Jesterburger
Well-Known Member
Anything to make money.
If only there was some way of avoiding the fines
Anything to make money.
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.If only there was some way of avoiding the fines
about how they are just a money making exercise
The dark side of LTNs. Millionaire property developers wanting road closures to increase the desirability and profitability of their empires
The dark side of LTNs. Millionaire property developers wanting road closures to increase the desirability and profitability of their empires
Whats the significance of Rectory Gardens?he’s got a image of rectory gardens as his profile cover pic
Whats the significance of Rectory Gardens?
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.well there’s this.....
.....and then there’s this....Rectory Gardens | The Spectacle Blog
www.spectacle.co.uk
Rectory Grove
www.lexadon.co.uk
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
Now that the 'no motor vehicle' signs and planters have been in place for over 2 months, we are now enforcing fines of £130 against people who drive through the closures. Most drivers are following the rules; however, our monitoring shows some people are still acting illegally and driving through.
Make sure you don’t get fined for passing the 'no motor vehicle' signs which are on Amesbury Avenue, at the junctions with Faygate Road and Emsworth Street, at the junction of Hillside Road with Downton Road, and on Palace Road, close to the junction with Daysbrook Road. See below for a map of the locations which non-emergency motor vehicles cannot pass through.
Emergency vehicles and people walking and cycling are still able to pass through from either direction, and any street can still be accessed by car from one end by residents or visitors.
Thank you,
Lambeth Parking and Enforcement Service
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 dissidentswww.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.
Sensible stuff:
- consult better but don’t just listen to loudest voices
- let changes bed in for 6-12 months before reaching conclusions
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.
Frankly I am tired of decades of mealy-mouthed inaction and consultations that slow down progress. Fuck it - a revolution is needed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.