Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

Just noticed that SEND transport providers have exemptions - from the Tulse Hill stage 1 report:

Early feedback gathered since the temporary scheme was launched indicated some individuals have had to change their routes to access essential services and support.

On the back of the data we have granted an exemption for all Special Educations Needs and Disabilities (SEND) transport providers across all LTNs.
Click to expand...

It also says exemptions are being considered so really not sure where they’ve said they are unworkable.

The EqIA for each trial LTNs is reviewed and updated as we gather data and feedback from stakeholders. To date we have received 28 emails regarding disability in Tulse Hill low traffic neighbourhood.

Impacts on disabled people will remain a key focus and the data we gather will be used to develop our exemption policy and other mitigation.
Click to expand...

beta.lambeth.gov.uk

Equalities impact assessment

In October 2020, we published an equalities impact assessment. This assessed the impact of the Tulse Hill low traffic Neighbourhood on different demographic groups including the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and...
beta.lambeth.gov.uk beta.lambeth.gov.uk
 
edcraw said:
It just seems weird that people opposing LTNs pretty much always seem to take an issue with any cycling infrastructure - certainly how OneLambeth comes across & just makes it look like a pro car lobby (dispute your protestations).

I presume you saw the data in the press release link in the tweet - just wondering what more you want & why? Do you want CS8 scrapped or just the recent improvements?
Click to expand...
It’s important to work out what the relevant return on investment is. I’m not taking issue with it. I was just asking what the figure was and now is in the headlines, the reason being that if is it working then maybe more money needs to be invested. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I used to cycle but don’t anymore due to being knocked off my bike twice. Ensuring that our money is spent in the most cost effective manner is always vital when it comes to infra as it is one area where we have an appalling record be it trains, airports, roads etc.
 
edcraw said:
But is there an issue, I guess we have to wait for the judgement but why haven't disability organisations pursued this or used grants to help fund it? Doesn't that suggest something.

I'm sure we can agree that it shouldn't be left up to a pro-motoring lobby group.
Click to expand...
This is why the equalities act was needed to ensure disabled people have a voice and their rights are protected. The disabled support groups and charities spend huge amounts of time and money advocating for disabled people, and there has been increased demand for services during the pandemic. I really don’t think any are likely to be awash with spare cash to set up all the legal challenges that they would like to. I find it abhorrent that some posters on here seem to resent the fact that the equalities legislation is being enacted thus the quibble about who is paying for it. For me it is absolutely right that access for all carers must be prioritised as these are essential visits not some optional luxury service these are roads and can not be shut off without regards for the impact on disabled people. These are big changes to our city access and the law is there to protect disabled people from discrimination, and this ill thought out closure of roads without consultation is wrong if it negatively impacts disabled persons period. A lot of people have a network of carers thus the reason for blue badges linking to the disabled person and not just named vehicles. Anyone who is visiting a disabled person be it on an ad-hoc basis to deliver shopping, provide company etc, or for more structured care provision must be allowed free access fir their vehicles. Some may choose to cycle but those that drive cars must not be deterred from providing care. This is obviously on top of cars owned by those disabled people who have mobility issues and choose to drive a car themselves.
Isolation and loneliness often go with disability, so even social visits providing company to a housebound person must be protected. All this is easily managed in the congestion zone by enforcement cameras so it should have been considered by the council before they rushed in with these contentious road closures.
 
chowce5382 said:
It’s important to work out what the relevant return on investment is. I’m not taking issue with it. I was just asking what the figure was and now is in the headlines, the reason being that if is it working then maybe more money needs to be invested. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, I used to cycle but don’t anymore due to being knocked off my bike twice. Ensuring that our money is spent in the most cost effective manner is always vital when it comes to infra as it is one area where we have an appalling record be it trains, airports, roads etc.
Click to expand...

Fair play - If you’re struggling for time, and need to prioritise your efforts, the Silvertown Tunnel may be worth your time for value for money concerns (as well as air quality & climate change impact of course) although some wands, a few sections of bus lane and right turn ban obviously are important 😉.
 
sleaterkinney said:
You mentioned people who would have issues sitting in traffic jams etc, but what percentage of disabled people are they, could these schemes be actually be beneficial to other disabled people?.
Can the traffic flow etc not be analysed?



It does presume there’s a negative impact from this.
Click to expand...
That's what's being asked for. A proper measure, study and analyse of impact with an informed and fair response. That's what's been missing from Lambeth.

I have given examples from real life as I've encountered them myself or from people I know. Those with severe learning, sensory and or medical needs cannot cycle or walk. Equally nothing has been put in place to make other aspects of their journey easier
 
sleaterkinney said:
You mentioned people who would have issues sitting in traffic jams etc, but what percentage of disabled people are they, could these schemes be actually be beneficial to other disabled people?.
Can the traffic flow etc not be analysed?



It does presume there’s a negative impact from this.
Click to expand...
I needn't have replied. Just read Southlondon's post. He has summed it all up.
 
nagapie said:
I have given examples from real life as I've encountered them myself or from people I know. Those with severe learning, sensory and or medical needs cannot cycle or walk. Equally nothing has been put in place to make other aspects of their journey easier
Click to expand...

Not saying more shouldn’t be done but as mentioned above SEND transport providers seem to have exemptions so not true that nothing has been put in place.

I do wonder why no one on here seems to have mentioned this exemption before but are able to speak with great authority on the council’s approach in this area.
 
edcraw said:
Not saying more shouldn’t be done but as mentioned above SEND transport providers seem to have exemptions so not true that nothing has been put in place.

I do wonder why no one on here seems to have mentioned this exemption before but are able to speak with great authority on the council’s approach in this area.
Click to expand...
Because it's not nearly enough.
 
edcraw said:
Not saying more shouldn’t be done but as mentioned above SEND transport providers seem to have exemptions so not true that nothing has been put in place.

I do wonder why no one on here seems to have mentioned this exemption before but are able to speak with great authority on the council’s approach in this area.
Click to expand...
I only found out about this in court yesterday. I had heard that there had been some sort of exemption. Whilst you obviously won’t believe me it’s worth mentioning that this is a recent development , SEND vehicles are owed by Lambeth (I think) and that’s important as you’d expect that they would have thought about this earlier rather than it being an afterthought. Good that it has changed though
 
Southlondon said:
This is why the equalities act was needed to ensure disabled people have a voice and their rights are protected. The disabled support groups and charities spend huge amounts of time and money advocating for disabled people, and there has been increased demand for services during the pandemic. I really don’t think any are likely to be awash with spare cash to set up all the legal challenges that they would like to. I find it abhorrent that some posters on here seem to resent the fact that the equalities legislation is being enacted thus the quibble about who is paying for it. For me it is absolutely right that access for all carers must be prioritised as these are essential visits not some optional luxury service these are roads and can not be shut off without regards for the impact on disabled people. These are big changes to our city access and the law is there to protect disabled people from discrimination, and this ill thought out closure of roads without consultation is wrong if it negatively impacts disabled persons period. A lot of people have a network of carers thus the reason for blue badges linking to the disabled person and not just named vehicles. Anyone who is visiting a disabled person be it on an ad-hoc basis to deliver shopping, provide company etc, or for more structured care provision must be allowed free access fir their vehicles. Some may choose to cycle but those that drive cars must not be deterred from providing care. This is obviously on top of cars owned by those disabled people who have mobility issues and choose to drive a car themselves.
Isolation and loneliness often go with disability, so even social visits providing company to a housebound person must be protected. All this is easily managed in the congestion zone by enforcement cameras so it should have been considered by the council before they rushed in with these contentious road closures.
Click to expand...
I know people do rely on their car and people visiting by cars, no roads have been shut off, every one can be accessed. This hasn’t been stopped and no one is saying it should.
 
I’ve always seen community transport and SEND transport go through the barriers on the Railton Road since the start of the pilot.

Lambeth own some SEND transport provision (they’re logoed) but other independent community transport providers exist and I’ve seen them using LTN streets and go through ANPR cameras for a long time.

Wandsworth CTA being the most common one. I think anything above a nine seater is classed as a bus and therefore automatically exempt.

LaSCoT (Lambeth and Southwark CT) was taken over by Hackney CTA as it’s a difficult service to offer financially - the govt pays too little in transport components of benefits, so CTAs either have to fundraise continually, use volunteers and/or be more commercial in how they operate.
 
chowce5382 said:
I only found out about this in court yesterday. I had heard that there had been some sort of exemption. Whilst you obviously won’t believe me it’s worth mentioning that this is a recent development , SEND vehicles are owed by Lambeth (I think) and that’s important as you’d expect that they would have thought about this earlier rather than it being an afterthought. Good that it has changed though
Click to expand...

According to the Railton Equality Impact Assessment the exemption’s been in place since at least November last year or maybe August.

 
Last edited:
chowce5382 said:
Again, this came up in court. It then wasn't included in the actual order implementing the ETO so there was confusion (on the side of their barrister) as to whether it was in place or not as the order is the actual implementation device.
Click to expand...
Hadn't someone in OneLambeth noticed it before? Isn't the EIA priviotal to your reasons for bringing the case?
 
edcraw said:
Hadn't someone in OneLambeth noticed it before? Isn't the EIA priviotal to your reasons for bringing the case?
Click to expand...
yup, they are part of it but not pivotal as they link back to a duty under legislation and how that duty is or isn't carried out. It had been noticed but, as I said, wasn't in the order which takes priority hence the confusion of the part of Lambeth's barrister who didn't know if it was valid or not.
 
edcraw said:
Can you share any more details about the case?
Click to expand...
Not really tbh. It's very technical and I'd just prefer to not say anything as it's really up to the Judge now to deliberate. From a personal perspective, I tend to think that it's best not to try and re-tell the arguments on each side as you'll never be able to do them justice and it can lead to a misunderstanding which isn't really fair on the Judge or the barristers who put those arguments forward. I hope you understand why I'm taking that approach.
 
nagapie said:
That's not how blue badges work for reasons related to the care of the qualifying person. Blue badge exemption exists for the congestion charge, of course it can be done.
Click to expand...

yes, and it works for the congestion zone by the badge holder giving tfl two number plates which are then exempted.

which is what I said would need to happen
 
chowce5382 said:
I only found out about this in court yesterday. I had heard that there had been some sort of exemption. Whilst you obviously won’t believe me it’s worth mentioning that this is a recent development , SEND vehicles are owed by Lambeth (I think) and that’s important as you’d expect that they would have thought about this earlier rather than it being an afterthought. Good that it has changed though
Click to expand...
I'm a bit surprised you have only found this out in court because I'm sure I remember it being mentioned in some Lambeth document that I read at least a couple of weeks ago.
 
alex_ said:
yes, and it works for the congestion zone by the badge holder giving tfl two number plates which are then exempted.

which is what I said would need to happen
Click to expand...
I didn't know they only took 2. I'm sure it's possible to roll it out more in line with blue badge criteria if they wanted to. Tfl also have many areas to improve on in terms of access.
 
chowce5382 said:
The point about the EQIA process is that the council is perfectly able to know the exactly number disabled people in any street, the nature of their disability and how this will impact them. This is information they already have. As you say, quick and simple to exempt bin lorries. Just as quick and simple to ensure that others are allowed access if you do the work in the first place. Of course, if you don’t, they those disabled people are placed behind bin lorries in the of precedent.
Click to expand...

its only quick and easy if there is an automated process, as someone else said bin lorries are easy to see in a picture - cars with blue badge holders in look just like any other car
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
747
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
730
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
795
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom