mr.chicken

They're not about personal freedom. They like to claim so but they're very much for freedom of one group at the expense of another, where the other is usually part of the out group.

Will this 3 way control run concurrently with that huge hole that's been dug into the pavement that's been causing a constriction in the road as well?

I do and mine has. Such as? One thing I've noticed about the LTN naysayers is a massive lack of ideas that are (a) concrete and (b) practical. Just lots of hot air about how someone (not me) should think of a better idea. In reality, LTNs have reduced traffic both within and on the boundary roads as compared to control areas. There now exist safe routes for cycling to a variety of different locations, making those areas more accessible than before. Anything, anything at all which makes cars even slightly less convenient will always "pit one side of the community against the other". Feel free to offer a suggestion though, I'm sure I have not thought of everything.

I voted labour for the first time ever in my life because they put the LTNs in and the other major parties were standing against LTNs. A democracy is not guaranteed to give you the results you want.

No you don't, otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to derail a thread about bad drivers into one about cyclists. You can of course prove me wrong by starting a thread abut bad cyclists and stop derailing this one. I don't think you will do that because you don't dislike bad drivers and your constant derailing proves that.

Sure... 😉

Please make a bike whinging thread if you have opinions on bikes. Otherwise it's just whataboutery to distract from dangerous car driving. Making a thread is easy to do and you keep not doing it which makes me wonder why you want to keep distracting people from the problems with bad car drivers.

You're saying it's exactly like heavily polluted, congested car dependency. Marvellous for some, really bad for others. This way though less pollution is being dumped into the air in London: relative to the control areas LTN traffic is down heavily and the controversial boundary road traffic is down slightly. Personally I'd rather have that than have things be marvellous for the lucky few who get to have 3 Canyoneros and who are annoyed they can't take a quick jaunt to Lordship Lane. Definitely equitable: less than half the households in Southwark have access to cars and those who do not skew towards poorer socioeconomic demographics. And it's also 100% democratic: The Tories AND Lib Dems both ran on anti-LTN platforms and both got mashed in the last election. And since the Lib Dems also did badly you certainly cannot blame it on anti-Tory sentiment. Democracy doesn't mean that you and your echo chamber get exactly what you want.

Well, not all of us. I support the CPZ.

"as a way of increasing revenue" lol will the daft conspiracies never stop? The LTNs are fantastic for local travel. I find it much easier to get around to places that are really beyond reasonable walking distance. Sunak's comment's are just another Tory attempt to stir up a culture war to as a last ditch attempt to keep those red wall voters. Sunak's argument is that the majority own cars so we should pander to them. This means that if you like Sunak's argument you should favour LTNs since the majority of people in Southwark do not own cars. Or perhaps you just love cars & pollution and will clutch on to any argument that puts the in the top spot. Or maybe not, but I've never seen you advance a suggestion to reduce congestion and pollution that is even vaguely possible to actually implement.

Saying pots and kettles is an implication that I'm blowing through red lights while pointing the finger at others for doing so. That's a somewhat bold claim, and given you don't know who I am, you don't have any evidence for it. As for whether I agree: this is a thread for whinging about cars. If you want me to whinge about other road users, please start an appropriate thread and I'll whinge there. Otherwise I'll endeavor to stop a car related thread getting sea-lioned into oblivion by all the usual suspects.

"but what about the bikes??!?!111!11!11oneeleven!!oneONE!!11!" This thread is about drivers. If you want to complain about bikes, why not use one of the existing bike-whinging threads or make a new one?

This is deja vu all over again! We've had this conversation before. You're presenting an anti-cyclist slant on it which is not actually correct. And that article is super biased too: you'll get honked at if you step out onto a road in front of a moving car, bus or tram. You'll get yelled at if you step right across someone's path when they're walking too. So why does getting the same treatment from a cyclist on a bike path warrant a special mention? Probably because there are some bike shaped, Lycra clad axes to be ground. Pedestrians are about the most efficient use of space in terms of people per hour, with mass transit able to be a close second. No one's going to deny that bikes are a less efficient use of space and cars less so still. It's rational design to prioritise the most efficient use of space when things get crowded, and Amsterdam has a consistent record of doing this. This is why trams and buses are prioritised over bikes at traffic lights. So you are correct that more pedestrianised areas have been created. What you're not correct about is the anti-cyclist slant of "problems caused by cyclists". This is obvious from the way they have spent a lot of money on underground bike parking to free up very valuable and limited surface space for people rather than objects, and they way they are still trying to replace cars with bikes. Your post is anti-LTN playbook through and through. Make a very broad claim, then support it by linking to support for a much narrower claim and pretend REALLY HARD that your entire claim is supported.

Yes, and? Traffic engineering is hard, and it would be foolish to expect the council to get a perfect solution off the bat. What they did---make a change, evaluate the change and seek feedback and then improve it---is precisely how the system should work. It's also about the only reasonable way of figuring out unsolved problems. The are three alternatives: 1. Deny the reality that are any problems with traffic and pollution in London 2. Have the council refuse to fix any flaws 3. Do absolutely nothing ever even knowing there are problems (something the pro pollution lobby would very much prefer). Neither 1,2, or 3 are better than what has actually happened. Of course now the ambulances etc have a network of quiet, traffic free back roads they can use to get around without getting stuck in traffic. I notice that the "emergency vehicles must pass! Scrap the LTNs!" have been conspicuously quiet in this regard now LTNs are better than the old status quo for emergency vehicles. Almost like that was a red herring and they never actually cared about anything but cars.

The Dulwich Village LTN is open to emergency services but this is bad because Lycra is evil. But the real problem as always is not bikes but cars. If it wasn't for entitled drivers, the council could simply stick up signs saying "closed to motor vehicles excluding emergency vehicles", but we all know that drivers would ignore them. As a result, the council has to choose between blocking to all wide vehicles entirely (cheap) or installing expensive modal filter enforcement (cameras, raising bollards, that sort of thing). The council isn't at fault for having a limited budget. Motorists are at fault for commonly ignoring legal directives which are not strongly enforced.

It's about as correct as saying "London to ban taxis" when Uber almost lost their license.

I am so glad to hear that! Is the trading days reduction temporary or permanent?

You said e scooters were banned. That was a made up fact, not a "disagreement". You were objectively, factually wrong with your statement. I notice you have now amended it to the still incorrect one about rental scooters being banned. What's actually banned isself serve rental scooters. That is not the same as scooters being banned. That was your initial claim, and it was a made up fact. I did like how you substituted a second link which verifies what I'm saying in order to prove me wrong. Nice try but it only works if people don't read the links 😉

Also a made up fact. It's legal to own and operate an electric scooter in Paris. As usual the link says something different from what you claim.

Neither. That's a made up fact. I'll sure you can dig up an article which supports half the claim though 😉

Everyone needs to stick to the rules of the road. By all means campaign for some blue badge parking spaces in the side roads, but do you realise how many people on those busy buses at the busy times get held up if someone parks in the bus lane. The law needs to apply equally to everyone, but then again, you'd buy an icecream for a policeman inventing new laws and fining parents for something that is (a) not a legal requirement and (b) in the case of a seatbelt for bikes does not exist.

That's because Starmer is basically a conservative camping out in the Labour party. His only concrete positions seem to be a half step shuffle to the left of whatever the Tories are currently doing. And here he's at it again, repeating a Tory talking point uncritically as if it's a fact. 1. Uxbridge has voted conservative for over 50 years (it's not that old, but this holds if you consider it's two parent constituencies). Don't forget that the residents of Uxbridge decided they wanted to have Boris Johnson as an MP even when the quality of his character was very well known. 2. The difference between Tory and Labour was a lot smaller than the Green party share of the vote, and the greens are pro ULEZ to the point where they are trying to implement their own in Brighton.

******* rent increases. Real shame. I wasn't able to go for a few weeks, then it was just gone. This was the kind of shop that's really good for a local area, plus it had a lot of UK produce and wasn't the price of the upscale veg shops.

This is the kind of bold thinking we need in London with LTNs to make a real difference:

They're not all powerful: they don't have access to the space lasers yet. I won't arrange anything for them until I'm inducted, but it seems that I don't wear enough Lycra so they haven't reached out to me.