The Big 'Let's sell our cars and take buses/ebikes instead' thread (warning: probably very dull)

focuszing723

I'd just like to point out, thanks to Elon Musk (greatness) there is this earlier drive towards clearer air Cities, Town, Neighbourhoods...

kingstongraham

Illustrating a problem with ULEZ, that big old car that Sunak is sitting in would be exempt from ULEZ charges.

Illustrating a different problem, that big old car is 20cm narrower than a modern Ford Focus.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Backtracking on LTNs is bizarre but a classic example of this Tory government undoing a policy that they previously supported to the tune of £100 million plus as they have allowed a by-election result to convince them it’s a vote winner. About the only good thing Boris did was in relation to environmental issues and now his own Party want to wreck that as well.

LTNs aren’t a ‘war on motorists’ they are there to stop motorists using inappropriate residential streets to avoid queues of traffic. The disruption they face on appropriate routes is down to too many people driving around. The answer shouldn’t be to allow them to drive on more roads to the detriment of those living in the areas.

Sadly one person's LTN becomes someone else's HTN as the traffic finds other ways to get to where they need to be. And emergency services may not be able to get to where they need to be as quickly where the barriers are physical. There are also a lot of issues for business who are losing customers who cannot park nearby/lowered through traffic. Just a few examples of the downsides.

Just some examples of the downsides

briantrumpet

Shortfall is obviously troubled by LTNs too. I guess Sunak's got his vote now.

kingstongraham

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

If in doubt, think how the NRA would frame this...

Cars save lives

More cars means quieter neighborhoods [sic]

The only way to stop bad people with cars is for good people to have more cars

etc.

We're not actually that for away from that sort of logic.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Backtracking on LTNs is bizarre but a classic example of this Tory government undoing a policy that they previously supported to the tune of £100 million plus as they have allowed a by-election result to convince them it’s a vote winner. About the only good thing Boris did was in relation to environmental issues and now his own Party want to wreck that as well.

LTNs aren’t a ‘war on motorists’ they are there to stop motorists using inappropriate residential streets to avoid queues of traffic. The disruption they face on appropriate routes is down to too many people driving around. The answer shouldn’t be to allow them to drive on more roads to the detriment of those living in the areas.

Sadly one person's LTN becomes someone else's HTN as the traffic finds other ways to get to where they need to be. And emergency services may not be able to get to where they need to be as quickly where the barriers are physical. There are also a lot of issues for business who are losing customers who cannot park nearby/lowered through traffic. Just a few examples of the downsides.

Just some examples of the downsides

Not really, roads have hierarchies. Some are designed as traffic routes others were only intended for access to a certain area. LTNs aren’t just thrown up, there are consultations with emergency services so they will raise any concerns they have and plans will be adapted as required.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

If in doubt, think how the NRA would frame this...

Cars save lives

More cars means quieter neighborhoods [sic]

The only way to stop bad people with cars is for good people to have more cars

etc.

We're not actually that for away from that sort of logic.

Really Brian? I had expected better from you.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

Are they? Recent example I had to avoid was the main road going through Dulwich Village which is definitely not a rat run. Got anything to back up your claim?

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

If in doubt, think how the NRA would frame this...

Cars save lives

More cars means quieter neighborhoods [sic]

The only way to stop bad people with cars is for good people to have more cars

etc.

We're not actually that for away from that sort of logic.

Really Brian? I had expected better from you.

Sorry Stevo, but your post isn't going to age well.

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Shortfall is obviously troubled by LTNs too. I guess Sunak's got his vote now.

Here's just one example - near the one I mentioned above.
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/14/hundreds-residents-threaten-council-legal-action-new-ltn/

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

If in doubt, think how the NRA would frame this...

Cars save lives

More cars means quieter neighborhoods [sic]

The only way to stop bad people with cars is for good people to have more cars

etc.

We're not actually that for away from that sort of logic.

Really Brian? I had expected better from you.

Sorry Stevo, but your post isn't going to age well.

You'll need to explain that.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

If in doubt, think how the NRA would frame this...

Cars save lives

More cars means quieter neighborhoods [sic]

The only way to stop bad people with cars is for good people to have more cars

etc.

We're not actually that for away from that sort of logic.

Really Brian? I had expected better from you.

Sorry Stevo, but your post isn't going to age well.

You'll need to explain that.

Only to you.

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

If in doubt, think how the NRA would frame this...

Cars save lives

More cars means quieter neighborhoods [sic]

The only way to stop bad people with cars is for good people to have more cars

etc.

We're not actually that for away from that sort of logic.

Really Brian? I had expected better from you.

Sorry Stevo, but your post isn't going to age well.

You'll need to explain that.

Only to you.

Go on then.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

If in doubt, think how the NRA would frame this...

Cars save lives

More cars means quieter neighborhoods [sic]

The only way to stop bad people with cars is for good people to have more cars

etc.

We're not actually that for away from that sort of logic.

Really Brian? I had expected better from you.

I think the parallel is valid, and am happy to stick by it, given the sort of arguments that are being used by the 'pro-car' lobby.

Stevo_666

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

Whatabout...?

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

Whatabout...?

You have to admit though that those tube trains taking short cuts through residential streets are a real nuisance.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

For most LTNs that's just bollocks though.

They're generally residential areas that drivers were using to get around congestion that was already there. If they need to sit on main roads in traffic for longer in order to make side streets more pleasant, then that's the way it should be.

Also, if the concern is about emergency vehicles, why would central government be floating a policy that prevents councils using number plate cameras to enforce them?

Are they? Recent example I had to avoid was the main road going through Dulwich Village which is definitely not a rat run. Got anything to back up your claim?

That's not an LTN.

Jezyboy

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

Whatabout...?

Whatabout reading the links where it says TfL are spending millions on trying to fix it!

First.Aspect

Jezyboy said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

Whatabout...?

Whatabout reading the links where it says TfL are spending millions on trying to fix it!

Until they do, let's not try to fix anything else.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/benmckenna/status/1685731672208097281?s=46&t=Q7O5dnx-0MXQv9qE3vz1vg

Stevo_666

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

Whatabout...?

Question of priories.

Or maybe another case of leftie hypocrisy?

focuszing723

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/benmckenna/status/1685731672208097281?s=46&t=Q7O5dnx-0MXQv9qE3vz1vg

Lol, that's a good X that. I like the deep "Yes".

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

Whatabout...?

Question of priories.

Or maybe another case of leftie hypocrisy?

It's a totally separate issue, with particles of a different composition and different causes.

Where is there support for '15 times more dangerous', incidentally?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

Whatabout...?

Question of priories.

Or maybe another case of leftie hypocrisy?

Priories? Let's leave monasteries out of this.

rick_chasey

The geography of cities is pretty obvious a driving factor here.

Most urban centres vote labour, right? Can't think of many, if any that don't.

The corollary is that most rural areas vote Tory. Fair enough.

Only those rural living Tories do want to drive to the local urban area to enjoy their amenities.

It's the locals in those urban areas who have to put up with the negative externalities of that drive; the traffic and pollution. So in general, those areas tend to be in favour of traffic restrictions.

So it stands to reason the Tories ought to represent their own voters in their own constituents, and they're shoring up their own base to motivate them to go out and vote.

Seems fairly straightforward to me, I'm not entirely sure why there is so much puzzle around it.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Seems fairly straightforward to me, I'm not entirely sure why there is so much puzzle around it.

Because they need to win an election, so it is not what their core supporters want that really matters, it's what the centre wants.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Seems fairly straightforward to me, I'm not entirely sure why there is so much puzzle around it.

Because they need to win an election, so it is not what their core supporters want that really matters, it's what the centre wants.

I dunno. This to me seems like defence manoeuvres to avoid getting spanked in naturally Tory seats.

The main theme in the election is everyone hates the Tories, including Tory voters. So those Tory voters tend to stay at home.

So sunak’s just trying to give them something to go out and vote for.

I’d be curious to see the voting patterns of those who live in LTNs but I bet is massively not Tory, regardless of their traffic policies.

Pross

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Maybe one for the irony thread, but if Sadiq wants to sort out the places in London with the dirtiest air that millions are exposed to on a regular basis, maybe he should look a bit closer to home:
https://envirotech-online.com/news/air-monitoring/6/breaking-news/whats-worse-for-pollution-london-underground-or-overground/51368

Quote:
According to a study conducted by King’s College London, air quality in the Tube is approximately 15 times more dangerous than that above ground. For the millions of people who use the underground to get to work every day, that’s quite a concerning statistic

I wonder why he isn't even mentioning this, let alone doing something about it? It can't be because he's anti-car, of course...

Whatabout...?

Question of priories.

Or maybe another case of leftie hypocrisy?

Priories? Let's leave monasteries out of this.

That Cromwell was a bit of a Leftie though with his ideas of reform and a commonwealth.