Maybe
chowce5382 can clarify why they chose to use 'lycra-clad'. Usually it's code for confident, well off leisure or commuter cyclists who'd be much more likely to cycle on the main roads than take the quieter back routes that LTNs try to provide, and who are not doing short local journeys.
It wouldn't encompass, for example, parents who want to try out doing the school run by bike rather than car. The kind of journeys which, if you could encourage them, could take significant amounts of traffic off the roads.
Dear Teuchter, Ed & Liquidindian
To address your points in turn.
My use of Lycra-Clad and Ideological:
This comes from a vast number of FOIs and close scrutiny on some of the work done pre-covid towards the LTNs. Lambeth did a fair amount of work on LTNs before covid arrived on the world stage and also produced an impact assessment on people with protected characteristics. The LTN I live in, in Tulse hill is based entirely on the work done around LTNs before we knew about covid. The LTN that was imposed (without proper consultation) was a replica of that work. So, the first question I asked myself was how is it that an LTN based around work done before a global pandemic can happen to be the perfect response to that pandemic which was unforeseeable at the time. It seemed illogical to me one would fit perfectly for the other. As a result, I decided to dig into some of the work done around this LTN. Whilst Lambeth did consult some groups, I noticed that there was a complete lack of consultation with local disabled charities/groups. Most of the group consulted were groups that represented physically able-bodied charities. I looked at the feedback from each and one that stuck out was from Lambeth Cycling (a local offshoot of LCC) which said that they were delighted with the proposal as it implemented everything that had asked for apart from one thing, that there should be many more LTNs. I then looked further to find that, of all the groups who had representation on Lambeth council during the actual decision making process, it was someone who was a senior member of LCC (now no longer working with them due to some racist tweets which were found by a journalist). Again, it seemed strange to me that, of all the groups they asked to advise on the decision making process, it was LCC. Not a single disabled charity local to Brixton was asked to advise on the decision making process regarding the formulation of the transport policy around LTNs. At best I thought that the council had just just just forgotten they represented one of the poorest areas with one of the highest number of vulnerable people in London. So, I stayed judgment on the decision-making process.
I then decided to look at the EQIA they had undertaken and signed-off on in November 2019 (with the work having been done over the previous c.18 months). This EQIA stated that the impact for
all disabled people in Lambeth would be positive. This statement was linked to some underlying research to back up this assertion so I got hold of this research. Having read it through I saw that the research was undertaken about 15 years ago and encompassed 24 disabled people based up in the North-East of England. This group of people did not live in or anywhere near to an LTN so I thought it was strange that this was the only piece of research that backed-up up this assertion. When I read through it further I found that the subjects used for this study were people who suffered from "mild to moderate learning difficulties". This is an important sub-set of disabled people, however, the thing that jumped out was that the council had formulated a policy, signed off a vital document that categorically stated that an LTN would be beneficial for
all disabled people, and then linked it to an underlying piece of research which deliberately excluded anyone who was physically disabled in relation to a policy which promotes physical transport and then stated it would be positive for those people. I've had to review a number of these EQIAs in previous work, and the council has to do these on a regular basis so know exactly how to use underlying studies to get the answer they want.
The result was that I tried to work our whether:
1. The council was so utterly incompetent that they hadn't realised this and had just added a footnote which just happened to back up their assertion whilst, at the same time, being completely unaware of the fact that they had done this. I discounted this for the reason that the council undertakes these EQIAs on a regular basis and doesn't generally make mistakes such as this (unless they want to).
2. That the council just doesn't care in any way in carrying out their functions and are acting in just their self-interest in every way and at all times. I also discounted this due to the fact that I generally don't believe (and also don't want to believe) that politicians go into politics for self-interest and just purely promoting that self-interest (Boris Johnson possibly being the exception to this as someone who seems only to be interested in the furtherance of his own position).
3. That the council had an idea that they wanted transport change to be focused around cycling, that they had an end-game or answer that they wanted, and would try to ensure that the work they did pointed to that answer. This seemed the most likely to me, given that they had given someone from LCC access over and above any disabled group to be their consultant, that they had cut out one of the main groups for whom the current LTNs would prove to be negative from one of the most important documents that could protect that group and had, when asked, said any change to their current plans was unworkable and not possible. Regarding the position between LCC and the consultant, this was not paid for by the council directly, however, the LCC representative was given acces as an advisor to the decision making process around how to implement LTNs which other groups were not. As such I can be defined as a payment in kind
On the balance of facts, this seemed like an ideological position to me. I'm happy to stand by that as the evidence, to my eye, backs it up.
When I looked at more research in favor of LTNs, (provided by the council) I found that research wasn't peer-reviewed and, in a number of places, referenced its own research which isn't acceptable academic practice and that those researchers had either been trustees of LCC, had written some of the research when with LCC or been paid by LCC when undertaking their research.
Lycra-clad comment:
Given the above advisory capacity of LCC involved in the decision making and the above issues whereby vulnerable groups have been deliberately excluded, it seemed that LCC as a group (who has a membership which is the equivalent of 0.001% of London) seemed that they might be the main lobby group. I looked on the website and the board and saw that it was overwhelmingly white and middle-class. They also happened to be in lycra.
Ed - your point above LTNs and promoting cycling for people off main roads. I agree with this and think it's a good idea. In general, most people I know around here walk to where they need to go as it's not that far. Furthermore, whilst it is supposed to increase cycling an FOI actually shows that it has little difference. Whilst cycling and walking might be up by 60% when you asked every council to split out the data between the two you see that walking is up by 58% and cycling up by 2% (and this tracks across all councils, sometimes it is as much as 3% or goes down to 1% or less). This is why it's not reported separately. For the money being spent (£1500 on average for each extra cyclist on the road), I think that full consultation, EQIAs (properly undertaken), and a proper review would ensure that money spent gives the highest ROC/ROE (especially given our current fiscal situation, this is very important). By the way, I would want and hope that this came up with a vast majority of non-car options given that I don't have a car and walk everywhere or take public transport.
Again I go back to the fact that there wasn't consultation etc means that what has been implemented might benefit those who are more able people (after all, given the above it was designed to do so) but it hasn't taken into account other parts of our society and before we make these changes we have to work how these changes will impact them. I don't think it's right that we should make vulnerable groups live with the changes for 12-18 months as that is deeply inequitable.
