chowce5382
Active Member
You guys love talking about historic systems. Let’s just start with access to all LtNs which have been put in as a response to covid. The historic ones we can look at later but that’s a start.
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The extension of this logic would be that anyone who is badly paid, and needs to travel between appointments, should be given access. But it ignores all those people who are badly paid and need to travel between appointments, and who don't have a car and have to rely on public transport and/or walking and cycling.
Of course, you'll not agree with the second sentence if you don't believe that LTNs can provide an improvement for those not travelling by private car.
If cars are allowed, blue badge holders should be allowed. So they can enjoy historic London like everyone else.
No, caring for our most vulnerable is a specific area of need that must be prioritized.
I'm sure LTNs can provide benefits for those not traveling by car, I've never said otherwise, but some people with disabilities need cars. Don't try and pit disabilities against each other, that's not where the problems lie.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I'm not pitting disabilities against each other any more than you are.
No, people with access to motability are not taking away from those who don't. That is not where the problem lies. Blue badge holders are few, they're not going to fuck up the LTNs by using them. It's just made up nonsense.
This is how this thread goes.
People conflate One Lambeth and disabled blue badge holders.
You point out this isn't how it is and everyone says they are all in agreement with blue badge holders having access, you've all said that all over this thread in response to me.
Blue badge holders are denied access and you all jump in to defend it.
So you're all agreeing that some of the most vulnerable people in the country should not be given a reasonable adjustment that improves their lives, reduces hardship and mitigates against the acute isolation these sectors of society face.
Basically you sound like a load of pricks.
People conflate One Lambeth and disabled blue badge holders.
You point out this isn't how it is and everyone says they are all in agreement with blue badge holders having access, you've all said that all over this thread in response to me.
Blue badge holders are denied access and you all jump in to defend it.
So you're all agreeing that some of the most vulnerable people in the country should not be given a reasonable adjustment that improves their lives, reduces hardship and mitigates against the acute isolation these sectors of society face.
Basically you sound like a load of pricks.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Before the court case?.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
So clearly you disagree with Lambeth council about what should happen. I don't understand why you seem unhappy that there's consultation. If there wasn't then Lambeth would just proceed with a plan you are not happy with.
That's not what I said. I pointed out, it shouldn't be necessary to consult on fair access for the disabled.
Especially if consultation is going to be used as a guise to say that offering next to nothing is doing something.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Y
You've been asked plenty of times to back stuff up and you haven't, the fucking cheek of this.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
This only makes sense if what is "fair" is obvious and indisputable. It isn't.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Brixton Blog article quotes Danny Adilypour
“We are also working with the NHS to identify which of their services may need an exemption, and have separate proposals for taxis and fully accessible private hire vehicles to be able to travel through bus gates.”
This sounds like taxis and accessible PHVs might be allowed through even if they are not carrying someone with a blue badge. I’m not in favour of that.
“We are also working with the NHS to identify which of their services may need an exemption, and have separate proposals for taxis and fully accessible private hire vehicles to be able to travel through bus gates.”
This sounds like taxis and accessible PHVs might be allowed through even if they are not carrying someone with a blue badge. I’m not in favour of that.
chowce5382
Active Member
It was in the court documents we submitted. It was the same a long time ago when someone in the family needed one too. However, I admit that it might not be a well known point in ableist circles
It's very clear that you know very little if anything about disability and inclusion. Yet you feel free to constantly talk about these issues as if you do.
Yep, I think that’s the case. I guess it would be v difficult to only allow them when being used by blue badge holders.
Isn’t this from the report I shared above? Do you know when 56% of those eligible don’t have blue badges?
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
so surely on the same logic it should not be necessary to consult on changes to the transport system to increase safety and accessibility, and more equitably allocate street space, for walking and cycling, the most vulnerable road users.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
It's not just that, there are plenty of people who have the same issues as blue badge holders but do not have access to a car and so don't have a blue badge, for whom taxis are a main form of transport - allowing wheelchair accessible taxis through LTN filters gives the same access to the 46% (? from memory of the stat quoted earlier) of people who have a condition that automatically qualifies them for a blue badge but do not have a blue badge.
It would be disproportionate to have taxi drivers prove that their journey involved someone in receipt of disability benefits (I think that's probably inclusive of all people who need this adjustment, including people who don't have a blue badge for lack of access to a car).
BigTom
Well-Known Member
If it's so obvious, then why has the council not proposed what you propose? To me that says there is disagreement about what is fair/proportionate. If there is broad agreement with what you propose then this should be brought out in the consultation and the proposal should be altered to reflect that.
I've said what I have to say on inclusion and reasonable adjustments.
Lambeth are not exactly models of practice in this area on this matter.
I'm tired of people defending lack of access, especially on nonsense like it's not fair to other disabled people.
I have 15 years of working with disability and inclusion and I encounter these sorts of excuses and smoke and mirror bullshit all the time.
You're either for reasonable adjustments and inclusion or you're not.
Agree with this - however black cab users also skew heavily to the very well off so it’s also an exemption for them which isn’t great.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Yes the barristers of Dulwich will be happy.
I am not arguing for black cab access but I think that what's muddying the waters is that a lot of disability transport is now contracted out to black cabs by the local authorities.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
Yes I can see the problem.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I see. Thanks for letting me know.
One Lambeth’s position is different. They don’t want to just allow certain groups such as disabled people and their carers through the LTN. They are saying that because of the congestion caused by displaced traffic (their words) then that’s just as bad, so they insist in removing the LTNs entirely as this will remove the congestion. I don’t remember it being like that pre LTN.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
It was a general point given your "do your own research" attitude in the past, not backed up by what happened in the court case. And now it turns out Lambeth are willing to tweak their plans, as they said they would all along...
Like Uber drivers for example, also couriers and all tradesmen.
Our error here is trying to distill their logic
Similar threads
