|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #315
Looks like the public are using the councils status as a poor excuse for violence
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1810077/Birmingham-traffic-warden-horrific-moment
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #314
Birmingham has just been declared bankrupt so they will need to get in as many fines as possible
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #313
I note Birmingham has one though will it be classed as an essential service ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #308
It's not just main roads.
These blocks displace traffic from one residential road to another, roads like mine.
I don't see it as a coincidence that the blocked roads are the ones where ex Mps, tfl officials, council officials and well off backers of local pressure groups live.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #309
Tinheads not done your street yet... 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #308
I live in South London and had no fliers about this.
|
|
|
|
First, there came the flower beds blocking up cut through streets. Directing all traffic onto the main roads. We all wondered what on earth they were up too. They said it was to calm traffic in residential streets, but all it did was create more backlogs, absolute carnage & chaos.
Now the real reasons are becoming clear for the flower beds and road blockages over the past few years. This only happens on 'cut throughs'. The cameras are all going on the main roads. They want to stop anyone from being able to pop to the shops, or drop the kids to school.... WITHOUT being seen by one of the cameras.
Everything has seemingly been gearing up to this.
I really do not think they understand the backlash that all this is going to cause. We are getting fliers through the door quite often now in South London. The cameras are just going to get smashed to bits. No one is hiding the fact either.
Global warming. The reason for everything, being shoved down our throats on a monumental scale right now. I watched an amazing video yesterday. It's now 3 degrees cooler than when the Vikings were on these shores. It's 5 degrees cooler than when the bible was written. It's not warming up, it's actually cooling down.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #301
It wasn't meant as an insult - sorry if it came across that way.
On the school zone issue. Id like to see them widened. Ive seen enough kids hit by cars and injured - some life changing - to last me thankyou. But that just my anecdotal experience I guess...
You're right that for some it's necessary. And for many others it's very much not. And those that sit outside the school with kid and parent in the car heads stuck in mobike phones until the last minute with the bloody engine running....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #305
I agree with that, especially parents that drop the kids off and go back home to watch TV.
However for some working parents with young kids the only way they can make things work is drop them off as they go to work.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #304
The school street thing is fine to try and stop the carnage of mums directly outside the school. It’s no incentive to leave the car at home and has no affect on the unnecessary additional congestion caused 8.30-9.30 and 3-4pm across the whole city. Kids do not need to be chauffeur driven to school in London. The public transport system is more than adequate for the school run and the kids might actually learn something about how the city works if they’re out and about in it every day.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #303
The school drop off thing is being managed by school streets
"A School Street is a road outside a school with a temporary restriction on motorised traffic at school drop-off and pick-up times"
They are a good idea if they are properly managed but some of the ones around here are badly designed.
They often move the problem by parents parking in the next street along.
Around here they don't put in enough advanced warning signs, just a sign where the restriction starts so there's not enough time to read it, and if you can then there's not room to do a 3 point turn so putting pupils at risk.
That might make me sound like I'm against them, I'm not, it's just my council has a poor reputation on traffic schemes that they don't enforce properly
I had to take them to a tribunal once.
LINK
|
|
|
|
I've lived in Zone 2 for the last 15 years. If I drive to the office it's about 8 miles and takes around an hour each way. Sh**, but you get used to it and I tear through podcasts and audio books. Our vans are always ULEZ compliant and by the end of the year we will be mostly full electric.
I hate the daft LTNs as much as the next guy, but actually agree with the theory of CC and ULEZ. Honest question. What other reasonable solutions are there to congestion and pollution in residential areas in central London?
The obvious one for me is ban school run drop off/pick up in a car (including taxi/uber) unless the parent or child has a disability that requires it. The difference in traffic across the city in school holiday time is huge. (also possibly due to people leaving town for holiday).
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #301
I agree with you Bob, the amount of times I'll be a five minute walk from a job, but have to sit in traffic for another half an hour to get there beggars belief. ULEZ is a money grab, and ltns make life worse for everyone outside of them.
I've always hated driving in Central London, preferring to tube or cycle, but I can only do that once I've got all my kit there.
The way it's going tho it won't be long before I'm putting my tool kit on a pallet and posting it between jobs!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #300
I was going to give this a rest for a while and give it a while before I came back but I take your anecdotal reference as an insult.
Let's keep this to LTNs and let's make it clear we all want clean air.
My experience is real, when the pro LTNers are challenged they always dismiss it as anecdotal and that their manipulated published data is the truth.
I have enough of them pissing me off without you joining in.
I could litter this post with good quality links to back this up but I will leave you with one.
These are the type of people that collate supposedly 'impartial' data
LINK
You'll notice that in that article Rachel Aldred gets a mention.
When people asked for impartial reviews they were told that Rachel Aldred's mob would do them, how the **** can she be impartial 
Edit
Our local LTN displaces traffic onto the South Circular, the polluted road Ella Kissi-Debrah died.
It's now been manipulated to show traffic has decreased when in fact the traffic is so slow it's not being counted. LINK
More to see if you can be bothered
LINK
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #299
I know there is a lot of similar anecdotal experience like yours.
I also know that there is data that supports the underlying principle - to reduce traffic and improve air quality.
I also know that often the problem just shifts postcodes - although I'd argue that's still the fault of too many who drive unnecessarily
And I absolutely know that this has now become a vote grab for a desperate tory government who are going back on so many things - too many of them which will result in negative environmental consequences.
Lies, hypocrisy and misinformation.
I'm not your enemy on this Bob. We agree on some parts, differ on others. And this government are making no attempt to hide that divide and rule is their game plan.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #296
LINK
I know you think it's all hypocrisy but our local LTN blocks off a direct route to the nearby hospital.
Yes once inside the LTN if the road is not blocked off by a planter it can go through, but it's the gridlock outside getting to that point that slows them down.
And if you decide not to wait for an ambulance and drive someone to A&E then you can expect a fine.
I'll give it a rest for a while but here's an example of how journeys are made longer.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #296
If that's true its a suprise for me, especially that sadistiq khaaaant didn't plow ahead spreading the congestion charge.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #296
But that was to extend the original ULEZ out to the north and south circulars in 2020, areas well served by public transport and where many residents don't even own and have the expensive of a car, it's cheaper to use UBER and not have a parking problem.
The new extension extends into far reaching areas that affect those that can least afford it, which sounds like a Tory policy.
It'll eventually come to everyone in some shape or form.
Hopefully lessons by then will be learned and things will be fairer, and you won't have to endure unfair schemes and the frustration of reading misquoting and misreporting by idealists who haven't got a clue and focus on the politics.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
This made me chuckle - to further highlight the hypocrisy...
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/hilarious-community-note-slapped-on-grant-shapps-ulez-tweet-353682/?fbclid=IwAR3ZQQALQiRwIF-tCj2u7f6ENbhETdrOy2YVoH-UROpukNhqBW5jfhiNYQo
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #293
Volvo's? Nah, you want one of these. No road tax, no MOT and ULEZ compliant. Cost an arm and leg in fuel but a big two fingers to Kahn.
https://youtu.be/QFdhCZ517gU
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #293
I know what you mean. I guess my pov is more cynical in that it's been turned into another way of manipulating people for votes.
And the recommendation for the volvo is actually green thinking. Second hand, so already out there and they'll last longer so it's like a recycling long game...
(Hell, if rishi can convince you then I'm sure you'll swallow that...)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #292
The link I put up previously is about LTNs, I put it up not to be political, I put it up not as a downtrodden motorist, but a downtrodden resident whose life has been blighted by displaced traffic from a neighbourhood that shows off how nice it’s been to be gentrified the last couple of years
LINK
As for the original small ULEZ (not the one extended by Khan in 2020) that was originally brought in a small area in the deepest part of congested central London, an area very well served by public transport.
Now it’s going to be extended to remote countryside areas where public transport is almost non-existent as a money generating exercise, financed by the people that can least afford it.
Living just outside the current ULEZ I stand to gain as my street will be less affected by traffic which is currently trying to keep outside of the ULEZ but I still don’t think it’s fair.
Still, carry on recommending gas guzzling Volvo's 
@TCarper 
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #290
Come on tinhead.
You're not really fooled by rishi all of a sudden being the friend of the downtrodden motorist are you? He wasn't so friendly when petrol was over £2 per litre was he?
It's a vote grab. Are you going to be bought off by this horrible corrupt lot?
The tories have been funding and promoting this for ages and now this u turn is a way to get a few more votes. The uxbridge guy made promises he couldn't keep to get votes. That's the lie.
Remember it was a Tory mayor of London who brought this in. I wonder what happened to him...
Isn't your friend encouraging Starmer to stay strong on it rather than 'wobbling'?
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ulez-sadiq-khan-london-labour-keir-starmer-b1096433.html
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #290
Khan is Labour.
Ulez is just a massive stealth tax, specifically aimed at targeting the very poorest Londoners. All under the guise of going 'green'. It will only hurt the poor.
And Khan is Labour.
I stupidly thought Labour were meant to be the polar opposite to that.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #289
I would've preferred to hear he's on the side of the majority that suffer with displaced traffic so that a small minority get to gentrify their areas.
What do you mean by ULEZ lies?
Only liar is Khan and his money making scheme that hits the people who can least afford it.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #288
If you believe he's 'on the side of the motorists ' then you've clearly breathed in too much CO2...
He's on the side of himself and the oil and energy giants
He saw the Uxbridge tory candidate win the seat based on ULEZ lies and thinks he can buy some votes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #283
How they manipulate data
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #282
I see Rachel Aldred gets a mention. She very carefully manipulates data, by that I mean she cherry picks what constitutes a LTN boundary road to suit her agenda. It's scandalous how she gets away with it but the media doesn't like to question her for fear of looking like they are climate change/clean air deniers. Shame really as these LTNs can actually make it worse.
|
|
|
|
And the war continues....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65243274
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #279
For almost doubling the speed limit should have got a ban also.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #278
Total bill was £1984 ....
Just like Orwell told us? Coincidence? Or is big brother watching us and controlling our lives?
At 78 mph does that make the size of a 15 minute city bigger? Enquiring minds want the truth...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #273
Done.
|
|
|
|
The petition simply asks that people should be allowed to choose.
If enough people want a 15 minute city (15MC) then they'll get one.
I live in London and within a 15 minute walk I have some independent mini markets but no major supermarket or shops. The higher prices and the lack of choice and availability would mean a 15MC would not work for me. That's in London, outside I'd imagine people elsewhere would have far less choice.
As for cycling, however bad London traffic has got there doesn't seem to be a significant uptake in cycling.
I haven't got a link to hand but after the initial rise in cycling in lockdown it's back down to pre covid levels.
Much road space has been given up for mostly empty cycle lanes causing gridlock and more pollution, the opposite to what is supposed to happen.
I don't know about other areas but around here people rarely drive for pleasure, those days are long gone.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #274
People seem to overlook the fact that the opposite of “car dependent” is not “car free”.
The goal is to provide urban and suburban environments that do not require car travel for everyday activities. In no way whatsoever does that mean that people will be prohibited from driving, or can’t have a van, or any of the other amusing claims the conspiracist gobsh*tes are peddling on social media. If anything, for people who really need to drive (the elderly, tradesmen, disabled, etc.. all the “but-what-about”s, basically), these schemes will make their life easier by removing all the other drivers who don’t actually need to be in a car.
But I think a lot of people in towns and cities have got used to driving to places and don’t consider that there could be closer, quicker options if they chose a different mode of travel: 15 minutes is actually a fair distance on foot, and on a bike it covers a bigger area than most towns.
Here’s a handy online tool to see what you’ve got within 15 minutes of where you live: https://app.traveltime.com/ The walking times it uses are for a fairly leisurely walker: I can reach its “25 minute” radius in about 20 minutes.
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #273
Isn't the idea just to provide people in big cities with essentials like healthcare, schools, etc locally? I thought folk would still be able to traipse across London to get to a dentist if they want to.
It's odd that the 15 minute city thing has been taken up by the conspiracy mob to be the next thing to wet themselves about, now that they can't complain about having to wear masks / lockdowns / compulsory vaccines that never happened.
There's plenty of reasonable criticism of LTNs by reasonable people. I've only seen Piers Corbyn soundalikes complaining about the idea of 15 minute cities, which makes me think they must be fine.
|
|
|
|
15 minutes cities
Should they be forced upon us or should we be allowed to say whether we want them or not?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #268
Not trying to be pedantic I simply didn't understand your post.
Sometimes we write and we know what we mean but to others it may not be so clear.
When you say a 'few' I'm still not sure who you are referring to.
Not having ago at RKB but I don't understand his post 'not mutually exclusive'
Does that mean if you don't like ULEZ and/or Khan then you can/can't call out facisism?
It's only a post, it's not that important if I understand it but it's an example of what I'm trying to get at.
It happens all the time on this forum
|
|
|
|
|
Disliking ULEZ or Sadiq Khan and calling out fascism is not mutually exclusive, chaps.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #269
But how many of them were outside the meeting in question?
The cameras don't lie. The Mayor does.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #267
All in his head...
Maybe you need to get yours out of the sand if you don't see the problem in far right ideology on the rise...
Want some examples? I mean real ones? Not the ones you think are just in his head?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/02/tories-far-right-rhetoric
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/suella-braverman-invasion-far-right-rhetoric-tory-party/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-far-right-extremists-join-conservatives-support-britain-first-a9252201.html
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/07/21/the-far-righting-of-the-conservative-party/
https://irr.org.uk/article/the-rise-of-britains-far-right/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/25/house-of-lords-worked-with-far-right
And surely you've heard of these nasty little creatures...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/15/patriotic-alternative-trying-to-inflame-local-tensions-in-britain-to-spread-far-right-stance
But ... it's all in Khan's head right?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #264
You believe that LTN's that affect you are decided by environmental racists, chosen on racist lines because they affect majority non white areas . No need to be pedantic Blankalot. 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #266
The only far right wing is in Khan's head. Everyone who disagrees is, according to him far right. He makes a very strong accusation of Tories being far right. Given that a very large percentage of the Jewish community vote Tory such a suggestion could be viewed as being Anti Semetic. Pairing Jews with Nazis would be somewhat dumb.
Don't fall into the trap.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #265
Your excuses for the far right wing targeting of an individual.
'Be careful' of what exactly?
Is that generic advice (I already avoid potholes and walking under ladders and I manage my cholesterol levels) - or is it meant in a more threatening manner?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #262
My excuses for what exactly?
Be careful.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #263
Not sure what you mean, at the moment we are talking about the ULEZ expansion, as far as I'm aware that has nothing to do with race.
While on the subject what percentage of the crowd were Nazis? Minute I would have thought.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #259
You're agreed Blankalot with the view that these schemes are "environmental racism" because affected areas are predominantly non white.
Pretty sure that view and endorsement has pissed a few off who welcome the change.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #261
Given the right wing / nazi sympathisers history with hiding evidence/ lying / denying atrocities (holocaust - Well I never saw it so it didn't happen) ....etc etc.
Carry on finding your excuses for it eh?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #260
The only evidence to Nazi symbols is a solitary photo provided by Khan's 'spokesperson.'
Given Khan's history with the truth the evidence could be considered iffy. Especially as now people who attended the event claim to be unaware of such.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #259
If they weren't already pissed off by the swastika then they're part of the problem
If they're pissed off by it being mentioned then they need to get some perspective
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #258
And by mentioning a minority it pissed off the majority of 'Those who've got legitimate objections.'
He can't accept that his scheme is unpopular so resorted to these tactics.
That's why the bloke is a Khant.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #257
He did mention them. 'Those who've got legitimate objections.'
And he also spoke about those with other agendas hijacking the thing you are so passionate about.
The right wing ****s with the swastikas are singling him out, not the other way around.
You should be pissed off at them for undermining the legitimate concerns of people like you.
Nobody - except the very worst in our society - is going to support a protest that has nazi symbols in its midst.
Would you be happy to be stood amongst them? Do the little hitlers speak for you? Does piers corbyn? I very much doubt it
|
|
|
|
My opinion is that Khan is a ****.
ULEZ is more to do with making money than pollution.
I said it early, I get displaced traffic due to the current ULEZ so the expansion might help me but I don't think it's fair on people who genuinely need a vehicle and can't afford to replace it.
He also thinks LTNs are a good idea, clean air campaigner Rosamund Kissi-Debra thinks they favour a minority at the detriment of the manor.
So yes Khan is a ****.
Here's what he says. And he's a **** for saying what he says. The protesters were from all walks of live, yet he felt the need to single out right wingers and covid and vaccine deniers and tories. Why not mention the multitude of other types of people who are against his scheme?
LINK
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #255
Why don't you read it again?
If accuracy is your issue in an article that mentions nazi symbols .... ffs
The title is inaccurate. Unless it was ulez protesters holding the far right banners of course. Because he was clear in drawing the distinction between those with ulez concerns and those who displayed a different agenda. He was very clear in separating the different factions.
The article mentions 'people holding placards with far right motifs'. Plural.
Unsurprising that 'certain members of this forum' find it necessary to divert from the issue of fascist ideology and symbolism by trying to make it the fault of the person it's directed at.
1 swastika is too many for me. What's your threshold?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #242
Banners with Nazi symbols.
All in the plural in an attempt to make it worse than it was.
Suggest you read it again.
One photo supplied by the Mayor's office, depicting Khan in an image including a Swastika and a Hammer and Sickle symbol. Notice you failed to mention the far left symbol.
There was a handful of people outside protesting about various issues as they are entitled to do.
Khan has resently started to tar everyone with the same brush, by referring to anyone who dares to disagree, challenge or heckle him over Ulez, as members of the far right. It's not the first time he has done it and it's something that is becoming common place in today's society in an attempt to demonise anyone that doesn't share their Liberal views. In fact there are certain members of this forum who are guilty of such behaviour.
It is an act of desperation by Khan as he knows he is loosing.
He is an embarrassing arrogant nasty tyrant and the sooner he is kicked out of office the better the capital will be.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #253
You've the Big Top too yourself mate 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #252
Get back in your big top and take your sidekick with you 😀
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #250
'Some of those outside '
Very different from 'all'
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #250
All???
You're making it up as usual
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #249
You do make me laugh I was calling him a muppet because he labelled all that attended as far right.
I’ve played it back on bbc news.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #247
I'm not saying that at all. Neither was Khan.
I posted my support for someone who criticised far right banners amidst a protest about ulez and then asked if you wanted to clarify why you called him a muppet for doing so.
Your final comment is very similar to the idiot tory member who accused Khan of doing that. He came across as a muppet.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #247
In reverse more than an Italian tank now you've been rumbled
I'd also like an answer to our question of clarification 
|
|
|
|
What a load of rubbish you spout.
As I said below :-
“You are always going to get a mixed turnout to protests. And those there don’t necessarily follow the view & values of a few idiots.”
Where did I say I supported those swastika brandishing loons..??
Are you actually saying that everyone there who was anti Ulez is far right - quite a statement from you ?
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #245
No you don't. I asked if you wanted to.
You can just leave it at the point where you called someone a muppet after they denounced nazi symbols.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #244
I don’t need to clarify anything to you though do I ?
In my opinion the guys a muppet.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #243
No. From memory he's a rent a placard, anti vax, publicity hunting berk.
And his presence there is another reason why people will find it easier to dismiss the actual protest.
Want to clarify why Khan is 'a muppet' for calling out the nazi supporters? Your post suggests you have a problem with denouncing the swastika. Unless it's not Khan who is the muppet after all.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #242
You are always going to get a mixed turnout to protests. And those there don’t necessarily follow the view & values of a few idiots.
Piers Corbyn was there would you classify him as a far right extremist ?
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #240
Banners with nazi symbols.... yeah nothing far right about that is there?
He spoke the truth. There were some people who had legitimate concerns and there were were some who just came to spout a far right agenda.
The muppet in the article is the conservative member who takes that comment and manipulates it. No attempt to condemn the swastikas or distance himself from them. Just a pathetic reworking of a legitimate point to attack the mayor.
Or am I mistaken? Is the anti ulez movement happy to be associated with nazi symbols?
Tinhead? You're our resident expert on this. Is it all a fascist agenda or just when a brown person is involved? Do you think Mrs Kissi-Debrah would be OK with the swastikas? I doubt it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #240
What a muppet.
|
|
|
|
Oh dear!!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-64833639#aoh=16778767807756&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-london-64833639
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #238
Either heating + food banks or they were out being champagne socialists as you say, very diverse!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #237
I've still to do my catch up but I take it the poor who can't afford the expansion stayed at home and rather than turning the heating down turned it off and went to a food bank to support the mayor.
Of course I'm being sarcastic but IMO you can't go on what people look like in London, it's too diverse.
Edit
Tried doing some catch up but couldn't find anything to do with a blue van (any links appreciated) but that right winger Piers Corbyn featured heavily.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #236
Most of them just look like they hate Sadiq Khan. Seen some pretty deplorable stuff. These are not people that have just changed their minds because of ULEZ.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #235
Not seen the news and the blue van, I'll do some catching up.
On a selfish note not only do we have displaced traffic from our local LTN we get it from the last ULEZ expansion, traffic trying to avoid the the overloaded South Circular. So the proposed expansion would help us.
But what about all those people who can't afford compliant cars, people with lower paid jobs struggling to make ends meet with the cost of living and fuel price increases. I feel for those.
So called socialist Ocelot doesn't. That's why I think he's like my council, full of nimby champagne socialists.
I quote
There will always be moaners, winners and losers. Those that don't want change will have to pay more and or be inconvenienced. Like cigarettes alcohol etc
@RKB
 See above it's likely to be poorer Labour supporters that were protesting. Rich Tory supporters wouldn't own old non compliant vehicles.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #230
Sounds very like brexit to me tinhead...
Although the failure there was a bit more immediate
Were you out protesting today? Was the you in the blue van?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #232
From what I’ve seen, I’d be absolutely amazed if those protestors don’t already vote Tory.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #231
Typically condescending, posting in Non carp that you are always right
|
|
|
|
Lots of anti expansion protests in London.
Opportunity for the Tories to win some more votes.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #230
When a modern society decides to change people's habits for the better of the majority eventually. There will always be moaners, winners and losers. Those that don't want change will have to pay more and or be inconvenienced. Like cigarettes alcohol etc. Hope that clears it up for you Blankalot.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #229
Not sure cigarettes, alcohol excess sugar etc has got to do with it but forcing change that only benefits a minority to the detriment of the majority will fail eventually.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #223
Champagne socialist
Should try it instead of the self centered approach.
You know well that to force long term necessary change you sometimes have to make the status quo unpalatable. Be that cigarettes, alcohol excess sugar etc.
The direction of travel regards roads and cars in populous areas is changing. That's just advancement and yes it's the future.
|
|
|
|
Another petition, the reason they exist is that these schemes are only making life better for a only few rather than the many.
This petition is fair. It doesn't ask for all traffic schemes to be removed, all it asks is that under used schemes are voted on and a simple majority vote would mean they are either stay or be removed.
It's democracy
As I always say this may not affect you at the moment but is a safeguard for your future.
It only takes a minute, please do it.
PETITION
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #224
I agree car use should be reduced but the idea of removing road space and expecting the traffic to evaporate is simply not working, it's actually making it worse.
The problem is Rachel Aldred and Imperial College are dead set on encouraging more of it and produce doctored data to say that everything is hunky dory with no concern to people who are already finding it to make ends meet.
I'm not stinking rich but I'm not hard up either and can probably pay my way out of it, but is that fair that only the well off can drive around without worry?
As regards diesel vehicles. I don't know if this is true but someone told me some euro 5 vehicles can be converted to use Adblue and become complaint.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #225
South east
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #223
What area do you live in London Tinhead?
|
|
|
|
It'll definitely be hard for some. I went to fish at Walthamstow Reservoirs earlier in the year; about a mile inside the zone and less than 15 mins driving in total, charge = £17.50 (more than the fishing!) My "fishing car" is a small diesel that's just a little bit older than the 2016 cut off. It'll certainly put me off doing it regularly, and really the only "loser" here is the Wetlands centre itself since it'll lose the revenue. I'd have probably bought a season ticket this year, but the ULEZ charge effectively doubles the price, and I am not changing the car.
It definitely got me thinking about how those who live inside the zone and cannot afford to change their non-compliant cars would cope - guess they've got no choice. Despite all this, I think that measures need to be in place to combat unnecessary car use and to reduce the pollution in our cities. Whether this is the right way, or fair, or can be improved, I honestly don't have the answers. I do know that the list of cars that are compliant is pretty vast in comparison to those that are not, however it's not a great deal of help for anyone that's already in possession of one that's subject to the charge and the expansion will likely impact a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #222
I already use public transport a lot.
Probably doesn't affect champagne socialists like yourself but I don't think I'll be the only one who thinks it's wrong, what about carers and other under valued people on low wages that are already facing the ULEZ.
I don't think telling them that they holding back the future will go down well..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #221
Or you'll have to get the bus or other transport more often Blankalot. You can't hold back the future because they drew a line and it didn't suit you.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #220
Road Charging
Oh dear.
Going by previous responses on here I doubt if most people will be interested, it will never happen where they live.
If electric vehicles go ahead and you can no longer buy petrol/diesel vehicles by 2030 this is how they will make up for loss of fuel duty revenue.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #219
Looks like it's about to get even worse.
https://youtu.be/Lgs6bazh-T4
|
|
|
|
Oxford in the news again
Sign the petition so that if these type of schemes are to go through then at the very least they should be independently reviewed.
Petition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #216
Have you signed that petition yet, it only takes a minute, or do you prefer taking to the streets and protesting.
Petition
Don't think it will never happen to you.
1000's protest
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #215
I wonder if many other people will, only takes a minute.
I suppose many people think it's nothing to do with them and believe they'll never introduce a scheme where they live.
But nothing is certain, maybe nothing will happen but these schemes have a habit of turning up where they are not necessary, maybe it will benefit everyone, on the other hand it could be that someone has decided to unfairly dump their traffic onto someone else.
All this petition asks is for independent reviews of schemes.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #214
Signed it. I don’t agree with the tin foil hat scaremongering that some people are trying to attach to the proliferation of LTN, but they are a pain in my hole trying to get around.
|
|
|
|
I urge everyone to sign this petition.
It's not a petition for or against LTNs (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods), it's just a review to make sure they are installed properly and fairly.
Safeguard yourself. If you local council wants to install a LTN in your area then surely you want it independently reviewed?
LINK
|
|
|
|
Oxford in the news again.
There is a video that starts with the cost to the council to repair vandalised LTN bollards.
At this point in the video it shows how unfair and divisive some LTNs can be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #210
I'll take a look but after a quick glimpse I see Imperial College is mentioned, I don't trust them one little bit, they falsify data and Peter Walker of the Guardian peddles it.
I'll see if I can work through that.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
Morning tinhead
Thought you might find this an interesting read. Slight tangent but an area I know you're interested in
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/13/pollutionwatch-citizen-science-alarm-uk-air-pollution
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #205
The problem is close to 68 million people and rising all crammed on an island.
all the other problems are a direct result of that.
but nobody wants to talk about that.and it gets worse woldwide.
The world population has grown rapidly, particularly over the past century: in 1900, there were fewer than 2 billion people on the planet. The world population is around 8.05 billion people in 2023.
we live globally by a socio-economic model that operates as a Ponzi scheme with each generation robbing the next of space and resources, while celebrating with quasi-religious fervour, the idea of blanket human domination of the entire planet until there is little room for any other species, as if that abominable outcome were some kind of glorious achievement.
Why should I celebrate a tidal wave of surplus humanity when it comes at the price of other species? You may think the human is worth more than all other forms of life. I do not. In fact in a good many instances it is worth considerably less, when you weigh what they take out against what they put back. When such moral a deficit becomes the accepted norm, I see little to celebrate in the ever expanding tide of my own kind.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #207
I'd agree.
Although the cost of electric vehicles is another example of the widening of the wealth and opportunity gap. The initial cost means that they're still out of reach for most working class families who then become trapped in the ever increasing spiral of fossil fuel costs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #205
Making EV drivers pay the same as a diesel is not the way forward either.
https://www.greencarguide.co.uk/2022/11/evs-to-pay-road-tax-from-2025-ev-bik-to-remain-low/
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #205
It certainly needs some alternative thinking Mal, encouragement rather than punishment
Putting a box of dirt and weeds at the end of your own road, telling the neighbours in the next road along that you are fighting climate changing, that you're some sort of eco warrior, while having a 4x4 (albeit euro 6) on your drive is not the way forward
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #204
Maybe the whole process is upside down
Instead of 'punitive ' measures for drivers using cars - usually financial so effectively reinforcing the wealth / opportunity disparity (some people can afford charges that others can't) - maybe reward people for less / more environmentally sound use of cars. It's there in some forms with 'greener' vehicles having lower road rax. There could be other ways of doing it too...
The problem still remains that there are too many cars making too many unnecessary journeys.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #203
It's just so wrong that she gets awards and is listened to, they use the death of her daughter (which is what Ros wants) to advocate improvements but our council mayor conveniently forgets about it when his mates are creating their own little gentrification in an affluent high car ownership area.
I went to Ella's vigil about a year ago and our mayor Damien Egan made a speech about how he was improving air quality when the reality is the road Ella used to live in he's made worse.
I wanted to shout and heckle him but out of respect I kept quiet and along with a few others turned our back on him.
How Rosamund tolerates him I don't know but I suppose it has it's benefits.
For instance exhibition
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #200
Well deserved. Even if she's still battling against local and central government spin.
It's a problem that pre-dates LTN's imo (although it will have been made worse in some areas as she / you say)
I moved to London in the early 90's to retrain / study. In my whole life until that point, I'd only seen 2 people who had really bad asthma and needed inhalers. I was really surprised to see a half dozen others on my course, all younger than me, who were already reliant on them. The common denominator was that they were all native londoners...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #201
Yes I agree with her.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #200
Congratulations on her award.
She states it's "Environmental Racism" because the majority affected aren't white. Do you agree with her Blankalot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)
Like the traffic that was supposed to evaporate but never did, the complaints about them are not evaporating and going away either.
LINK
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #193
Saw that one....
There's stupid and then....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #194
the same as the just stop oil *****s.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #193
What is in the mind of this idiot
|
|
|
|
Nothing to do with traffic schemes holding up ambulances but an example of a **** of a driver.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #191
So you use a car so cycling is not an option at the moment, I get that.
It's the point I was trying to make, not everyone can cycle so whether it's a bus, coach, car, van, lorry or whatever why deliberately make them pollute more than they need to?
I could go on and talk about cycle lanes that cyclists refuse to use, they use the excuse that they don't have to because they are just as entitled to use the roads but we can leave that to another day.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #190
When I move house I'm going to walk 
I'm currently doing 3 motorways so not an option yet...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #189
Not all cycle lanes are a problem. Granted it's not many but some seem to work.
The underground doesn't serve my part of London so buses are important and for some people vehicles are a necessity such as the ones mentioned plus tradesmen, social and health workers, small, medium and large businesses etc.
Very few people drive for fun nowadays. I don't enjoy driving, I only do it when it's necessary.
But it's not all about where I live, I made a mistake when naming this thread. I wish I hadn't mentioned London in the title as the problem seems to be spreading.
Thank you for keeping my thread alive.
So when are you going to do the caring thing and stop driving to work?
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #188
I'm not uncaring at all. I'm a big fan of bus users - especially in London. When I lived there I would always prefer the bus to the stinky underground. I learned a lot about the local geography by sitting on the buses. I didn't get into interrogation of the other bus users like you do with cyclists, but each to their own eh?
That said, the cycle lanes aren't really the problem. Poor / selfish planning from borough councils and hundreds of londoners who refuse to see any other option than their car even when it would be possible... that's where the problems start isn't it?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #187
Is that a diversion tactic to divert attention away from Mal being uncaring towards those who have no choice but to use the bus.
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
In reply to Post #186
This is what I ask people.
Do you go to work by bike?
If so do you do it because you enjoy cycling or is it an un-pleasurable task?
Do you feel safe cycling in all weathers.
Is your job physically demanding leaving your tired at the end of your working day
Are you fit, well and with no underlying health conditions.
What age group are you
Do you have somewhere safe and secure to store your bike at work
Do you have changing room facilities.
Do you have somewhere to store and dry wet clothing.
Do you have the basic skills to do minor repairs when out cycling
... and they say the art of conversation is dead.
Have you got a clip-board?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #185
Tut tut Mal you really aren't a caring person are you.
What about those who can't physically cycle and rely on public transport. The old, infirm, disabled and their carers, parents with children, people who haven't the room at home to store a cycle, maybe they live in flats without a lift.
I'm not against cycle lanes if they are used but not if they hold up buses for the above.
Holding up buses in the same lane that you are using if you were driving to school in your car is not good for pollution levels.
Why spend money on creating empty cycle lanes?
Why are so many cycle lanes empty?
This is what I ask people.
Do you go to work by bike?
If so do you do it because you enjoy cycling or is it an un-pleasurable task?
Do you feel safe cycling in all weathers.
Is your job physically demanding leaving your tired at the end of your working day
Are you fit, well and with no underlying health conditions.
What age group are you
Do you have somewhere safe and secure to store your bike at work
Do you have changing room facilities.
Do you have somewhere to store and dry wet clothing.
Do you have the basic skills to do minor repairs when out cycling
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #183
Bikes are greener than buses....
And easier to lift past the just stop oil protesters so they dont have to move...- it's a win win
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #183
3 buses forced and held up in the traffic lane after the bus lane was given up in favour for two way empty cycle lane on the left.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #182
And plenty of room for a cyclist to use the road.
C'mon Mal where's your hippy credentials. Ok so you can afford to drive but spare a thought for the greener people who use the bus.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #181
Empty in those photos....
The whole road is empty in the top one so plenty of room for the bus?
No queue in the second one so plenty of room for the bus...
I'm being cheeky obviously
|
|
|
|
Time for another bump
Empty cycle lanes, buses losing their bus lanes.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #179
Installing top specification cycle lanes may sound good but when you witness ambulances stuck in traffic it's not nice, and repeating myself buses stuck in traffic because a bus lane has been lost to create a cycle lane is not good, especially when the cycle lane is empty.
It's difficult to get the balance right and more often than not the balance is wrong.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #178
Yes, the central London cycle.super highways look great.
But I wouodnt fancy getting there safely from here.
I ride around the towns here but mostly off road which I cam afford to do as mine is electric assist. So I can plan a route
With fields, parks, long grass etc.
They haven't exactly made it easy to use a train with a bike either. So in 5 years I've not managed to get to Central London to see them.
The cycle.lanes in Bexley area aren't really fit for purpose.
They exist where there is loads of free space anyway. And then terminate 100metres along right in the middle of a junction. Or where you would be safer riding prime position.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #177
I got nothing against cycling, I do it very occasionally on a leisure basis or to run the odd errand.
It's the gridlock that some of these under used schemes cause that's the problem for me.
Buses losing their bus lanes, now they are stuck in traffic with all the other vehicles, emergency vehicles can't get past.
Meanwhile to the left of them is an empty cycle lane.
Having said that some of the schemes in central London are more successful, but they are few and far between.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #176
Good article that. Thanks.
Lots more to be done re cycling infrastructure. We as always playing catchup and doing it hard arsed. But a tiny drop in leasure use from the Pandemic peak. But an increase in business use is positive.
Cycling in the UK is still.mostly treacherous. But with fuel bills and a general lack of.money it will.likely become a necessary choice for utility.
|
|
|
|
Oh dear all those cycle lanes and LTNs and this is the result
LINK
Schemes with good intentions but badly planned and introduced by TfL and local councils.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #174
That's usually the times they use for School Streets.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #173
Times of that LTN have been shortened 8-9 3-4.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government wanted schemes that promote active travel.
Khan's TFL waste the money on badly implemented schemes.
TFL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More news from around the country.
LINK
|
|
|
|
I don't really do Twitter much , like the bait section it seems very toxic to but this struck a chord with me
LTNs are council-imposed traffic relocation schemes, moving it from one area to another. It’s the same as a council emptying the bins of one street dumping it all on another then telling residents there how well this all works as the rubbish should eventually just rot away.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #167
No not near me. This sort of idiocy is happening all over the place.
I'm not totally against cycling or cycle lanes but the cycling lobby have been given too much power.
If there are too many car drivers and we need them to leave them at home then we need good bus services.
And why should those that don't drive and use public transport have to suffer to appease the MAMIL's (middle aged men in lycra).
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #166
Is that near you tinhead?
I reckon a bus could take those bollards out...
|
|
|
|
Surely this can't be right?
|
|
|
|
So you are stuck in traffic and an ambulance, fire engine or the police are struggling to get past.
I don't know about you but I'd find it difficult to just sit there and not budge but it seems that's what you have to do
LINK
Sadly with the introduction of recent road schemes the emergency services getting stuck is an all to common occurrence 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #163
No not saying that. Don't judge me by your standards 
If my road was blocked off it would displace the traffic somewhere else and i don't think that would be right.
I know where the traffic would go, straight down a road my mate lives on and I don't think that's fair.
Not everyone who lives in our local LTN thinks its great. Some don't like the injustice, some don't like having to drive the long way around to get in and out where before they just drove out of their street.
Some don't feel safe going out at night because in some streets no one is about.
Some worry about emergency services, even the binmen don't like reversing back out of roads after collecting rubbish.
Rosamund_Kissi-Debrah
is very much against the local LTN.
My missus walks to work and the pollution plays havoc with her asthma.
Anyway its not just about me and my area.
Oxford
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #160
So if your area had been designated the same you wouldn't be protesting is what your saying? The excessive traffic would be blighting somewhere else, in someone else's back yard. 
Or just the perceived gerrymandering by a few people of influence during lockdown?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #147
You should know the computer language(s) your framework uses. As I mentioned earlier, some simple frameworks are just basic HTML templates, and more complex frameworks might include CSS and JavaScript. Some frameworks use Less or Sass to compile the CSS; others use Ruby or other programming languages to compile the pages once you're done building them. If you don't know the language(s) your framework uses, that framework will be challenging to implement https://mlsdev.com/blog/web-development-companies
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
I just had to Google nimby
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #159
I'm certainly not a nimby.
I live in London and accept that comes with having to take my fair share of the burden of traffic that invariably comes with living in the capital.
What I take exception to is having my neighbourhood blighted because 3 councillors, 2 ex MP's, a local pressure group and all their family and friends had their area made a LTN without prior consultation.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #158
Your being a Nimby yourself mate.
There's winners and losers in most investment and environmental projects. Doubtless your property has been on the winning end in the past. Can't stop progress, the countries not a museum.
Fair enough for having a go about something you care about and doing something about it on the street.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #157
Don't believe all you hear about clean air reports. Most improvements are mostly due to advances in car technology.
LTNs and ULEZ have only displaced traffic, caused gridlock and pollution elsewhere, like onto my road.
Ella Kissi Debrah the only person to have pollution on their death certificate lived on a road that has been made even worse by a LTN and ULEZ.
Can't moan about public transport funding though, although Khan does, he always wants more, fair enough that's his job, as you say it doesn't seem fair when other parts of the country struggle.
Funny how many Labour councillors live in a LTN, gentrifying their neighbourhoods at the expense of lesser people on the outside who take their traffic. Very nimby Tory like. See post #151
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #156
Don't think a bit of noise from a minority opposition changes the decisions do you?
Seems an odd moan about a labour council in a labour city Sir Tinhead. London has for years taken 50% of the total taxpayer spending on public transport for the total country. 3 or 4 times the funding per head. You should be applauding their unity to get the funding to clean the air up and improve public transport in your city surely.
The rest of the country is full of privately owned buses going nowhere you want to go and full of pensioners keeping warm.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #155
There's a difference between a huge majority and no majority.
At Westminster Labour still have the ability to make things difficult. Can you image parliament where every single seat is occupied by a Tory.
All the Tories on one side facing the empty side of the room.
That's what is happening at some council meeting rooms.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #153
Just like a government with a huge majority eh?
All the signs are still up around Manchester for the clean air zones. Not sure it's ever going to happen while Andy Burnham is in post
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #152
oops DP
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #152
A council with no opposition is a bad council. They just take the electorate for granted.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #151
At least the one in Dulwich has had the hours halved I'm in Lambeth and we have 57 out 0f 57 Labour councillors.
|
|
|
|
No surprises
Councillors are nearly ten times more likely to live in areas where through-traffic has been minimised than on congested boundary roads, The Times has found.
Freedom of Information requests to local authorities that implemented the schemes, known as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), during lockdown found that 24.6 per cent of councillors lived within the areas but only 2.9 per cent lived on the surrounding roads. By comparison, 19.6 per cent of residents lived within LTNs and 8.5 per cent lived on boundary roads.
The figures are likely to raise concerns of Nimbyism by councillors who have supported the schemes, which use bollards, planting boxes and enforcement cameras to block through-traffic.
People living in the zones have benefited from quieter streets but residents on the boundary.........
Taken from
HERE
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #149
My borough has 54 out of 54 Labour councillors. Low turn out 35% give or take a couple of %
No opposition, bad for democracy.
They can do whatever they like as most people don't care what they do and they just ignore anyone like me who tries to make them accountable.
@Wandsworth
Just wait until they get wooden boxes full of weeds at the end of the streets the councillors live in and then they'll regret it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #148
Labour got wandsworth
That is a shocker, no doubt the parking charges and council tax will jump in the near future
|
|
|
|
LINK
Local elections around here tomorrow. I'm hoping for some fresh councillors. the ones we have are corrupt.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #146
His second job sounds a lot like boris' 1st job...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #145
Bump...
Here's some food for thought: Grant Shapps (aka Michael Green & Sebastian Fox) denied using pseudonyms & having a 2nd job while being an MP...
...then confessed that he had been lying!
He should not be in a position of responsibility.
(His 2nd job was a quasi only barely legal online get rich quick scheme...Now, think on!)
|
|
|
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #143
Yeah he's a resident and registered with the council.
They cancelled his 1st fine. Then sent him 4 more...
I do think it's a good idea but as tinhead says, it just moves the same issues to nearby streets outside of the zone.
I see plenty of selfish parking to pick up teenagers while I'm on bus duty at mine.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #141
The zones are closed except for access so if you live in a zone you need to register your vehicle with the council and prove you live there if not you receive a penalty notice.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #141
No but it doesn't surprise.
The school streets idea is good one if it works. They close the street outside the school at opening and closing times.
The idea is encourage parents to leave their car at home and get their kids to school by other means, ideally walking.
The problem is all too often the parents park and clog up other streets, walk the last bit in their pyjamas, then drive back home to watch TV
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #140
Morning Bob
Did you see the story about the bloke who has had 5 fines for driving in a 'school zone' .... his home is in the zone...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #139
Greenwich has had a second rethink LINK
Shame other councils haven't and are causing this LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #137
Greenwich has had a rethink
LINK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now if LTNs were created in poor areas to protect people from high pollution I could understand it. But most of them have been created in areas of affluence and influence to gentrify them.
For example
Hyde Vale is a sweeping road in West Greenwich which has recently been closed to through traffic creating a wonderfully quiet residential road.
LINK
Meanwhile someone just around the corner on a bus trying to get somewhere is stuck in traffic
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #117
They might design them but I thought the MAMILs (middle aged men in Lycra) weren’t allowed to use a cycle lane. 🙂
Around here they ride in the road and often hold up the traffic on a fast A road near me, even when the cycle lane is empty and in good condition. I wonder what that does for the emissions of loaded lorries trying to get a run at the steep Cornish hills.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #134
The funny thing with the ltn in tooting, it doesn't really affect traffic since the main road is so choked up by the bike lanes, the drivers who would have turned off and used fishponds Rd are now avoiding the route altogether, putting more traffic into nicer parts in the area.
I used to use that route all the time but since the traffic is solid from south Wimbledon to tooting bec most days I haven't been near there in ages.
The only downside for me is it puts much more traffic on the route I cycle, I don't cycle on the segregated path because pedestrians on tooting high street jump in front the van without a care in the world, let alone a bicycle. I would have preferred a barrier to the pavement than to the traffic
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #133
Yes it's TfL who mainly responsible for cycle lanes and the cause of the delays in that video.
I'm not against cycling and I can see the need for some cycle lanes but most of the new ones are just ****
LTNs are also to blame LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #132
Do the councils have any control over those bike lanes tho? Isn't it tfl who decided to **** the roads up?
The ltns are a different story, I'm glad to say there aren't any near me, just the odd restrictions on rat run roads past schools at pick up and drop off times
|
|
|
|
Smart motorways are schemes introduced with all good intentions but the reality is somewhat different.
Taking aside for one moments that many LTNs have been introduced by selfish nimby's, whatever the intentions good or bad this can be the consequences of traffic calming schemes.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #130
No, so thanks.
Just to be clear I'm not some petrol head who doesn't care about the environment, I'm not against sensible cyclists.
I just want 'Healthy Streets For All'
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #129
Did you see this one?
Sorry for not a quick link. Pain to do on my phone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-60068328
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #128
I'm not too familiar with the Lambeth one but I know it went to a court of appeal last Thursday.
It's a disabled persons severely restricted access to the her home because of a LTN Versus Lambeth Council No outcome yet
As you know Dulwich is in Southwark. That LTN causes massive problems to the majority to benefit a minority of well to do people.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #127
I'm in Lambeth not far from border with Southwark.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #126
Lambeth, Southwark, Greenwich and Lewisham.
Relatively poor boroughs but each one having areas of affluence.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #125
Lambeth by any chance
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #123
As I say I don't drive much and my next car will by electric or hydrogen cell if they become viable. So this is not about me moaning about having to pay vast amounts of money, but I am mindful that there are low paid workers working unsociable hours who can't afford new cars. Then we have people who can't work without vehicles, tradesmen for example. Meanwhile Khan drives about in a massive Range Rover.
I don't know about the rest of London but in the south east almost all of the LTNs are in the wealthy parts, areas where influential people live who have control over the councils. Traffic is moved out of these areas and dumped onto neighbouring roads, many of the roads are main roads where the poorer people live and where car ownership is low. These people already had to put up with traffic now they have to put up with someone else's so they can gentrify their areas.
We had a expensive consultation for our local LTN and it was overwhelmingly unpopular but under the recommendation of 3 councillors that live there it was ignored and is going to be made permanent and enhanced with trees, benches and pedestrianised areas. Then the rest of the borough is told there's no money and blame central government.
Last week another councillor recommended another road to be included, the one he lives in.
This is a Labour borough by the way, and they say Westminster is corrupt
@VLT
It will be interesting to see how Manchester gets on. Maybe Burnham will be able to show Khan how it's supposed to be done.
|
|
| | | VLT | | Posts: 8945 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #119
I looked into the situation in Manchester with Andy Burnham and his version of whatever it is called, where you pay to enter a low emission zone (across the whole of greater manchester) in any commercial vehicle.
The conservative government put the low emissions targets into law I think in 2017, so all mayors have to implement schemes that can be evidenced to meet the low emissions targets.
We need to turn the problem on it's head and understand why people are making car journeys in built up areas, then remove the causes. We also need to turn car ownership on its head. I do 25k miles a year, 99.99% of that is me alone in my car, but I have a family of 5 and I go fishing so I have a large estate car. Electric vehicle ownership is not compatible with my life. But if I could own or rent a modular electric vehicle which was small enough for me, but then add bits on when needed, or swap it for a larger one when needed, then that would cut emissions and congestion massively. We also need to crack on with autonomous vehicle technology so that traffic jams can become a thing of the past.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #122
So.. given the effect on the environment... and on the health of London residents- particularly when it comes to respiratory related conditions... can you see the flip side in terms of the need to reduce City emissions?
I lived there for 12 years and would relish the chance to get out of the poor air quality
Even the dreaded ltn's could be seen to be a positive in this aspect
Although I'm with you on the ridiculousness when it comes to emergency vehicles
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #121
Yes, also you have to pay road tax based on your vehicle emissions.
And on top of this you might have to pay again.
I don't do much driving myself but if it was to happen it would hurt a lot of people who genuinely need to drive.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #120
We already get charged per mile via the tax on fuel...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time for a bump.
You think the government lies and are corrupt?
Our Labour run council ran an expensive consultation on our local LTN.
56% were against, 21% were for it, the rest were neutral.
The champagne socialists are going to ignore the consultation and are going to make the LTN permanent anyway.
While the rest of the borough is underfunded they are going to spend money on trees and benches in the LTN.
3 councillors that live in the LTN have now got what they want are now going to stand down in the May elections.
How is this allowed to happen?
Anyone in other areas affected? or are you still waiting for you turn.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #115
Certainly wouldn't put my car over that kerb.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #116
Thanks.
I said it before, I'm not one of those anti cycling nutters , far from it but most of these Low Traffic Neighbourhoods schemes and underused cycle lanes designed by MAMIL's (middle aged men in Lycra) do more harm than good.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #115
I read it Bob
We all have our own little crusades
|
|
|
|
There are not listening in Dorset
LINK
I know most people don't bother reading this thread, well not until you or your family are affected 
|
|
|
|
At least Leeds are listening
LINK
|
|
|
|
Maybe this doesn't affect you at the moment but be warned.
Link
|
|
|
|
A bit further than London
Link
|
|
|
|
The extent of just how many people are involved in making life hell for others.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #109
He wouldn't give a ****, it doesn't pay anyone to keep it.
Most of what I rip out is 10-15 years old, trends have changed a lot since then, nobody wants black granite now. I can't even give it away.
They don't do low enough gearing for me to move my tool kit
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #108
Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle
It doesn't happen enough, although the person I know who owns this company wouldn't be too pleased.
The idea of going to work on a cargo bike doesn't interest you then?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #107
If you think that's bad you should see the amount of granite/marble worktops I have to smash up and dispose of 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #106
Timber prices have gone through the roof, yet I often see used timber chucked in skips that could be reused. Probably better quality seasoned stuff then the wet sticky warped stuff they want an arm and a leg for.
Anyway to keep on topic I see the latest idea by the cycling lobby is to suggest that tradesmen should use cargo bikes as their primary mode of transport. That might be ok to deliver lunchtime sandwiches but seriously?
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
In reply to Post #105
That’s probably next. Or going on timber prices it’ll just be a grand for a 6 pack
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #104
It's daft mate, almost as bad as the fights over toilet rolls last year
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
In reply to Post #103
Saw a full on punch up today at the pumps. The country has gone to pot
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #102
Your joking, every time a garage opens round my way a half mile radius is gridlocked from the queues
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #101
Don't worry tinhead
Won't be any traffic jams by the end of the week...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #99
If you can sign in to Channel 4 fast forward to 25 minutes. Croydon have gone bust so they've found ways of making money.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #98
Crap design causing conflict as per usual.
I'm yet to find a 2 way cycle path that actually works
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #95
Good find
If that bollard was there I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm not against sensible traffic calming especially near schools.
It's the ones that brings delays to emergency services, bus users and those that need to get about.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #94
Saw this and thought of you.....
https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/yoursay/readersnews/19514071.lewisham-bollard-dubbed-useless-london/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m not against cycling or walking as a means of travel at all, but when it causes the problems highlighted in this thread such as emergency service delays, public transport delays, missed hospital and other appointments, gridlock on roads, more pollution, journeys that were A to B now taking A to C to D to B, then you start asking yourself surely there should be a compromise?
Well the government has just announced £338million to promote cycling and walking. I do hope the money does promote active travel without all the problems mentioned here or in a years’ time I can see you posting your own pictures of mayhem accompanied by your own moaning.
Another thing that we will have to get used to is changes in the Highway Code, changing driving habits after many years can be a very difficult thing to do but I’m sure we’ve all got eyes in the back of our heads, as some (not all) cyclists ignore red lights, roads signs and other do as you likeys.
LINK
It might work well in the rest of the country, but it hasn't worked well in most of London
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cut and paste from elsewhere
Whilst on point at Liverpool St a London Taxi driver was asked by a lady if he could turn left onto bishopsgate and collect her 93yo dad.
He had to explain that taxis are no longer allowed to turn left or access the bus gate.
It was totally out of order and embarrassing, that this elderly gentleman was forced to walk to the Taxi
Both Sadiq Khan and Transport for London should be ashamed of what they are forcing on elderly and disabled people.
London Taxis are the only service that are totally wheelchair and disabled friendly, yet London’s Mayor and TfL are stopping us providing the excellent service we’ve provided for the last 367 years.
Disabled and elderly people are now considered to be no more than second class citizens by the mayor and TfL
This situation is a total disgrace
LINK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Empty cycle lane while the blues and two's ambulance is stuck
What's happened to the bus lane, it's gone! How's that encouraging the use of public transport?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #86
Good to see it isn't only london
Easier to spot than a chipugua on an extending lead tho
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #86
crackers
|
|
|
|
Another pesky cycle lane
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #80
I like that they got the pedestrian in the shot
All the money spent and problems caused and I still end up risking the main carriageway to avoid muppets practicing the slalom, pedestrians and skateboards
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #83
I'm not anti cycling by any means. If the weather is nice I huff and puff my way to do short journeys. There's loads of roads where painted cycle lanes work well, it's these 'wands' that cause the problem.
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #82
You're right of course.
And I'm mostly joking. I do think more people could use bikes for shorter journeys in built up areas though. I vote green remember....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #81
I know you're joking but take a look at the picture, take away all the traffic and just leave emergency services and busses. How would the ES's pass the buss?
It's madness I tell you, it's madness. 
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #80
flippin' buses - you wait for ages for one and then.... three get stuck in traffic half a mile away
'where does the number 267 bus head to?
'you know Fulwell'
Tinhead - i think you've stumbled onto the answer. more sarf londoners on bikes. that would leave the road clear for buses and emergency vehicles. and noj too for his trips to Greenwich.
|
|
|
|
Busses used to have their own bus lane. Not anymore they are held up so that an underused cycle lane can exist, emergency services can't get through.
LINK
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
In reply to Post #78
I was born and live 5 minutes from lewisham, so feel qualified to say maybe a few dead bus passengers wouldn’t be the end of the world But I detest the bloody traffic! Drove to Greenwich the other day and it took about an hour and a half for a 15 minute journey Spent most of the time looking at 20mph signs and thinking “if only”
|
|
|
|
No I won't shut up
Don’t matter where you live this could happen to you if you let it
LINK
It says
Ambulances flag regular concerns about hold-ups due to LTNs and Shapps’s ‘transport revolution’ PARAMEDICS reported low traffic neighbourhoods and pop-up cycle lanes for causing delays to life-saving 999 calls every other day in London, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
In just eight months to February this year, ambulance staff logged 159 occasions when their dashes to medical emergencies were thwarted by road closures introduced as part of Grant Shapps’s “green transport revolution”.
Every 1.5 days – or twice every three days – a paramedic filed a report in the capital on a system which flags concerns the service is being compromised. And, the delays posed by so-called low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have meant the London Ambulance Service (LAS) has now given them their own “risk register category”, one of just six high-level hazards featured in the Corporate (Trust Wide) Risk Register published in March. The documents, obtained through Freedom of Information laws, give the clearest picture yet of how emergency services are struggling to cope with bollards and planters closing roads and cycle lanes introduced a year ago. The risk register categorised LTNs as posing a 15 out of 25 threat. Only two risks – potential problems with the emergency telephone system and the possibility of “critical” medical equipment missing from paramedics’ kits – were rated higher at 16 out of 25. As well as pledging to review the problem in six months, the report says Garrett Emmerson, LAS chief executive, met Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, to discuss the problem. The register says “there is a risk crews will be delayed attending calls, conveying patients to hospital or accessing properties due to the introduction of road closures, reduced lane capacity causing congestion, parking restrictions and other traffic calming schemes with limited/minimal consultation as a result of a pan-London response to Covid by TfL and local authorities to enhance cycling and walking schemes.” It warns these risks “could lead to an adverse impact on patient care/patient safety” and set a target risk score of five. The findings were “circulated to crew”, and an “Emergency Service Group” ... established and [is] meeting monthly with LAS, London Fire Brigade and Metropolitan Police Service and Transport for London head of traffic flow.” It says that from December 2020 to February this year the “risk score” remained static at 15. An LAS spokeswoman stressed that a risk report does not mean it resulted in harm to a patient. “We support measures to improve public health but also recognise that changes to road layouts can impact on the time it takes to reach patients,” she said. That is why we continue to engage with all local authorities across London to flag any delays, which our crews are encouraged to report,” she said. One Lewisham, a group opposed to LTNs, obtained one risk report showing paramedics were delayed four minutes in September in reaching a “Category 1” call which was “immediately life threatening” due to road closures.
A One Lewisham spokesman said: “Councillors, council officers and cycling campaigners are so desperate for these schemes to work, they are putting lives at risk for their idea of the greater good. They have dismissed concerns as ‘myths’, with flawed and biased research.”
A London Labour spokesman representing Mr Khan said “research shows that over time” LTNs contribute to traffic reduction, helping emergency services “get around London quickly and efficiently”.
The Labour spokeswoman said Mr Khan had not had any meetings with Mr Garrett to specifically discuss delays caused by LTNs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #76
Yes that's my brother helping out as a vaccine volunteer
Thanks for the bump
I've got loads to share but they are in private groups so can't (hooray say some) so many dangerous things going. Someone's going to get killed or injured at a bus stop soon.
|
|
|
|
Are you related?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LINK
I've got not nothing against cyclists, even do a bit myself when the weather is nice but what's the point of cycle lanes that are hardly used when blues and two's ambulances are stuck?
Sorry can't the get the link to work, you'll have to take my word
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #72
I'm expecting it to get worse where I live, just outside the South Circular. It hardly moves now and if it gets worse then it will come to a complete standstill. Maybe then the penny will drop?
I understand your cycling comments now
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #71
Ah ok, may still push a lot my way if it pushes motors out onto the circulars and others move further out to avoid that traffic.
When I say make it worse I mean specifically from the cyclists perspective, the junctions were always the point of conflict with the blue routes which the bollards don't help with, and actually make life harder in some spots. With the general poor standards of driving and people not knowing what the stick on the steering column is for you get a sense of when someone is going to turn by their road position, and I've been surprised by a few manoeuvres on routes with bollards lately. Add in the extra punishment passes I mentioned previously...
I might get used to it with a few more miles when it warms up but at the moment I'm more nervous on the roads than I have been since having two crashes in 6 weeks back in 2015
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #70
No charge if you drive on the north and south circular roads, only if you turn off them and go into the zone.
in some cases they make things worse. Around this way I'd say it's the vast majority of cases
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #69
With the ulez coming in, will you have to pay the toll to drive on the n/s circular or is it once you turn off into the area between them?
If it's the former a lot more traffic will be coming my way.
I'm not a fan of the bollards, the blue routes were already good, it's at junctions that the problems happen and the bollards don't help there, in some cases they make things worse.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #68
The idea of closing roads is that the traffic is meant to 'evaporate' , it hasn't, all it does is displace it somewhere else.
I'm now seeing displaced traffic in my road, well not for the next two weeks as my residential road is closed due to electricity works, meaning our share of the traffic has gone to another road, those poor sods are really getting displaced, displaced traffic. People are leaving earlier meaning traffic now starts to become noticeable at 6.15am Mon-Fri.
I choose to live in London and so expect to share the burden of traffic and have done so all my life, I expect traffic to get progressively a little worse each year until a long term solution is found but what they are doing is madness. No joint up strategy, just local councils doing their own thing, reducing or closing road with no consideration to the residents and the knock on effect to neighbouring boroughs.
I could go on but will stop tonight but will leave it on the subject of cycle lanes. I've got nothing against well designed ones but now it comes to the point that cyclists won't use them due to the pollution from the gridlocked cars that run along side of them and that they are littered with debris because the road sweeping lorries can't do their job because of the bollards in the way!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #60
Totally respect your passion for this issue and backing it up by getting off your arse about it 
Surely this leads to your house and others benefiting in a couple of years and a better environment for everyone?
Bit of pain lot of gain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #64
I'm more Grove Park/Mottingham area where it's slightly more leafier.. I try to stay away from central Lewisham, far too busy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #63
I thought it looked familiar, that was on my route to groin itch.
I was working 7 till 7 on that job so the traffic didn't look that bad
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #63
Hadn't twigged you were Lewisham Tinhead - I spend a bit of time down that way for freelance work (when we're not locked down) - Stay with my mate on Marischal Road just up from the Barbers on the corner.
You can buy me a pint when I'm next down 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #62
Lewisham Hight Street in the direction of Lewisham Hospital.
Here's what it was like with the room to move over to let the ambulance get to the hospital
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #61
A sadly familiar sight
Speaking of familiar, where is that?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #57
Not where I was describing in my earlier post but this picture was taken because the driver had an ambulance behind him and no one could move over to get out of the way. Look how far ahead the traffic queue is.
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #59
Thanks Jon.
Lived in London all my life, although I appreciate the countryside I'm too much of a towny to move there and fully understand that others wouldn't dream of coming here.
For all its faults London is a great city and busy traffic is only to be expected but these schemes are madness and in some cases dangerous. I'm hoping common sense will prevail or I'm moving, not too far though, I still want the hustle and bustle within easy reach.
As I keep on saying folks is keep an eye out, whether or not these experiments stay or go in London it could be heading your way, who knows it could actually work in some places.
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
|
Sounds a right shambles. Londoners, you have my sympathy.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #57
I don't know your area too well, but I've been in dull itch recently and didn't notice any barriers, and I use a lot of rat runs through streatham/Norwood to get there. I didn't notice much going to groin itch before Christmas either but I don't know any shortcuts that side of lordship Lane, Catford is always rammed anyway so I wouldn't really notice
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #56
I don't know Ealing or west London that well but I've heard of that MP as she is the only Labour MP that's got any bottle.
I was on my bike today, red lights and I was in the cycle box and kept out of the way on the left. Lights changed and a car beeped me for no reason. Not all drivers are like that some see an old bloke puffing and panting and feel sorry for me
Around the back of Lewisham shopping centre there was an existing cycle lane and two vehicle lanes. They closed one road lane and put bollards in to make a second cycle lane (in the same direction as the original) and reduce the vehicle lanes down to one, because the bus can no longer get into the left hand lane they were forced to close the bus stop.
Now all vehicles must use the one vehicle lane which is now jammed. Busses are delayed and the emergency services get stuck, no one can move over to let them pass because of the bollards.
Both cycle lanes which are in the same direction are hardly used.
Why on earth is this encouraged and allowed to happen?
****ing bunch of muppets.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #55
I wouldn't know, it's not an area I've worked in much. The changes in Chiswick are a pain too, but I've found them more logical so far.
I still don't get how they went from temporarily widening pavements for distancing, to segregated bike lanes everywhere. They cause obvious problems for drivers and emergency services, but the few times I've managed to cycle this year, I'm getting more aggressive driving when there's no barriers. Baring in mind most of London has a 20mph speed limit and I'll exceed that on most roads when safe to do so, there is no reason to overtake me. But I've had a lot of very close passes, overtaking just before turning left...
The barriers also make it much harder to get away from the slow/inexperienced cyclists wobbling all over the shop. Whereas before you could move out into the carriageway to overtake, doing that now is like a red flag to a bull with a lot of frustrated drivers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #54
The MP for Ealing is Rupa Huq who's Labour, she's very vocal, gets up in parliament, campaigns, says she wants consultation and voting on these schemes. She's very good and I'd vote for her if she was my MP.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #52
They chucked it all in during lockdown 1 with no notice or consultation.
To give an idea of how it's improving air quality, my job in Ealing the other week, I was 30 seconds away from the house I was working in, but with a freshly planted barrier in the way. I then had to sit in traffic for 25 minutes to get round the block to come in from the other end.
Like tin head said, in a lot of labour boroughs you have all these zones you can't get through, just in and out, usually the nicer houses with gardens, often forcing you to drive through the less affluent areas. The Ealing job I mentioned there is now a queue of traffic through a bunch of flats to get into the nice bit as well as a much slower queue of traffic on the main roads usually flanked by cheaper flats
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #52
Central government offered individual boroughs money to implement emergency covid plans to encourage social distancing and promote cycling, because it was an emergency there was no need for the councils to do any consultation.
The strange thing is many Conservative boroughs did nothing or very little but many Labour boroughs took the money and set up these schemes that improve mainly affluent areas and displaces traffic onto roads where poorer people.
I'm not being blinkered here, but honestly the vast majority of these schemes favour the rich areas in poorer boroughs, it's so un-Labour like it's difficult to believe it's happening! If it were the other way around I could understand it.
Khan couldn't of known this was going to happen but he won't say anything against it.
My guess is TFL are going to get involved as the busses are just going nowhere in some places.
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
In reply to Post #51
Was it the result of a 48/52 vote?
But seriously, was the scheme just imposed on Londoners, or was it advertised as a Khan policy before he got voted in?
|
|
|
|
More divisive than Brexit!
Mark Ecclestone who features in the clip is a successful NIMBY screenwriter who doesn’t want to share the burden of traffic and rather it was directed away from his affluent area onto roads where there are 4 schools.
Ignore at your peril. Coming to town near you
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #49
How is impeding the emergency services an improvement?, would rather they left things as they were and give it to you the poor people so you can 'enjoy' the delays to your loved ones.
Now do your part, get out of your vehicle and get a bus because Boris wants to give you £3 billion.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #4
"Londoner's whinging about billions spent on improving their high earning environment. Whilst 90year old ex Cheveley Park cryptographer Fanny, in Rhyl's bus routes are cancelled "
Would be one I reckon
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #47
He probably drives in the bus lanes and through the modal filter cameras.
He needs to ditch that Chelsea tractor and get on a Boris bike.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #46
It's ridiculous, obviously I have to pass that on, and since the place isn't very secure and unoccupied insurance isn't really an option on the tools, so I need the van for the duration of the job. So I get penalised for needing a van but that plick sadiq can bowl about in a range rover?
I wish him luck on his reelection campaign 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #45
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #44
I enjoy cycling to work when I can, but I have to move goods and tools about. Which means a van. I started my first job of the year in Hammersmith and Fulham this week. Traffic was 5hit, then I had to pay £60 to park for the day because its a diesel even though its euro 6
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #43
To be honest I think they are both oblivious to what's really going on.
Boris announced money for new bus lanes. There's not many more lanes they can do in London so it will be mostly elsewhere.
Now encouraging people out of their cars onto busses (if they are reliable of course) can be a good thing but you wait until cars are held up, you might see some new faces on here contributing to the thread
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
He might have stopped for a chat if shouty bike bloke had had a mask on.
Does seem a rubbish scheme ... But it's one of the few areas that Khan and Johnson agree on, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #40
That's hopeful
|
|
|
|
LINK
More room for emergency services?
|
|
|
|
Just got this
Unfortunately I had to go to hospital via ambulance yesterday.. 5 hrs in A&E which was very stressful on your own when in pain ...
the ambulance crew of 2 were great with me and spent nearly 2hrs in my home before taking me too hospital...
one of the crew a fireman so nice been driving ambulances since December with other fire crew who were drafted in to get more ambulances out in this pandemic..
They said it’s been an awful few months half of paramedics are in counselling as they’ve seen so much death ... they did say things have been slowing down re Covid cases ..
I also asked them if the LTNs have impacted the time they get to people .. they said YES very much so .. they didn’t know about them when came in ... and they don’t have/carry keys to access them ..
You don't have to live in London to experience this, it's happening everywhere. Edinburgh is the latest.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #37
Like at the Blackwall tunnel into London, where they use the O2 slip road then try and squeeze in 😡😡😡
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #36
Others deliberately using the wrong lane and cutting in at the last moment are ****s
|
|
|
|
|
I worked all over London, mainly central for at least 5 years, got to know all the rat runs and we were there when the original congestion charge zone was established, it was a case of getting your timing right in certain areas, I can remember travelling from Paddington to Spratts the plumbing merchants down the Fulham road to pick up some bits one day, 4 1/2 hours it took me, I could of walked there and back in an hour, use to really notice a difference in the traffic when the schools were on holiday, went up a couple of years ago with the grandkids, just driving about, and most of our little rat runs have been closed off with bollards etc, glad I’m not travelling up there every day now, I also think some of the traffic light timings can cause a lot of traffic build up, there’s a few I know of where they change with enough time to let 3 cars through, get some **** blocking the route and you soon get a build up, also think our attitudes don’t help, always someone trying to gain an edge by cutting in, noticed in Munich when I was there, everyone sticks to the same speed, traffic lights and road regulations are adhered to and I never once saw a traffic build up in the week I was there, everything ran like clockwork.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #34
Tasting the air is about right
It's crazy doing the ride London, cycling around Surrey, up some of the hills is tough, but then on the final run into London, Wimbledon Hill is a killer, partly coz your knackered but also because the air is getting rough, and that's a mile south of the south circular, the air gets noticeably worse every mile from there
My throat is burning after a mile from my place, but dissapears by the time I get just 5 or 6 miles south, if boris can go 7miles I should be alright at 6
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #33
there's the nail hit on the head...
it's a really worthwhile ideal, but poorly executed plan / exploitation of the situation from local / regional government.
when I moved to London from the glorious wilderness of Walney Island, I was genuinely shocked at the amount of people who were younger than me who had breathing related issues / asthma and such. the common denominator was that they were all Londoners. I can remember 'tasting' the air when I was out and about.
if the planning of the routes is down to local government and there's no oversight then of course it's a mess.
Jon's got a point - surely Boris / Matt / Pritti know someone who used to have a scalextric or something....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #30
I've been onto my MP a couple of times and she's not benefitting at all. It's difficult for people to speak out because the idea of improving the environment is a worthy idea, the way they are doing it is just utter madness.
There was a landmark case of schoolgirl Ella Kissi-Debrah where it was proved that air pollution was a major cause of her death. She lived on the South Circular road in London. Since these changes the South Circular which has always been polluted is gridlocking far far more and the pollution levels that have always failed standards have risen even more. The rise in traffic on the road where she died has been caused by displaced traffic from a nearby LTN, a small affluent area that has been gentrified. When the ULEZ is extended that road will carry much more non-compliant polluting vehicles.
By the way Ella's mum Rosamund Kissi-Debrah is now understandably against all of this.
Yes we all want healthier, greener streets and more cycling but this is doing the opposite to many parts of London.
Beware if they bring this in your area without consultation.
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
Barricading streets with planters made out of old pallets filled with dirt and a few flowers does seem a bit crude, and the emergency vehicle access is important.
I would imagine those pillars that sink into the ground when you approach in a vehicle with the appropriate black box thing on the dash would be cheaper than cameras and be a decent solution.
I'm sure a cabinet minister could persuade a mate with no experience whatsoever to set up an 'Urban Access Solutions' company through which the govt could pay well over the odds for them.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #30
It seems to be worse in the labour controlled boroughs
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #29
this is a genuine question - have you contacted your local MP? or is s/he one of the ones benefiting from the lovely flowers and quiet street?
You'd think Labour would be on it if they can get a dig in....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #28
I'm more concerned that emergency ambulances are losing their freedom of movement when migrating patients to A&E 
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
In reply to Post #27
"Oh yes it is...."
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #25
Most certainly had my pants down. If you read my posts I've mentioned a few times about local corruption.
Last time was post #2169 in the News thread
@Jon
I know what you're trying to do Jon but moving to another borough 10 miles away is hardly migrating.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #25
It's been that way for a long time, they aren't supposed to have the sirens on if you cant move without going through the red, but I see coppers doing it all the time, sirens on, hitting the horn, shouting to move etc
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #23
that stinks
Tinhead - at the risk of sounding personal... it sounds like those councillors have had people's pants down...
you're right in terms of the questions of course. it's very easy to design a questionnaire that fools people into think if they say 'Yes' then they'll get the benefit over others...
and it's one of many policies / regulations / laws that have been snuck through while we're all looking at covid slides
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
In reply to Post #22
Migrate - to move from one place to another.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #21
The cycle bollards in tooting are causing a lot of that with ambulances, plus if you go through a red light to let one through you can't use it as a defence when you get the fine/points
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #19
I'm not going to migrate
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #18
Seen it in Dulwich Village so where the schools are there's more traffic and fumes plus with King's being nearby the Ambulances are getting stuck in gridlocks.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #16
A dirtbox at the end of a road is a cheaper solution
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
In reply to Post #18
So you're thinking of using your freedom of movement to migrate to somewhere nicer to live?
Lucky you.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #15
When people are polled they are asked 'do you want streets that have less traffic, cleaner and greener streets'
Of course most people will say YES but in reality only a minority get it and it's bringing parts of London to a standstill.
10 minutes journeys are often take 30+ minutes and I tell you honestly that's no an exaggeration
It's not just LTN it's cycle lanes. I think cycling is a great idea but when you put bollards in a two lane road to make one lane for cycling and one for vehicles the vehicle lane get clogs up and the ambulances can't get through .
I've seen it ambulances blues and two's blaring stuck for vital minutes not being able to move. It's horrible.
I'm fortunate to be in a position to sell up, move out and get a bigger property but until these schemes were devised that never entered my mind.
Edit
BTW these LTN's were brought in under the guise of emergency covid restrictions without any public consultation and surprise surprise two local councillors near to me have managed to put their homes inside a LTN and tweet how fantastic it is.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #16
That's what has happened in Wandsworth, Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham, probably others I haven't seen.
The signage of a lot of them is poor, I've had a few tickets through the post from it, and I'm expecting another few from Ealing from last week, I couldn't find a route to a job without going through at least one
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 | | |
|
In reply to Post #15
twice as many.... that's better than a 52 / 48 % split eh?
sarcasm aside, you can see why the emergency services are opposed to it. surely anpr cameras and an 'emergency vehicles only sign would be a better option?
|
|
| | | Jon | | Posts: 4271 | | |
|
According to The Times
Polling has suggested twice as many people support low-traffic neighbourhoods as oppose them
The prime minister has vowed to “crack on” with road schemes designed to reduce the dominance of cars
Will of the people, innit.
|
|
|
|
Don't think that this won't ever happen to you, this can easily happen to anywhere in the country.
LINK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coming to a town near you?
ONE
TWO
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #9
I'm not going to subscribe to FT to read that but I've read that elsewhere.
If I buy an electric car then going into the zone won't be a problem.
What will be a problem is next years ULEZ extension will mean the most polluting cars will be travelling just outside concentrating the pollution in one area. Then if the Congestion charge is also extended then you have a double whammy of cars just outside causing even more jams and pollution.
I'm not panicking just yet but I can see myself moving to a Cul De Sac a little bit further out and avoiding the area at all costs.
Getting back to the petition in post #1 I wish I never made it about London as it can happen anywhere.
I'm still seeing ambulances being delayed
They sent a helicopter to a pedestrian who got run over on the South Circular/ Burnt Ash junction last month but unfortunately they had to turn off his life support system the other day
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
In reply to Post #9
FFS
They should pay me £15 to drive in lewisham, not the other way round
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #7
I saw another ambulance delayed today
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #6
Signed
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #5
Another problem is apps such as Waze when the app works out you can save a few seconds by go going down a narrow residential road such as mine. Now we have commercial vehicles from all over the country (their livery gives it away) going down roads they wouldn't normally be aware of.
The link in post #1 has only been going a day and it's already had 7600+ votes
Anyone who thinks ambulances being delayed is wrong can they add to the petition please
LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #3
Well Bob its certainly getting a lot worse with swathes of the suburbs closing off areas especially around schools placing those horrid wooden planters at the entrance to roads, in saying that i do agree with the areas around schools being closed to traffic, hopefully it will stop all the idiots in their Chelsea tractors dropping their kids off at the entrance to the school....the only problem is the restrictions ive seen run right through the weekend when the schools arent even open! And the affect it has is it pushes all of the traffic onto the main roads with the inevitable gridlock
Last Saturday i drove from E14 to SW19, around 12 or so miles....travel time two hours
Today i had the journey from hell from Swiss Cottage NW3 to home in SE9 which was 17 miles....travel time three hours!!!I think it took an hour to drive the length of Hackney road alone, And i saw two or three ambulances struggling to move through the traffic with their blue lights on
Personally i'd ban Uber and any other speculative taxi companies that operate in a similar manner as they represent tens of thousands of vehicles snarling up the city centre in the hope of scoring a booking, they may be hybrid or electric vehicles but the congestion they cause by just being there is huge.....not to mention sitting in their cars in hard to find parking spaces without actually paying to park, and before anyone mentions it i'm not up there for the fun of it or for a day out, i actually have to work there, luckily not everyday!
Why anyone would own or drive a car for pleasure in central London is beyond me
|
|
|
|
Seems there are other parts of the UK affected.
I wish I retitled the thread now
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2
I'll be just outside the extended ULEZ when it extends next October so I'll be have the pleasure of all those polluting vehicles driving past avoiding it.
As much as I love London in so many ways maybe it's time to move out a little?
Plenty of reports but I witnessed an ambulance getting stuck myself the other day for 5 minutes which seemed like eternity, it's not nice to see.
Bus drivers have been given permission to do unofficial reroutes up residential streets, doing 3 point turns and mounting the pavement it's crazy!
Local council doesn't listen and says the schemes are a success so I contacted my MP and she said contact the council. 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
It's amazing how quickly its gone from the best air quality I remember to the worst!
It reminds me of the 6 months prior to the congestion charge coming in, I'm convinced they tweaked the signal timings to cause congestion, before letting it flow when the charge started to make it look like it had an effect. I bet everything frees up and air quality is markedly better when the ulez zone expands in April!
|
|
|
|
Much of London is in gridlock. Inconvenience for some but it's got to the point where ambulances and emergency services are getting stuck. Please read and consider signing this petition, you may save a life
LINK
|
|
