Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Petition to request parliament review LTNs

As much as I have a few issues with cyclists these days, how much road space do they take up in comparison to a car, how much pollution do they cause,
how many people do cyclists kill; little by comparison to cars.

'They never stop at red lights' is a very common whinge about cyclists. Even though, if it were true, the cyclist problem would have solved itself by now in account of they'd all be dead.
 
BTW ianarmstrong walking home from work earlier past Juniper Drive along York Road, I started to notice how many cars just had a driver in and no one else.
Buses excepted, I saw just two cars with a passenger in How many of those cars were going on an unnecessarily short journey, possibly to pick up children from school?
Exactly - who knows what they were doing or how necessary their journey was or how far they were travelling or how viable it was to have made that journey via active travel modes or via public transport which is why more assessment and data is needed as we cannot base it purely on how many people where in the vehicle - many of them might have been UBER/PHVs so those would have been working vehicles - I drive down there quite often to buy petrol from the service station so I might have been one of those people!
 
Cars don't stop at red lights half the time. I see cars jump red lights daily.
I drive most evenings and I do see some car/van drivers driving through an amber to red and clear red light but I see more cyclists driving through red lights than any other road user and increasingly over the past 10 years I have seen more and more mopeds/motorbikes doing the same and I suspect it is as a result of them seeing cyclists doing it so they psychologically think they are also a two wheeled vehicle and then feel they can do it too!
 
No local council or councillor has any real mandate to impose these schemes without due care and attention being carried out as only around 40% of the electorate bother to vote in local elections and the majority of those that do vote do so based on national political issues without any regard to local issues
rolls up sleeves

This line has been trotted out for years on politics forums I visit and it's always worth pointing out a few things.

I don't like low turnouts at elections, but I've never supported compulsory voting; the latter suggests an enforcing by the State to form an opinion and that doesn't end well. Isn't ending well, in some countries right now in real time.

"... only 40% of the electorate bother to vote..."

At local elections, quite possibly. Higher when there's a general on the same date. Lower at by-elections. Much lower. But over the years I've always responded with: so? We don't have upper and lower limits for turnout. We don't have a rule that Cllrs must be elected by an outright majority of votes cast. If they have a majority of either 2 votes or 2,000, it's a win, and a win is a mandate. A majority of one is a win, anything else is showing off.

I'd prefer it to be different. I'd prefer STV. I'd prefer devolved assemblies and tax raising powers but hey, here we are.

"... bothered to vote" bothers me. Why 'bothers'? Some local councils have been Tory for generations, local worthies as candidates, no incentive to vote. It's not "can't be bothered". It's "not encouraged". Again, I'd like reform. Improvements. Can't see it happening. Not the fault of the voters.

"majority of those that do vote do so based on national political issues without any regard to local issues."

You can't prove that. Can't prove that at all. Neither can I. Can't disprove either. What if no bugger knocked on the door, not do much as a leaflet, didn't make the effort? I could decide to vote for the other fella on that basis alone with no regard to national policies. Might choose to vote based on the candidate's tie design or if he supports the local team.

Luckily, in our democracy, you don't know why someone voted. Or why someone didn't. And here's the thing about "with no regard to local issues"; that's complete bullshit. Local people know more than you think. They know that the bins aren't being collected and the planning permission for that new place on Herbert Street won't go through and that it's a bugger to get children into Green Park School because all the new housing going up and that the new traffic lights on Ingol Street have made a real difference to the safety record.

Local people know exactly what's happening. And know they don't have to fill in a questionnaire before they vote. And they scrutinise local papers and FB groups and Nextdoor App posts and chat to people who know people who know people far more than you give them credit.

"Not enough people vote, and those who do aren't clever enough" is what you're saying. And that stinks.
 
I drive most evenings and I do see some car/van drivers driving through an amber to red and clear red light but I see more cyclists driving through red lights than any other road user and increasingly over the past 10 years I have seen more and more mopeds/motorbikes doing the same and I suspect it is as a result of them seeing cyclists doing it so they psychologically think they are also a two wheeled vehicle and then feel they can do it too!
There's fuck all cyclists where I live because the roads are too horrible, or rather the anti-social wankers driving the cars are. I've tried, it's not worth it. Most motorbikes are okay but the food delivery lot jump pavements and all sorts to make an extra couple of quid.
 
I drive most evenings and I do see some car/van drivers driving through an amber to red and clear red light but I see more cyclists driving through red lights than any other road user and increasingly over the past 10 years I have seen more and more mopeds/motorbikes doing the same and I suspect it is as a result of them seeing cyclists doing it so they psychologically think they are also a two wheeled vehicle and then feel they can do it too!

From TfL:

Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does.

And of course we have to consider the vast difference in the kind of injuries you get if a 10kg bike hits you and if a 2000kg car hits you.

If you really want to improve the situation, maybe don't drive most evenings.
 
rolls up sleeves

This line has been trotted out for years on politics forums I visit and it's always worth pointing out a few things.

I don't like low turnouts at elections, but I've never supported compulsory voting; the latter suggests an enforcing by the State to form an opinion and that doesn't end well. Isn't ending well, in some countries right now in real time.

"... only 40% of the electorate bother to vote..."

At local elections, quite possibly. Higher when there's a general on the same date. Lower at by-elections. Much lower. But over the years I've always responded with: so? We don't have upper and lower limits for turnout. We don't have a rule that Cllrs must be elected by an outright majority of votes cast. If they have a majority of either 2 votes or 2,000, it's a win, and a win is a mandate. A majority of one is a win, anything else is showing off.

I'd prefer it to be different. I'd prefer STV. I'd prefer devolved assemblies and tax raising powers but hey, here we are.

"... bothered to vote" bothers me. Why 'bothers'? Some local councils have been Tory for generations, local worthies as candidates, no incentive to vote. It's not "can't be bothered". It's "not encouraged". Again, I'd like reform. Improvements. Can't see it happening. Not the fault of the voters.

"majority of those that do vote do so based on national political issues without any regard to local issues."

You can't prove that. Can't prove that at all. Neither can I. Can't disprove either. What if no bugger knocked on the door, not do much as a leaflet, didn't make the effort? I could decide to vote for the other fella on that basis alone with no regard to national policies. Might choose to vote based on the candidate's tie design or if he supports the local team.

Luckily, in our democracy, you don't know why someone voted. Or why someone didn't. And here's the thing about "with no regard to local issues"; that's complete bullshit. Local people know more than you think. They know that the bins aren't being collected and the planning permission for that new place on Herbert Street won't go through and that it's a bugger to get children into Green Park School because all the new housing going up and that the new traffic lights on Ingol Street have made a real difference to the safety record.

Local people know exactly what's happening. And know they don't have to fill in a questionnaire before they vote. And they scrutinise local papers and FB groups and Nextdoor App posts and chat to people who know people who know people far more than you give them credit.

"Not enough people vote, and those who do aren't clever enough" is what you're saying. And that stinks.
I’ve voted Labour all my life and previously just voted for the local Labour candidates without knowing anything about them. Many people I’ve talked to over the last few years did the same. I was out leafleting during the last local elections and one chap came out to hand it back and said he would not be voting for that party based on what the national party leader had said in an interview so his vote was based on nothing about local issues at all.

I’d like to see the voting system switched to PR then every vote would count towards real representation and that would I think persuade more to vote and enable the smaller parties to gain a seat or two and result in a more representative council chamber.

The low turnout for my should make the winning councillors recognise that they only have the support of a small number of the residents they serve and anything significant they embark on doing it the area such as these LTN schemes must be done with the explicit support of the community and sadly that has not been the case in many instances.
 
From TfL:

Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does.

And of course we have to consider the vast difference in the kind of injuries you get if a 10kg bike hits you and if a 2000kg car hits you.

If you really want to improve the situation, maybe don't drive most evenings.
No one should be jumping red lights or riding through pedestrian crossings when pedestrians are crossing or ready to cross - I see a lots of that too mainly by cyclists than any other road user - I’m a pedestrian too and I remember the green cross code adverts in the 70’s and I don’t see anything like that these days but I do see lots of pedestrians looking at their phones as they step out into the road which is a real worry.

I work in the evenings when I’m driving so I can’t “maybe don’t drive most evenings” as I’m out earning a living.
 
Exactly - who knows what they were doing or how necessary their journey was or how far they were travelling or how viable it was to have made that journey via active travel modes or via public transport which is why more assessment and data is needed as we cannot base it purely on how many people where in the vehicle - many of them might have been UBER/PHVs so those would have been working vehicles - I drive down there quite often to buy petrol from the service station so I might have been one of those people!
Problem is that most people completely overegg how essential a car is to their journey. When people collectively start throwing out examples they always start with one or two that everyone would pretty much agree as vital, but then descend into “it saves me a bit of time” without any self awareness that’s really not an essential reason.

My favourites are from mums who try to justify the types of journeys that I do regularly on foot/public transport/bike :D
 
Also the 'lots of them are probably cabs' argument doesn't work as the current uber / cab culture still relies too heavily on cars to get about. We should be well beyond discussing ltn's by now and should be focussing the discussion on truly accessible and affordable public transport and inclusive infrastructure. Because, in times of climate change, environmental decline and high

fuel costs, we can't really afford to waste time on making driving more comfortable and attractive for drivers.
 
Exactly - who knows what they were doing or how necessary their journey was or how far they were travelling or how viable it was to have made that journey via active travel modes or via public transport which is why more assessment and data is needed as we cannot base it purely on how many people where in the vehicle - many of them might have been UBER/PHVs so those would have been working vehicles - I drive down there quite often to buy petrol from the service station so I might have been one of those people!
Both the garages there used to sell LPG, a fuel with much lower carbon and NOx emmission. Conversions weren't ULEZ exempt although factory installed were, meaning the LPG powered vehicles disappered from ULEZ zone. Most garages in the south have removed LPG pumps so all those dual fuel vehicles are back on petrol through lack of support.
 
To strip all this back to the very basics, from the mid-60s onwards local councils have tried to balance pedestrian access with vehicle access in city centres which were never designed for significant numbers of either, in layouts inherited from Victorians, Georgians, and much further back in many of the older cities; from Ring Roads to one-way systems to parking permits, they've all had mixed successes and plenty of failures. LTNs are just the next, and advanced, stage of a long, long, long period to make UK urban centres enough for both pedestrians and drivers.

How any of this had turned into waves hands at thread and elsewhere is beyond me.
 
No one should be jumping red lights or riding through pedestrian crossings when pedestrians are crossing or ready to cross - I see a lots of that too mainly by cyclists than any other road user - I’m a pedestrian too and I remember the green cross code adverts in the 70’s and I don’t see anything like that these days but I do see lots of pedestrians looking at their phones as they step out into the road which is a real worry.

I work in the evenings when I’m driving so I can’t “maybe don’t drive most evenings” as I’m out earning a living.
I can tell you the reason you don't see "green cross code" type stuff anymore is because you are, presumably, an adult and none of it is aimed at you.

I can assure you that every single child in school still receives pedestrian training in ks1 and/or ks2 (primary age).
The current framework is "Stop, Look, Listen and Think"
 
Last edited:
The nationwide petition has gained about 100 signatures since the start of the week. At this rate they are on course to hit 100,000 in less than 20 years.

By which point internal combustion engine cars won’t have been available to buy new for 10 years, and most of the people concerned will be dead ?
 
Both the garages there used to sell LPG, a fuel with much lower carbon and NOx emmission. Conversions weren't ULEZ exempt although factory installed were, meaning the LPG powered vehicles disappered from ULEZ zone. Most garages in the south have removed LPG pumps so all those dual fuel vehicles are back on petrol through lack of support.
I would like to switch to a hydrogen vehicle next rather than an EV as they seem to be more sustainable and can be refilled/recharged in a few minutes but all of the investment is going into EVs
 
Back
Top Bottom