liquidindian
Hello
You've come a long way from asking for an independent review. Or should this be un-academic? Just a bunch of people in the pub, reckoning stuff?
Petition to request parliament review LTNs
- Thread starter ianarmstrong
- Start date
ianarmstrong
Active Member
It's based on flawed logic and ideology
liquidindian
Hello
It's based on ideology? There's a set of ideas behind it? No wonder you're upset.
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Nope - I would hope that parliament would, after hearing about all the misery these LTNs have caused, seek to get to the truth about what has happened and why so many studies claim success when there are so many issues being reported
maomao
普費斯
You can tell that from the constant accusations of others cherry picking while blatantly and openly refusing any form of evidence that doesn't back up his preformed opinions.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
We're never going to agree because you are engaging in bad faith conversation - as you've said, you have already decided what is happening and anything which disagrees with you is wrong becaues comes from "active travel academics" or LTN councils or whatever and is to be discarded. You can't find anything that agrees with you, so you class anyone who studies these things as active travel academics in order to discard what they are saying.
This isn't discourse, it's bad faith discussion.
Last edited:
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Well we were told that the traffic should evaporate after 18 months in Lambeth but all I see and hear about is more traffic and congestion on all the main roads and people living on those roads having to take their children to the doctors as they have developed new and worsening respiratory conditions - I am being genuine with with what I post on here so it is sad that you deem it to be anything other and seek to denounce it as anything else - sometimes you have to agree to disagree and refrain from casting disparaging remarks about the other party just as I have done
BigTom
Well-Known Member
sometimes you have to actually engage with what people are saying and enter a conversation with the possibility of having your mind changed.
You are doing neither, ergo you are a bad faith actor.
ianarmstrong
Active Member
You have not convinced me - that is not me being anything other than someone who is not convinced by what you have said and what you have shared - I have seen and heard of lots of reports by people and businesses how LTNs have significantly affected their health, wellbeing and/or livelihood and the council have been informed about this too but nothing has been done to mitigate these issues and the councils and councillors have simply ignored them - they are bad faith actors
maomao
普費斯
This isn't even data; it barely even qualifies as hearsay; it's just some bollocks you've made up. About a kid a month dies from asthma in London and it's not because of LTNs.
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Obviously you don't want to believe this but it's true and no academic research is going to highlight this but the mother of the child who did have air pollution listed on her death certificate also is not a supporter of LTNs due to the displaced traffic and congestion they cause on the boundary roads which are in generally just other residential roads often where schools are located
maomao
普費斯
A grieving mother is not 'data' Ian. And her daughter died in 2013.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
You have already made up your mind. There is literally nothing I could post that would change it. You have said as much. You don't understand what a bad faith actor is so the best you can do is sling it back at some people who are not me, have nothing to do with me and are not connected to the vast majority of LTNs anyway.
klang
klang
so - maybe we need fewer cars on the roads NOW? something worth campaigning for?
And Ian is exploiting her
maomao
普費斯
Who? Me?
No, not you !
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
He’s seemed happy enough with aggressive and intimidating posting styles on other areas of social media when the tide of opinion has been the other way.
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Yes I've heard why the councils and councillors say they are doing this and their reasons are based on flawed logic in my opinion and they are not actually monitoring the reasons they say they are doing this for. They clearly believe all they are being told about LTNs but once they started to be informed about the misery they are causing I would expect them to seek to mitigate those issues instead of simply ignoring them but it seems they believe the issues will go away as that is what they have been told.
Manter
Lunch Mob
I lived in Lambeth at the time and no one ever said traffic would evaporate
krtek a houby
Kick me again Jesus
Ok, great. You're here for the long haul, so?
ianarmstrong
Active Member
That is the claim made for Waltham Forrest and Waltham Forrest is referred to by Lambeth councillors in their conversations with residentsI lived in Lambeth at the time and no one ever said traffic would evaporate
The new road rage: bitter rows break out over UK’s low-traffic neighbourhoods
As barriers and signs go up to stop rat runs and promote cycling and walking, communities are deeply divided over the benefits
Manter
Lunch Mob
I can’t see that claim in thereThat is the claim made for Waltham Forrest and Waltham Forrest is referred to by Lambeth councillors in their conversations with residents
The new road rage: bitter rows break out over UK’s low-traffic neighbourhoods
As barriers and signs go up to stop rat runs and promote cycling and walking, communities are deeply divided over the benefitswww.theguardian.com
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Is he still here ?
Good grief....
I signed up to that FB group out of interest.
Bloody hell.
It's fairly-well adminned, but there are plenty of links to the full-on loons.
Good grief....
I signed up to that FB group out of interest.
Bloody hell.
It's fairly-well adminned, but there are plenty of links to the full-on loons.
liquidindian
Hello
It's a way of describing the reduction in traffic that happens when you reduce road capacity (and the opposite happens if you increase it). It's not really that controversial.
liquidindian
Hello
“We found that people in ‘high dose areas’ [of traffic interventions], including low-traffic neighbourhoods, were doing 40 to 45 minutes walking or cycling a week more than people in the control group,” says Professor Rachel Aldred, who co-authored the study, which was published last week.I can’t see that claim in there
Monitoring by the council shows there has been an overall fall in motor traffic across the entire borough – although there were small rises on the surrounding border roads. “The evidence shows there’s likely to be a mix of traffic displacement and ‘evaporation’ – ie some people will make journeys in other ways if driving becomes a bit more difficult,” says Aldred. “You wouldn’t expect 100% of people to stop driving but given current trends, without measures to discourage driving we will see much more traffic on all the roads.”
She adds measures such as low emission zones and widening pavements would help protect people living on main roads from traffic pollution.
As I say, pretty uncontroversial. Less room for cars and people using other modes = less driving. But this is "ideology" and "zealotry" to some.
Similar threads
