LTN Discussion

[heartblock]

25 million unspent https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/council-fails-to-spend-any-of-25m-climate-fund/#.YfvsNkYWmNl.twitter

and you want me to vote them back in?

[heartblock]

This would easily pay for a local green-bus.

[kissthisguy]

I've always voted for the candidates over party locally. If they seem decent, honest, eager to do stuff like point out potholes and represent their constituents they've got my vote. It helps if they're a known quantity in the community but appreciate that not everyone can afford to live in GG or DV. Labour have lost my vote this time round. Shocking behaviour.

[Rockets]

I can't wait to see our local councillors posting pictures of themselves out with police capturing red light jumping cyclists...;-)

https://road.cc/content/news/police-catch-18-red-light-jumping-cyclists-90-minutes-289991?amp

[Waseley]

Why are you on an anti-cyclist agenda. As someone who talks about how they used to cycle a lot it's a little confusing. Your case would be stronger if you stuck to the impact of LTNs rather than make cheap comments for the pro car community.

[ed26]

Being anti-cyclists who jump red lights, or cycle through zebra crossings while pedestrians are crossing, or who cycle on the pavement, or through pedestrianised areas, or without lights, doesn't mean you are anti-cyclist or pro car. I'm quite anti-drivers who do these things too. There's just fewer of them.

[northernmonkey]

Interesting perception but not actually true. Worth considering why you think that? Media positioning, confirmation bias or something else?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/

[Rockets]

Ha ha and you suggest it's not true by linking to a click-bait article in Forbes written by a pro-cycling journalist whose books include Roads Were Not Built for Cars!

As a cyclist I am glad that the police are clamping down on the growing number of cyclists who now ignore all the rules and give us fellow cyclists a bad name.

The problem is growing and getting worse, despite the claims made by pro-cycling journalist Peter Walker.

We can all see it for ourselves. Only today I was walking along Court Lane and had to move for a father and his two children cycling along the pavement - there was less "traffic" on the road than the pavement so I could not work out why they were on the pavement.

And I see pro-cycle lobbyists like Jeremy Vine using cameras to film, share on social media and report bad driving to police to issue fines and I thought who is policing the bad cyclists? And it seems some councils are starting to do it - why? Because it is becoming a real problem and they need to encourage all cyclists to follow the rules or be fined.

Just walk down to Margy Square and you will see more examples of bad cycling than good cycling every single day.

[heartblock]

Firstly, cycling and walking should be encouraged.

There is poor cycling and poor driving, a car is obviously more likely to cause someone damage. The problem is that as someone who walks almost all my journeys, with limited use of trains, buses and the tube, the main danger for me has been cyclists.

I have been hit by a bike on the pavement and had a few near misses by cyclists running red-lights.

I no longer ask people to cycle on the road if they are on the pavement as the abuse is not worth the effort - and scooter dad with child on his way to JAGs who I had to jump out of the way to avoid being hit is another issue.

I also think the LCC's attitude treating any dissent to LTNs with disdain, gaslighting and abuse and the comments from some of their employees has tainted how many see cycling - which is a shame as most cyclists cycle on the road, do not run red lights and have chosen a healthy and non-polluting method of travel.

I have to remind myself that the LCC and the shouty, sweary light runners and pavement invaders are not typical of the majority of people who choose cycling as one of their transport choices.

[keano77]

I think all cyclists on the road should be insured, including children under parents?insurance.

At the moment there is a presumption that if a cyclist and a car/vehicle are involved in an accident it it the fault of the driver of the vehicle.

With the revised Highway Code there ought to be the ability for drivers to claim off cyclists? insurance.

[Spartacus]

If there's any doubt about how motorists are seen as cash cows then this article on the BBC news may be interesting

BBC News - Fuel and excise duty must be replaced with new tax, MPs say

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60251046

It did make me wonder that if everyone walked or cycled then how would the shortfall in taxes be made up as it won't come from cars ?

There's also a question in mind that if everyone gets electric cars then the government will get VAT on electricity plus under this proposal a payment per mile driven thus taxing drivers twice 🙄

[Penguin68]

There's also a question in mind that if everyone gets electric cars then the government will get VAT on electricity plus under this proposal a payment per mile driven thus taxing drivers twice

No changes from the position with petrol and diesel cars where government gets fuel duty and VAT. In fact, as HMG also taxes car ownership outwith use (vehicle excise duty) government will be taxing motorists through 3 routes, not just two. Unless they change the tax structure. Since cyclists and pedestrians want more and more road space for their exclusive use, perhaps they could be charged as well - or do motorists have to pay not to have access to roads - which indeed they are effectively doing on LTNs.

[Penguin68]

Firstly, cycling and walking should be encouraged.

Why?

[redpost]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> If there's any doubt about how motorists are seen

> as cash cows then this article on the BBC news may

> be interesting

>

> BBC News - Fuel and excise duty must be replaced

> with new tax, MPs say

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60251046

>

> It did make me wonder that if everyone walked or

> cycled then how would the shortfall in taxes be

> made up as it won't come from cars ?

>

> There's also a question in mind that if everyone

> gets electric cars then the government will get

> VAT on electricity plus under this proposal a

> payment per mile driven thus taxing drivers twice

> 🙄

A most persuasive argument, apart from the fact that VAT on electricity is 5% and VAT on fuel (and the duty element) is 20%.

[Spartacus]

Ah redpost

But the issue is that a proposed pay per mile system will replace Fuel duty and VAT on fuel so that the treasury still gets its pound of flesh from motorists

Then an additional 5% will be added as VAT on electricity used to charge the car

Hence my point about double taxation

[goldilocks]

Oh good - we've moved through cyclist bashing onto the 'war on motorists'.

Its like an abridged version of the comments page on the Daily Mail.

Do we even try to stick to the topic any more, or is this the 'get out your populist pet peeve' section?

[Penguin68]

But the issue is that a proposed pay per mile system will replace Fuel duty and VAT on fuel so that the treasury still gets its pound of flesh from motorists

But, as I understand it, it is the Mayor who is proposing road tolls in London, the revenue from which would go wholly to TfL? A general government toll on road usage would not be so hypothecated. So potentially motorists would be charged TfL road tolls in and just for London, road tolls, presumably again on London Roads (and all others) for the general treasury, duty and VAT on fuels, and potentially still Vehicle Licence fees.

And if the stated aims of driving private vehicles out of private ownership are achieved, all the beneficiaries of all this taxation must then look to a different source of funds.

[CPR Dave]

this Mayor doesn't seem to understand that point. You would think he might have learned a lesson from this own bitter disappointment at the absolute failure of the ULEZ to raise the revenue he needed to bail out TFL.

[ab29]

Aren't you a super pro-everything-eco, sitting happily on the recently closed road?

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Oh good - we've moved through cyclist bashing onto

> the 'war on motorists'.

>

> Its like an abridged version of the comments page

> on the Daily Mail.

>

> Do we even try to stick to the topic any more, or

> is this the 'get out your populist pet peeve'

> section?

[legalalien]

I wasn?t going to watch the overview and scrutiny meeting regarding next year?s budget but looking at the summary minutes I?m tempted to find out who said what, and whether the LTN income was mentioned. This appears:

Parking charges - In accordance with our ambition to tackle the climate emergency and create Streets for People, OSC recommends that vehicle size and /or weight is incorporated into the criteria determining the cost of a resident parking permit. This is in order to increase revenue from larger/heavier vehicles which take up more space and have a greater negative impact on our roads and public spaces.

Interesting one as sometimes people have larger vehicles to facilitate car sharing / pooling (of course sometimes they don?t).

Some other interesting minuted items eg a recommendation for more large scale negotiated events in parks to raise revenue. Not a fan of that.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7006&x=1

.

[Rockets]

Interesting approach and whilst you can see the rational for doing it to try to hit those who drive massive 4-wheel drive cars for no reason it's a bit bottom trawling fishing process in that a lot of people who need bigger vehicles for their work, for disabled or elderly family members get caught up in it. It will also impact electric cars which are usually heavier than their petrol equivalents.

Looks like another greenwashing revenue generating exercise from the council. Perhaps the scrapping of the Phase 3 and 4 LTN plans has left them with a revenue hole, despite the millions they have earned from the LTN cameras.

[legalalien]

Many of those with massive 4x4s locally have off street parking as well, so wouldn?t be hit by the charge, I guess.

I wonder if they?ve considered width restrictors as a way of getting people into smaller cars? Could ?small traffic neighbourhoods? be a thing? I guess it would be problematic for emergency services, but no more so that planters in the middle of the road?

[rupert james]

How about all residents in Southwark voting to get this money grabbing mob out?

Council needs to have a clean out.

[heartblock]

Massive 4x4's and at least one more car, multiple car ownership on closed roads - makes a mockery of the whole scheme. I look forward to see who is standing in my ward in the May elections.

[legalalien]

Just had a visit from Cllr Leeming. He says they have tried to balance all interests and that he?s getting it in the neck from cyclists who aren?t happy with the reduction in hours of closures.

Was in the middle of making lunch so decided not to engage. Although I wish I?d asked why we don?t have any ward meetings.

Do councillors get access to the full version of the electoral roll rather than the published one that has names anonymised on request? Felt weird that he knew my name, I don?t think I?ve had canvassers call me by name before.