Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

thebackrow said:
insults rather than engagement again.
Click to expand...
I engaged but still called out your ableism. You clearly don't have real knowledge of disability but speak with authority about it.

Pray tell what are these smaller lighter alternatives for those in wheelchairs and/or with complex learning disabilities or medical needs who need shorter journeys, carry equipment, medication, etc.

There's no problem with a minority who need it having access to cars. In the case of Lambeth it would be a spend that they're not willing to make as the disabled don't matter enough.
I'm not really sure what your point is except that disabled people shouldn't have access to LTNs or even cars.
 
nagapie said:
I engaged but still called out your ableism. You clearly don't have real knowledge of disability but speak with authority about it.

Pray tell what are these smaller lighter alternatives for those in wheelchairs and/or with complex learning disabilities or medical needs who need shorter journeys, carry equipment, medication, etc.

There's no problem with a minority who need it having access to cars. In the case of Lambeth it would be a spend that they're not willing to make as the disabled don't matter enough.
I'm not really sure what your point is except that disabled people shouldn't have access to LTNs or even cars.
Click to expand...
And as soon as anyone attempts to increase their understanding or start a discussion you insult them, accuse them of ableism and start spouting whataboutisms.

For sure a subset of BBH require a wheelchair accessible vehicle and have to carry enormous quantities of heavy and bulky medication. But a large SUV to carry one person who can’t walk long distances is just as much overkill for a BBH as it is for the school run.
And yes, I do think we should be strongly incentivising those vehicles that are owned and used in the city to be more appropriate- pretty sure I’ve posted on here before about japanese kei cars etc.

a vehicle that is only being used in the city, and thus now doesn’t need to exceed 20mph, could be a lot smaller, lighter and cheaper - and accessible to the many mobility restricted people who I’m given to understand aren’t wealthy enough to own a car. City cars should look a lot more like golf carts and a lot less like range rovers.
www.team-bhp.com

USA: This city's residents use golf carts as main mode of transport | Team-BHP

Peachtree City in Georgia, USA is said to be the most golf cart-friendly municipality in the country.The rather small 25-square-mile town has over 100 miles of car-free multi-use paths crisscrossing all ...
www.team-bhp.com www.team-bhp.com
 
Last edited:
thebackrow said:
And as soon as anyone attempts to increase their understanding or start a discussion you insult them, accuse them of ableism and start spouting whataboutisms.

For sure a subset of BBH require a wheelchair accessible vehicle and have to carry enormous quantities of heavy and bulky medication. But a large SUV to carry one person who can’t walk long distances is just as much overkill for a BBH as it is for the school run.
Click to expand...
You're making massive assumptions about disabled people and their transport. Who are these people in SUVs who can't walk long distances? Are they the same people who invent disabilities to get benefits😂.
 
thebackrow said:
And as soon as anyone attempts to increase their understanding or start a discussion you insult them, accuse them of ableism and start spouting whataboutisms.

For sure a subset of BBH require a wheelchair accessible vehicle and have to carry enormous quantities of heavy and bulky medication. But a large SUV to carry one person who can’t walk long distances is just as much overkill for a BBH as it is for the school run.
Click to expand...
And just to add not only is this post ableist but it's clueless and offensive. I'm not insulting you, I'm calling you out because what you're posting and the underlying assumptions are full of nonsense and prejudice.
 
nagapie said:
nagapie said:
You're making massive assumptions about disabled people and their transport. Who are these people in SUVs who can't walk long distances? Are they the same people who invent disabilities to get benefits😂.
Click to expand...

nd just to add not only is this post ableist but it's clueless and offensive. I'm not insulting you, I'm calling you out because what you're posting and the underlying assumptions are full of nonsense and prejudice.
Click to expand...
Like I said. Complete failure to engage with anything. Is your position that all BBH have the same needs none of which could be met by any type of vehicle other than the one they use now? clearly a lot of people make irrational and inconsiderate choices about their vehicles. Why would BBH universally be different?

if we’re trying to create safe, low traffic/pedestrian &cycling spaces then it makes sense to restrict the type of vehicles we make exceptions for
 
Last edited:
thebackrow said:
Like I said. Complete failure to engage with anything. Is your position that all BBH have the same needs none of which could be met by any type of vehicle other than the one they use now? clearly a lot of people make irrational and inconsiderate choices about their vehicles. Why would BBH universally be different?
Click to expand...
To be clear, you have to go through quite a lot of process with evidence to get a blue badge and renew it with up to date evidence regularly. It's not just given to a person with a minor need, in fact many people who need them are refused and have to appeal.

Also unfortunately many disabled people have to have big cars for reasons related to their disability.

Thirdly you are doing that very small minded Tory thing of finding the tiniest example of something that might not be right with the scheme and extrapolating it as the main issue. Disabled people should have the transport they need to make their lives easier and give them access to their communities. If you think their cars need monitoring for appropriateness then knock yourself out. I think, like the Daily Mail benefits families, you will find that most people have what they need rather than gaming the system.

My point was and remains that if you've qualified for a blue badge, you should have the access and the transport you need. Disabled people with cars are small numbers and are probably as much threat to the planet as the meat you eat every week. They don't negate the ltn scheme and they won't be the cause of climate change.

I've engaged with you completely but engaging with your views has unveiled some very nasty stereotypes and misinformation.
 
Not exempting blue badge holders from LTN’s seems pretty harsh. The reality is that most blue badge holders will only drive through their nearest LTN gates anyway. Their satnavs won’t route them through ANY LTN gates so unless they are a blue badge holder who also happens to be a black cab driver, they aren’t even going to know they are being routed around LTNs
 
alex_ said:
Not exempting blue badge holders from LTN’s seems pretty harsh. The reality is that most blue badge holders will only drive through their nearest LTN gates anyway. Their satnavs won’t route them through ANY LTN gates so unless they are a blue badge holder who also happens to be a black cab driver, they aren’t even going to know they are being routed around LTNs
Click to expand...
I have lived in this borough for over 20 years, I know exactly where the LTNs are that I can't go through as many of them are on routes I used to use, most noticeably, but not exclusively, to get to hospital appointments.
 
nagapie said:
I have lived in this borough for over 20 years, I know exactly where the LTNs are that I can't go through as many of them are on routes I used to use, most noticeably, but not exclusively, to get to hospital appointments.
Click to expand...

I don’t really get what you are taking offense at here.
 
I wish Lambeth would just put down in writing their reasoning behind the decision they've made about blue badge exemptions. If they have done somewhere, I've not come across it.

Different councils have taken different approaches. Some others grant an exemption for multiple filters but for only one car. Lambeth on the other hand, as far as I understand allow two vehicles per blue badge to have a single filter exemption and this means that the holder themselves plus a carer can potentially benefit.

www.lambeth.gov.uk

Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) dispensation frequently asked questions

Guidance on LTN dispensations for Blue Badge holders.
www.lambeth.gov.uk www.lambeth.gov.uk

Well, I expect some people would prefer the Lambeth approach and others would prefer the approach taken in other boroughs.

If Lambeth would just explain why they have decided on the policy they have, maybe it would seem reasonable. I don't know.

Looking around at other boroughs, I saw that one has an exemption scheme that's not attached to blue badge holdership but to individual circumstances, specifically for people for whom spending time sitting in a car is especially distressing or uncomfortable. For people in that specific category, of course it seems a good idea to give them a blanket exemption from anything that makes their journey longer. I don't think many people would object to that.

It actually seems a bit of a mess really, having each LA decide their own slightly different approach. In the ideal world it would all be considered carefully and made a nationwide policy, like most road traffic stuff is.
 
Allowing one carer is not as useful as it sounds.
Firstly it assumes that people with blue badges are all old and or sickly and unable to leave home. It does not consider that access is about getting into the community and not being isolated at home. It very much resonates with the outdated and discredited medical model of disability.

Secondly it assumes that people have one carer, possibly a family member. In fact most people who need carers have multiple carers. Also as there is a national carer crisis, the carers tend to change often and with every new carer, there is a new form and social care authority to get. I can also assure you that as there are not enough social workers, most disabled people are not allocated one so trying to get this constantly needed authorisation is a job in itself.

There should be a London wide exemption on blue badges, like with the congestion charge, so that London is an easier and more welcoming place for disabled people or as Lambeth themselves term those that 'have' to drive. Disabled people don't want to have to drive, they would give up their cars tomorrow for the good health and mobility that many take for granted.
 
Right, but I don't think it's helpful to conflate "disabled people" and "those who have to drive" and when I say that, the perspective I have in mind is that of the many disabled people for whom driving is simply not an option. And this is relevant to why I don't think comparisons with what makes sense for the congestion charge necessarily make sense.
 
nagapie said:
I'm not taking offense. I am merely pointing out that if you live in a neighborhood and have for many years, you do know if you're being rerouted.
Click to expand...

This is going to make practically zero difference to traffic though, which is why I said it was “harsh that blue badges holders weren’t exempted”

Also on longer journeys ( eg Streatham to Stoke Newington ) you aren’t going to be able to distinguish, your satnav routing you one way or other - as Modern satnavs, route you a different route on any given journey every time based on traffic conditions.
 
edcraw said:
Yes - much like a real vote would be unless very well thought out.
Click to expand...
I am of the opinion that the general public just can't grasp complex issues.

Nor should they, there's a complexity there which can't be explained in a soundbite or leaflet. And people don't have the time or inclination to do the research.

A real vote could be easily be swayed by something as random as a burst water main in the days leading up to the ballot, or a snake oil salesman promising all manner of nonsense to raise his profile. A vote on any issue of substance isn't worthwhile. And, in a lot of cases, just highlights a split population. Furthers division, like Brexit or Scotland. Everyone is now pro or anti, each being a badge of shame to the other. That's an awful society to live in. In old days, it brought civil wars about where family members were pitted against each other.

If we had decent politicians, we would be able to trust them to make correct decisions and implement them properly to ensure maximum effectiveness. Unfortunately in both Westminster and Lambeth Town Hall, we are led by a bunch of clowns and our electoral system means that it won't change in the short term.
 
Last edited:
alex_ said:
No Lambeth knows from dvla data
Click to expand...
It is difficult to get a handle on those figures. sparkybird spoke about 50% of people in the borough not owning a car. But Lambeth borough includes the South Bank, Elephant and Castle, Waterloo. Places where car ownership is problematic. Whereas the likes of Valley Road in the new Streatham Wells LTN must be one of the borough's roads most poorly served by public transport. Car ownership is a completely different kettle of fish in Valley Road compared to the new flats next door to Elephant and Castle rail and tube stations.

The fact is that a vote is a bad idea, regardless of how many cars there are. The council goes out, asking for opinions, gauging public support on LTNs, CPZs. waste collection. This creates a public expectation, an idea they are being listened to. And then the council just does whatever the fuck it had planned to anyway.

They should just be honest and say they will make changes whether people like them or not.
 
teuchter said:
Right, but I don't think it's helpful to conflate "disabled people" and "those who have to drive" and when I say that, the perspective I have in mind is that of the many disabled people for whom driving is simply not an option. And this is relevant to why I don't think comparisons with what makes sense for the congestion charge necessarily make sense.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your point. Do you mean driving is not an option why?
If due to their disability, then others like family will be driving. If due to resources we should be looking at getting them what they need, a very onerous job in this country where cuts have savagely affected disabled people and their families. We should be resourcing everyone with these needs up not down.

And as I said, the disabled drivers/those being driven in private cars are a small number of drivers that doesn't negate the scheme or climate change if other changes are made. But it does make a significant amount of difference to the lives of disabled people who are already one of the most marginalised and probably the most isolated group in the country.
 
alex_ said:
This is going to make practically zero difference to traffic though, which is why I said it was “harsh that blue badges holders weren’t exempted”

Also on longer journeys ( eg Streatham to Stoke Newington ) you aren’t going to be able to distinguish, your satnav routing you one way or other - as Modern satnavs, route you a different route on any given journey every time based on traffic conditions.
Click to expand...
I know you said it was harsh, that's why I was not 'offended', merely responding.

I understood your point but it only applies to those who don't live locally. Lambeth is big, my journeys are affected. And some journeys in Lambeth and neighbouring boroughs I now avoid due to LTNs and increased journey times despite the fact that we benefit from those journeys and services and our world is made smaller without them because we can't just jump on the bus or train.
The suggestion that we'll never know is just odd, we do. I think the lack of understanding of the need to have alternative routes when you are driving people with complexities is evident here.
 
Last edited:
Smick said:
It is difficult to get a handle on those figures. sparkybird spoke about 50% of people in the borough not owning a car. But Lambeth borough includes the South Bank, Elephant and Castle, Waterloo. Places where car ownership is problematic. Whereas the likes of Valley Road in the new Streatham Wells LTN must be one of the borough's roads most poorly served by public transport. Car ownership is a completely different kettle of fish in Valley Road compared to the new flats next door to Elephant and Castle rail and tube stations.

The fact is that a vote is a bad idea, regardless of how many cars there are. The council goes out, asking for opinions, gauging public support on LTNs, CPZs. waste collection. This creates a public expectation, an idea they are being listened to. And then the council just does whatever the fuck it had planned to anyway.

They should just be honest and say they will make changes whether people like them or not.
Click to expand...

Smick

The 2021 census showed that 52.2% of households in Streatham Wells did not have access to a car or van.
Also Valley Road has a bus service (315).
Your point?.
 
I’m not really sure why people are being pedantic about blue badge holders. Surely you could have a system where blue badge holders can just go through the filters, it would add very little traffic.

In terms of a vote if you need a certain percentage then why not apply that to local elections too? Indeed very little people would be voting at local elections on the basis that LTNs are more important than all other issues so the idea that local elections are a mandate is very tenuous. Or are local and national elections too complex in terms of the issues so ban them too?
 
sparkybird said:
Smick

The 2021 census showed that 52.2% of households in Streatham Wells did not have access to a car or van.
Also Valley Road has a bus service (315).
Your point?.
Click to expand...
My point is that
sparkybird said:
Smick

The 2021 census showed that 52.2% of households in Streatham Wells did not have access to a car or van.
Also Valley Road has a bus service (315).
Your point?.
Click to expand...
Using car ownership as a proxy for LTN support, which you have done, your figures then show an even split in the residents. The vote will go one way or the other, dependent on turnout, half the residents will be pissed off, and we will see more demonstrations.

My point is that putting the LTN, and most decisions which elected officials should make, to a vote is a bad idea and should not be done.

Our politicians put themselves forward for election to make decisions. They don’t need to return to the electorate at every opportunity.
 
alex_ said:
Have you used something like waze ? On any moderately lengthy journey across London it’ll be different every day
Click to expand...
Yes.
Doesn't change my local situation where there are many LTNs and the only available route is the main road, even if it's backed up.
And the same would apply to other places too. Often the only alternatives are less trafficed but longer.
Just give blue badge holders access, no one is hurt but lives are made easier.
 
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
8
Views
494
story
story
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
715
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
788
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom