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

[Gramsci]

This is just ridiculous and an obvious way of shutting down any discussion it also suggests why OneLambeth are pursuing this course as they know arguing for disability rights looks a lot better than arguing to “open all roads” which if you read the fundraising comments (have you done that yet?) is their real motivation.

No its not shutting down discussion. Its pointing out whose case this is. Which is the disabled lady. Its not One Lambeth case in legal terms.

I don't have this black and white view of the LTN issue that you do.

 

[edcraw]

No its not shutting down discussion. Its pointing out whose case this is. Which is the disabled lady. Its not One Lambeth case in legal terms.

I don't have this black and white view of the LTN issue that you do.

I don’t think it’s black and white but do think the benefits heavily out way disadvantages (especially if some of these can be mitigated).

Cities should not be dominated by cars.

You are saying chowce5382 shouldn’t be challenged which is shutting down debate.

 

[nagapie]

I don’t think it’s black and white but do think the benefits heavily out way disadvantages (especially if some of these can be mitigated).

Cities should not be dominated by cars.

You are saying chowce5382 shouldn’t be challenged which is shutting down debate.

If the disadvantages are that some vulnerable groups get sidelined, then no, the advantages are not enough.

 

[nagapie]

Ah yes true, I’m not trying to say that an LTN is bad thing, far from it, I’m just saying that from a legal point of view, there are definitely weak elements that can be exploited.

Lack of proper assessment of impact on vulnerable groups is not a weakness to be exploited. Your language is all wrong, it's an unnacceptibility.

 

[chowce5382]

But you’re doing what that Transport for All report asks campaigners not to do - you’re treating people with disabilities as a homogenous group.

Who is doing that?

 

[chowce5382]

Me: the Earth is flat

You: how do you know?

Me: It just is - if you want proof find it yourself!

Ahh, you’re a flat earther. This explains everything

 

[chowce5382]

Nobody has said this.

But people keep on saying that the EQIAs cater for SEND. Ok, that’s good. I’m asking whether you think that represents all disabled people. If it doesn’t then why is that the only group. It’s a fair argument

 

[Not a Vet]

Lack of proper assessment of impact on vulnerable groups is not a weakness to be exploited. Your language is all wrong, it's an unnacceptibility.

I’ve said multiple times that LTNs should cater better for disabled people. Equally, if I’m looking for an attack point to reverse the legislation, this is my in. Both statements can be true. Apologies for my clumsy language

 

[alex_]

Ahh, you’re a flat earther. This explains everything

ad hominem attacks, always used by people with a really strong argument

 

[chowce5382]

ad hominem attacks, always used by people with a really strong argument

See Ed’s post above that I was commenting on and the relevant set of comments which lead up to this.

 

[edcraw]

chowce5382 - had you read the EQIA for Railton Road before the court case last week and if so why did you not know about the SEND exemption before then?

 

[chowce5382]

chowce5382 - had you read the EQIA for Railton Road before the court case last week and if so why did you not know about the SEND exemption before then?

Ed, we’ve been over this. It was in the EQIA but not the order implementing the LTN. The order takes priority so there was confusion as to whether this was the case. As I’ve said, Lambeth’s barrister was also not sure as to whether SEND had exemption. As I’ve also said, above, SEND is a subset, does it represent all disabled people or not? I’ve posted on that above.

 

[edcraw]

Ed, we’ve been over this. It was in the EQIA but not the order implementing the LTN. The order takes priority so there was confusion as to whether this was the case. As I’ve said, Lambeth’s barrister was also not sure as to whether SEND had exemption. As I’ve also said, above, SEND is a subset, does it represent all disabled people or not? I’ve posted on that above.

Okay - but that’s not what I asked. Had you read it & if so why weren’t you aware that it mentions the exemption before Thursday as you say in post #5049?

 

[chowce5382]

Okay - but that’s not what I asked. Had you read it & if so why weren’t you aware that it mentions the exemption before Thursday as you say in post #5049?

Yes I read it but had also read the order which implement the LTN which didn’t mention it and takes precedence. I was unaware that it was an exemption as that thing which would give it exemption status didn’t give the exemption. I had heard that SEND vehicles had been seen inside LTNs but hadn’t seen any myself so thought that someone might be mistaken. To clear up the issue I went back and looked at the order and did not see an exemption.

 

[edcraw]

Yes I read it but had also read the order which implement the LTN which didn’t mention it and takes precedence. I was unaware that it was an exemption as that thing which would give it exemption status didn’t give the exemption. I had heard that SEND vehicles had been seen inside LTNs but hadn’t seen any myself so thought that someone might be mistaken. To clear up the issue I went back and looked at the order and did not see an exemption.

Okay - but not what you say in #5049 when you say you’d only just found out about it.

Also, maybe I’m being pedantic here but of course SEND vehicles would be seen inside LTNs as that’s not the restriction, it’s whether they’re seen going through the filters.

 

[chowce5382]

Okay - but not what you say in #5049 when you say you’d only just found out about it.

Also, maybe I’m being pedantic here but of course SEND vehicles would be seen inside LTNs as that’s not the restriction, it’s whether they’re seen going through the filters.

Only just found out that the exemption had been formally given and was in force. As I said, SEND vehicles had been seen inside LTNS, I didn’t know how they had got in (whether it was through the filters or not). So, I looked at the order and saw that there wasn’t an exemption mentioned. Lambeth’s QC was also not sure whether there was an exemption.

 

[Gramsci]

I don’t think it’s black and white but do think the benefits heavily out way disadvantages (especially if some of these can be mitigated).

Cities should not be dominated by cars.

You are saying chowce5382 shouldn’t be challenged which is shutting down debate.

I'm saying if you are "challenging" the case you are challenging the person who brought it. The disabled lady.

You have said previously that people should wait for the judgement.

I see what you are getting at. That chowce5382 is only doing this to get rid of LTNs. I'm now skipping posts as the argument is going no where now.

As the Judge will be looking at the arguments on both sides perhaps waiting to see what Judge thinks of the issue is best now.

 

[edcraw]

Only just found out that the exemption had been formally given and was in force. As I said, SEND vehicles had been seen inside LTNS, I didn’t know how they had got in (whether it was through the filters or not). So, I looked at the order and saw that there wasn’t an exemption mentioned. Lambeth’s QC was also not sure whether there was an exemption.

I’m sure you know of Elm Court School in the Tulse Hill LTN so if you weren’t aware of SEND vehicles using LTNs that would be a surprise.

 

[chowce5382]

I’m sure you know of Elm Court School in the Tulse Hill LTN so if you weren’t aware of SEND vehicles using LTNs that would be a surprise.

Haven’t really been out of my house much in the last year and I know of the school but don’t ever go near there so haven’t seen a SEND vehicle. As you said, it’s not about using them, it’s about seeing them go through the ANPR

 

[edcraw]

Haven’t really been out of my house much in the last year and I know of the school but don’t ever go near there so haven’t seen a SEND vehicle. As you said, it’s not about using them, it’s about seeing them go through the ANPR

They have their own buses for SEND transport and the Elm Park Filter is in between its 2 gates.

I know that councillors spoke to the school from the start and I’m guessing that fed into the exemption.

 

[sleaterkinney]

But people keep on saying that the EQIAs cater for SEND. Ok, that’s good. I’m asking whether you think that represents all disabled people. If it doesn’t then why is that the only group. It’s a fair argument

It doesn't represent all disabled people and nobody is saying it does. The assessment is not say it does either. It's not a fair argument, you're just inventing a position.

 

[edcraw]

Article in the Torygraph about the court case - www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/12/transport-revolution-creates-perfect-storm-disabled-people-court/amp/

Road closures introduced as part of Grant Shapps’s green transport revolution created the "perfect storm" for disabled people who rely on cars to get about, the High Court has heard.

Lambeth Council was accused of badly affecting "the quality of life" by ignoring the needs of those who cannot walk or cycle when they created a series of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs).

Sophia Sheakh, 47, who suffers chronic sarcoidosis and has to use a car to travel to hospital appointments, is seeking a judicial review into how her south London council introduced road closures.

During a two-day of hearing at the Law Courts in London, Mr Justice Kerr was told town hall bosses had a "fundamental problem" because they focused "almost exclusively on the benefits of LTNs to those living within them and those able to take advantage of non-motorised transport" at the expense of the "acute disadvantages" suffered by those living nearby.

Legal documents presented to the court say the south London council also failed to properly consider how LTNs create an "increase in traffic congestion and journey times … across the borough".

Ms Sheakh, who has tumours in her lungs and experiences chronic pain due to the disease affecting her breathing, lymphatic system and joints, cannot cycle or walk. It was claimed the car is "vital" for her but journey times and pollution have increased meaning she experiences pain being stuck in her vehicle for longer periods.

The Labour-run council began introducing LTNs in 2019, but the project was "accelerated" when Mr Shapps, the Transport Secretary, offered £250 million in the belief they could help promote social distancing in the pandemic.

"For disabled persons, in particular, these issues create a perfect storm," Tim Buley, QC, representing Ms Sheakh, said.

He added how LTNs have a "very severe effect on the quality of life" for those disabled people who have no choice but to use cars and taxis.

He said even one of the council’s witnesses, Dr Anna Goodman, admits cars were "mobility aids" for those disabled people "who lack realistic alternatives".

Her statement says "these people face the inconvenience of longer travel times" and it was important to "take feedback and consider when mitigation measures may be possible".

But Mr Buley said it was "irrational" that one of the only organisations the council consulted about how road closures would affect disabled people was Wheels for Wellbeing, a campaign group representing and promoting disabled cyclists.

Tim Mould, QC, representing Lambeth, said LTNs allowed the council to "test in practice" the effect they had through “ongoing monitoring” on different groups, including disabled people.

He said council officials would "react sensitively to what we discover and mitigate the impact on those badly affected".

The LTNS were "traffic experiments" intended to "remove or restrain" cars by requiring "through traffic to use alternative routes or cause those driving cars to seek alternative modes of transport", such as walking or cycling, he continued.

He added they were an experiment "because there was uncertainty to the degree of displacement of traffic from one location to another".

The council’s skeleton argument says there was "reasonable expectation" that road closures "would not disproportionately affect people with one or more protected characteristics" under the Equality Act 2010, including disabled people.

It adds how Ms Sheakh is correct in claiming that by October last year the council had not conducted an equality impact assessment of their effect, but that does not mean Lambeth was in breach of its public service equality duty or failed to meet its requirements for the disabled, which it is required to do under the Equality Act 2010.

Ms Sheakh has challenged LTNs set up in Streatham Hill, Railton and the St Matthews area of the borough.

Mr Justice Kerr will deliver his ruling at a later date.

 

[chowce5382]

It doesn't represent all disabled people and nobody is saying it does. The assessment is not say it does either. It's not a fair argument, you're just inventing a position.

My point is that SEND being mentioned in the EQIA actually highlights that fact that others groups aren’t catered for

 

[snowy_again]

Okay - but not what you say in #5049 when you say you’d only just found out about it.

Also, maybe I’m being pedantic here but of course SEND vehicles would be seen inside LTNs as that’s not the restriction, it’s whether they’re seen going through the filters.

SEND being only one subset of a community - but Given that most day centres for adults are closed due to covid, their vehicles (the CTA or self managed transport wouldn’t be happening at the mo) but would also be eligible to use LTNs.

You can also access LTN areas without going through any barriers or ANPR cameras so I’m not sure what Charlie’s on about with that.

However community transport isn’t a panacea and doesn’t always follow the social model.

 

[chowce5382]

SEND being only one subset of a community - but Given that most day centres for adults are closed due to covid, their vehicles (the CTA or self managed transport wouldn’t be happening at the mo) but would also be eligible to use LTNs.

You can also access LTN areas without going through any barriers or ANPR cameras so I’m not sure what Charlie’s on about with that.

However community transport isn’t a panacea and doesn’t always follow the social model.

Yes, you can access all parts but not in the quickest manner. This matters to disabled people due to increased journey times

 

[sparkybird]

All the cameras in the Streatham Hill LTN have been vandalized over night

 

[alex_]

All the cameras in the Streatham Hill LTN have been vandalized over nig

naturally all at onelambeth are condemning this mindless criminal activity ?

 

[edcraw]

I’m sure if only Lambeth were to give blue badge exemptions the vandalism would stop.

 

[nagapie]

I’m sure if only Lambeth were to give blue badge exemptions the vandalism would stop.

That's a pointless point.

 

[edcraw]

Okay - to be serious I find it really depressing and the fact that people are vandalising signs & cameras, covering number plates or using false ones etc just shows the entitlement of a lot of drivers and the danger they pose that impacts so many people.