You cannot undo all that in the blink of an eye.

As we know, the cycling pressure groups are not keen on the Dulwich Village junction ('square') being pedestrian only, as they would have to dismount and cannot walk in cycling shoes!

I do for the most part cycle. I am much more fearful of large vehicles like buses but also of cars, however other cyclists can also be a problem, especially those cycling at top speed (in early threads a cycling propagandist castigated me for suggesting mobility scooters be allowed on cycleways, as this would slow cyclists like him down).

Edited May 20, 2023 by first mate

[heartblock]

For my part I would like free at the point if use public transport, that connects, trams would be great, and owned by the public and not for private profit. Taxes paying for PT completely. In London it’s better than some areas and I never drive in Greater London unless it’s for really heavy loads - probably about once a month? As for long journeys I can’t afford train prices, which is a shame as I would much rather travel by train.
 

The PT in rural areas is just awful. LTNs have done nothing to improve PT links and they certainly have not impacted pollution levels. There is absolutely no study in the UK demonstrating with any statistical significance a positive impact on reducing pollutants from vehicles.

I also suspect locally that pollution levels at peak rush hour/ school run has increased on certain roads in East Dulwich - but as Southwark did not measure pre and post LTNs and appear to be reticent to publish this data… nobody knows.
 

I know that several friends living on Croxted have reported more asthma symptoms walking kids to school post LTN - the promised solutions for this road from Dulwich Councillors has been kicked into the long grass.