Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Wife went to buy a bike from Evans. Not one bike except electric in the shop due to demand. Have to look at alternative retailers
 
There are plus and minuses to segregated cycle lanes.

I don't want cyclists to feel obliged to use them. Cyclists still need right to use the road. Needs to be made clear to drivers that is the case. As starting to get you should not be here from minority of drivers.

The roundabout south of Chelsea bridge is one example. Takes ages to get round that on the cycle lanes/ lights which segregate cycles and cars. So I don't use them. Its painful trying to get around that one if follow all the lights.

I do see a lot of cyclists now skipping between cycle lanes and road. I can see why. Some are busy cycle lanes now and to overtake its necessary to skip out onto the road and back in. ( Mile End road).
 
Not a Vet said:
Wife went to buy a bike from Evans. Not one bike except electric in the shop due to demand. Have to look at alternative retailers
Click to expand...

Harbour cycles ( on holiday at moment) often has reconditioned bikes.

Harbour Cycles | Servicing | Refurbs | Sales

An independent bicycle shop offering servicing and sales of refurbished and new bicycles. Our focus is on serving the local community.
www.harbourcycles.co.uk www.harbourcycles.co.uk

Decathlon in Wandsworth is cheap and cheerful. Depends what you want

thebikeproject.co.uk

Bikes help build communities – Sadegh’s Story – The Bike Project

thebikeproject.co.uk thebikeproject.co.uk

I have got a bike from Bike Project. Reconditioned bikes.

Problem with Covid is not being able to test ride bikes. Some retailers are online only now. Unless you know exaclty what you want you need test ride and advice.
 
Gramsci said:
Harbour cycles ( on holiday at moment) often has reconditioned bikes.

Harbour Cycles | Servicing | Refurbs | Sales

An independent bicycle shop offering servicing and sales of refurbished and new bicycles. Our focus is on serving the local community.
www.harbourcycles.co.uk www.harbourcycles.co.uk

Decathlon in Wandsworth is cheap and cheerful. Depends what you want

thebikeproject.co.uk

Bikes help build communities – Sadegh’s Story – The Bike Project

thebikeproject.co.uk thebikeproject.co.uk

I have got a bike from Bike Project. Reconditioned bikes.

Problem with Covid is not being able to test ride bikes. Some retailers are online only now. Unless you know exaclty what you want you need test ride and advice.

Evans are another bike retailer.
Click to expand...
Apart from Brixton Cycles and Harbour, are there any other independent bike shops within a couple of miles of Brixton?
I want to update this article - is there anything I'm missing?
www.brixtonbuzz.com

A cyclists guide to Brixton – local bike shops, repairs, support groups, racing tracks and cycling clubs…

In response to a few queries we’ve had recently, we thought we’d post this short helpful guide to Brixton for all our fellow cyclists featuring local bike shops, repairs, support groups…
www.brixtonbuzz.com
 
Gramsci said:
There are plus and minuses to segregated cycle lanes.

I don't want cyclists to feel obliged to use them. Cyclists still need right to use the road. Needs to be made clear to drivers that is the case. As starting to get you should not be here from minority of drivers.

The roundabout south of Chelsea bridge is one example. Takes ages to get round that on the cycle lanes/ lights which segregate cycles and cars. So I don't use them. Its painful trying to get around that one if follow all the lights.

I do see a lot of cyclists now skipping between cycle lanes and road. I can see why. Some are busy cycle lanes now and to overtake its necessary to skip out onto the road and back in. ( Mile End road).
Click to expand...

Some of that is in the new Highway Code review, including the hierarchy of road users.
 
Gramsci said:
Any modification is now to be considered appeasement.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a sweeping statement. As I've said before on this thread, doing these quickly and putting in a proper trial over a period long enough for people to adapt (or at least to understand how the road system has changed) and then consulting based on real world evidence rather than theoretical models seems like a sensible idea. The old way obviously didn't work as shown by the 'Our Streets' programme - loads of consultation ending up with schemes so watered down nothing changed.

I'd hope that there is modification. Some of these closures might not be in the right place - they can be moved and try a different location. If traffic has been pushed by SatNavs through an estate road (as it has at Oval) then get that estate road closed to through traffic.

However, I'd also hope that the modifications don't lose sight of the objectives of the schemes and we don't see changes that allow through traffic back on any of the roads within a Low traffic neighbourhood. Looking at some of the comments on the commonplaces there are a load of 'my 10 minute drive now takes 20 minutes', 'I need to get my child to school less than a mile away, that's too far to walk', 'Shakespeare Road residents can't drive to Brockwell Park any longer'. Those people shouldn't be appeased and they're likely to stay unhappy about it.
 
thebackrow said:
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. As I've said before on this thread, doing these quickly and putting in a proper trial over a period long enough for people to adapt (or at least to understand how the road system has changed) and then consulting based on real world evidence rather than theoretical models seems like a sensible idea. The old way obviously didn't work as shown by the 'Our Streets' programme - loads of consultation ending up with schemes so watered down nothing changed.

I'd hope that there is modification. Some of these closures might not be in the right place - they can be moved and try a different location. If traffic has been pushed by SatNavs through an estate road (as it has at Oval) then get that estate road closed to through traffic.

However, I'd also hope that the modifications don't lose sight of the objectives of the schemes and we don't see changes that allow through traffic back on any of the roads within a Low traffic neighbourhood. Looking at some of the comments on the commonplaces there are a load of 'my 10 minute drive now takes 20 minutes', 'I need to get my child to school less than a mile away, that's too far to walk', 'Shakespeare Road residents can't drive to Brockwell Park any longer'. Those people shouldn't be appeased and they're likely to stay unhappy about it.
Click to expand...

It was in reference to several posts here containing the word "appeasement". I notice you didnt take issue with previous uses.
 
thebackrow said:
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. As I've said before on this thread, doing these quickly and putting in a proper trial over a period long enough for people to adapt (or at least to understand how the road system has changed) and then consulting based on real world evidence rather than theoretical models seems like a sensible idea. The old way obviously didn't work as shown by the 'Our Streets' programme - loads of consultation ending up with schemes so watered down nothing changed.

I'd hope that there is modification. Some of these closures might not be in the right place - they can be moved and try a different location. If traffic has been pushed by SatNavs through an estate road (as it has at Oval) then get that estate road closed to through traffic.

However, I'd also hope that the modifications don't lose sight of the objectives of the schemes and we don't see changes that allow through traffic back on any of the roads within a Low traffic neighbourhood. Looking at some of the comments on the commonplaces there are a load of 'my 10 minute drive now takes 20 minutes', 'I need to get my child to school less than a mile away, that's too far to walk', 'Shakespeare Road residents can't drive to Brockwell Park any longer'. Those people shouldn't be appeased and they're likely to stay unhappy about it.
Click to expand...

you are saying certain modifications are still to be categorised as appeasment.

Shakespeare road is a case in point. Could be that in that neighbourhood some compromise is needed on Shakespeare road. For example allowing residents to drive through.

Options for change should not be limited.

This is being done on a Neighbourhood basis so the Neighbourhoods should have say.
 
editor said:
Apart from Brixton Cycles and Harbour, are there any other independent bike shops within a couple of miles of Brixton?
I want to update this article - is there anything I'm missing?
www.brixtonbuzz.com

A cyclists guide to Brixton – local bike shops, repairs, support groups, racing tracks and cycling clubs…

In response to a few queries we’ve had recently, we thought we’d post this short helpful guide to Brixton for all our fellow cyclists featuring local bike shops, repairs, support groups…
www.brixtonbuzz.com
Click to expand...
You could add Apex Cycles on Clapham High Street. (There's an Evans as well about 200m down the road, but I doubt they count as independent).
 
Gramsci said:
It was in reference to several posts here containing the word "appeasement". I notice you didnt take issue with previous uses.
Click to expand...
I use the word to describe modifications to a scheme that compromise its basic aim. Changes that are made to placate objectors who do not support the basic aim of the project.

Adjustments to a scheme that help it function better, without significantly compromising its basic aim or purpose - these adjustments i would not describe as appeasement.
 
teuchter said:
I use the word to describe modifications to a scheme that compromise its basic aim. Changes that are made to placate objectors who do not support the basic aim of the project.

Adjustments to a scheme that help it function better, without significantly compromising its basic aim or purpose - these adjustments i would not describe as appeasement.
Click to expand...

So might as well not consult people. Its gives them the idea they have a say when they don't.
 
thebackrow said:
That's a bit of a sweeping statement. As I've said before on this thread, doing these quickly and putting in a proper trial over a period long enough for people to adapt (or at least to understand how the road system has changed) and then consulting based on real world evidence rather than theoretical models seems like a sensible idea. The old way obviously didn't work as shown by the 'Our Streets' programme - loads of consultation ending up with schemes so watered down nothing changed.

I'd hope that there is modification. Some of these closures might not be in the right place - they can be moved and try a different location. If traffic has been pushed by SatNavs through an estate road (as it has at Oval) then get that estate road closed to through traffic.

However, I'd also hope that the modifications don't lose sight of the objectives of the schemes and we don't see changes that allow through traffic back on any of the roads within a Low traffic neighbourhood. Looking at some of the comments on the commonplaces there are a load of 'my 10 minute drive now takes 20 minutes', 'I need to get my child to school less than a mile away, that's too far to walk', 'Shakespeare Road residents can't drive to Brockwell Park any longer'. Those people shouldn't be appeased and they're likely to stay unhappy about it.
Click to expand...
On the ferndale petition someone is complaining that it takes too long to drive to visit their elderly relative because there are too many pedestrian crossings in the area and also the 20mph limit.
 
teuchter said:
That doesn't follow from what I said.
Click to expand...

Its saying that certain kinds of feedback are valid and others are to ignored.

I remember when this Liveable Neighbourhood idea was first presented at a meeting. Pre Covid. The officer said the scheme would not go ahead if the public support was not behind it. The Council were going to do a lot of consultation and work to get that support.

Now with Covid the Council have introduced these schemes under powers during the Pandemic.

Told fulll onsultation of whether to make schemes permanent would be done later.

Im getting the feeling you are assuming the goalposts have changed. This Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme is here for good and only comments that are valid are those that those that can tweak the scheme in ways deemed to be in what you think are in keeping with it.

The Council have not said that yet to my knowledge.

Im assuming Council are going to keep full consultation once the temporary period ends and treat all comments as valid.
 
Not a Vet said:
Wife went to buy a bike from Evans. Not one bike except electric in the shop due to demand. Have to look at alternative retailers
Click to expand...
We have a bike. From Herne hill bicycles. Technically 2nd hand but the original owner only had it 3 weeks and decided they didn’t like it. So bought through the shop but from the person. Shop charged no commission to the person which is commendable. Bought some accessories so they were getting some business too but they were really busy. Short of work, open a bike business it would seem.
 
Gramsci said:
Its saying that certain kinds of feedback are valid and others are to ignored.
Click to expand...
No it's not - it's me saying that there's a difference between feedback which basically says "we don't really want this in principle" and feedback that says "we want to give the principle a go, but think these details should be changed".

I'm not saying either is valid or invalid. It's valid to say you basically don't buy into the LN concept, so you don't want them. I do buy into it in principle, so I will disagree with those people. I disagree with them, I am not saying their feedback is "not valid".

Why did I deliberately introduce the word "appeasement" with regard to what's happened in Hammersmith & Fulham? Because I think that the changes to that scheme are not about making the basic LN concept work better; they are about getting through some kind of watered-down version, by making concessions to car owning residents who want their streets cleared of rat-runners, but don't want to accept any change to their own travel habits in return. That's not what the LN concept is about, in my opinion. The changes are to appease those people, who might otherwise manage to trash the whole thing. The changes do not help the LN concept work properly. In my opinion.
 
Gramsci said:
Im getting the feeling you are assuming the goalposts have changed.
Click to expand...

As a separate point to what I'm saying above:

Well it seems like maybe the goalposts have changed. Previously the LN schemes were being led by TfL with London boroughs bidding for funding for a certain number of implementations. I'm not sure how much was happening in other parts of the UK - my impression was that it was mainly London where such concepts were being pushed.

Then there was the emergency covid legislation which allowed councils nationwide to bring that sort of stuff forward.

Now (rather surprisingly) there's the announcements yesterday/today on a nationwide, government promoted policy to encourage more walking and cycling, which appears to have money behind it (let's see what happens) which seems to move a lot of this stuff much more into the mainstream, as it were.

To me, this is transport policy that should have been enacted already over the last couple of decades, and it's a welcome move towards something that isn't hopelessly out of date.

I expect that to a substantial portion of the traditional Tory voter base, it's newfangled radical eco hippy communist nonsense so it's going to be interesting to see how it goes down.
 
teuchter said:
No it's not - it's me saying that there's a difference between feedback which basically says "we don't really want this in principle" and feedback that says "we want to give the principle a go, but think these details should be changed".

I'm not saying either is valid or invalid. It's valid to say you basically don't buy into the LN concept, so you don't want them. I do buy into it in principle, so I will disagree with those people. I disagree with them, I am not saying their feedback is "not valid".

Why did I deliberately introduce the word "appeasement" with regard to what's happened in Hammersmith & Fulham? Because I think that the changes to that scheme are not about making the basic LN concept work better; they are about getting through some kind of watered-down version, by making concessions to car owning residents who want their streets cleared of rat-runners, but don't want to accept any change to their own travel habits in return. That's not what the LN concept is about, in my opinion. The changes are to appease those people, who might otherwise manage to trash the whole thing. The changes do not help the LN concept work properly. In my opinion.
Click to expand...

That is where we differ.

As the Council have introduced the idea of a liveable neighourhood with traffic reduction then the communities in those areas have a right imo to to say how it wull work.

It might in your opinion not what you think a LN should deliver. It might be what you think is watered down scheme. It however might get backing across the community.

It certainly should not be dismissed out of hand as appeasement.
 
Last edited:
teuchter said:
As a separate point to what I'm saying above:

Well it seems like maybe the goalposts have changed. Previously the LN schemes were being led by TfL with London boroughs bidding for funding for a certain number of implementations. I'm not sure how much was happening in other parts of the UK - my impression was that it was mainly London where such concepts were being pushed.

Then there was the emergency covid legislation which allowed councils nationwide to bring that sort of stuff forward.

Now (rather surprisingly) there's the announcements yesterday/today on a nationwide, government promoted policy to encourage more walking and cycling, which appears to have money behind it (let's see what happens) which seems to move a lot of this stuff much more into the mainstream, as it were.

To me, this is transport policy that should have been enacted already over the last couple of decades, and it's a welcome move towards something that isn't hopelessly out of date.

I expect that to a substantial portion of the traditional Tory voter base, it's newfangled radical eco hippy communist nonsense so it's going to be interesting to see how it goes down.
Click to expand...

I did think that was what you thought.

Its mission creep.
 
Last edited:
Gramsci said:
That is where we differ.

As the Council have introduced the idea of a liveable neighourhood with traffic reduction then the communities in those areas have a right imo to to say how it wull work.

It might in your opinion not what you think a LN should deliver. It might be what you think is watered down scheme. It however might get backing across the community.

It certainly should not be dismissed out of hand as appeasement.
Click to expand...
Well, the TfL funding is for "Livable Neighbourhoods" and they define to some extent what the objectives are. In that context, if the scheme we end up with doesn't meet those objectives then I think it's fair to say that what we are getting is not a "Livable Neighbourhood".

Whether whatever we end up with has "backing across the community" we'll probably never know.
 
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
12
Views
744
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
730
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
795
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom