mr.chicken

That is literally their job. I'm pretty sure they'd be doing it either way. So say the Tories. I'm not inclined to take everything they say at face value. I voted Labour because of the LTNs specifically. I didn't vote Lib Dem because they promised to remove them. But tell me, how did Boris persuade people to move their votes from Lib Dem to Labour? The Lib Dems leaned in on anti-LTN stuff, and saw their vote share drop.

Sure you have, Rocks. I'll chalk this one up to "Rockets will not unilaterally criticise the vandals". You can prove me wrong and criticise them alone without attempting to take a dig at anyone else to soften the blow. But we both know you won't. I find people who lack evidence or understanding, often feel that such things are a personal attack. Doubly so when people with reason on their side refuse to back down. Oh well, I can't help your feelings.

OK got it, you can't actually criticism any of the substance of the article, so you're attacking the author. I'll chalk that up to "Rockets agrees with the article". 🤣 Ah the old "they're both equally bad" card. They are not. You seem to be getting a bit obsessed with me, Spartacus. I mean you are name dropping a me a lot. I'll be honest, it's a little bit flattering but kind of in a weird way if you know what I mean?

They both tried that last time and lost a load of votes.

Well, good to see you agree with his points: if you'd found any of the facts in question to dispute you would have done so. For lack of those, you attack the author instead.

Nope, just part of the all powerful cycle lobby mafia illuminati. Not actually owning a working bike or doing any lobbying is no impediment to being a member it turns out. You don't even have to wear Lycra. aah whataboutery at its best. You can't even bring yourself to criticise vandalism. Your instinct now I'm sure is to find something I didn't criticise in the past, as if that somehow justifies your somewhat neutral-to-pro vandalism stance. It is sad of course when park infrastructure is vandalised, but vandalised LTN infrastructure results in drivers doing dangerous things such as driving through areas which other people expect to not have cars in, making it a safety issue that the council really does need to fix quickly.

Huh the pro pollution swarm is active this morning! Speaking of problem elements: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/16/fixing-vandalised-ltn-infrastructure-costs-london-councils-more-than-850000 Looks like the pro pollution lobby is causing a lot of expensive damage! It is our way or the cycle super highway (we did win the election by a wide and increased majority), but at least you'll be able to travel that highway safely and without breathing too much cancerous pollution. Which is after all our goal.

LOL is that the best you can do, mate? "possibly" against the wishes of the many which is another way of saying "probably not against the wishes of the many". 🤣 And good on you for more personal attacks, @Rockets those are a well known good substitute for rational arguments. Anyway we are coming for your car, and will force you to parade around in Lycra.

Stop pretending you weren't also complaining about the LTN which we should note already exists. No one here has forgotten you complaining that an already existing thing was not on the manifesto except maybe you and@Spartacus 😉 . Impressive really that you've forgotten what you wrote only days ago at most.

Yes asking the likes of you for evidence (or to read existing evidence) is a daft question. You got me there, and I should really know better. 😉 Oh other daft questions which I ought to stop asking because no answers will ever be forthcoming: do you believe the status quo is optimal or is there an effective intervention you would find acceptable? As for making people look stupid: it's something I'm trying not to do but some people are making it awfully difficult.

The council organises rubbish collection, but it's not mentioned in their manifesto. And I certainly do pay for garden waste collection. You have not complained about that. You don't expect the council to mention things they already do in the manifesto, so we all know you didn't actually care about the lack of it in the manifesto 😉 Nope. If you're going to ask rhetorical questions, try not to make them quite so daft. Next!

@first mate still waiting to hear from you abut why you think preexisting things need to be in the manifesto? There's nothing in there about rubbish collection and street trees. Oe Noes!!!11! they weren't mentioned in the manifesto! The council must stop because of democracy! Ehhh, made up facts are't really adding anything ot the debate 😉

@Rockets still waiting for you to say what would be an acceptable way to you for the council to meet their manifesto promises.

@first mate. If I give short answers you accuse me of not answering every point. If I give a long answer you sneer because it's long. If it's too nuanced for you to follow you complain it's "convoluted". It's almost like you are arguing in bad faith. You are complaining that the council hasn't done anything about buses. The CPZ will reduce congestion and help buses. It's a simple point, but you think it is convoluted. That's more of a you problem than a me problem 😉

Woah there @first mate stop sabotaging the thread. You're talking about the same topic I am, so that must be sabotage, well according you you. The council listed problems they wish to tackle, and the CPZ is a valid step towards solving the problems, one that's well established and familiar to anyone who knows the first thing about urban planning. It's clear from the LTN that our council is prepared to take bold steps. If the council listed all the solutions then they would still get nit picked to death because they didn't list enough detail. In practice enforcing solutions at the ballot box isa bad idea. Let's say they did list the CPZ and then found it didn't work: they'd be forced to keep it. Is that what you want? Add it is the council is doing a huge number of things that aren't in the manifesto because there's just a colossal amount of business they need to do. You don't seem to mind not having a 20,000 page manifesto and a yearly referendum on bin collection days. As for buses: the CPZ is expected to reduce car journeys. That will help congestion which will improve things for bus routes. As for your councillor, I've been lied to directly before by candidates and it is incredibly galling if one acts in the lies. Nonetheless the council cannot alter policy just because of that. But anyway, since you don't like the CPZ what would you find acceptable that is (a) something the council can do and (b) stands a chance of achieving more than nothing. The council promised action, so it would be undemocratic for them to do nothing. So what then?

That's amazing! People are jealous of @Penguin68 and paying for parking is just like being murdered so people can steal all your stuff. I'm now unsure if you're actually a false flag operative on the payroll of the all powerful bicycle illuminati bent on discrediting the pro pollution lobby by presenting outrageously extreme viewpoints.

You're a legend. Don't ever change 😆 Does really bother you that you were wrong about Hammersmith Bridge though huh? You keep obliquely harking back to it when though the topic is long past. Otherwise... The council said they'd tackle problems and they are. Your main objection are really that they are tackling them out of order and you don't think the consultation is good enough. That's a lot less dramatic than the end of democracy, really.

The LTNs were already in place at the time of the election. https://www.southwarklabour.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Southwark-Labour-Manifesto-2022.pdf Page 17. 34, 35, 36 and 39 are all about reducing car usage, 36 especially at a large scale. What did you think they were going to do? Asking nicely doesn't work. Ball's in your court, @Rockets, how do you think they should implement 34, 35 and 36, in a way that's something they can (a) legally do and (b) will actually have an effect.

Ermmmmmm Rockets, you just accidentally pwn3d Heartblock. If you think the study is unsound then it doesn't support Heartblock's points either! What the heck is the obsession of the pro-car crowd with the Jews? We've heard here a while back the comparisons of the "plight" of drivers to the plight of Jews in 1930s Germany, and now we're on to well, you're a bit incoherent so it's hard to tell exactly what you mean, but good on you for dragging the Jews into it again. Please stop obsessing over us.

@heartblock and @Rockets you're doing a great Gish Gallop between the two of you, and I also wonder if you're coordinating with your personal attacks, because they all seem to arrive in bulk! Lots of shouting. Anyway on to the link. Well not link. Thing you didn't need to link but somehow decided that you not linking it was a criticism of me. Still trying to understand that one... 🤣 It also says this: So it just disproved all the negatives of the LTN about boundary roads and congestion that you've been talking about for the last few years, and especially all the "harm" you've been talking about just recently. Additionally: Anyway now that it actually disproves all your complaints, I look forward to you nitpicking every minor flaw perceived or otherwise, but then manifestly not applying that to the particular conclusions you are fond of.

What conclusions are you drawing from the table? You frequently do nothing but ask questions, which does a great deal to obscure your point.

When you upload the primary, secondary or indeed any research at all proving induced/reduced demand is "pish", you might have a leg to stand on. In the mean time it seems you are attempting to hold other people to a much higher standard than you can attain.

Why do I need to admit something that appears to be untrue? I suppose that is basically the only way all the pro-car pro-pollution arguments you keep putting forth can hold any weight, so why not this as well?

Of course I do, but I would like the discussion to be grounded in reality rather than wild speculation. @heartblock and you have claimed that reduced demand (the inverse of induced demand) does not happen. You are therefore claiming to have overturned decades of research the results of which have been successfully put into practice. This is a quite extraordinary claim and could overturn traffic planning worldwide, not to mention the local implementations like LTNs, etc if true. I don't think it's "prevarication" (do you even know what that word means) to expect something more than a few scattered ad-hoc observations and a lot of strong feelings. Excellent, so an LTN is clearly part of the solution then. And I agree also that it's not the only part. The CPZ is part as well. But there are many more parts needed.

@heartblock, stop prevaricating. You have managed to overturn several decades of traffic engineering and urban planning research. This is simple question: where is your industry award for your massive breakthrough in this field? Or even a paper? Your lack of willingness to provide anything at all is beginning, just beginning to make me think that it's your opinion vs decades of research. 🤔