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

[teuchter]

Yet yesterday you were talking about how giving access to blue badge holders was unfair to disabled people who don't have cars.

No I wasn't. I didn't even say anything at all about blue badge holders yesterday.

 

[edcraw]

Remember - consultations start tomorrow for anyone not aware (chowce5382):

 

[alex_]

I don't want to detract too much from yesterday's arguments, because it was clear that people still are not fully behind full blue badge access. And I think that's disgusting and my main concern.
But yes, I do think that carers who are working and going to people's houses should have access too. Many people rely on those carers for their only meal of the day, their only wash, their only medication. Hard to define isn't impossible.
As I said, I don't think the point of LTNs is to take necessary traffic off roads and I don't see the point of doing things for the greater good (LTNs) if you negate other supports.

I don’t really see why a disabled person should be able to drive through a LTN nowhere near their house.

Alex

 

[nagapie]

I don’t really see why a disabled person should be able to drive through a LTN nowhere near their house.

I

And that clearly shows how little you understand about disability and reasonable adjustments.

How dare a disabled person want to or need to leave their area. Maybe they should just learn to walk or whatever the hell is wrong with them like everyone else.

Are you serious?

 

[nagapie]

No I wasn't. I didn't even say anything at all about blue badge holders yesterday.

Ok, so I'm reading your contributions wrong yesterday. So you are in favour of full access for blue badge holders?

 

[alex_]

And that clearly shows how little you understand about disability and reasonable adjustments.

How dare a disabled person want to or need to leave their area. Maybe they should just learn to walk or whatever the hell is wrong with them like everyone else.

Are you serious?

I was the first person in this thread to say that disabled people should be locally exempt, back in may. But exempting them from all low traffic measures, damages the low traffic measures to much and why would you only except them from 2020 low traffic measures and not all low traffic measures ?

 

[nagapie]

I was the first person in this thread to say that disabled people should be locally exempt, back in may. But exempting them from all low traffic measures, damages the low traffic measures to much and why would you only except them from 2020 low traffic measures and not all low traffic measures ?

Disabled people don't suddenly lose their disability when they cross a geographical line, but fine for you to decide this when you get around easily, you won't be isolated and segregated.
Most people in Lambeth don't live near St Thomas' hospital but if you are sick and or disabled, you may still have to travel there multiple times a month.
You don't reduce supports by measuring them against what is fair for those without disabilities.
You, alex, don't understand disability and you don't understand inclusion. And your views reinforce discrimination.

 

[liquidindian]

New monitoring report on Oval: Traffic

• Traffic overall is down
• Traffic on boundary roads is overall down
• Little impact on bus times
• Vast majority of cars fined by ANPR are not local
• A couple of issues raised on specific roads that need to be fixed.

 

[alex_]

Disabled people don't suddenly lose their disability when they cross a geographical line, but fine for you to decide this when you get around easily, you won't be isolated and segregated.
Most people in Lambeth don't live near St Thomas' hospital but if you are sick and or disabled, you may still have to travel there multiple times a month.
You don't reduce supports by measuring them against what is fair for those without disabilities.
You, alex, don't understand disability and you don't understand inclusion. And your views reinforce discrimination.

I’m trying to understand the logic of your position really.

So you are against all traffic calming measures because they make it slower for disabled people to get to hospitals ?

 

[sleaterkinney]

It might be the case that some of the filters would eventually be permanent, I.e not letting any traffic through like the existing ones do.

 

[nagapie]

alex_ , I have actually written long posts on this thread detailing some of the difficulties people with disabilities and their carers face during transportation. You were active on the thread at the time, if you couldn't be bothered to understand them then I don't feel you'll bother now.
Really you are displaying a lot of ignorance and thoughtlessness.

 

[teuchter]

Ok, so I'm reading your contributions wrong yesterday. So you are in favour of full access for blue badge holders?

I've been saying for some time on this thread that I think they should have an exemption at least for the LTN that they live in. Whether it should be for all LTNs everywhere - quite possibly.

Would you be in favour of blue badge holders having an exemption from 20mph speed limits?

 

[nagapie]

I've been saying for some time on this thread that I think they should have an exemption at least for the LTN that they live in. Whether it should be for all LTNs everywhere - quite possibly.

Would you be in favour of blue badge holders having an exemption from 20mph speed limits?

An exemption for where they live is not enough, as I've pointed out in great detail in recent posts.

20mph speed limits are not comparable, they are for the immediate safety of everyone so people aren't killed. This sort of silly comparison is another red herring.

 

[chowce5382]

An exemption for where they live is not enough, as I've pointed out in great detail in recent posts.

20mph speed limits are not comparable, they are for the immediate safety of everyone so people aren't killed. This sort of silly comparison is another red herring.

Classic example of partially agreeing and then asking another question to deflect.
It’s still interesting to see how difficult it is for these guys to agree with the idea that disabled people should get treated in a way that alleviates the problems they face from day to day without some sort of vacuous come back

 

[chowce5382]

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.

Road users aren’t a protected group under legislation. You are now trying to say that cyclists are as vulnerable as disabled people when looking at the legislative protection they should be afforded.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I would guess that Lambeth's intention is that you would exit the LTN you live in and use main roads to get to your destination, not residential ones.

 

[chowce5382]

I thought I’d heard that there were leaflets sent to every home in and around, the LTN areas where consultations are taking place a few weeks ago? But I suspect that, like the multiple letters and notices about Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood, and various posted notices about the 2020 LTNs, and the coverage in Lambeth Life (which goes to every household), the council keeps a heavily profiled data base to ensure none of these things are delivered to people pre selected to oppose the schemes.

I don’t know about this. However, I suspect you’ve had more input than most into this process

 

[teuchter]

20mph speed limits are not comparable, they are for the immediate safety of everyone so people aren't killed. This sort of silly comparison is another red herring.

In deciding that blue badge holders should not be given an exemption from 20 mph speed limits, you have weighed up two interests - on the one hand, an inconvenience to a blue badge holder in that they may not be able to reach their destination as quickly as they otherwise might, and on the other hand, the general benefit to the safety of everyone, of traffic travelling at a lower speed. And you've decided that the inconvenience to blue badge holders is not great enough that general safety for everyone should be compromised. This is exactly the kind of weighing-up that you are seeing others doing, and then accusing them of being "ableist".

Your reply is written in a kind of way that makes the "immediate safety of everyone" a kind of absolute thing that has obvious priority - "so people aren't killed". But it's not an absolute thing - people are still killed by cars travelling at 20mph, and we also exempt certain things from speed limits - ambulances for example - again as a result of a weighing up of benefits.

Lots of your comments on here treat rights of access for disabled people as an absolute thing, that can't be weighed up against anything. And we are not talking about whether or not someone can get access to a location, we are talking about the level of inconvenience or amount of time involved in getting to that location. If anyone suggests weighing this up against some kind of benefit for someone else, they are "ableist". This is complete nonsense.

 

[chowce5382]

I would guess that Lambeth's intention is that you would exit the LTN you live in and use main roads to get to your destination, not residential ones.

Read what nagapie says about this. It’s already been explained why this doesn’t work for disabled people. I’m still not sure why you guys don’t want this change give who it is designed to help and why you are pressing for the minimal amount of assistance possible.

 

[chowce5382]

In deciding that blue badge holders should not be given an exemption from 20 mph speed limits, you have weighed up two interests - on the one hand, an inconvenience to a blue badge holder in that they may not be able to reach their destination as quickly as they otherwise might, and on the other hand, the general benefit to the safety of everyone, of traffic travelling at a lower speed. And you've decided that the inconvenience to blue badge holders is not great enough that general safety for everyone should be compromised. This is exactly the kind of weighing-up that you are seeing others doing, and then accusing them of being "ableist".

Your reply is written in a kind of way that makes the "immediate safety of everyone" a kind of absolute thing that has obvious priority - "so people aren't killed". But it's not an absolute thing - people are still killed by cars travelling at 20mph, and we also exempt certain things from speed limits - ambulances for example - again as a result of a weighing up of benefits.

Lots of your comments on here treat rights of access for disabled people as an absolute thing, that can't be weighed up against anything. And we are not talking about whether or not someone can get access to a location, we are talking about the level of inconvenience or amount of time involved in getting to that location. If anyone suggests weighing this up against some kind of benefit for someone else, they are "ableist". This is complete nonsense.

In deciding that blue badge holders should not be given an exemption from 20 mph speed limits, you have weighed up two interests - on the one hand, an inconvenience to a blue badge holder in that they may not be able to reach their destination as quickly as they otherwise might, and on the other hand, the general benefit to the safety of everyone, of traffic travelling at a lower speed. And you've decided that the inconvenience to blue badge holders is not great enough that general safety for everyone should be compromised. This is exactly the kind of weighing-up that you are seeing others doing, and then accusing them of being "ableist".

Your reply is written in a kind of way that makes the "immediate safety of everyone" a kind of absolute thing that has obvious priority - "so people aren't killed". But it's not an absolute thing - people are still killed by cars travelling at 20mph, and we also exempt certain things from speed limits - ambulances for example - again as a result of a weighing up of benefits.

Lots of your comments on here treat rights of access for disabled people as an absolute thing, that can't be weighed up against anything. And we are not talking about whether or not someone can get access to a location, we are talking about the level of inconvenience or amount of time involved in getting to that location. If anyone suggests weighing this up against some kind of benefit for someone else, they are "ableist". This is complete nonsense.

You are now deliberately, and purposefully, mixing up speed of travel and the ability of a disabled person to get from A to B. Worse still you seen to be suggesting that, for disabled people, speed of travel is an important thing. It sort of shows that you haven’t had to look after someone for whom these issues are a serious problem. That’s not your fault but you’re arguing a line which lacks humanity and, for what it’s worth, I think you probably do care about other people but it you seems you are unable to put yourself in their position.

 

[nagapie]

In deciding that blue badge holders should not be given an exemption from 20 mph speed limits, you have weighed up two interests - on the one hand, an inconvenience to a blue badge holder in that they may not be able to reach their destination as quickly as they otherwise might, and on the other hand, the general benefit to the safety of everyone, of traffic travelling at a lower speed. And you've decided that the inconvenience to blue badge holders is not great enough that general safety for everyone should be compromised. This is exactly the kind of weighing-up that you are seeing others doing, and then accusing them of being "ableist".

Your reply is written in a kind of way that makes the "immediate safety of everyone" a kind of absolute thing that has obvious priority - "so people aren't killed". But it's not an absolute thing - people are still killed by cars travelling at 20mph, and we also exempt certain things from speed limits - ambulances for example - again as a result of a weighing up of benefits.

Lots of your comments on here treat rights of access for disabled people as an absolute thing, that can't be weighed up against anything. And we are not talking about whether or not someone can get access to a location, we are talking about the level of inconvenience or amount of time involved in getting to that location. If anyone suggests weighing this up against some kind of benefit for someone else, they are "ableist". This is complete nonsense.

Unfortunately you don't understand the vast array of difficulties facing people with disabilities in actually getting from A to B.
There is a massive benefit to many of these people in being able to use the LTNs, and a benefit that does not negate the benefits gained from them. That last bit is key.
Equipment, seizure disorders, resucitation needs, challenging behaviours, pain - these are what you and Alex call 'inconveniences'.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Read what nagapie says about this. It’s oreads been explained why this doesn’t work for disabled people.

I’m still not sure why you guys don’t want this change give who it is designed to help and why you are pressing for the minimal amount of assistance possible.

I'm not sure why you don't get it either, Brixton had bad congestion before LTNs and now with covid less people will want to use public transport and congestion will be worse - this affects disabled people too.
Stuff like LTNs are about stopping unnecessary journeys and freeing up road space for people who actually need it.

 

[nagapie]

I'm not sure why you don't get it either, Brixton had bad congestion before LTNs and now with covid less people will want to use public transport and congestion will be worse - this affects disabled people too.
Stuff like LTNs are about stopping unnecessary journeys and freeing up road space for people who actually need it.

Exactly. I'm not arguing for access for your average person, I'm arguing for access for those who need it.

 

[teuchter]

Unfortunately you don't understand the vast array of difficulties facing people with disabilities in actually getting from A to B.
There is a massive benefit to many of these people in being able to use the LTNs, and a benefit that does not negate the benefits gained from them. That last bit is key.
Equipment, seizure disorders, resucitation needs, challenging behaviours, pain - these are what you and Alex call 'inconveniences'.

So, you're changing your position then: it's possible to attempt to weigh up the benefits, and not be "ableist".

 

[chowce5382]

Exactly. I'm not arguing for access for your average person, I'm arguing for access for those who need it.

He doesn’t get it

 

[sleaterkinney]

Exactly. I'm not arguing for access for your average person, I'm arguing for access for those who need it.

That's not the point I was making. They could use the main roads if there was no congestion.

 

[chowce5382]

So, you're changing your position then: it's possible to attempt to weigh up the benefits, and not be "ableist".

I was replying to his stupid point about how fast disabled people will drive if allowed to in a LTN. You guys still aren’t engaging with the real issue here, just asking other questions to dance around the issue

 

[Winot]

You are now deliberately, and purposefully, mixing up speed of travel and the ability of a disabled person to get from A to B. Worse still you seen to be suggesting that, for disabled people, speed of travel is an important thing. It sort of shows that you haven’t had to look after someone for whom these issues are a serious problem. That’s not your fault but you’re arguing a line which lacks humanity and, for what it’s worth, I think you probably do care about other people but it you seems you are unable to put yourself in their position.

Isn’t the problem with LTNs that they force drivers to go the long way round so that the journey takes longer. And this causes particular problems for people with disabilities. So the underlying problem is journey time. Speed of travel is directly relevant therefore - if the disabled person can travel faster they can get to their destination more quickly and offset the longer journey caused by the LTN.

 

[nagapie]

So, you're changing your position then: it's possible to attempt to weigh up the benefits, and not be "ableist".

My position is to give full access to people who have already been assessed as having significant challenges in getting around. That's it. Don't try to change that. I've never believed that access wouldn't benefit everyone, because I'm not ableist and understand that creating the best access possible to society and communities for all people facing obstacles is for the benefit of everyone.

 

[nagapie]

Isn’t the problem with LTNs that they force drivers to go the long way round so that the journey takes longer. And this causes particular problems for people with disabilities. So the underlying problem is journey time. Speed of travel is directly relevant therefore - if the disabled person can travel faster they can get to their destination more quickly and offset the longer journey caused by the LTN.

Except it's immediately dangerous to both the disabled people and others to not have speed limits. There is a link in journey time but that's all, the rest is spurious nonsense.