Rushy
basically a scrotum
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!
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
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?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!
teuchter
je suis teuchter
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
Well-Known Member
A study showing a reduction in car ownership in an LTN. Actual stats and investigations!
findingspress.org
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.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
pls bring more data
Jeanette Moo
Active Member
With a bar set so low i'm not young enough to Limbo any more hun
teuchter
je suis teuchter
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
Considerably more Brixton.
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
Well-Known Member
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
je suis teuchter
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?
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
ask the bird...
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
Considerably more Brixton.
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
Well-Known Member
Ive aready made my views known.
I was replying to your suggestion that XR leave no trace.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
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
hiraethified
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
I note you've correctly marked it as 'opinion'...
editor
hiraethified
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
Considerably more Brixton.
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
hiraethified
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
je suis teuchter
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.
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.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
A very fair comment
snowy_again
Slush
Because it’s (unlike most other European cities) under subsidised?
Unlike car drivers.
Unlike car drivers.
snowy_again
Slush
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
hiraethified
They're usually kept busy slagging off Buzz and kicking me out of their shitty FB group.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’.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
In what way is it actually relevant to the discussion about the Railton LTN though?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
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.
Similar threads
