Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
In this Discussion
Top Posters
- Arkady 5356
- miss annie 5139
- andy 4506
- Ali 3397
- krappyrubsnif 3205
- tosscat 2291
- David 2179
- ADGS 1875
- kreuzkav 1732
- Mirandola 1618
Haring Hell???
grenners
Ferme Park Road, N4
in General chat
http://www.haringhell.co.uk/
I'm getting a bit worried about this LTN stuff to be honest it just seems like a way to extract money from people and for council workers to indulge in extreme ideology by making life hell for some people.
I'm getting a bit worried about this LTN stuff to be honest it just seems like a way to extract money from people and for council workers to indulge in extreme ideology by making life hell for some people.
Comments
Cllr Rowena Champion, Islington Council’s executive member for environment, air quality, and transport, said: “We’re determined to create a cleaner, greener, healthier borough for all, and reducing air pollution – which stunts children’s lungs and causes thousands of excess deaths in London every year – is key to achieving this.
We’ve thought very carefully about our barbecue policy, and it’s clear that the use of solid fuel barbecues in our parks and open spaces would undermine our efforts to tackle the climate emergency and improve air quality.
Barbecues. Will. Kill. You.
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design-contents/design-guide/all/5-a-guide-to-the-evidence-around-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/16/mythbusters-eight-common-objections-to-ltns-and-why-they-are-wrong
That said, it would not surprise me if the Haringey ones were badly-planned!
Maybe they will remove them once we all have electric cars.....? But no what about safety.
As for bbqs the fact that they can even ban a bbq in the first place is rather worrying. Total kill joy. He's probably a vegan.
"A large study of “low traffic neighborhoods” in London shows that these LTNs reduce motor traffic on the streets within the schemes but contrary to some claims that LTNs increase congestion on adjacent main roads, the data analysis found no knock-on increase in motor traffic on “boundary” roads."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2023/01/19/study-londons-ltns-reduce-motor-traffic-on-residential-streets-but-not-main-roads/?sh=687c73b542e7
"By contrast, LTNs are on average only marginally associated with change in traffic volume on boundary roads. 82 (47%) saw a fall in motor traffic, and 92 (53%) saw an increase. Individual count points vary substantially, perhaps because of external factors such as high levels of development near to a specific count site between baseline and follow-up. In terms of averages, the median boundary road has similar before and post-intervention actual counts (10,999 rising to 11,040, against an expected value of 10,523). Mean averages fell slightly, from 11,679 to 11,487 (expected value 11,405). This represents a 1.3% (+140 vehicles per day) median increase in actual traffic volume, which is 4.5% (+288) higher than what might have been expected (based on background trends). For mean averages, a 1.6% fall in actual volume (-192 vehicles per day) is 0.7% (+82) greater than the expected value.
Hence, LTN impacts on internal roads seem systematic and substantial. Boundary road averages changed little, although with substantial variation around these averages in either direction, much of which may be linked to non-LTN site-specific factors. Not all boroughs produced monitoring reports containing tabular data that we could use. More should do so, and there should be more public sharing of pan-London traffic count data to facilitate studies of LTN and other interventions."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Nsm_GFdH6CpIpPpOZ7hbhLZScgqCAP7ZGI0xi4qDqA/edit#heading=h.64zlui1ohy3w
And I am not sure where you are getting the BBQ ban from. Khan asked for people not to BBQ during the peak of the heatwave, at the request of the London Fire Brigade. The LFB has also asked that disposable BBQs be banned: they are a significant fire risk and pose serious health and environmental issues too - not just to the people using them but to others. I suppose the LFB is populated by woke health-and-safety-obsessed vegan lefties too?
Here is some more 'democracy' in action involving that very same person.
That article from Forbes acknowledges that there are studies providing the opposite of what they have made up, I mean researched.
Because you just happen to agree with it and it mentions quotes from professors several times does not make it right (or factual).
In reality 65% of London households don't have cars and only about 9% of the remainder use them to commute. In my experience these people usually work in unusual locations or do shift work like in the NHS or a teacher in another suburb.
It will force out the anomalous people or those who are independant like self employed or small businesses. Maybe that's part of the plan. We need diverse communities. If it is about pollution then great but electric cars can solve that.
The worry is the fact that big agendas with alterior motives can force the puppets to do this. A bland conformism. And not to mention the £2M Haringey has brought in through LTN fines in only 4 months. I think there are only circa 3 LTNs in Haringey so far.
At least through popular revolt Ealing has reversed some LTNs.
The point is that people were not allowed into the (unadvertised) meeting so have no voice.
Articles from Forbes and quotes from Professor QuackQuack from the "Active Travel Academy" provide the nonsense echo chamber views that you are seeking though, i get it.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics indeed.
The camera the report uses and focal length makes all of them look like frothing sweaty crackheads.
I concede whether or not it was "unadvertised" if there is not enough room for the meeting it needed to be rescheduled.
I don't think it does acknowledge that (that I could see - happy to be corrected), just that people disagree with it (but without providing evidence of their own or citing studies). As for "made up", there is a link to the paper with the research. Dismissing someone as Professor Quack Quack is you ignoring facts that don't suit your viewpoint. The active Travel Academy is part of U of Westminster, and Professor Quack Quack is a professor at the university with a specialty in transport.
http://rachelaldred.org/
It seems that when you don't agree with the research you attack the people who undertake it rather than engage with the evidence or even consider that you might be wrong.
"Because you just happen to agree with it and it mentions quotes from professors several times does not make it right (or factual)."
I have provided peer-reviewed research papers written by professors in transport. I am not sure what else is required to make something factual. I am happy to look at proper evidence that contradicts those findings.
I'd like to see the quote from the Islington councillor about BBQ bans, and how far they managed to get with it. I agree with banning disposables from parks, but not regular BBQs for private use. That is an overreach.
@grenners "There are winners and losers. It's an ideological thing".
I totally agree with the first part. I suspect that even if the research indicates that *overall* there isn't significantly more traffic on boundary roads (and a significant decrease within LTNs) there are almost certainly a few boundary roads that will see an increase. Whether that increase is justified by the various other benefits (some of which you may see as ideological but many of which are factual) is a political decision. It's hard to make decisions or take actions for the greater good which do not have some downsides.
I mean, if you are going to write an article at least make it plausible. I do give Sustrans credit for that, and actually, as it happens, I believe that they do good work, the cycle routes are incredible.
The Active Travel Academy - “The ATA brings together a broad spectrum of expertise to lead research, teaching and knowledge exchange on walking, wheeling, cycling and other active modes, use of ‘micromobilities’, and reduction in car use.”
This quote alone tells you that the bias is going to be one way and it is irrelevant ‘who’ undertakes the research.
I used the term Professor QuackQuack as a general term because we now appear to live in a society whereby someone who gained a degree when Britpop was fashionable seems to think they have earned lifetime superiority over others.
I meet people all the time that literally think with complete (incorrect) certainty but cannot and will not consider the actual learned opinion of others. These people are incapable of listening and certainly above repealing an opinion.
Well I’ve got some bad news because some of us came up the hard way and have still read more of the classics, are better travelled, mix with more diverse communities and actually are much more socialist than the majority of people can understand.
Hand wringing over Ukraine or being absolutely certain that the orange man is bad does not make you a good person, sorry about that.
The way things are being done at present is incredibly undemocratic. I am not opposed to LTN’s and the people in that video shouting and screaming do sound moronic but locking them out of the meeting is not the answer, the opinion of all should matter.
The amount of “Guardian readers” and “Daily Mail readers” giving literally the same argument / using the same insults to one another without realising what they are doing is playing straight into the hands of the people that are taking our rights away, and it is happening at an alarming rate.
I for one will keep sticking my fingers up to power and as I quite enjoy using phrases such as Professor QuackQuack I will continue to do so.