“I rode ten miles to the bike shop clenching it between my buttocks”: Reader’s collapsed saddle nightmare; Anti-LTN vandalism; “Bet you I can”; Pros injured by driver; National champs reaction; Merckx addresses Remco criticism + more on the live blog

128 thoughts on ““I rode ten miles to the bike shop clenching it between my buttocks”: Reader’s collapsed saddle nightmare; Anti-LTN vandalism; “Bet you I can”; Pros injured by driver; National champs reaction; Merckx addresses Remco criticism + more on the live blog”

1. Someone actually wrote “All

   Someone actually wrote “All streets matter” on a placard. Not sure whether to laugh or cry.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • OnYerBike wrote:

     Someone actually wrote “All streets matter” on a placard. Not sure whether to laugh or cry.

     — OnYerBike

     Don’t pussyfoot about it – bring in colour! “Red streets matter just as much as black streets”! (For overseas readers that’s cycle tracks and roads).

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. LTN’s bring them out;

   LTN’s bring them out; absolutely brain dead the lot of them. And they have the right to vote….

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Just because someone has a

     Just because someone has a different opinion to you, doesn’t make them brain dead. Your attitutude is part of the problem, and unfortunatley prevelant in younger generations. Residents may have a perfectly valid reason to be against an LTN on a specific road. Don’t judge and jump to conclusions.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • alexuk wrote:

       Just because someone has a different opinion to you, doesn’t make them brain dead. Your attitutude is part of the problem, and unfortunatley prevelant in younger generations. Residents may have a perfectly valid reason to be against an LTN on a specific road. Don’t judge and jump to conclusions.

       — alexuk

       What’s with the anti “younger generations” thing? Not judging, nor jumping to conclusions much. I’m so tempted to say “ok boomer” but I’d lose whatever moral high ground I might be able to pretend to be on.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • TheBillder wrote:

         What’s with the anti “younger generations” thing? Not judging, nor jumping to conclusions much. I’m so tempted to say “ok boomer” but I’d lose whatever moral high ground I might be able to pretend to be on.

         — TheBillder

         He’s just stating facts – young people are rhe most intolerant generation that existed in modern times – e.g. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/half-of-young-cancel-people-over-opinions-x82mjxp9h

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Nigel Garage][quote

           [quote=TheBillder]  He’s just stating facts – young people are rhe most intolerant generation that existed in modern times

           — Nigel Garage

           Absolute cobblers, when I was young gay people were regularly beaten up in the streets for showing the slightest sign of affection or even just if suspected of being gay, people of colour were constantly given levels of abuse that would lead to arrest these days as a matter of course, women were expected to take sexual innuendo and even assault as “a bit of a laugh”…I could go on and on. Today’s young people, for all their faults and terrible taste in music, are far more liberal, kind and generous than the generation I grew up with. What you mean is “young people today don’t agree with my views and therefore they must be intolerant”, which sits pretty snugly with your general solipsism.

         • Well I guess it depends how
           Well I guess it depends how you describe “intolerance”. You’re right that some hate crimes such as the ones you mentioned have decreased massively, but to most people intolerance takes the standard dictionary definition of “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.”

           I can understand why, in your case, you find it difficult to accept the above definition!

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           to most people intolerance takes the standard dictionary definition of “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.”

           — Nigel Garage

           And if someone else’s views, beliefs or behaviour are racist, or homophobic, or sexist, then it is entirely correct to be intolerant of them, isn’t it? I didn’t notice you earlier today being very tolerant of Insulate UK (a group whose actions I do not support, before you start) – I believe you called them something like “neo-Marxist terrorists”, did you not? Not very tolerant, was it?

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           to most people intolerance takes the standard dictionary definition of “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.”

           — Rendel Harris

           And if someone else’s views, beliefs or behaviour are racist, or homophobic, or sexist, then it is entirely correct to be intolerant of them, isn’t it? I didn’t notice you earlier today being very tolerant of Insulate UK (a group whose actions I do not support, before you start) – I believe you called them something like “neo-Marxist terrorists”, did you not? Not very tolerant, was it?— Nigel Garage

           I accept the people of Insulate Britain’s right to a point of view, not of course their lawless action, just as you should tolerantly accept my right to accurately describe them.

           Of course criminal behaviour should not be condoned, either by Insulate Britain of anyone else, but that’s a strawman argument that deliberately deflects from the intolerance shown by many young people and so-called “liberals” across a whole range of perfectly legally held views and actions.

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           to most people intolerance takes the standard dictionary definition of “unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one’s own.”

           — Nigel Garage

           And if someone else’s views, beliefs or behaviour are racist, or homophobic, or sexist, then it is entirely correct to be intolerant of them, isn’t it? I didn’t notice you earlier today being very tolerant of Insulate UK (a group whose actions I do not support, before you start) – I believe you called them something like “neo-Marxist terrorists”, did you not? Not very tolerant, was it?

           — Rendel Harris

           I accept the people of Insulate Britain’s right to a point of view, not of course their lawless action, just as you should tolerantly accept my right to accurately describe them.

           Of course criminal behaviour should not be condoned, either by Insulate Britain of anyone else, but that’s a strawman argument that deliberately deflects from the intolerance shown by many young people and so-called “liberals” across a whole range of perfectly legally held views and actions.

           — Nigel Garage

           And yet you seem to condone the lawless action by anti-LTN protesters? Strange.

         • Fair enough Nigel, I’m sure

           Fair enough Nigel, I’m sure you know a strawman when you see one!

         • Rendel Harris]

           [quote=TheBillder]  He’s just stating facts – young people are rhe most intolerant generation that existed in modern times

           — Rendel Harris

           Absolute cobblers, when I was young gay people were regularly beaten up in the streets for showing the slightest sign of affection or even just if suspected of being gay, people of colour were constantly given levels of abuse that would lead to arrest these days as a matter of course, women were expected to take sexual innuendo and even assault as “a bit of a laugh”…I could go on and on. Today’s young people, for all their faults and terrible taste in music, are far more liberal, kind and generous than the generation I grew up with. What you mean is “young people today don’t agree with my views and therefore they must be intolerant”, which sits pretty snugly with your general solipsism.— Nigel Garage

           You’re just fishing for some comment about “ah – the good old days” aren’t you?

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           young people are rhe most intolerant generation that existed in modern times

           — Nigel Garage

           Based on other sources, I would have to disagree strongly with that assertion, and the link is really just an opinion piece. Zzzzzz….

           I think that in the real world you’ll find that most young people are more open-minded, more tolerant and more empathetic than older generations.

           With the huge amount of abuse on social media, it’s not going to take long for someone to decide to block/cancel/ignore someone else. That’s not the same thing. I’m sure you know that really but it doesn’t fit your point.

           One very significant – possibly even defining – difference between Insulate Britain and the anti-LTN protesters is similar to that between Remainers and Brexiteers: the second group are campaigning for their own personal gain regardless of the cost to others while the first group are concerned with the wider consequences for everyone of the government policy direction on those respective topics.

         • Simon E wrote:

           One very significant – possibly even defining – difference between Insulate Britain and the anti-LTN protesters is similar to that between Remainers and Brexiteers: the second group are campaigning for their own personal gain regardless of the cost to others while the first group are concerned with the wider consequences for everyone of the government policy direction on those respective topics.

           — Simon E

           Yet coincidentally the support for both the EU and LTNs is strongest in the groups that benefit the most from them and vice versa.

           It’s almost as if most people vote in their own self interest regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum.

   • Velophaart_95 wrote:

     LTN’s bring them out; absolutely brain dead the lot of them. And they have the right to vote….

     — Velophaart_95

     I know right. Down with democracy!

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • How NOT to convince people

     How NOT to convince people with a slightly different point of view to yours – behave like you do.

     Heck, you’ll be calling them ‘scum’ next.

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. It’s so inspiring to see

   It’s so inspiring to see these nice, young, dynamic citizens who enjoyed low fuel prices, a clean environment, a high quality of living and a right to pollute throughout their lives, speaking up to joinlty fight for their priviliges for the few years left to them, trusting the future generation to live with their “legacies”…

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Well it’s “change” isn’t it?

     Well it’s “change” isn’t it? The problem is their (our) environment has allowed them (us) to succeed by one series of habits – and indeed the government and culture have encouraged or even enforced these. Then decades later it turns out that this was “nice things” that we couldn’t have if everyone did this. Effectively we’re living beyond our means on credit – which then falls apart when everyone does it. Maybe you could have seen this coming – but living modestly for your whole life when everyone else is partying hard on the fossil fuels doesn’t have mass appeal.

     Humans can be quite fickle monkeys. If we fixed it so they could get to the shops and see their grandkids by bike most would have happily forgotten the outrage in a few years. (Like the Dutch weren’t always so Dutch about the importance of mass cycling). Right now they’re still in “war on the motorist” mode because they’ve been sold the half-truth of cars and open roads, mass private mobility and a high energy lifestyle.

     A few of these people may already be disadvantaged (disability, poverty) and can see “everyone else” enjoying all that. Unfortunately changes often hit these people hardest because they’re already up against it unlike those who merely think they are. Often this isn’t because of the direct effects of the change eg. a LTN.  It’s because the “advantaged” people then effectively steal their resources e.g. by pavement parking / “just stopping” on double-yellows / “borrowing” blue badge spaces (screw the disabled) or clogging up the remaining space on through routes (I can’t cut through the estate now!).

     It’s also easy to stereotype / demonise those on “the other side”. Our Nige demonstrates that in this very thread with his “commynist … pinko … eco-fanatic” satire and you’ll see elsewhere “mamil… lycra… entitled…”.

     Personally I’m thinking of owning that and just trolling by growing dreads, draping myself in lycra and gluing myself to a peloton on the M25 while also being a member of the Conservative party and an investment banker.

     Log In or Register to post comments

4. I can’t help feeling that the
   I can’t help feeling that the shenanigans of the quasi Marxist group “Insulate Britain” are stirring up ill-feeling towards LTNs, which were unpopular before but now seem to be pretty much universally opposed.

   No one wants to have their freedoms curtailed by a group of far-left eco fanatics, and it’s hardly surprising that society is pushing back against this threat.

   There was a fantastic piece in Ghe Times by Rod Liddle a couple of weeks back (paywalled, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/you-can-tell-who-the-real-establishment-are-they-get-coddled-not-kettled-by-the-police-5bs9jf7zz) showing how the establishment are once again thumbing their noses at the working class through these useful idiots.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • There is no evidence to Nigel

     There is no evidence to Nigel’s claim that LTNs ‘now seem to be pretty much universally opposed.’

     He is just looking for a reaction.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • And he has changed his name

       And he has changed his name again !
        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • If you are talking about Nige

         If you are talking about Nige Drives Cars and Bikes. New account, not a name change. No idea if it is them as well, but not a spoof like socrapi from what I can see. 

         Unless he changed Nigel Garrage and changed it back again in the time I was away from the forum. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Nigel Garrage -> Nigel Garage

           Nigel Garrage -> Nigel Garage

           Subtle change for no clear purpose.

         • hirsute wrote:

           Nigel Garrage -> Nigel Garage

           Subtle change for no clear purpose.

           — hirsute

           It’s to get around people blocking their inane comments.

         • They can’t be that dense to

           They can’t be that dense to think that anyone who has already set up a filter can’t add a new line into ‘my filters’ ?

         • Well you did mention the

           Well you did mention the other day you don’t see his posts…….

           Although at least when you mentioned about blocking them, you followed through. When our Boo promised to block people who was rude to them it turned out to be another of their long list of lies. 

         • All the ones I ignore I have

           All the ones I ignore I have tried to engage with over time, but eventually it is pointless as all that happens is it becomes clear that their MO is to inflame and it saves my blood pressure from being raised.

         • So he can get some likes for
           So he can get some likes for his drivel? (From himself)

         • I suppose you would need a

           I suppose you would need a second account to like your own posts.

           Nigel is probably that shallow.

       • Yep, just to get another

         Yep, just to get another reaction.

         His tactic of using a Liddle article,  or something like last weeks Daily Mail link, or a Freeman reference is solely to get people to bite.

         I may point out his tactics, but he really isn’t worth the effort of knocking down his specious arguments.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Nigel Garage wrote:

     I can’t help feeling that the shenanigans of the quasi Marxist group “Insulate Britain” are stirring up ill-feeling towards LTNs, which were unpopular before but now seem to be pretty much universally opposed. No one wants to have their freedoms curtailed by a group of far-left eco fanatics, and it’s hardly surprising that society is pushing back against this threat.

     — Nigel Garage

     Rubbish. These anti-LTN fanatics (and they are fanatics) were tooled up and spouting lies and breaking the law for at least a year before insulate Britain very recently turned up.

     And LTN’s are univerally liked by people who actually live in them

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Nigel Garage wrote:

     …LTNs, which were unpopular before but now seem to be pretty much universally opposed.

     — Nigel Garage

     Polls in London have consistently shown an average of around 50% in favour, 20% opposed and 30% undecided, no strong feelings either way or don’t know. Stop lying.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • So that’s why councils are
       So that’s why councils are uninstalling them and MPs are condemning them – because they are too popular?

       Just because some vested interest group claims they are popular doesn’t mean they are, in this case evidenced by direct action on the ground and their political backlash.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • “Just because some vested

         “Just because some vested interest group claims they are unpopular doesn’t mean they are.”

         FIFY

         Log In or Register to post comments

       • Nigel Garage wrote:

         Just because some vested interest group claims they are popular doesn’t mean they are, in this case evidenced by direct action on the ground and their political backlash.

         — Nigel Garage

         And because some powerful vested interest groups claim they are unpopular (in London particularly UTAG and the LTDA) that doesn’t mean they are, does it? I can’t speak for other areas but in the one shown here, near which I live, the opposition comes almost exclusively from a small handful of residents on the affected roads who object to having to drive a couple of hundred yards round the block to get to their driveways. Dulwich Village was a 12+ hours a day continuous traffic jam snaking past the two primary schools within fifty yards of the road closure, it’s now quiet, has clean air and there has been no increase in traffic on surrounding roads. There has been a massive increase in active travel.

         Your utter hypocrisy in claiming that “direct action on the ground” reflects public feeling is astounding: ‘quasi Marxist group “Insulate Britain”‘ are taking “direct action on the ground”, by your logic that shows their views must be popular.

         The popularity of LTNs has been shown in national polling, do you have poll figures to substantiate your claims of unpopularity? Of course you don’t.

          

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           And because some powerful vested interest groups claim they are unpopular (in London particularly UTAG and the LTDA) that doesn’t mean they are, does it? Dulwich Village was a 12+ hours a day continuous traffic jam snaking past the two primary schools within fifty yards of the road closure, it’s now quiet, has clean air and there has been no increase in traffic on surrounding roads. 

           — Rendel Harris

           Well let’s take Dulwich as an example. One Dulwich have collated the figures that Southwark council deliberately buried in three different documents to show that over two-thirds of respondents wanted the roads to be returned to their original state, vs only 1 in 5 wanting them retained in their revised state.

           It’s there in black and white, and are from the pro-LTN council’s own data (the only reason I haven’t linked to the council documents directly is that they buried them, but there are links from One Dulwich).

           Now the Insulate Britain mob (who of course haven’t insulated their own houses) have been blocking up the main road network (aided and abetted by the police against The People), expect the anti-LTN figure to jump even higher. British people don’t surrender to terrorists.

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           two-thirds of respondents wanted the roads to be returned to their original state

           — Nigel Garage

           Not two-thirds of residents, you note. All residents were supplied with a unique identifier number for answering the questionnaire online to show that they are actual residents, do you know how many of the 7,500 responses carried such a number? 1400. The supporters of HTNs have made no secret on Twitter and elsewhere that they encourage those opposing LTNs elsewhere in London to fill in questionnaires wherever they can, regardless of residency.

           If one were to take the figures at face value, One Dulwich, who are such expert cherrypickers they could make good the shortfall in EU farmworkers singlehandedly, somehow omitted the fact that the people who actually live on the affected roads (Calton Road and Court Lane) support the measures remaining, 67% and 52% respectively.

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           two-thirds of respondents wanted the roads to be returned to their original state

           — Rendel Harris

           Not two-thirds of residents, you note. All residents were supplied with a unique identifier number for answering the questionnaire online to show that they are actual residents, do you know how many of the 7,500 responses carried such a number? 1400. The supporters of HTNs have made no secret on Twitter and elsewhere that they encourage those opposing LTNs elsewhere in London to fill in questionnaires wherever they can, regardless of residency.

           If one were to take the figures at face value, One Dulwich, who are such expert cherrypickers they could make good the shortfall in EU farmworkers singlehandedly, somehow omitted the fact that the people who actually live on the affected roads (Calton Road and Court Lane) support the measures remaining, 67% and 52% respectively.

           — Nigel Garage

           meanwhile those from elsewhere who want to treat their neighbourhood as a convenient shortcut are against. Who’d have thought?

         • Rendel Harris wrote:

           two-thirds of respondents wanted the roads to be returned to their original state

           — Rendel Harris

           Not two-thirds of residents, you note. All residents were supplied with a unique identifier number for answering the questionnaire online to show that they are actual residents, do you know how many of the 7,500 responses carried such a number? 1400. The supporters of HTNs have made no secret on Twitter and elsewhere that they encourage those opposing LTNs elsewhere in London to fill in questionnaires wherever they can, regardless of residency.

           If one were to take the figures at face value, One Dulwich, who are such expert cherrypickers they could make good the shortfall in EU farmworkers singlehandedly, somehow omitted the fact that the people who actually live on the affected roads (Calton Road and Court Lane) support the measures remaining, 67% and 52% respectively.

           — Nigel Garage

           I have to say I know quite a bit about this area as I used to be really good friends with someone who lived locally and went to JAGs, which by all accounts is an excellent (although expensive) school.

           Indeed the first road with the majority “for” LTNs has an average house price of more than three million quid. I’m sure the residents would absolutely love to thumb their noses at the passing riff-raff, the working people who are simply trying to get from A to B. So although I’m sure they’d love to shunt traffic to lower class neighbourhoods, it doesn’t mean the LTN works for everyone else or Londoners generally, and that’s reflected in the vast majority surveying against the LTNs.

           You asked for evidence, I provided it – straight from the pro-LTN council. Do you have any credible counter evidence from Dulwich that the LTNs were supported? 

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           I have to say I know quite a bit about this area as I used to be really good friends with someone who lived locally and went to JAGs, which by all accounts is an excellent (although expensive) school.

           — Nigel Garage

           More like you know the area well because you used it as a rat run and now you are crying into your coffee that you have to find another route.

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           Well let’s take Dulwich as an example. One Dulwich have collated the figures that Southwark council deliberately buried in three different documents”

           — Nigel Garage

           As Rendel said these anti-LTN groups all run to support the others.  I mean just look at the One Dulwich Twitter followers, then look at any other “One” group and you will find that they all follow each other and that it tends to be the same twitter followers across them all.  Comprised largely of other “One” groups and cab firms, with a smattering of anti-cyclist individuals thrown in.

           I’m going to be bored later and trawl through their followers….. I wonder if your Twitter handle will be amoung them Nigel

         • The assertion that “Southwark

           The assertion that “Southwark council deliberately buried the Dulwich results” by placing them in a public document they published on the Internet is patently laughable.

           The installation of the LTNs was approved and authorised by our democratically elected representatives, not “far-left eco fanatics”, or some interest group ,or because someone in the Transport Department walks to work along that route.

           This isn’t class war; it’s UK democracy – suck it up.

           “”Hundreds of new schemes have created safe space for people to cycle and walk, supported pubs and restaurants that might otherwise have closed, and allowed us to get the exercise we need. For decades we mourned that children no longer played in the street. Now once again, in some places, they do.” Boris Johnson (must be some loony, lefty, unelected eco terrorist).

         • Mary Willoughby wrote:

           The assertion that “Southwark council deliberately buried the Dulwich results” by placing them in a public document they available on the Internet is patently laughable.

           — Mary Willoughby

           Well they did. Don’t believe me? I challenge you to find the results or any mention of them through any internet search engine. You’ll find plenty of pro-LTN propaganda though as you do search.

           The installation of the LTNs was approved and authorised by our democratically elected representatives, not “far-left eco fanatics”, or some interest group ,or because someone in the Transport Department walks to work along that route.

           This isn’t class war; it’s UK democracy – suck it up.

           — Mary Willoughby

           No, the LTNs were installed under the shield of Covid without consultation, in the hope that – once established – they would become permanent. There was nothing democratic in the way they were installed.

           As for Boris Johnson, well I hate to inform him otherwise but kids have played in the street where I live for years without needing LTNs set up. But that’s because of good initial road design (in my case I live in a cul de sac).

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           As for Boris Johnson, well I hate to inform him otherwise but kids have played in the street where I live for years without needing LTNs set up. But that’s because of good initial road design (in my case I live in a cul de sac).

           — Nigel Garage

           Glad to hear there’s space for kids. Sounds like a LTN to me – or are drivers rat-running through the garden of the poor people living at the end of the road?

           EDIT: so should lots of others be denied your luck in road design because some people are very noisy about it? LTNs themselves are hardly news!

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           The assertion that “Southwark council deliberately buried the Dulwich results” by placing them in a public document they available on the Internet is patently laughable.

           — Nigel Garage

           Well they did. Don’t believe me? I challenge you to find the results or any mention of them through any internet search engine. You’ll find plenty of pro-LTN propaganda though as you do search.

           — Mary Willoughby

           I know I shouldn’t feed, but…

           https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dulwich+review

           *clicks first link* *clicks link in first paragraph* *finds report with all the results*

           (*also notes that the next few results are all anti-LTN propaganda campaign sites*)

         • Well sure, if you know the

           Well sure, if you know the exact name “Dulwich Review” (how many people would type that in, as opposed to say Dulwich LTN consultation?), and then know to click on the link at the end of the first paragraph, and then know to click “Appendix D” from the 20 or so supplementary documents you’d find the correct document.

           I’d urge you to read the appendix by the way, which can be found at https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s101517/Appendix%20D%20-%20Dulwich%20Review%20Consultation%20Report.pdf. It’s quite instructive, as it shows that the majority of people agree with the high level aims of active travel (which is probably where Rendel Harris is getting his original figures from) but disagree with botched LTN schemes such as this one.

           It also shows that white (non-UK especially) people are the most likely to support this particular scheme (although still a minority), with BAME people being the most opposed. Indeed people identifying as “Black British” were 76% supportive of returning to the previous road layout, with only 6% in favour of keeping the new layout.

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           Well sure, if you know the exact name “Dulwich Review” (how many people would type that in, as opposed to say Dulwich LTN consultation?), 

           — Nigel Garage

           You mean like this, which returns exactly the same link?

           You’re right, though, they have nefariously hidden it as a subsidiary result, instead of the main one. I’m sure that’s entirely deliberate, rather than a result of slightly crap SEO management. Unfortunate for them that they were too incompetent to stop it returning as the top result for half a dozen other similar searches I tried, like, say ‘Dulwich LTN results’.

           and then know to click on the link at the end of the first paragraph,

           — Nigel Garage

           You mean, where it says “The full report can be found here.”?

           You’re right, can’t think why anyone would expect to find it there.

           and then know to click “Appendix D” from the 20 or so supplementary documents you’d find the correct document.

           — Nigel Garage

           Yes, because it’s only clearly flagged up as the place to look in the first line under ‘Public Consultation’ in the report summary – those devious bastards, cunningly hiding it like that!

            

         • I’m surprised that no one has

           I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that Boo is seemingly pointing out that he doesn’t think the Anti-LTN people are smart enough to find a report or the data needed. Still he is lucky enough to live in a cul-de-sac and wants to metaphorically pull the drawbridge up after him. 

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

            

           As for Boris Johnson, well I hate to inform him otherwise but kids have played in the street where I live for years without needing LTNs set up. But that’s because of good initial road design (in my case I live in a cul de sac).

           — Nigel Garage

           NG lives in a low traffic road, doesn’t want others to have the same pleasure. Preferring to support the ever expanding vehicluar traffic consuming the city.

         • wycombewheeler wrote:

           NG lives in a low traffic road, doesn’t want others to have the same pleasure. Preferring to support the ever expanding vehicluar traffic consuming the city.

           — wycombewheeler

           Er no, my road was designed in harmony with the existing road infrastructure to accommodate a realistic number of motor vehicles, which is a million miles away from what LTNs are doing – if someone suddenly decided to block off half the throughfares around here the locals would also be up in arms here too.

         • Nigel Garage wrote:

           NG lives in a low traffic road, doesn’t want others to have the same pleasure. Preferring to support the ever expanding vehicluar traffic consuming the city.

           — Nigel Garage

           Er no, my road was designed in harmony with the existing road infrastructure to accommodate a realistic number of motor vehicles, which is a million miles away from what LTNs are doing – if someone suddenly decided to block off half the throughfares around here the locals would also be up in arms here too.

           — wycombewheeler

           When was it designed, Nigel?  Because the amount of traffic will undoubtedly have gone up since, so the ‘realistic number of motor vehicles’ will now be unrealistic.  Time to open up your cul de sac and make it a through road.

         • Steve K wrote:

           Er no, my road was designed in harmony with the existing road infrastructure to accommodate a realistic number of motor vehicles, which is a million miles away from what LTNs are doing – if someone suddenly decided to block off half the throughfares around here the locals would also be up in arms here too.

           — Steve K

           When was it designed, Nigel?  Because the amount of traffic will undoubtedly have gone up since, so the ‘realistic number of motor vehicles’ will now be unrealistic.  Time to open up your cul de sac and make it a through road.

           — Nigel Garage

           Judging by the age of my house, our road was designed and built around the 1890s, so I’m doubting that they really anticipated a lot of motor traffic. Luckily, the narrow road, combined with parking on both sides does restrict the speed of through traffic, but I’d still prefer the road to be made into an LTN. There was a consultation several months ago, but nothing’s happened since (apart from a few families at the top of the road making it into an LTN each Friday evening so that their kids can play in the street).

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           Er no, my road was designed in harmony with the existing road infrastructure to accommodate a realistic number of motor vehicles, which is a million miles away from what LTNs are doing – if someone suddenly decided to block off half the throughfares around here the locals would also be up in arms here too.

           — hawkinspeter

           When was it designed, Nigel?  Because the amount of traffic will undoubtedly have gone up since, so the ‘realistic number of motor vehicles’ will now be unrealistic.  Time to open up your cul de sac and make it a through road.

           — Steve K

           Judging by the age of my house, our road was designed and built around the 1890s, so I’m doubting that they really anticipated a lot of motor traffic. Luckily, the narrow road, combined with parking on both sides does restrict the speed of through traffic, but I’d still prefer the road to be made into an LTN. There was a consultation several months ago, but nothing’s happened since (apart from a few families at the top of the road making it into an LTN each Friday evening so that their kids can play in the street).

           — Nigel Garage

           I’m lucky enough to live on a no through road.  It’s a lovely road to live on, and there are a group of kids (including mine) who play together in the street.  It was built in the 1930s, when traffic levels in the area were clearly much lower.  It would probably be relatively easy (comp purchase some garden space) to open it up and make it a through road, which (following anti-LTN logic) would allievate pressure on the busy main road through the village.  Were I anti-LTN, it would be hypocritical of me not to be calling for such a thing.  But actually, what I’d like is for more children to be able to enjoy the benefits my children do.

         • if only all roads could be

           if only all roads could be kept at the level of realistic number of vehicles from when they were designed.

           The fact is when these LTNs were designed people were not using them as cut throughs, all the traffic used the main roads. But subsequently the proliferation of sat navs and aps like wayz has tought people to use these former residential roads as new through roads, not because they were designed for it at the time, in harmony with through roads built in 1900, but with the miraculous foresight for 2020s traffic levels, by providing additional capacity on residential roads. Really? This is your argument, that the network was designed to account for people using neighbourhoods as highways?

           My road was built in the 1930s, had they invisaged current car ownership levels the road would have been more than 2.5 cars wide, such as to allow on road parking and 2 way traffic flow, or parking both sides and one way traffic flow. But it wasn’t, so we get two way flow forced into passing places int he line of parked cars, and also people parking on the pavement opposite. This does not feel like it’s “in harmony with” anything, and thats just parking not the through traffic. (although that is disauded to some degree because of the parked cars.

           Meanwhile your road has been immune from expanding traffic, not because more capacity was provided on the local through roads, but because it can’t be used to go anywhere. Children on your road can have similar freedoms to previous generations, elsewhere this is not the case.

           I’m surprised people aren’t screaming “won’t somebody think of the children?” but I guess passage and parking of motor vehicles is the top priority in this society. Some of us would like people’s quality of life to come before the convenience of the carprofits of the motor companies.

         • Well I was specifically
           Well I was specifically answering a question about my own house, which was built in the last decade.

           In that time driving levels have been primarily driven by net migration rather than a higher saturation of cars on a per capita basis, and to be honest I think we’ve reached “peak car” on a per-driver basis.

         • It would seem Southwark

           It would seem Southwark Council are a remarkable organisation; they’ve managed to install LTNs without consultation whilst simultaneously burying the results of the consultation which never happened.

           My understanding is that the introduction of Dulwich LTNs was approved by their Cabinet comprising 12 democratically Councillors.

         • Mary Willoughby wrote:

           It would seem Southwark Council are a remarkable organisation; they’ve managed to install LTNs without consultation whilst simultaneously burying the results of the consultation which never happened.

           My understanding is that the introduction of Dulwich LTNs was approved by their Cabinet comprising 12 democratically Councillors.

           — Mary Willoughby

           As I’m sure you’re aware, a consultation is meant to take place before implementation. Not some kind of shambolic fait accompli that has a consultation afterwards, with the embarrassing results buried in an appendix.

         • Just a side point – but one

           Just a side point – but one not necessarily obvious to those without local knowledge. The particular measures being discussed here are not what most of us would consider to be LTNs. There’s only a very tiny closure in the centre of Dulwich Village, benefitting local shops and pedestrians; but the majority of measures around Dulwich Village are timed one-way restrictions (with camera enforced bus gates) to allow for quieter streets during to-and-from school hours, and reduce rat-running during rush hours. The affected roads are literally open both ways for 19 hours a day on weekdays and 24 hours a day on weekends and locals can easily access alternate routes to all locations in the village. Other than that, they have made a tiny stretch of no waiting with yellow lines in the historic village part.

         • Thanks for the local

           Thanks for the local knowledge. I was actually forgetting this was something to do with bikes…

           …There’s only a very tiny closure in the centre of Dulwich Village, benefitting local shops and pedestrians; but the majority of measures around Dulwich Village are timed one-way restrictions (with camera enforced bus gates) to allow for quieter streets during to-and-from school hours, and reduce rat-running during rush hours. The affected roads are literally open both ways for 19 hours a day on weekdays and 24 hours a day on weekends and locals can easily access alternate routes to all locations in the village. Other than that, they have made a tiny stretch of no waiting with yellow lines in the historic village part.

           — markieteeee

           I find this is not uncommon. Several deaths? Set up a committee to report. 2 parking spaces gone? BURN THE CITY HALL!! OK we’re British… just deface some signs and set a couple of flower pots on fire.

         • Nice! “Wrong kind of

           Nice! “Wrong kind of democracy” here. Also any part of government can be “upholding democracy” one moment and “a small cabal ignoring the masses” the next.

           I believe (like most of us) Our Nige is all in favour of “democracy” when the people / council appear to be on the correct side. No point dissecting the argumentation except to note that there’s the usual collection of “everyone agrees that…” (really? and if so does that make it right?),  “I can’t believe that…” and particular choice of “evidence” – which is always arguable of course.

   • Nigel Garage wrote:

     There was a fantastic piece in Ghe Times by Rod Liddle

     — Nigel Garage

     That can not possibly be the case

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Why not?

       Why not?

       Are you automatically anti, on principle, The Times or Rod Liddle?

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Hi Flint, I see you have

         Hi Flint, I see you have added to the debate by criticising a poster again. I suppose you do need to switch it up between posters and the site. 

         I can”t speak for Chris, however if you want to support a columnist who “jokes” about killing people because they don’t drive a car, or “joke”s that he couldn;t have become a teacher as he couldn’t keep his hands off the 15 year olds (luckily he would have only targetted slight underage girls) then you go ahead. I suppose it is tame to some of the stuff our own PM used to write.

         Log In or Register to post comments

   • Nigel Garage wrote:

     I can’t help feeling that the shenanigans of the quasi Marxist group “Insulate Britain” are stirring up ill-feeling towards LTNs, which were unpopular before but now seem to be pretty much universally opposed. No one wants to have their freedoms curtailed by a group of far-left eco fanatics, and it’s hardly surprising that society is pushing back against this threat. There was a fantastic piece in Ghe Times by Rod Liddle a couple of weeks back (paywalled, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/you-can-tell-who-the-real-establishment-are-they-get-coddled-not-kettled-by-the-police-5bs9jf7zz) showing how the establishment are once again thumbing their noses at the working class through these useful idiots.

     — Nigel Garage

     insulate britain have nothing to do with LTNs. Might as well say cyclists jumping red lights are stirring up ill feeling against pedestrian from drivers.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yo’re making the mistake of

     You’re making the mistake of thinking that the vocal minority represent the silent majority. They don’t, as the tiny number of demonstrators show.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Top Trolling from Nigel.

     Top Trolling from Nigel.

     Imagine thinking an article written by Rod Liddle would in any way useful to anyone.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • sean1 wrote:

       Top Trolling from Nigel.

       Imagine thinking an article written by Rod Liddle would in any way useful to anyone.

       — sean1

       I think this is only a 4.5/10.  It started out well in that he came up with a random inflammatory comment that had nothing to do with the article, but then he started talking about facts and Rendel owned him.

       At this point I think “Nigel” is actually a bot progammed to illustrate the Dunning Kruger effect.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • stomec wrote:

         At this point I think “Nigel” is actually a bot progammed to illustrate the Dunning Kruger effect.

         — stomec

         Nah – like SophisCyclist before, “Nigel” is a puppet account of the road.cc team, designed to generate extra comments.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • mdavidford wrote:

           At this point I think “Nigel” is actually a bot progammed to illustrate the Dunning Kruger effect.

           — mdavidford

           Nah – like SophisCyclist before, “Nigel” is a puppet account of the road.cc team, designed to generate extra comments.

           — stomec

           Y’know – that was my very first thought. Never believe the names on the letters page, right? But now I’m not so sure. And maybe you’re just road.cc too? Who can I trust? And what about me??

     • Nowhere near his recent

       Nowhere near his recent standards. Did pick up a lot of quick wickets though (including mine…). Luck? Or the combination of a bait post and then teetering into possible factual contention rather than mere opining?

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • The government are against

     The government are against the so called eco warriors as they are holding them to account. The Tories altered the rules that would have had housebuilders (Tory donors?) having to build far more efficient houses from 2016. Made sure they didn’t have to so we have another five years of houses that are poorly insulated and will need retro-fitting with better insulation.

     Then there was the ‘Green Deal’ where householders could get money to help fit better insulation etc. The scheme was so shoddy in its organisation that insulation installers went out of business waiting to ne paid under the scheme. Most installers refusedt to do work under the scheme so the government had to scrap it.

     No wonder Boris is telling Priti to throw these people in jail, can’t have them reminding the world that the Tories aren’t very green when there is a climate conference due can we?

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Bizarrely despite the ‘fact’
       Bizarrely despite the ‘fact’ that the “Tories aren’t very green” the UK has achieved some of the largest CO2 reductions in the world since the Conservatives came to power.

       There’s still a lot more to do to get to net zero of course but the government’s track record on climate change is actually very good.

       https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rich_cb wrote:

         Bizarrely despite the ‘fact’ that the “Tories aren’t very green” the UK has achieved some of the largest CO2 reductions in the world since the Conservatives came to power. There’s still a lot more to do to get to net zero of course but the government’s track record on climate change is actually very good. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade

         — Rich_cb

         But is it good enough? For clarity – I see “ambitious targets” from all sides in politics but until they get in and we actually see what actually happens (which will rarely if ever match the sales pitch) I will be sceptical. For example the discrepancy between what is trumpeted for “active travel” and the magic beans actually given to us in exchange for our optimism – by any government thus far – is a continual disappointment.

         It may be that it’s a “tragedy of the commons” and until we actually start running out of cheap power not enough people will make the first move – it not being in their short-term self-interest. Or our politics / organisations get more dictatorial. I guess we’ll see how successful our societal groups are at getting over the “can’t do worse than my neighbour” effect to do better in the longer term.

         Anyway, I’m alright jack because I’ve got my bicycle. Although I’m not sure what happens when I run out of tyre patches.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • I don’t think we’re going to
           I don’t think we’re going to know if it’s ‘good enough’ for a long time.

           Personally I don’t think we’re going to be able to reduce emissions globally fast enough to prevent significant warming but I’m quietly hopeful that in the UK we will be able to hit our net zero targets.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           I don’t think we’re going to know if it’s ‘good enough’ for a long time. Personally I don’t think we’re going to be able to reduce emissions globally fast enough to prevent significant warming but I’m quietly hopeful that in the UK we will be able to hit our net zero targets.

           — Rich_cb

           In cynical moments I think we already know. On the optimistic side – depending on how “long term” your viewpoint – the descendants of the early cyanobacteria are still with us having survived their pollution catastrophe. The only thing I’m quietly certain of is that politicians will always find a way that they can say we hit whatever targets they’re being judged against. Generally not in their self-interest to do otherwise!

       • Rich_cb wrote:

         Bizarrely despite the ‘fact’ that the “Tories aren’t very green” the UK has achieved some of the largest CO2 reductions in the world since the Conservatives came to power. There’s still a lot more to do to get to net zero of course but the government’s track record on climate change is actually very good. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-have-fallen-29-per-cent-over-the-past-decade

         — Rich_cb

         The main reason that CO2 emissions have fallen in the UK is because we’ve exported the manufacturing to China, so we are still responsible for them, but we can blame the Chinese, and criticise them for using coal to make the products that we buy.  Even worse, they have to be shipped here, using more energy and creating more CO2.

         Ergo; the tories aren’t very green.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • eburtthebike wrote:

           The main reason that CO2 emissions have fallen in the UK is because we’ve exported the manufacturing to China, so we are still responsible for them, but we can blame the Chinese, and criticise them for using coal to make the products that we buy.  Even worse, they have to be shipped here, using more energy and creating more CO2.

           Ergo; the tories aren’t very green.

           — eburtthebike

           Fact check: Industrial production has increased over the last decade (the period Rich_cb cited), although services grew faster.

         • As someone put it recently,

           As someone put it recently, the Tories are green and have been for years. After all in the early 80’s they decimated the coal industry so how much CO2 was saved because of that….

           But the figures have reduced the last decade, both because most technologies are now produced to be energy efficient or using alternative power sources. Yes, some Government guidances etc are in place, but it helps the companies are already going that route anyway. 

            

         • Up until 2008 all reductions
           Up until 2008 all reductions in UK CO2 production were more than offset by emissions elsewhere as you describe.

           Since 2010 that has not been the case.

           Ergo you’re wrong.

           Here’s a nice graph to prove it.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Here’s a nice graph to prove it.

           — Rich_cb

           I do like a graph and while tangential to groupsets or even LTNs the topic is an interest for me. However “proof” is assisted by expanations surrounding the datasets (or even the legends) and I couldn’t find the link(s) in a quick Google – would you have those? (Otherwise we could mostly attribute this to the recession). For anyone else going the same route Leeds uni has a very quick intro.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Ergo you’re wrong. Here’s a nice graph to prove it.

           — Rich_cb

           It doesn’t prove that though. It looks (hard to tell from an image of the graph) as though Territorial Emissions were about 100m tonnes lower in 2015 than in 2010, while Consumption Emissions were something like 75-80m tonnes lower. So offshoring is contributing ~20-25% of the effect.

           That’s not the majority of the reduction, but it is a sizeable chunk, and could still make it the main reason. As others have pointed out, there are a multitude of other potential contributing factors, so these could each be having a smaller effect individually than offshoring is.

           Having said that, I don’t think we can really put all the blame for offshoring externalities on the Tories – it’s a trend that’s been going on since, oh, the beginnings of Empire, and before.

         • Burt said that the “main
           Burt said that the “main reason” UK emissions have fallen under the Conservatives is off-shoring of manufacturing etc.

           That graph proves, as you rightly said, that off shoring is not the main contributor to the fall in CO2 emissions.

           I’m not sure how you can argue that something that makes up a quarter of the effect can be the “main reason”?

         • If off-shoring is 20% of the

           If off-shoring is 20% of the effect, and 8 other things are 10% each, off-shoring is the main reason, even if it’s not contributing the majority.

         • I’m not sure I would use the
           I’m not sure I would use the phrase ‘main reason’ in that way but regardless it’s not the largest contributory factor so Burt remains wrong.

         • I’m not sure that helps.

           I’m not sure that helps.

           For one thing, it doesn’t split out the effect of offshoring (which is presumaby subsumed somewhere in the factors that are considered), and since it covers a different (longer) time span to the previous graph, we don’t know how consumption-based emissions compare over this period in order to work that out.

           For another, the aggregations it does use are too broad to be useful in this context. Essentially, all changes in emissions are always going to be accounted for by those four categories. It doesn’t tell us how much was due to regulation, subsidies and incentives, new technology, increased investment, etc., etc.

         • In fairness the use of
           In fairness the use of ‘offshoring’ as a topic is far more broad than what Burt proposed.

           “The main reason that CO2 emissions have fallen in the UK is because we’ve exported the manufacturing to China”

           Offshoring of CO2 will not just cover manufacturing but things like data centres/electricity generation/food production etc etc.

           Comparing such a broad topic to other similarly broad topics seems reasonable if we’re trying to establish the ‘main’ reason for CO2 reductions.

         • I don’t disagree that it’s

           I don’t disagree that it’s hugely complex and causes are deeply intersecting. But what that basically means is that neither eburtthebike’s original claim, nor your claim to have proven it wrong, have much objective meaning or truth – the terms just aren’t clearly enough defined.

           The point about aggregation, though, isn’t that the causes are unfairly aggregated too much in that chart. It’s that it’s the wrong kind of dimension to aggregate on in the first place if you want to make this comparison. Any potential cause of emissions changes can be broken down into the factors given, including the one that you want to compare. If you choose to categorise in this way, the effect of offshoring (or any other cause) will, by definition, disappear into those categories.

           Essentially, it’s not aggregating causes, but the effects of those causes. So to try to compare those categories against offshoring (even if we agreed a definition for it) is comparing apples and oranges.

         • I’ve actually just looked at
           I’ve actually just looked at the original graph I posted again.

           It absolutely does prove Burt’s claim is wrong. Burt specifically claimed that the “main reason” for the decline in CO2 emissions was the outsourcing of manufacturing to China.

           Consumption emissions are territorial emissions plus offshored emissions.

           In 2010 consumption based emissions were 746.1 (million tonnes) and territorial emissions were 492.7. We offshored 253.4.

           In 2015 (most recent figures in graph) the figures were 656.6 and 402.5. We offshored 254.1.

           Consumption emissions fell by 89.5. Territorial emissions fell by 90.2.

           So only 0.7 million additional tonnes were off shored. The remaining 89.5 fall in emissions was as a result of changes in the UK.

           That conclusively shows that offshoring was not the ‘main reason’ for the decline.

           Source:
           https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/compendium/economicreview/october2019/thedecouplingofeconomicgrowthfromcarbonemissionsukevidence#international-trade-of-carbon-emissions

         • Well now that there are some

           Well now that there are some numbers around it, it does look highly unlikely that it’s true for those 5 years*, though not quite impossible. There are at least a couple of ways it could still be true.

           The first is straightforwardly that there are so many other causes that each of them contributed <0.7m tonnes. That would require you to identify at least 128 other causes, though, which seems improbable.

           The second is slightly more plausible. There could be reasons why, in the absence of any changes in levels of activity or where it took place, offshored emissions would have fallen by a significant amount (e.g. more efficient operations, cleaner energy, etc. in those existing offshore supply chains). In that case, we could then get rid of a hefty chunk of Territorial emissions by moving them offshore, and still only end up with this relatively small net increase.

           [*eburtthebike could still reasonably claim that the original comment wasn’t limited to just this period.]

         • The statistics only go up to
           The statistics only go up to 2017 in the most recent release and I can’t find the detail for those just the graph. So the 2015 stats are the most detailed I can find for now.

           Over the 2010-2015 period UK emissions from power generation fell by 50 million tonnes*. The offshore manufacturing would have to have made huge efficiency gains in order to outweigh that.

           In the context of an internet forum debate I think it’s safe to say Burt’s claim is disproved.

           *https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/972583/2020_Provisional_emissions_statistics_report.pdf

         • I wouldn’t quite agree to

           I wouldn’t quite agree to ‘disproved’, but I would go as far as ‘robustly rebutted’.

         • I’ll take that.
           I’ll take that.

         • The sector that the UK has

           The sector that the UK has been very effective with reducing CO2 emissions has been power generation.  This is the main area wher the UK has made reductions.

           https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_for_Gas#:~:text=The%20Dash%20for%20Gas%20was,been%20in%20decline%20since%202010.

           The UK has effectively replaced coal with gas (the ‘Dash for Gas’) reducing emissions and then grown renewables like wind to reduce still further.  This has been better than many other industrial nations.  The ‘Dash for Gas’ started in the early 90s and therefore Governments of different colours supported it.

           The UK has been less coherent so far on reductions in other areas that will have a more direct impact on individuals.  I would say that most politicians have shied away from saying that lifestyles will need to change.

         • An important thing to point

           An important thing to point out with Rich_cb’s link is that the CO2 from airlines and shipping isn’t included. I was reading somewhere else that we’ve been shutting down coal stations rather than adapting them to burn renewables (e.g. biomass) which could be a short-sighted move.

         • hawkinspeter wrote:

           An important thing to point out with Rich_cb’s link is that the CO2 from airlines and shipping isn’t included. I was reading somewhere else that we’ve been shutting down coal stations rather than adapting them to burn renewables (e.g. biomass) which could be a short-sighted move.

           — hawkinspeter

           https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984685/transport-and-environment-statistics-2021.pdf

           This is an interesting read, giving a breakdown of the fact that around 27% of the UK CO2 emissions come from domestic transport, and of that 68% come from cars and taxis.  So by my reckoning around 18% of total UK CO2 emissions come from cars and taxi’s. (circa 83 Million tonnes CO2 equivalent[MtCO2])

           And then when you add in the fact that a significant proportion of those CO2 emissions will come from short journeys of under 3 miles, journeys where ICE cars produce significantly more CO2 due to increased fuel consumption for warming up etc, you could probably come to a reasonable prediction that some 10% of GHG emissions in the UK could be removed if people would just walk or cycle those shorter journeys.

           And as an aside there was an article in the Guardian that called for a ban on domestic air travel where the same journey could be undertaken by rail in under 5 hours because of the amount of GHG emissions from domestic flights which equates to 1.5MtCO2 according to that report.  My quick maths puts the MtCO2 saving of not using cars for short journeys at somewhere between 40 to 50MtCO2.  Needless to say when that was pointed out in a well known social media platform comments section…. it did not go down well at all

       • There certainly have been

         There certainly have been reductions; it would be interesting to see some research investigating what percentage of these reductions were attributable to the following factors:

         a) Direct government action and initiatives since 2010;

         b) Initiatives and action taken before 2010;

         c) Increased shifting of previously British manufacturing overseas since 2010;

         d) EU-funded grants and initiatives prior to 2018;

         e) The effect of the quantum leap in new green technologies that have become available over the last decade that would have been adopted by individuals and industry under any government.

         Without factoring in all those variables all one can say is that emissions have reduced under the Conservative party’s decade in power, not that they have decreased as a result of same. Power projects in particular take many years to come to fruition, e.g. Hornsea One, the UK’s largest offshore windfarm, was initiated in 2009 under a Labour government but has been entirely built and come online under a Conservative government, to whom is the green credit to be attributed? Similarly the next Labour government, if any/ever, will benefit from carbon reduction initiatives introduced in the last ten years that may not come onstream until the Tories are out of power.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • Given that the Conservatives
           Given that the Conservatives have been in power now for 11 years we are well past the point that Labour can continue to claim credit for changes.

           Hornsea one being a good example. The very first part of the process to build it was agreed under the Labour government. Everything else, including the leases/subsidies etc, were agreed post 2010.

           Subsidies were crucial to early off shore wind projects and were a direct result of Conservative policy.

           On shore wind was barred from CfD bids leading to the rapid expansion of UK off shore capability which now operates without subsidy.

           I’ve already addressed the manufacturing question in my reply to Burt.

           Green technology has been available to all countries so if the UK has outperformed others, as it has, then clearly other factors are at play.

           The UK has, since 2010, been far more ambitious with climate change policies than the EU and, as a net contributor to the EU, would have financed any EU grants itself.

           Under the Conservatives the UK has genuinely been a world leader on climate change. Hopefully we can continue in the same vein at Glasgow

         • And how do all these

           And how do all these grandiose claims (from a government that is about to approve the opening of 18 new gas and oil fields in the North Sea, that refuses to block the opening of a new coal mine in Cumbria, that removed all reference to the Paris climate change goals from its trade deal with Australia, etc) sit with the statement four months ago from the Chair of the Climate Change Committee, Lord Debden (formerly John Selwyn Gummer, lifelong Conservative, former party chairman and Environment Secretary) that “[The targets] are remarkable and have set a major example [to the world]. But the policy is just not there. It’s very clear we need to step up very rapidly. If all we do is promise, other people will not take us seriously … it puts the whole process [of Cop26] into jeopardy. I rate the government 9 out of 10 on its targets but somewhere below 4 out of 10 on its efforts to meet them.” Under the Conservatives the UK has genuinely been a world leader in talking about climate change.

         • Gas and oil will be needed
           Gas and oil will be needed for a long while yet, even under a net zero regime we’ll likely still use some fossil fuels. I’d rather we had secure supplies than rely on our friends in Russia etc.

           The coal mine is for coking coal.

           It should actually reduce CO2 emissions.

           The government have set some of the world’s most ambitious targets for CO2 reduction and, you’re right, at present we are not on track to meet them but I expect a flurry of policy announcements in the coming weeks that should move us a lot closer to target.

           The UK track record since 2010 is amongst the best in the world which doesn’t really fit with your final assertion does it?

         • If the Cumbria mine is

           If the Cumbria mine is approved it is planned that 85% of its product will be exported, adding to transport emissions, helping to keep global coal prices low and so deincentivising steel producers from adopting alternative fuels. To claim that it will reduce carbon emissions is simply factually incorrect.

           But there you go, as you believe that you know better than the Chair of the Climate Change Committee I think I’ll just leave you to it.

         • Please list the current
           Please list the current viable alternatives to coking coal in new steel production at scale.

           I’ll wait.

           Where are the export markets for the coking coal? Lots of steel plants in Europe. EU currently consumes 144 million tonnes per year and produces 56 million tonnes. Cumbrian plant is predicted to produce 2.5 million tonnes per year.

           Are we nearer or further from those markets than the current source of coking coal? Australia produces the majority of the world’s coking coal exports. Much of the rest comes from USA and Canada.

           Is it more or less energy intensive to ship coal from the UK to Europe or Australia/Canada/US to Europe? I’ll leave that one for you to figure out.

         • If only we were in a single

           If only we were in a single market with those steel producers.  

         • Oh, if only the whole big bad

           Oh, if only the whole big bad world was a single market, then we wouldn’t have to be grown up and take care of our own interests. Oh, if only!

           Mummy, I want to be in a big group, please, ‘cos I just can’t take care of myself.

         • Flintshire Boy wrote:

           Oh, if only the whole big bad world was a single market, then we wouldn’t have to be grown up and take care of our own interests. Oh, if only!

           Mummy, I want to be in a big group, please, ‘cos I just can’t take care of myself.

           — Flintshire Boy

           Mummy, that man was gently taking the piss, but I don’t have a sense of humour on this subject…… it is not fair.

           

         • Sniffer wrote:

           Oh, if only the whole big bad world was a single market, then we wouldn’t have to be grown up and take care of our own interests. Oh, if only!

           Mummy, I want to be in a big group, please, ‘cos I just can’t take care of myself.

           — Sniffer

           Mummy, that man was gently taking the piss, but I don’t have a sense of humour on this subject…… it is not fair.

           

           — Flintshire Boy

           If you kids can’t play nicely, you’ll both be sent to your rooms.

         • mdavidford wrote:

           Oh, if only the whole big bad world was a single market, then we wouldn’t have to be grown up and take care of our own interests. Oh, if only!

           Mummy, I want to be in a big group, please, ‘cos I just can’t take care of myself.

           — mdavidford

           Mummy, that man was gently taking the piss, but I don’t have a sense of humour on this subject…… it is not fair.

           

           — Sniffer

           If you kids can’t play nicely, you’ll both be sent to your rooms.

           — Flintshire Boy

           Dad, he started it.

         • Dad, he started it.

           .

5. It’s a good job those

   It’s a good job those barriers and planters were there so that the demonstrators could safely stand in the road 😉

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. “Safe to say our rider
   “Safe to say our rider pocketed that”… not sure there is anything safe about it, just because you can stick a double wardrobe on your bike doesnt mean you should!

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • I initially took it for a

     I initially took it for a coffin…

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. For anyone interested, ITV4

   For anyone interested, ITV4 7pm today (monday) showing the national criterium championship highlights.

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. “Closed Minds” from mindless

   “Mind Closed” from mindless vandals.  

   Thankfully those Chinese irony meters are cheap enough to have two, but supply is becoming critical in the UK.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • eburtthebike wrote:

     “Mind Closed” from mindless vandals. 

     — eburtthebike

     Another opportunity to quote the Ranty Highwayman: “the streets are not too narrow, your minds are too narrow”.

     Log In or Register to post comments

9. Many years ago, I had a seat

   Many years ago, I had a seat post snap on me.  Luckily I was not impaled upon it, and also I was fairly near my destination so able to walk the rest of the way.  Quite a shock though – there was a ‘pop’ and suddenly my saddle was no longer attached to my bike.

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. Quote:

    More than 50,000 people waiting on cycle hangar space

    Is it right next to the country’s best cafe or something?

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • How many taxi drivers are

      How many road cyclists are there? I think it’s Rod Liddle’s fantasy:

       

      Log In or Register to post comments

11. What’s happened to HP’s crank

    What’s happened to HP’s crank thread? All I get now is a 403 error.

    Has it been degloved 😮  ?

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Thread was stripped – too

      Thread was stripped – too much talk…

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • chrisonatrike wrote:

        Thread was stripped – too much talk…

        — chrisonatrike

        

        Log In or Register to post comments

      • chrisonatrike wrote:

        Thread was stripped – too much talk…

        — chrisonatrike

        Only Monday but I think we can safely say you’ve won Road.cc this week.

        Log In or Register to post comments

    • hirsute wrote:

      What’s happened to HP’s crank thread? All I get now is a 403 error.

      Has it been degloved 😮  ?

      — hirsute

      I got an email from Mat Brett asking for some details about my crankset, so they’re most likely going to do a piece about the Ultegra/Dura-ace problems.

      And can you stop making me read the word “degloved”?

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • It doesn’t take people long

        It doesn’t take people long to realise putting ideas into my head is a bad move !

        Log In or Register to post comments

12. In fairness to the unelected

    In fairness to the unelected vandals, the “Road Closed” signs shouldn’t be there in most cases.  The roads are still open , but there is a filter point/zone through which motor vehicles may not pass.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • GMBasix wrote:

      In fairness to the unelected vandals, the “Road Closed” signs shouldn’t be there in most cases.  The roads are still open , but there is a filter point/zone through which motor vehicles may not pass.

      — GMBasix

      Well if you recall they used not to, originally there were planters and signs saying “Road open to [in symbols] wheelchairs, children, cyclists, pedestrians” but the poor drivists complained this made their brains hurt and they couldn’t figure out if this meant they were allowed in or not.

      Log In or Register to post comments

      • Rendel Harris wrote:

        Well if you recall they used not to, originally there were planters and signs saying “Road open to [in symbols] wheelchairs, children, cyclists, pedestrians” but the poor drivists complained this made their brains hurt and they couldn’t figure out if this meant they were allowed in or not.

        — Rendel Harris

        The emergency services complained about exactly what you are talking about because they were concerned that they would not be able to reach vulnerable, sick or dying people with the set up you describe. They were an immediate danger to the health and wellbeing of communities, and this was specifically fed back to Southwark Council with regard to the Dulwich LTN (check the appendices).

        Log In or Register to post comments

        • Nigel Garage wrote:

          The emergency services complained about exactly what you are talking about because they were concerned that they would not be able to reach vulnerable, sick or dying people with the set up you describe.

          — Nigel Garage

          And surely those concerns were addressed, weren’t they?

          So why are these people vandalising street furniture and intimidating councillors and residents?

          And if the idiots are so concerned about emergency services getting access to residential streets why do they insist on driving so much, causing congestion & lethal pollution and blocking the roads? Whenever I see an ambulance or fire engine going slowly with lights & sirens it’s ALWAYS because they are held up by a queue of stationary cars!

          Meanwhile you might wish to be reminded that research by Imperial College on 72 LTNs found that they were “associated with a substantial decline in road traffic injuries”. Some stats below.

          https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-travel-traffic-news-london-road-car-crash-b947328.html

          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2021/apr/23/opponents-of-ltns-claim-they-delay-emergency-services-but-look-at-the-facts

          Log In or Register to post comments

13. RE Dulwich Anti LTNers

    RE Dulwich Anti LTNers

    Log In or Register to post comments