LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Spartacus]

KK maybe it needs to be a multiple choice question to ascertain how far individuals can really walk, someone in a wheelchair for example would say 0 feet, someone on crutches maybe 100yds, a 25 Year old marathon runner would be 10 miles, however why should the wheelchair user be any less important travel wise compared to a young fit 25 Year old.

It's a matter of perspective and sadly the pro closure side have little empathy or perspective on what those less able to walk go through or how it disadvantages them when a road is closed off that they would normally use to get to their favourite shops.

As said, there needs to be a formal consultation with everyone and not just the council listening to voices that reinforce their point of view.

[nxjen]

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nxjen what percentage is acceptable to you ?

>

I don?t understand your reply, what has a percentage that I find acceptable got to do with it? I?m asking for a percentage of drivers who are affected by the LTN measures who are unable either by infirmity or age who are unable to walk or cycle.

[Spartacus]

Don't be obtuse nxjen, no matter what percentage are effected, the question is simply what percentage are you (the generic you) personally willing to dismiss as not important enough to make a difference to the introduction or continuing use of LTNs because their journey isn't important enough.

From the perspective of the elderly, those who find it difficult to walk or disabled it should be 0% but from a for young persons point it could be (say) 40%

The question is designed to make the pro lobby justify the disadvantage for people who can't cycle or walk !

[DulwichCentral]

Spartacus Wrote:

>

> It's a matter of perspective and sadly the pro

> closure side have little empathy or perspective on

> what those less able to walk go through or how it

> disadvantages them when a road is closed off that

> they would normally use to get to their favourite

> shops.

>

This is so divisive @Spartacus.

I recommend a good article by Libby Purves in The Times recently entitled: 'We need to rediscover the art of polite debate'

"The key word is ?argue?. It does not include ?cancelling?, ?no-platforming?, showering personal insults on opponents or ***imputing to them imaginary, wicked motives***. It means sharing evidence, ideas and philosophies, listening, possibly changing your mind a bit."

NB imputing to them imaginary, wicked motives

[nxjen]

There are so many mind readers on this thread! You are telling me what the design is of my question, ah this has to be an example of mansplaining.

I am neither for nor against the road closures, I can see there are both pros and cons. I ask for some factual back up for one of the arguments that the anti camp keep coming up with. But it seems the argument is not backed up by any factual meaningful data.

[Dulwichgirl82]

But I think this is one of the underlying problems with the whole project, lack of meaningful data. If there is no data on how many feasibly can?t use active travel (whether due to needing to travel further, needing equipment too heavy, having medical reasons they can?t etc ) there really should be, as this should have been taken into account when considering the impact of these changes. Particularly the elderly and those with medical need should be high up those consulted on changes such as these.

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are so many mind readers on this thread! You

> are telling me what the design is of my question,

> ah this has to be an example of mansplaining.

>

> I am neither for nor against the road closures, I

> can see there are both pros and cons. I ask for

> some factual back up for one of the arguments that

> the anti camp keep coming up with. But it seems

> the argument is not backed up by any factual

> meaningful data.

[Spartacus]

DC divisive to the pro lobby but a necessary eye opener from those less able to walk or cycle don't you agree? Not everyone is able to utilise these "no drive roads"

Nxjen, I'm sorry I didn't realise I was taking to a woman, obviously I need to make it simple for you as you accused me of mansplaining without knowing my gender 😱 (attack the ball not the person is always best, argue against what I say, don't try to discredit me as that will just dilute your point of view!)

The simple problem is that no matter what % the anti lobby presents, the pro lobby will use that to say something like

"Oh 2% that's not many and we can justify their disadvantage because we are fit enough to cycle." It's not a case of reading your question differently, is simply observation of how people on here will act.

What is desperately needed is an honest discussion backed by real facts and pre / post monitoring, a consultation and the council listening to the majority not the few.

[nxjen]

?(attack the ball not the person is always best, argue against what I say, don't try to discredit me as that will just dilute your point of view!) ?

Hmmm ...

[Bicknell]

In an area where publc transport isnt good, you need to really think about which journeys arent possible if you cant walk or cycle. that matters. Not just because its the right thing to do. But also because you wont get people out of their cars - you wont reduce traffic - unless theres another way for them to get around. And if you dont reduce traffic, congestion and pollution stay high on the roads its been directed on to.

[Otto2]

I know many with mobility issues that cannot walk or drive, but, can cycle. Cycling is a mobility device for many disabled people. Not all cycles are two wheeled - many are three wheeled to aid with balance issues.

If you'd like more info on how cycling can help all sorts of people get around, visit

https://wheelsforwellbeing.org.uk

I have COPD, severe asthma and an arthritic knee and can cycle. Others find walking easier. I use an electric bike for some travels and a regular one for routes that are not hilly.

It would be good to refrain from using (BAME, disabled, elderly) to make your points unless of course you are speaking up for your own hardship or have relevant experience or feedback from a specific person or group of people.

As for the air quality argument, the less people driving equals better air quality. These measures are to get you to think twice before jumping in your car and explore other options.

[alice]

Why can?t people speak up for other people?

[legalalien]

The less people driving means the average air quality is improved. It doesn't automatically mean better air quality for everyone. Depending on design, it may worsen air quality for those who already have poor air quality and improve air quality for those who already have relatively OK air quality. Which is why the Guys etc project has clearly spent a lot of time and effort on site selection ( to try and benefit those with the worst air quality) and are emphasising the importance of monitoring.

It feels a bit like this

[DulwichCentral]

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DC divisive to the pro lobby but a necessary eye

> opener from those less able to walk or cycle don't

> you agree? Not everyone is able to utilise these

> "no drive roads"

>

Do the able-bodied people doing short journeys to local shops by car stop to think - hang on I'll use the car less because I can walk, and like that I'll free up road space for those who have no choice but to drive.

Or do they just think sod it - it's quicker and warmer and I can listen to the radio so I'm going by car. In fact I'm also going to buy a bloody great SUV with heated seats so I can also look cool while I drive down the corner shop for a pint of milk. Do they lack empathy too?

[Spartacus]

DC

I'm not discussing the able bodied but here you have brought them in by assumed that they all act the same, bit disrespectful to be honest and without a proper consultation your view is just that and possibly based on studies that don't represent this area.

If you look at what I am saying, it's that the pro group aren't really showing empathy towards those less able to cycle and walk.

Otto2 without knowing others circumstances then I find it uncomfortable that you are assuming people speak for others without first hand knowledge of them, I'm pleased that you condition allows you to use a cycle but elderly , wheel chair users, and so on can't... however you seem to be talking for them here 😱.

Again without a proper consultation no one knows how these schemes disadvantage people and what percentage of the local population are restricted by them going forward.

Will be interesting if a disabled person sues a council for discrimination by removing access to facilities they had before (restricted or no access through LTNs). I suspect that whilst it won't be a quick win, they possibly will win.

[Otto2]

Hi Spartacus - I have direct experience working with the elderly, people in wheelchairs etc in a past job and many can and do cycle! I have also written an article about a woman with cerebral palsy for a major magazine who made the point that it is by far the easiest way for her to get around and why based on interviews and a lovely cycle with her, etc.

partacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DC

> I'm not discussing the able bodied but here you

> have brought them in by assumed that they all act

> the same, bit disrespectful to be honest and

> without a proper consultation your view is just

> that and possibly based on studies that don't

> represent this area.

>

> If you look at what I am saying, it's that the pro

> group aren't really showing empathy towards those

> less able to cycle and walk.

>

> Otto2 without knowing others circumstances then I

> find it uncomfortable that you are assuming people

> speak for others without first hand knowledge of

> them, I'm pleased that you condition allows you to

> use a cycle but elderly , wheel chair users, and

> so on can't... however you seem to be talking for

> them here 😱.

>

> Again without a proper consultation no one knows

> how these schemes disadvantage people and what

> percentage of the local population are restricted

> by them going forward.

>

> Will be interesting if a disabled person sues a

> council for discrimination by removing access to

> facilities they had before (restricted or no

> access through LTNs). I suspect that whilst it

> won't be a quick win, they possibly will win.

[Bicknell]

Thats the problem with whats going on in Dulwich. No data. Just strong opinions.

[Spartacus]

Bicknell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thats the problem with whats going on in Dulwich.

> No data. Just strong opinions.

Agreed a consultation is desperately required but I fear the council and pro campaigners don't want one as it could be very telling.

Otto2 from experience a vast number of people who are elderly , disabled and so on can't cycle so we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

[Otto2]

There are obviously people who cannot walk or cycle but I would not call the number vast by any means. What I would call vast is the number of people on this forum who are no doubt perfectly abled but hide behind this argument.

The reality is that the population in London is growing to an extent that we cannot all drive without harming ourselves and the planet. The measures are to get people to become less reliant on cars and to change habits as it is necessary for that to happen.

[malumbu]

With the exception of journeys under a mile, most journeys are by car. The attached Parliamentary publication doesn't break down by region, urban vs rural, purpose etc but shows that over half of journeys 1 - 2 miles are by car. There will be those short journeys where for various reasons, including physical, they need to be made by car. But there are still many journeys where this may not be essential.

I posted a few weeks ago latest survey data that shows that few are prepared to change their habits due to environmental causes. I've also posted numerous times that the modern car has much lower pollutant emissions than in the recent past, and that there has always been congestion on London streets, certainly in my lifetime. So odd that pollution is being used for an excuse not to do something (which in any case will not deliver immediate results).

But I still hear the same comments, "oh I wouldn't drive, if only...". Two main purposes to getting out of your car, to reduce carbon emissions, and improve mental and physical health. Still waiting to hear the alternative measures to help achieve this rather than the excuses for not doing it. Good point about adapted cycles.

[malumbu]

Help if I attached the link

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmtrans/1487/148705.htm

[Sally Eva]

The point I don't understand is why people who are unable to walk or cycle but can drive are somehow stopped by the distance they have to drive increasing.

If I am walking or cycling and suddenly I have to walk or cycle twice as far, I can see that this might be too much for me (or another person).

If I can drive (and own a car) the doubling of the distance (from one mile to two for instance) is not a great burden. I can still get to my favourite shops -- it takes me longer but I am inside a nice warm car, with a comfy seat, and the only physical problem is to move my hands and feet quite short distances.

Which, with all due respect, is not a big ask. In return, the disabled car driver gets clean air, people walking and cycling to watch through the window and peace and quiet.

[Dulwichgirl82]

You make a very good point, unfortunately the current measures don?t seem to stop many driving, they just drive further.

However the roads which they now drive on don?t have clean air and those roads have schools, nurseries, shops parks etc. So worsening the situation on those roads and the many people that use them. Only the closed roads have the quiet clean air you describe.

Sally Eva Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The point I don't understand is why people who are

> unable to walk or cycle but can drive are somehow

> stopped by the distance they have to drive

> increasing.

>

> If I am walking or cycling and suddenly I have to

> walk or cycle twice as far, I can see that this

> might be too much for me (or another person).

>

> If I can drive (and own a car) the doubling of the

> distance (from one mile to two for instance) is

> not a great burden. I can still get to my

> favourite shops -- it takes me longer but I am

> inside a nice warm car, with a comfy seat, and the

> only physical problem is to move my hands and feet

> quite short distances.

>

> Which, with all due respect, is not a big ask. In

> return, the disabled car driver gets clean air,

> people walking and cycling to watch through the

> window and peace and quiet.

[first mate]

Sally, do you not think that those coping with the impact of serious disability, which often includes overwhelming fatigue, have enough to contend with without demanding yet more of them? In principle you may have a point to make but it comes across as a bit tone deaf.

I am sure you would agree those who are seriously disabled are among the least considered in society. You have made a point in the past about the impact of lockdown on certain sections of society and the need for some latitude and understanding on the ?rules? to preserve mental health, you talked about about ?walking a mile in your shoes?.

[Metallic]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are so many mind readers on this thread! You

> are telling me what the design is of my question,

> ah this has to be an example of mansplaining.

>

> I am neither for nor against the road closures, I

> can see there are both pros and cons. I ask for

> some factual back up for one of the arguments that

> the anti camp keep coming up with. But it seems

> the argument is not backed up by any factual

> meaningful data.

Don't you understand? THERE IS NO DATA.

[alice]

No data maybe but there are facts. The wealthiest part of the borough has the healthiest streets.

Justify that.