Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

sleaterkinney said:
That's not the point I was making. They could use the main roads if there was no congestion.
Click to expand...
Winot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they don’t understand that because all the traffic has evaporated now and there isn’t any congestion. And, if there is, well that’s just a problem for disabled people to deal with or they are just making it up so they can go to court and have some fun
 
Winot said:
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.
Click to expand...
The disabled peope ive spoken to have all said their journey times have been lengthened considerably. You don’t have to believe this. In fact you can just believe what you want to. However, you’ve got to be pretty inhumane to sit in judgement on a chat room about something on which you know nothing, where you have no experience and just dismiss the reality of what these people go through. This is what I don’t get about you guys, you’re so keen to argue tiny points and speed limits and whether a disabled person should be able to go through X or Y road block rather than think about the reason why they need to go in the first place. You are unaware of your ideological position. I admit, I’m biased towards mine to some extent but my ideological position is fighting for the rights of those in society who need help and need protection. Yours is trying to find ways to question whether those protections are really necessary and, until you’ve actually had to experience these issues as nagapie has pointed out, I suspect you’ll be talking about whether 20mph or 18 is acceptable rather thinking about whether someone can get to hospital before passing out in pain before they get there.
 
To be clear, I am not arguing against blue badge holders being given an exemption for access to LTNs.

My argument is with nagapie's assertion that as soon as anyone wants to weigh up benefits for a group of disabled people against benefits for some other group, this is ableist thinking. It's not.

Taking that kind of position makes the discussion impossible, and it prevents anyone understanding problems that they might not be aware of or familiar with. I am perfectly happy to accept that there are certain disabilities, and the needs related to them, that I am ignorant about. If people want to explain them to me, I am entirely willing to listen to them and let them inform my opinion on things like who should be given exemptions from LTN restrictions.

I'm not willing to be told that I'm ableist for raising questions like this. Plus I'd like to say that perhaps there are types of disability that nagapie or chowce5382 are not directly familiar with, or are not focussed on, the impacts of which on peoples lives are affected greatly by transport policy, transport policy that in this country has long been overwhelmingly focussed on accommodating those with access to cars. All this feeds into the reasons why a lot of people want to support LTNs as part of a bigger picture.

Of course it is very easy for anyone to become overly pre-occupied with their own areas of interest or experience in trying to improve equality of mobility and access, and end up with many blind spots and I can accept that this inevitably applies to me.

You're not going to persuade people by shouting them down as "ableist". And making part of your rhetoric the idea that LTNs are only for middle class white male cyclists is much the same thing, completely dismissing anyone supporting them as only self interested and with no genuine intention to make a system that serves disadvantaged people in general, better.
 
teuchter said:
To be clear, I am not arguing against blue badge holders being given an exemption for access to LTNs.

My argument is with nagapie's assertion that as soon as anyone wants to weigh up benefits for a group of disabled people against benefits for some other group, this is ableist thinking. It's not.

Taking that kind of position makes the discussion impossible, and it prevents anyone understanding problems that they might not be aware of or familiar with. I am perfectly happy to accept that there are certain disabilities, and the needs related to them, that I am ignorant about. If people want to explain them to me, I am entirely willing to listen to them and let them inform my opinion on things like who should be given exemptions from LTN restrictions.

I'm not willing to be told that I'm ableist for raising questions like this. Plus I'd like to say that perhaps there are types of disability that nagapie or chowce5382 are not directly familiar with, or are not focussed on, the impacts of which on peoples lives are affected greatly by transport policy, transport policy that in this country has long been overwhelmingly focussed on accommodating those with access to cars. All this feeds into the reasons why a lot of people want to support LTNs as part of a bigger picture.

Of course it is very easy for anyone to become overly pre-occupied with their own areas of interest or experience in trying to improve equality of mobility and access, and end up with many blind spots and I can accept that this inevitably applies to me.

You're not going to persuade people by shouting them down as "ableist". And making part of your rhetoric the idea that LTNs are only for middle class white male cyclists is much the same thing, completely dismissing anyone supporting them as only self interested and with no genuine intention to make a system that serves disadvantaged people in general, better.
Click to expand...
Each time we talk about the inherent issue with LTNs and those people who are disabled you guys always just bring up another issue and have done it again by saying that maybe there are disabilities out here we don’t know about. Again this is deflecting and the same argument you’ve used again and again and again to back up your position which is looking at things from your position and not thinking about those who need the protection of the state and society in general. The question you raised was about speed was pretty nonsensical and, again, deflecting from the issue.

If you actually want to engage, stop asking questions designed to deflect. I’m not going to tell what you could ask as I’d like to see whether you are capable of thinking about what others might be going through. You don’t have to reply to this but you might want to sit down with a blank piece of paper and imagine how different your life would be if you were in the same position as Sofia (for example). Just sit down and start asking yourself questions about how you would live. I’ll start you off with your career (hint: you don’t have one anymore)
 
chowce5382 said:
Each time we talk about the inherent issue with LTNs and those people who are disabled you guys always just bring up another issue and have done it again by saying that maybe there are disabilities out here we don’t know about. Again this is deflecting and the same argument you’ve used again and again and again to back up your position which is looking at things from your position and not thinking about those who need the protection of the state and society in general. The question you raised was about speed was pretty nonsensical and, again, deflecting from the issue.

If you actually want to engage, stop asking questions designed to deflect. I’m not going to tell what you could ask as I’d like to see whether you are capable of thinking about what others might be going through. You don’t have to reply to this but you might want to sit down with a blank piece of paper and imagine how different your life would be if you were in the same position as Sofia (for example). Just sit down and start asking yourself questions about how you would live. I’ll start you off with your career (hint: you don’t have one anymore)
Click to expand...
The question I raised about speed limits was a rhetorical one to illustrate a point, not an attempt at deflection. Deflection is calling people "ableist" when they want to talk about a weighing up of benefits.

I'm happy to engage in understanding more about all sides of the argument but not to have you telling me that I'm "not thinking about those who need the protection of the state and society in general" - nor with your patronising assumption that I've never considered what the implications of a severe disability or health condition would be. I expect I'm not alone in this.

Why do people want to question or examine certain claims about negative impacts on disabled people or indeed anyone? Because they are well aware of the fact that there are lots of lobbies out there who have no genuine concern for these issues and use them to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that the issues don't exist, it just means that there's a good reason to question things. It would be a bit easier to take lectures from you if you seemed more willing to distance yourself from certain groups.
 
chowce5382 said:
The disabled peope ive spoken to have all said their journey times have been lengthened considerably. You don’t have to believe this. In fact you can just believe what you want to. However, you’ve got to be pretty inhumane to sit in judgement on a chat room about something on which you know nothing, where you have no experience and just dismiss the reality of what these people go through. This is what I don’t get about you guys, you’re so keen to argue tiny points and speed limits and whether a disabled person should be able to go through X or Y road block rather than think about the reason why they need to go in the first place. You are unaware of your ideological position. I admit, I’m biased towards mine to some extent but my ideological position is fighting for the rights of those in society who need help and need protection. Yours is trying to find ways to question whether those protections are really necessary and, until you’ve actually had to experience these issues as nagapie has pointed out, I suspect you’ll be talking about whether 20mph or 18 is acceptable rather thinking about whether someone can get to hospital before passing out in pain before they get there.
Click to expand...
You seem to have misunderstood the way the conversation has gone. I’m not going to bother to explain it.

Let’s keep it simple. I am in favour of access to LTNs for blue badge holders.
 
teuchter said:
To be clear, I am not arguing against blue badge holders being given an exemption for access to LTNs.

My argument is with nagapie's assertion that as soon as anyone wants to weigh up benefits for a group of disabled people against benefits for some other group, this is ableist thinking. It's not.

Taking that kind of position makes the discussion impossible, and it prevents anyone understanding problems that they might not be aware of or familiar with. I am perfectly happy to accept that there are certain disabilities, and the needs related to them, that I am ignorant about. If people want to explain them to me, I am entirely willing to listen to them and let them inform my opinion on things like who should be given exemptions from LTN restrictions.

I'm not willing to be told that I'm ableist for raising questions like this. Plus I'd like to say that perhaps there are types of disability that nagapie or chowce5382 are not directly familiar with, or are not focussed on, the impacts of which on peoples lives are affected greatly by transport policy, transport policy that in this country has long been overwhelmingly focussed on accommodating those with access to cars. All this feeds into the reasons why a lot of people want to support LTNs as part of a bigger picture.

Of course it is very easy for anyone to become overly pre-occupied with their own areas of interest or experience in trying to improve equality of mobility and access, and end up with many blind spots and I can accept that this inevitably applies to me.

You're not going to persuade people by shouting them down as "ableist". And making part of your rhetoric the idea that LTNs are only for middle class white male cyclists is much the same thing, completely dismissing anyone supporting them as only self interested and with no genuine intention to make a system that serves disadvantaged people in general, better.
Click to expand...
I have never said anything about white middle class cyclists.
I have only called you ableist when you have been.
I have not felt from your responses that you understand the day to day difficulties and severities of being severely or profoundly affected on people and their families. I have not felt that you understand that what is being asked of LTNs is a reasonable adjustment for which people have already gone through a rigorous qualification assessment and which is necessary for inclusion on a number of levels. Your arguments continue to pit disability against disability, all can be accommodated with the right will.
In keeping with the simplicity, I am for full access for blue badge holders. You are not. You concede limited use or people having to be disabled enough, when they've already been assessed.
 
Last edited:
233 pages ago, I was undecided on the pro and cons of the LTNs . I still believe that Lambeth's consultation process was sub-optimal.

However, I am now more and more convinced that LTNs are a good idea (with minor amendments, for blue badge holders for example)

This change in stance is due to a combination of
1) the arguments on this threat
2) the continued neolithic vandalism by (a minority?) of , what I assume, are antis
 
By the way - to add to the vandalism of the LTNs themselves - I see that the 20 limit sign on Hillside Rd has also been painted out.

That really isn't helping the cause of the antis - they just paint them selves into a corner of being perceived as a pro-car lobby

Perhaps their cause would be helped with some clear condemnation of the vandalism, and instructions to their supporters to stop it. I haven't seen any such from choice5382, or others. Apologies if I missed that in the long thread, perhaps you could re-post it if so ?
 
nick said:
Perhaps their cause would be helped with some clear condemnation of the vandalism, and instructions to their supporters to stop it. I haven't seen any such from choice5382, or others. Apologies if I missed that in the long thread, perhaps you could re-post it if so ?
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite - making light of it and claiming the vandalism is an "art installation". The One campaigns have been very good examples of how to lose an argument and alienate people.
 
nagapie said:
In keeping with the simplicity, I am for full access for blue badge holders. You are not. You concede limited use or people having to be disabled enough, when they've already been assessed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for continuing to put words in my mouth. Great way to get people on side :thumbs:
 
edcraw said:
Look at this - this is what LTNs do! Burbage Rd in Dulwich.




They may need tweaks but difficult to argue with the concept.
Click to expand...

Of course Burbage is a lovely road (complete with its own velodrome). suspect that the average income is stratospheric. So an LTN there is obviously a devious plot to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor - and unrelated to the actual topography of the roads in the area :hmm::facepalm:
 
nagapie said:
There is congestion on the main roads. Please read my post which details some of the difficulties blue badge holders face.
Click to expand...
Yes and there was congestion before LTNs. Active streets is about giving people other options so that congestion is reduced. No one is saying disabled people should have longer journeys.
 
chowce5382 said:
I don’t know about this. However, I suspect you’ve had more input than most into this process
Click to expand...
No, I just happen to know a few people who live in the Railton area one of whom had mentioned it. Since you're in regular close contact with a number of people there, including the litigant in your court case, and given that the 'official twitter account of the campaign' has been posting about it, I'd have thought you might be across this stuff more closely than any of us.
 
Last edited:
thebackrow said:
No, I just happen to know a few people who live in the Railton area one of whom had mentioned it. Since you're in regular close contact with a number of people there, including the litigant in your court case, and given that the 'official twitter account of the campaign' has been posting about it, I'd have thought you might be across this stuff more closely than any of us.
Click to expand...

He’s just shit stirring again - it’s a favourite of the One groups to make out its some kind of grand conspiracy between the council & the evil Living Streets & London Cycling Campaign groups!

How cycling and pedestrian campaign groups are painted by the pro-car lobby is truly bizarre.
 
Last edited:
chowce5382 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Age is a protected characteristic - so presumably something that discriminated against children (who obviously cannot legally drive) would fall into the same category. So any measure that somebody thinks would improve safety for children should just be done without any discussion or review or consideration of wider impacts. It's just a duff argument. Consultation is intended to surface stuff that might have been missed (not be a referendum on whether people like the idea)- it could well be that a well intentioned measure to improve conditions for one group had unforeseen consequences for another and consultation/feedback would uncover that. It's why even the ETO's have statutory consultation of some bodies and a public feedback process. This is the weighing up of benefits that @teuchter has been writing about.

And the equalities act is either misunderstood or misrepresented in all of this. It doesn't mean that nothing can change that disadvantages someone covered by the act in any way (LTNs with no exemptions are fundamentally equal - the close points to through motor traffic for everyone). But there should be an awareness of the impacts (that may, but doesn't have to be, documented in a written EQIA doc). It's completely legitimate that the disadvantage to a few may be outweighed by the benefit to the many - (the Onesies seem fond of screeching about 'the greater good' at this point as if it's some totalitarian regime plot) but we've just seen the same discussions and weighing up of benefits over vaccinating under 18's looking at how the risk from vaccinating under 18s' (a small subset of whom may have a negative reaction to the vaccine itself) balances against the benefit to wider society of limiting COVID spread by that group being vaccinated.

nagapie said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is probably the most nuanced argument I've seen in this thread from someone arguing against road changes. The challenge is how you minimise additional inconvenience for the subset of disabled people for whom changes have created a real problem without negating the benefits that reduced traffic volumes, and opportunities for increased activity and improved health, have created for many others. Personally I'm absolutely certain that's not the 'rip out everything that's changed and kick it into the long grass to discuss what changes to reduce traffic might happen at some point long in the future' which is what a lot of the anti-LTN campaigns call for. But it might well be some changes to the schemes, or specific exemption for some.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be a bit more information available than there was previously, on Lambeth's constantly shifting website.

rtstreets.commonplace.is

Equality and Accessibility

Data about making a scheme that works for all.
rtstreets.commonplace.is rtstreets.commonplace.is

I note this:

We know everyone experiences changes to the street differently and we have run targeted engagement with specific user groups including a pre-consultation survey. Specifically regarding our Disabled residents, we have commissioned Transport for All to give a more detailed breakdown of how people might be impacted by the scheme, taking a pan-impairment approach.

They are continuing to run engagement during each consultation and the full report will be considered as part of the decision on the LTN.
Click to expand...

Transport for All are the organisation which produced the report on LTN impacts that was linked to earlier in the thread:

www.transportforall.org.uk

Pave The Way - Transport for All

www.transportforall.org.uk www.transportforall.org.uk

This "exemption policy note" seems to give the clearest explanation of the exemptions currently proposed:


It says that a BB holder would be able to nominate two vehicles, which could include the vehicle of someone who visits them regularly. However the exemption would apply to a single filter rather than all LTN filters, as far as I can see.
 
chowce5382 said:
The disabled peope ive spoken to have all said their journey times have been lengthened considerably. You don’t have to believe this. In fact you can just believe what you want to. However, you’ve got to be pretty inhumane to sit in judgement on a chat room about something on which you know nothing, where you have no experience and just dismiss the reality of what these people go through. This is what I don’t get about you guys, you’re so keen to argue tiny points and speed limits and whether a disabled person should be able to go through X or Y road block rather than think about the reason why they need to go in the first place. You are unaware of your ideological position. I admit, I’m biased towards mine to some extent but my ideological position is fighting for the rights of those in society who need help and need protection. Yours is trying to find ways to question whether those protections are really necessary and, until you’ve actually had to experience these issues as nagapie has pointed out, I suspect you’ll be talking about whether 20mph or 18 is acceptable rather thinking about whether someone can get to hospital before passing out in pain before they get there.
Click to expand...
Under the EA I qualify as disabled under a number of counts. I have a specific mobility impairment.

In the last year I’ve been a palliative carer, spent a lot of separate time going to Guy’s hospital for scheduled and emergency appointments and commuted. This has been by public transport, active travel, PHVs and a car (in descending order). The LTNs have helped me in this and my experience is that they have not been a hindrance.

I’ve spent more than 15 years working in social care, co-producing independent living schemes for adults with compound and complex disabilities. I worked in the 15 Minute Care campaign and developed award winning person centred PA programmes with young disabled people.

I find the idea that you think you represent me or my family offensive.
 
teuchter said:
It seems the logic is that as the shortage of care workers is acute (and I'm not going to dispute that) it's not acceptable to take any measures which might extend the journey times of the portion of them who have private transport available to them. Even if those extensions are relatively marginal. And this has to override the benefits of lower traffic levels that others (including care workers using public transport) could enjoy. Perhaps there should be exemptions from speed limits as well.
Click to expand...
That would be good.
Imagine you have a schedule of fifteen visits lasting fifteen minutes each, with a ten minute allowance for transit between appointments.
It would be a boon to have the speed limit abated for such workers.
Or maybe those OCD sufferers who support these current oppressive measures could man the bedpans themselves?
 
thebackrow said:
Age is a protected characteristic - so presumably something that discriminated against children (who obviously cannot legally drive) would fall into the same category. So any measure that somebody thinks would improve safety for children should just be done without any discussion or review or consideration of wider impacts. It's just a duff argument. Consultation is intended to surface stuff that might have been missed (not be a referendum on whether people like the idea)- it could well be that a well intentioned measure to improve conditions for one group had unforeseen consequences for another and consultation/feedback would uncover that. It's why even the ETO's have statutory consultation of some bodies and a public feedback process. This is the weighing up of benefits that @teuchter has been writing about.

And the equalities act is either misunderstood or misrepresented in all of this. It doesn't mean that nothing can change that disadvantages someone covered by the act in any way (LTNs with no exemptions are fundamentally equal - the close points to through motor traffic for everyone). But there should be an awareness of the impacts (that may, but doesn't have to be, documented in a written EQIA doc). It's completely legitimate that the disadvantage to a few may be outweighed by the benefit to the many - (the Onesies seem fond of screeching about 'the greater good' at this point as if it's some totalitarian regime plot) but we've just seen the same discussions and weighing up of benefits over vaccinating under 18's looking at how the risk from vaccinating under 18s' (a small subset of whom may have a negative reaction to the vaccine itself) balances against the benefit to wider society of limiting COVID spread by that group being vaccinated.


This is probably the most nuanced argument I've seen in this thread from someone arguing against road changes. The challenge is how you minimise additional inconvenience for the subset of disabled people for whom changes have created a real problem without negating the benefits that reduced traffic volumes, and opportunities for increased activity and improved health, have created for many others. Personally I'm absolutely certain that's not the 'rip out everything that's changed and kick it into the long grass to discuss what changes to reduce traffic might happen at some point long in the future' which is what a lot of the anti-LTN campaigns call for. But it might well be some changes to the schemes, or specific exemption for some.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing against road changes, I'm happy for LTNs to stay with access given to blue badge holders.
 
nagapie said:
You posted that blue badge holders should have access but only in their area.
Click to expand...
No I didn't. Nor have I said anything at all about people "having to be disabled enough, when they've already been assessed".

You already on Sunday accused me of saying something I demonstrably didn't. And no apology for that either.
 
teuchter said:
I am perfectly happy to accept that there are certain disabilities, and the needs related to them, that I am ignorant about. If people want to explain them to me, I am entirely willing to listen to them and let them inform my opinion on things like who should be given exemptions from LTN restrictions.
Click to expand...
Except they've been explained more than once by me already yet apparently it still has to be proved to you. Blue badge assessment not withstanding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
756
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
732
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
796
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom