ohthehugemanateeLTN

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aaah Gilkes...all a bit Stepford Wives....I always > feel the hairs on the back of my neck go up when I > walk down there, surprised that the residents > association hasn?t introduced an entrance gate > with a security guard...my partner refuses to walk > down Gilkes...?it?s all a bit ?Get Out?? in their > opinion. Oh, that's an argument I forgot to add to my list: * LTN residents are eeevviiiiilllll [spooky voice]. Haha only serious. Gilkes Crescent is just a quiet residential cul-de-sac like so many others with houses on either side. There's nothing remotely horror like about it. Except you all forgot about that little LTN until I pointed it out because it's been in so long now it's quietly accepetd and everyone sees the absurdity of opening a long-closed quiet residential street to heavy through traffic.

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > well i suppose so. or u coud write less. might be > a better solution Or you could stop whinging?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Manatee > > I will pick you up on a couple of things: > > > You're saying that acting on the results of > research represents a conflict of interest. > No but being the head of policy for the London > Cycling Campaign and lobbying for LTNs and then > being paid to produce research validating the > positive effects of the LTNs (by unknown groups) > certainly is a conflict of interest. Wait so you have evidence that pro LTN groups are paying her but you don't know who those groups are? How on earth do you know they're pro LTN if they're unknown? > It goes even > further now because Aldred revealed (in her > conflict of interest statement on her last report) > that she has been awarded funding by the DfT to > evaluate the active travel programme. Another huge > conflict of interest. So she has a long history of research, reached a conclusion and acts on it. Horror of horrors, others interested in her work ask her to evaluate the effect on the thing she has studied? And the conflict is what exactly? > > Nor did they arrive > > without any form on consultation or implemented > > using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse". > > >Given you seem unaware of what actually happened, > I claim you just invented that on the spot because > you like the way it sounds.> > > Trust me - it is you who are unaware of what > happened. Lol nope. You didn't even know it existed. And then just made some stuff up on the spot because it sounded right. > The measures were all implemented to aid > "social distancing". Gilkes was closed long long before covid. > In fact, if you scroll back > far enough you will probably find a councillor > post claiming just that when the measures were > first mooted. Gilkes crescent has been closed for AGES. > >People have been whining about DV and court lane > have they not? Gilkes cresent for example provides > a parallel route to DV and was closed long ago > > > Because the council's own numbers suggested 7,000 > cars a day used the DV junction - we all flagged > our concern when we realised that LTNs don't > deliver anything more than single digit % > reduction in vehicles and we did the maths and > tried to work out where all that traffic was going > to travel to. This is a combination of it wasn't big enough to matter, plus it's big enough to matter and cause traffic jams, with a side order of traffic elasticity doesn't exist. Which is does. Also that was a dangerous junction for pedestrians and it's much safer now. > > >Also literally not true. One Dulwich is proposing > going back to how it was.> > > Again, if you had been paying attention you would > know the history behind that and the fact that one > Dulwich and Dulwich Alliance were left with no > option as the council did not engage with them or > give people any option other than: Change > it....but the council did not give any idea what > that change would be. And one Dulwich, who could have offered a suggestion didn't, revealing what they really wanted. > Surely, even you would agree > that you need to understand what you are voting > for? "Change" is a little vague don't you think? > > And I am not going to go back and forth with you > on Spartacus' post - it wasn't my post and, as I > said at the time, I didn't agree with them using > that analogy. And yet you downplayed it. How about you don't do that, eh? > Please stop trying to tar everyone > on this forum who doesn't agree with your view on > LTNs with the same brush - we have seen that tried > before and it is an underhand tactic. I'm not tarring everyone, but I did collect all the arguments I saw in one place. And I've not seen any vaguely rational anti-LTN posts. Because all the anti-LTN arguments seem to hinge on wishing for the impossible, while ignoring the inexorable growth of traffic. Look: even if you get your way, you will not get to keep it. But you won't have any say at all that way because the do-nothing default of ever more clogged with traffic and pollution will arrive. Doing nothing is an active choice to accept what will come as a result. No amount of wishing or ponitificating about grandiose schemes involving cooperation between three layers of government and nudges finally working for no apparent reason will prevent that. > If anyone wants to judge for themselves the thread > in question starts on page 177.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gilkes isn't an "existing LTN" unless the proposed > Gilkes Place closure goes ahead. Looks like it > has been approved today subject to call-in Gilkes Cresent is. They closed it to through traffic ages ago. Here's a picture of the gate:

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i wish the mannatee would stop writing such long > things Read faster.

alice Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There has never been an answer to why the Dulwich > LTNs were positioned to benefit the wealthiest. No one can answer conspiracy theories.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok, here we go..... > > > * Studying traffic for decades, reaching a > conclusion and acting on that is biased (if it's > not pro car). Academics are never allowed to make > use of their knowledge. > > I presume this is based on our de-positioning of > ex-London Cycling Campaign head of policy Rachel > Alrdred's "evidence" of success of the LTNs and > other various reports on the benefits of LTNs. Do > you not think that there is a slight conflict of > interest there and that we are right to question > the impartialness of the reprots? You're saying that acting on the results of research represents a conflict of interest. > * Washable chalk pavement drawings are as bad as > engine oil in a planter, spraypaint graffiti > covering legally binding road signs and other > expensive vandalism > > They are not on the pavement and they are not all > chalk. If you wander down Lordship Lane you can > see them. The vandalism of the signs in people's > gardens just because they don't support the LTNs - > you have overlooked that. My message was clear - > the idiots on both sides have to stop being > idiots. I overlooked no such things. The washable chalk was included in that as just as bad. I do not in any condone vandlism but that still doesn't make washable chalk equivalent to engine oil in a planter. > > * Lordship lane was a low traffic near pollution > free zone before LTNs. > > Nonsense. That's your interpretation - no-one has > ever claimed that. What we are claiming though is > that pollution was not as bad as it is now. Yes that was hyperbole. LL was frequently rammed before covid. And people have dropped bus journeys, leading to more traffic. > * ...as was East Dulwich grove > > See above > > * Cyclists are to be despised > > No-one has ever said that. I am a cyclist and > don't self-loathe because of it. That it literally not true. See: ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And what is a plan for the "meantime', while we > await these "everywhere walking spaces"?(I do not > mention cyclists as I truly despise them because > of the LTNS) - gassing people that happen to live > on LL, Croxted, EDG etc to death with extra car > fumes? > * Whatever an anti-LTNer's current mood is > completely outweighs all data because that's > collected by the illuminati lizard men or some > other conspirators. > > It's the pro-LTN supporters who keep talking about > conspiracies and us supposedly holding conspiracy > theories. What we can say is that the council has > made a right pig's ear of the process and this > opens them up to criticism and accusations that > they are manipulating the process to their > advantage. Well if you talk about all data and academics as if they're part of a giant conspiracy, what do you expect? > > * In fact, no hard data or science counts. Only > stories. Preferable angry ones. But not from pro > LTN people. > > Show us some hard data that can't be torn apart. > Do you think what the council has shared is hard > data - the monitoring sites east of Lordship Lane > are missing yet their supporters, and the > councillors themselves, are using this to > demonstrate that the LTNs are working. You've only torn it apart in your own mind, and the minds of others with motivated reasoning. > * Despite decades of study and observations in > practice well known traffic enfineering effects > like induced demand and its inverse don't actually > exist ) > > Please share with us how this is working in > Dulwich. Well, if you'd actually read any research you'd know it takes time but is very widely observed. I'm sure you have plenty of evidence that all traffic engineers are wrong. Or are part of a conspiracy... > * While nudges have a strong track record of > failing to ever work, they're going to work this > time. Because reasons > > Not sure what this question is trying to say, it > looks like you didn't finish the point. Nope. It's complete. > > * We ought to go back to the way it was 18 months > ago because the massive car growth over the last > 40 years which shows no sign of slowing will some > how sort itself out if we do nothing > > No one wants to go back to how it was - we want > measures that actually address the problem for > everyone - not just make it great for a few but a > lot worse for a many more. Also literally not true. One Dulwich is proposing going back to how it was. > * More traffic will lead to less pollution > > No-one has said this. We are concerned about more > traffic down fewer roads leading to more pollution > on those roads. That was an inferred point. All the "solutions" are ones that are either unimplementable or don't seriously push people out of cars, which will not slow the traffic growth. Since you're not suggesting anything to reduce cars and are against pollution it's fair to conclude you think more cars leads to less pollution. > * Why cut pollution? Just make everyone breathe > their fair share. > > Again, no-one has ever said that. You sure about that? > * Whatever we had at the moment before lockdown > happened was the peak of fairness and if we ever > move a millimetre away from that for any time at > all the it's clear we're all rich scum who hate > poor people > > Again, not sure what this question is trying to > say. It wasn't a question. It's definitely been implied and more or less stated outright a few times. > * An LTN which applies to everyone from anywhere > going to anywhere is a gated community but a > residents permit system which excludes outsiders > somehow is not. Lots of non car owning anti-LTNers > seem to want residents driving permits. > > > * Quiet, traffic roads with ambulance gates are > worse for emergency vehicles than the clogged > roads we used to have > > The DV junction doesn't have an ambulance gate. > The increased congestion on the roads outside the > LTN area are causing delays to emergency > services. It could do,but the anti-LTNers are much more in favour of reopening it than keeping it closed but adding a gate, because that would keep the LTN. It's almost like ambulances are a red herring designed to appeal to emotions. > * You're not allowed an opinion if you have a car > (I don't so I am I guess?) > > Again, not sure what the point is here. Really? You didn't notice anyone basically having a go at LTN residents with cars as not having valid opinions? Because I did.Maybe you haven't actually been following the threads really well. > * All old LTN measures are absolutely fine and no > one minds them at all. I mean no one stated this, > but there are ones dotted about but over very many > messages, not a single anti-LTNer has suggested > ripping up old road closures to increase traffic. > So the message is clear. > > But the old LTNs to which you refer didn't all > arrive at once and close off the major east/west > route across Dulwich did they. People have been whining about DV and court lane have they not? Gilkes cresent for example provides a parallel route to DV and was closed long ago. > Nor did they arrive > without any form on consultation or implemented > using the Covid pandemic as the "excuse". Given you seem unaware of what actually happened, I claim you just invented that on the spot because you like the way it sounds. > > > * And my particular top pick because it's so > astonishingly offensive that it's actually > sickening (why yes I am Jewish) is that the plight > of car drivers is just like the Jews in Germany in > the 1930s: > > > No-one said this..... Someone made (what I thought > and said at the time was) a clumsy, over-to-top > analogy about the ideological indoctrination of > schoolchildren in 1930s Germany on the back of > Southwark council briefing school children on > LTNs. You take a mild reading of holocaust trivialisation. I don't. I love in particular how you're telling a Jew how they ought to feel about it. Do you have any other opinions on how I should feel about such things? This is clearly about indoctrination of children leading and the persecution of drivers, with analogy of indoctrination of children persecution of Jews (and some other groups). It's not just clumsy and over the top,it's way way worse.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But talking about use of rhetorical devices and > generalisations, your post is wall to wall, > extremely loose and arguably misleading > paraphrasing in an apparent attempt to create an > impression and affect perceptions about an > individual poster. The only individual poster I quoted was Spartacus and what I quoted was quite specific. I'm astonished at the lack of willingness from people on the same side of the argument as him to call out that behaviour. And yes I believe that does reflect on you personally as well. Otherwise I've engaged in a little light hyperbole, but I don't believe there are any misleading generalisations in there. Perhaps you would care to discuss some of them?

luvLTNrichguy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ohthehugemanateeLTN Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > So I've been lurking a while, and I'd like to > > collect together my "favourite" anti LTN > arguments > > to illustrate their sheer absurdity. > > Oh yippee the (self selected) adult is now in the > room to put all us anti-LTN nutjobs in our place. Woah there tiger. I might be old enough but I never claimed adulthood. I do not recall ever having conversed with you, so I wouldn't know if you are a "nutjob" or not. How would I? Perhaps you're suggesting that all anti-LTN people are nutjobs. I could argue that's a little harsh. > The arrogance is palpable. You're welcome! > The current measures disproportionately filter the > area's traffic onto streets that have not been > fortunate to be selected to be an LTN. It is as always not quite as simple as that. There are a lot of factors. Firstly, LL and EDG were already polluted messes. I remember LL frequently having traffic at a standstill before the LTNs. Second, you appear to be claiming that traffic is only moved, and therefore there is no elasticity in demand. This is not correct. > The worst > affected roads (LL and EDG) have all seen > increased air pollution (as have been measured)> You have (as many in the pro-LTN lobby continue to > do) completely failed to address or acknowledge > the biggest issue which is at the heart of the > anti-LTN debate. I'll give you the benefit of the > doubt and assume that you have simply > misunderstood what this is and that's the reason > you didn't include it in your smackdown. > Increased pollution since when? > as > a result of the measures. So you claim. > These roads have > schools, nurseries etc on. Do you not care about > those children? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children! Oh, the huge manatee. > This is quite simply social injustice and any > benefits that the LTNs might have perceivably > brought are unfortunately outweighed by the unfair > and frankly dangerous side effects. Then we should be doing more not less. Spreading an unjustly large amount of pollution is not a solution. It's like trying to make a dog turd disappear by stamping on it really hard. I'd also like to point out that the rise of satnav has moved a lot of pollution around. Is that fair? Things are always in a state of flux, but there is a trend for more cars and more pollution and that certainly isn't fair. Finally, traffic deaths are down as a result of LTNs. If you want to resort to wily hyperbole let me ask you: how many people are you prepared to kill to get what you want? Does that really help? > Here's my own personal view on what the problem is > and what the solution should be: > > Successive governments have made the repeated > mistakes that the way to affect real change is to > tax and penalise people for continuing to go about > their lives in ways they have done for years - > whereby what actually works is to make the > alternative more attractive, easier, cheaper, > quicker etc. > Taxation is necessary, but not without actually > making viable alternatives. That sounds like an opinion rather than anything with any evidence. The thing is in many cases alternatives do exist. If your journey is short enough that LTNs are a pain in the neck, then you can walk, bike, scoot or make use of one of the electric alternatives. People will always default to what is convenient. The government has to change what is convenient to alter what people will do. And for all your hyperbole about "thinking of the children" do you really feel people should not be penalised for filling the lungs of those children with toxins? I can engage in wild hyperbole all day. It's fun. > Additionally, I feel that successive governments > have fantasised about making London like European > cities where cycling is a huge part of getting > around but inexplicably seeming to fail to realise > that London is not like any other european city. > As such a vast and spread out place, I personally > do not believe that cycling can or will EVER have > the mass-uptake that is necessary to reduce car > journeys significantly enough to positively effect > climate change in London. London is not a wildly exceptional place. I'm not likely to cycle from Dulwich to Bow, but then one generally doesn't need to do that much. Getting around locally is an entirely different matter. And now we get on to the wildly impractical, where perfect becomes the enemy of good. The thing is no scheme will ever be perfect, and that means some people will lose out, as some people were losing out before LTNs. And we're seeing new tools like cheap electric transport, something essentially new in the last 5 years. Suddenly longer distances and hills matter a lot less. > What we need is a balanced measured approach that > is centred around public transport. > [...] > If train companies don?t want to play ball, then > you pull the franchise contract and nationalise > them. Sure but that won't happen. The trains are not in the hands of TFL, let alone the council. And the Tory government is pretty disinclined to hand more power to a labour controlled organisation. So this won't happen any time soon, whether or not it's a good idea. So we need PRACTICAL solutions that have to take into account reality. If we don't the growth of cars will continue and we'll all be choked out, pollution and traffic wise. > ? Introduction of significantly more bus routes > for the areas of the borough which are poorly > served by public transport. > We all know where these areas are - and they tend > to be the areas with higher levels of car > ownership. Sure, but this isn't in the hands of the council. It might be doable. But you know what makes buses work really well? Traffic restrictions. I remember the P4 taking over 20 minutes to transit Dulwich Village at rush hour. Now it zips through. > ? Make public transport 24/7 every day of the > year > Easier said than done, but this would be a radical > move that would make a big difference and would > help reduce the number of private taxi journeys > made (see below) That's going to be expensive. Also, how much would it help? The majority of pollution is in the day, and this would reduce it most at the emptiest times. I mean sure, it would be nice, but worth the cost? > ? Higher taxation of private car companies and a > program for private car drivers to re-train as a > bus or train driver (or other jobs within PT) Is that within the power of TFL to execute? > It?s unlikely that improving public transport > alone will encourage people out of taxis because > they are just so cheap. Far too cheap. > So the approach would be to pass legislation Anything that requires a coordinated approach across 3 levels of government of opposing parties may as well be wishing for unicorns. What we need is something that can actually be executed by the existing power structures today. LTNs can, but this cannot. > Then after a little while, introduce a > diesel cab tax - but ONLY after drivers have had a > proper incentive to make the switch. Or announce the incoming tax a few years ahead. That provides the incentive. > ? Government-sponsored car sharing > Zipcar have done this well with the flex system. > The government could put in place a similar system > - or perhaps invest in or purchase out-right > Zip-car. Nationalising a scheme like this would > make it much easier to deal with local authorities > and providing the necessary parking. It would also > be cheaper and therefore viable for more people. > Most people in London don?t actually need to own a > car because they only make a few journeys a year. > We could drastically reduce car ownership with a > wide-spread car sharing scheme. > The revenue could then be used to help to pay for > things like 24/7 public transport and investment > in more of those services. Sure but that won't happen any time soon. The tories making a new nationalised industry? > I?ll just finish by saying that I used to have a > very reliable and quick way of getting to Peckham > Rye station (and then onto work). Number 12 bus > every 3-5 mins. Straight up Rye lane - took about > 10 minutes in normal morning rush hour traffic. > Now, the bus has been reduced to every 8 minutes. > They?ve closed Rye Lane. Thankfully i have legs > that work well and so I can get off at Nigel road > and comfortably walk the rest of the way. But it > has more than doubled the journey time. Have you looked into alternatives like a push scooter? I got one for lockdown to avoid public transport and I find I can handily beat many forms of it now. But again, this seems to be a TFL problem related to covid. > It would be much easier and quicker for me to > drive and park in Choumert Grove car park - and if > I was rich and didn?t mind the parking cost then > I?d probably do that just for convenience. > That is not progress. That is not incentivising > people to get out of their cars. That is just a > counter-productive measure made by people who have > clearly not joined up their thinking. > > My wife has been pregnant in the last year, but > still working every day and using Peckham Rye to > get to work. That has become increasingly > impossible particularly with the heat and so she?s > been forced into using a zip car flex in the > morning to drive and park at Denmark Hill (not > always possible obviously due to varying locations > of cars) . And I?ve then had to drive our car to > Peckham Rye to collect her in the afternoon. > What other choice do we have that does not involve > a car of some kind? More buses won't make the heat go away. I commuted to school for 7 years in the 90s long before LTNs and buses were stinking hot in the summer too then. Reverting the LTN won't change that. But the thing is, your wife is temporarily pregnant and needs special consideration. I don't really see a problem with that in general. Have cars available for when they are really needed, not a quick, walkable jaunt to the shops. > That is a direct consequence > of the measures put in place - and something we > are powerless to do anything about. I thought you said it was TFL cutting services, not the LTN. > Public transport is a far more effective tool than > cycling in the war against climate change and it?s > time we got our priorities right in my view. Cycling in London remains a mess. The police don't take theft seriously, there's inadequate bike parking and cycle routes are all disconnected. No wonder it's not working now.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Luke Johnson, a former owner of The Ivy and boss > of Gail's artisan bakery, said the coronavirus > lockdown was threatening the fabric of British > society and called for its speedy end. The Vote > Leave supporter told TalkRADIO presenter Julia > Hartley-Brewer that Britain was 'a frightened > society' and in turn 'a failing society' before > stressing the country's yearly death toll is > usually 650,000" > > Tweets by Luke Johnson "Editor of the Lancet > Richard Horton should have been fired years ago. > He has debased what was once a world class medical > journal with his ideological agenda" "As usual, > Sky gets it wrong. It was LOCKDOWNS and > restrictions which made people homeless - not the > pandemic" Oh man. I wish I didn't know that. He's also giving funding the "Covid Recovery Group" a bunch of anti-lockdown nitwits. Well, last time I shop at Gail's. :(

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It was very myopic - the usual blinkered pro-LTN > narrative Yes I understand that taking you at your word and reading what your wrote is "blinkered". Possibly being against holocaust trivialisation is blinkered too. Hard to tell when you won't be clear. But that's kind of your way: you slip around between points latching hard on to one, dropping it quietly when it becomes untenable and latching hard on to another. Always trying to keep whoever you're arguing with on the move. It's not a bad rhetorical trick to be fair to you. So if all you're interested in is winning some debate in the eyes of whoever you believe is watching then go ahead. Everyone's got to have a hobby. I do hope though that you understand that reality isn't affected by rhetorical techniques, so if you're aiming to actually find a working solution then such tricks hinder rather than help. I strongly suspect you do not care. > that many of us have been dissecting and > depositioning for a very long time on here. No: you've been voicing your strongly held opinions. It's overly generous to call your arguments a "dissection". > By all means feel free to join the debate but > you claim you have been lurking for a while so you > will be well aware that many on the anti- side of > the debate have provided their own suggestions for > solutions I've read the "solutions". They all fall into the categories I listed. Most of them are "do nothing and hope", with a side order of "do something known to not work and hope", with a sprinkling of "data is wrong, academics are bad and science doesn't work", just to add flavour. > and gone to great lengths to answer many > of the questions you have posed. Maybe check back > in the thread. I have and still reached this conclusion. You are not nearly as rational or convincing as you believe you are. Ultimately you're leaning on the righteousness of your cause and so there are basically two choices for you: 1. People agree 2. People disagree and are therefore blinkered > Out of interest, and in the interests of balance, > is there anything from the pro-LTN that you think > is absurd? Are you talking actions or arguments? I haven't seen any particularly absurd arguments. I suspect you're trying to take my post about arguments, subtly reframe it to be about something else, then complain that I haven't addressed whatever is in your head, for you to then be able to declare how just awful all these pro LTN people are.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What an inspiring, if not slightly myopic, first > post that is?.welcome to the forum Manatee! What's myopic about it Rockets? Is it myopic to read what the anti-LTN people write and take them at their word? Is it myopic to call out holocaust trivialisation? Or is this more of a case of "the data doesn't count. Don't listen to science! If you cannot see it is because you are blind"? ab29 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I live on LL, the traffic has been much, much much > worst after the LTNs were introduced, I do not own > the car, I walk pretty much everywhere. Unless > you've lived on one of the main roads long enough > to compare the before and after the LTNs you > really have no idea what you are talking about. The LTNs were introduced during the pandemic, at a point where traffic was incredibly low. The traffic would be higher now than just before, and moreso because people aren't using public transport as much due to covid. Even if your observations are accurate, your conclusions that LTNs are at fault is not necessarily correct. But let's say it is, for sake of argument. Go on, propose something that will reduce car use. Not something vague, or impossible. Something real and concrete.

So I've been lurking a while, and I'd like to collect together my "favourite" anti LTN arguments to illustrate their sheer absurdity. * Studying traffic for decades, reaching a conclusion and acting on that is biased (if it's not pro car). Academics are never allowed to make use of their knowledge. * Washable chalk pavement drawings are as bad as engine oil in a planter, spraypaint graffiti covering legally binding road signs and other expensive vandalism * Lordship lane was a low traffic near pollution free zone before LTNs. * ...as was East Dulwich grove * Cyclists are to be despised * Whatever an anti-LTNer's current mood is completely outweighs all data because that's collected by the illuminati lizard men or some other conspirators. * In fact, no hard data or science counts. Only stories. Preferable angry ones. But not from pro LTN people. * Despite decades of study and observations in practice well known traffic enfineering effects like induced demand and its inverse don't actually exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand#Reduced_demand_(the_inverse_effect) * While nudges have a strong track record of failing to ever work, they're going to work this time. Because reasons * We ought to go back to the way it was 18 months ago because the massive car growth over the last 40 years which shows no sign of slowing will some how sort itself out if we do nothing * More traffic will lead to less pollution * Why cut pollution? Just make everyone breathe their fair share. * Whatever we had at the moment before lockdown happened was the peak of fairness and if we ever move a millimetre away from that for any time at all the it's clear we're all rich scum who hate poor people * An LTN which applies to everyone from anywhere going to anywhere is a gated community but a residents permit system which excludes outsiders somehow is not. Lots of non car owning anti-LTNers seem to want residents driving permits. * Quiet, traffic roads with ambulance gates are worse for emergency vehicles than the clogged roads we used to have * You're not allowed an opinion if you have a car (I don't so I am I guess?) * All old LTN measures are absolutely fine and no one minds them at all. I mean no one stated this, but there are ones dotted about but over very many messages, not a single anti-LTNer has suggested ripping up old road closures to increase traffic. So the message is clear. * And my particular top pick because it's so astonishingly offensive that it's actually sickening (why yes I am Jewish) is that the plight of car drivers is just like the Jews in Germany in the 1930s: Spartacus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's worrying as it smacks of influencing young > minds to be the councils voice. > > Last time I heard of this sort of behaviour was > pre 1939 in Germany where school children were > used to report non conformation to the party line > ... > > Can't wait till the leader of the council > publishes his book "My Fight" Did I get them all?