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

[liquidindian]

Your tales might need a little more workshopping, that's all.

 

[teuchter]

No-one should have to have people threatening them and I think chowce5382 should be given some credit for allowing himself to be identifiable. I also don't really think it's on for people on either side to be digging up past tweets and using them for smear purposes unless they are expressing a position that's actually relevant to the discussion about LTNs.

How about we all try and stick to stuff that's directly relevant to the subject.

 

[chowce5382]

Your tales might need a little more workshopping, that's all.

Again, it’s my fault obviously.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I get it. This my fault

I mean, you were up on stage ranting about lycra clad cyclists on the payroll of Lambeth and stuff.... so you have fed this yourself.

 

[chowce5382]

I mean, you were up on stage ranting about lycra clad cyclists on the payroll of Lambeth and stuff.... so you have fed this yourself.

That’s strange, as I would have thought it was the fault of the person(s) who sent the messages. We obviously look at these things in a slightly different way. Each to their own I suppose

 

[Gramsci]

I've just had a read through of the judgement. This is just my lay interpretation of what it all means. Some of it is quite technical, but it seems to me that those technical bits aren't really the important bits. By that I mean that I don't think Lambeth have got away on technicalities.

He doesn't really criticise Lambeth - essentially he says that the way they have implemented the schemes is lawful, and that includes the questions of whether they carried out their equalities assessments adequately and whether they consulted adequately. In both cases he seems to have decided that yes they did, in the context of these particular schemes and the times in which they were implemented. He says that the decision might have been different in a different context - but he's looked at in the context that actually existed. That includes of course the Covid crisis and the direction from central government to implement changes very rapidly. So he is examining a process that starts with Lambeth considering various schemes to be brought in over a 3 year period, that is suddenly accelerated and results in various things being brought in very quickly using a different method than originally envisaged.

As part of this he talks quite a bit of things being assessed and adjusted on a rolling basis. This includes the equality considerations. He seems to think that Lambeth are genuinely considering issues on this "rolling" basis. That means that he does not necessarily criticise them for not having made mitigations so far - but this certainly doesn't mean that he considers this process complete. In other words there seems to be an expectation that various mitigations will be adopted in due course, and based on the outcome of ongoing monitoring and consultation. He talks about the decision having been made to exempt SEND vehicles - even though this has not yet actually been done. It seems to be OK that it has not yet been done but it would not be OK if they fail to do it in a reasonable time. So - I don't see anything in the judgement that tells Lambeth they shouldn't or don't need to consider a blue badge exemption.

I agree with this post. Now I've read the judgement.

Your second one I'm not so sure about.

My impression was that as LTNs are a political minefield he decided to focus on the process.

Or this is what JR are for. They aren't for judiciary to "interfere" in politics.

My take is that he is saying there are dangers in using a rolling equalities assessment.

My take also is that this potentially leaves door open for a further JR if someone considers the mitigation and/or rolling EIA not good enough at a later date.

 

[teuchter]

My impression was that as LTNs are a political minefield he decided to focus on the process.

I think it's more that the case brought to him was about the process. The case that was brought to him was not (as far as I can see) trying to present any evidence that LTNs don't 'work' when measured against their stated aims.

 

[edcraw]

That’s strange, as I would have thought it was the fault of the person(s) who sent the messages. We obviously look at these things in a slightly different way. Each to their own I suppose

Agree that it’s completely the responsibility of the person sending the messages and it’s unacceptable.

You also have responsibility for the Tweets sent out from your organisation.

 

[BigTom]

I think it's more that the case brought to him was about the process. The case that was brought to him was not (as far as I can see) trying to present any evidence that LTNs don't 'work' when measured against their stated aims.

My understanding is that JRs are always about the process and whether it has been followed properly:

Judicial review - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

How does a judge review the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body

www.judiciary.uk

Judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached.

edit: so they cannot bring a case to a JR about whether the LTNs work or not, only about the processes that were followed to implement them.

 

[chowce5382]

I think it's more that the case brought to him was about the process. The case that was brought to him was not (as far as I can see) trying to present any evidence that LTNs don't 'work' when measured against their stated aims.

That’s correct. It’s very difficult to go down the ‘don’t work’ route as effectively you just get a number of diffferent “experts” with polarised views points and you’re then asking a judge (who is not a traffic expert) to say who is right.

 

[BigTom]

That’s correct. It’s very difficult to go down the ‘don’t work’ route as effectively you just get a number of diffferent “experts” with polarised views points and you’re then asking a judge (who is not a traffic expert) to say who is right.

and a JR is not for a judge to decide the rights and wrongs of a decision reached, only to see that due process was followed, right?
Is there a different legal route you could have gone down to get a court decision on the rights and wrongs of the LTNs and whether they achieve what they were meant to?

 

[chowce5382]

Agree that it’s completely the responsibility of the person sending the messages and it’s unacceptable.

You also have responsibility for the Tweets sent out from your organisation.

I don’t I’m afraid, as I don’t send them out, I don’t compose them and I have absolutely no part in that process and have made a conscious decision. That is different from a person sending me direct messages and they are in total control of their actions. Whilst I understand that, as treasurer (and I only took the position as no one else seemed able to open a bank account and understand the bills and the legal process) that I am linked to the account I am not responsible for it in the same way that someone sending me messages directly is. We can carry on going round and round on this one but I do not see it as being analogous.

 

[snowy_again]

I see a new very big parklet thing has just been installed where Fujiyama used to be.

 

[snowy_again]

I mean outside obviously not where the restaurant was

 

[chowce5382]

and a JR is not for a judge to decide the rights and wrongs of a decision reached, only to see that due process was followed, right?
Is there a different legal route you could have gone down to get a court decision on the rights and wrongs of the LTNs and whether they achieve what they were meant to?

Yes, we could have gone down another route but I’ll explain why it didn’t seem sensible:
1. What I said above re the judge and experts. It always reminds me of the bit in The Thick if It where malcom shouts at someone telling them the following:
“My expert would totally disprove that.
Who is your expert?
I don’t know, but I can get one by this afternoon. The thing is, you’ve been listening to the wrong expert. You need to listen to the right expert. And you need to know what an expert is going to advise you before he advises you.”
2. LTNs and their implementation is a political decision. I don’t really think a court is the right place for that argument. My personal view is that whether they are achieving their stated aim will ultimately be decided at the ballot box, just like all other policy decisions.
3. My position, and it won’t change, is that this has always been about the process. We have complex legislation and case law in place to ensure vulnerable people are protected. When elected officials decide that they can cut corners, that has a direct impact on those people. I saw an EQIA which was done pre-Covid and it said LTNs would be positive for all disabled people. It was linked to a study but the study only looked at people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. By definition, this study can’t be used to say that the impact would be positive for all disabled people. That is just anecdotal and I don’t want to dwell on it here. The point is that at the heart of legislation like this there is always a delicate balancing act. My rights start where yours end and that is the same for groups of people. I saw a direct and ongoing impact (possibly 18-24 months whilst the order is in place) on sofia and a number of other people and thought that, if the process had been carried out properly then this impact would not be so severe or there would be recognition and therefore mitigation.
That is why this seems like the most appropriate route. I hope that helps to clear up or explain

 

[edcraw]

Yes, we could have gone down another route but I’ll explain why it didn’t seem sensible:
1. What I said above re the judge and experts. It always reminds me of the bit in The Thick if It where malcom shouts at someone telling them the following:
“My expert would totally disprove that.
Who is your expert?
I don’t know, but I can get one by this afternoon. The thing is, you’ve been listening to the wrong expert. You need to listen to the right expert. And you need to know what an expert is going to advise you before he advises you.”
2. LTNs and their implementation is a political decision. I don’t really think a court is the right place for that argument. My personal view is that whether they are achieving their stated aim will ultimately be decided at the ballot box, just like all other policy decisions.
3. My position, and it won’t change, is that this has always been about the process. We have complex legislation and case law in place to ensure vulnerable people are protected. When elected officials decide that they can cut corners, that has a direct impact on those people. I saw an EQIA which was done pre-Covid and it said LTNs would be positive for all disabled people. It was linked to a study but the study only looked at people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. By definition, this study can’t be used to say that the impact would be positive for all disabled people. That is just anecdotal and I don’t want to dwell on it here. The point is that at the heart of legislation like this there is always a delicate balancing act. My rights start where yours end and that is the same for groups of people. I saw a direct and ongoing impact (possibly 18-24 months whilst the order is in place) on sofia and a number of other people and thought that, if the process had been carried out properly then this impact would not be so severe or there would be recognition and therefore mitigation.
That is why this seems like the most appropriate route. I hope that helps to clear up or explain

I think it’d be fair to say your position has evolved since last Sept. You’ve always said your objections are about process but your original concerns were that they would cause congestion elsewhere rather EQIA’s.

 

[chowce5382]

I think it’d be fair to say your position has evolved since last Sept. You’ve always said your objections are about process but your original concerns were that they would cause congestion elsewhere rather EQIA’s.

Yup, and my worry was that the congestion caused would make it harder for disabled people to get around to appointments and I knew how that would impact them. The reason I say “my” position is that I was not there at the very beginning of this, far from it. . I joined later on when a decision was made that a legal route would be the most pertinent and then helped to direct that having looked at the process and drawn on previous EQIAs I’d had to review and ensure were adapted on cases I’d looked at previously

 

[liquidindian]

I saw an EQIA which was done pre-Covid and it said LTNs would be positive for all disabled people. It was linked to a study but the study only looked at people with mild to moderate learning difficulties.

Please stop misrepresenting this. It was a reference to back up the suggestion that "disabled people may suffer from higher mortality rates than the general population, potentially reflecting exclusion from active travel / lifestyles".

 

[teuchter]

One thing I don't quite understand is why, if the JR is all about process rather than examining the impact on an individual, there has to be a specific 'client' who is part of an affected group.

 

[chowce5382]

Please stop misrepresenting this. It was a reference to back up the suggestion that "disabled people may suffer from higher mortality rates than the general population, potentially reflecting exclusion from active travel / lifestyles".

Which group of disabled people? The finding in the EQIA said that ltns would be positive for all disabled people. Could have said positive and negative but just said positive. That was the only academic study used to back up the “positive” claim. Why no studies on those who are physically disabled?
As I said, I do t want to dwell on it but it’s was questions such as that which got me asking why the there wasn’t a more balance position of positive and negative to the finding in that EQIA. It’s the wholesale finding that they would be positive for all disabled people with no data to back it up which is what made me started thinking about it.
Anyway, we’re just going through old arguments now

 

[chowce5382]

One thing I don't quite understand is why, if the JR is all about process rather than examining the impact on an individual, there has to be a specific 'client' who is part of an affected group.

That’s the way the court works. You couldn’t really go in and say, “this will impact ex group” and then have no witness statements etc to back it up. It has to come from a position of an identifiable person which can be extrapolated. Otherwise I suppose people could use JR for vexatious claims so it’s an understandable rule I would suggest

 

[teuchter]

That’s the way the court works. You couldn’t really go in and say, “this will impact ex group” and then have no witness statements etc to back it up. It has to come from a position of an identifiable person which can be extrapolated. Otherwise I suppose people could use JR for vexatious claims so it’s an understandable rule I would suggest

If part of the case was presenting witness statements to demonstrate impact - then it wasn't purely about process. That implies that the judge had to decide whether the claimed impact is real, but I don't recall anything about that in the judgement.

 

[liquidindian]

The finding in the EQIA said that ltns would be positive for all disabled people.

Did it? Because I believe you're referring to the EQIA for the Transport Strategy and Implementation Plan, and LTNs are just a part of that.



The study you're referring to is footnote 10, and a pretty uncontroversial point IMO. You made a point about finding the right experts earlier, but good luck finding someone who will say there's no link between inactivity and mortality, and no link between disability and access to active travel.

 

[chowce5382]

If part of the case was presenting witness statements to demonstrate impact - then it wasn't purely about process. That implies that the judge had to decide whether the claimed impact is real, but I don't recall anything about that in the judgement.

The witness statements etc go towards the initial hearing which decides whether the case should go ahead. The argument being that the process wasn’t followed and, by no following that process, it’s is having a real impact on a group of people protected under the act and Sofia is an example of that. If there was no group then a judge would probably just give some direction to do better next time in the knowledge that it wasn’t having an impact on any vulnerable groups

 

[alex_]

I don't think it is even been up that long at all

The question is how long until the funds are needed for appeal? Is it a month? four? Six+? I dont doubt they will raise the money.

the first donation is listed as 14 days ago….

 

[chowce5382]

Did it? Because I believe you're referring to the EQIA for the Transport Strategy and Implementation Plan, and LTNs are just a part of that.

View attachment 279587

The study you're referring to is footnote 10, and a pretty uncontroversial point IMO. You made a point about finding the right experts earlier, but good luck finding someone who will say there's no link between inactivity and mortality, and no link between disability and access to active travel.

Note that it refers to “disabled people”. That means all disabled people from the facts of the statement. When you look at the footnote you find that it’s a study from 20 years ago, in the northeast of England and only relates to people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. The statement should be specific that the study in which it is relying effectively excludes physically disabled people and therefore the statement I’m not correct. If anything, the authors of the document are misrepresenting the position.
Again, when you look at the outcome it says that it’s positive for all but does not even go into sub-sets. You might expect this given the nature of the policy. This point is also outlined in the Lambeth transport strategy document where it specifically says that there is not one homogeneous disabled group and there is a vast difference between the needs and requirements of one group vs another. As I said, Lambeth we could have said it was positive and negative in their findings. They just said it would be positive for all disabled people.

 

[chowce5382]

Did it? Because I believe you're referring to the EQIA for the Transport Strategy and Implementation Plan, and LTNs are just a part of that.

View attachment 279587

The study you're referring to is footnote 10, and a pretty uncontroversial point IMO. You made a point about finding the right experts earlier, but good luck finding someone who will say there's no link between inactivity and mortality, and no link between disability and access to active travel.

This is why I said there was not much point dwelling on it, but it was the lack of detail, the lack of a process of looking at different groups of disabled people and working out how these might impact those distinct and different groups which took me to the position of looking at the equalities position rather than a case which would focus on whether LTNs were doing what the council said they were going to do. That is the question I was answering above.

 

[teuchter]

Note that it refers to “disabled people”. That means all disabled people from the facts of the statement. When you look at the footnote you find that it’s a study from 20 years ago, in the northeast of England and only relates to people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. The statement should be specific that the study in which it is relying effectively excludes physically disabled people and therefore the statement I’m not correct. If anything, the authors of the document are misrepresenting the position.
Again, when you look at the outcome it says that it’s positive for all but does not even go into sub-sets. You might expect this given the nature of the policy. This point is also outlined in the Lambeth transport strategy document where it specifically says that there is not one homogeneous disabled group and there is a vast difference between the needs and requirements of one group vs another. As I said, Lambeth we could have said it was positive and negative in their findings. They just said it would be positive for all disabled people.

Are you talking about a different bit of text from the one posted by liquidindian above?

Because I can't match what you're saying with that text at all.

 

[Gramsci]

If part of the case was presenting witness statements to demonstrate impact - then it wasn't purely about process. That implies that the judge had to decide whether the claimed impact is real, but I don't recall anything about that in the judgement.

From reading judgement the Judge did say he accepted that Sofia herself had been adversely affected.

How I read the judgement is that the Judge at this point in time gave Lambeth the benefit of the doubt that they would in near future bring in appropriate mitigations from info obtained from rolling EIA.

He did this due to unique circumstances of the pandemic.

So and this is how I read it he's allowing rolling EIA in this particular instance.

This would make up for any deficiencies in previous EIA I assume.

 

[liquidindian]

20 years ago

And? Not really relevant to the point being made.

in the northeast of England

Ditto.

only relates to people with mild to moderate learning difficulties

Well, quite. Do you think people with mobility issues find accessing active travel easier, or harder?

effectively excludes physically disabled people

See above. I can see why you don't want to dwell on it.


The thing is, the EQIA does go on to talk about potential negative consequences re mobility, but it's under "age" rather than "disability". I suppose this is understandable as car ownership tends to increase with age, but disabled people are way less likely to own a car.