Have a quick look at the clip below. What do you see?
A group of families and residents, including lots of children, enjoying riding their bikes safely on their local roads, and having a good time with their friends and neighbours outside?
Well, not if you’re an anti-LTN activist, you don’t. You just see a bunch of “insensitive” and “entitled” people, apparently. Yep, even those smug, arrogant kids (‘the cheek of them, riding their bikes without fear of being hit by a distracted driver. The yoof of today, eh?’).
Yes, that’s right. This video of the community group ride – posted over the weekend by the Liveable Streatham Wells group, which campaigned for the introduction of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood in the London ward, a trail of which was launched by Lambeth Council at the end of October – has attracted the ire of motorists, fuming at the sight of families on bikes.
According to the council, the new traffic restrictions within the Streatham Wells LTN will “turn traffic clogged roads into spaces where people can meet and socialise” and “lead to a significant improvement in road safety, air quality, and will allow more space for people to enjoy their neighbourhoods without worrying about traffic jams and exhaust fumes.”
> “Going back is not realistic”: Councillor stresses “need to change” as Oxford LTNs made permanent – but angry residents say “we can’t get on bikes”
However, the visible workings of that policy – the sight of lots of children and their parents riding bikes – have prompted more than a few angry comments on social media.
“This must rank as one of the most insensitive videos ever posted,” the anti-LTN group Social Environmental Justice wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
“As this small group wave merrily to the cameras no thought given to the residents taking the overspill traffic, the shift worker stressed out as the bus is late, the carer or the plumber bogged down in traffic.”
Meanwhile, former Lambeth Conservative councillor Tim Briggs – who, it was revealed in 2016, failed to declare that he was the owner of a “tenant eviction specialist” firm which boasted that it had a “near 100 percent record” in repossessing homes for landlords – described the organisers of the group bike ride of having an “astonishing sense of entitlement at the expense of others”.
Others, meanwhile, relied upon the good old tropes of cycling bingo, such as the classic ‘Sure it’s easy to ride your bike when it’s lovely and sunny in, errrr, the middle of November’:
While Liz said that she was “concerned to see cyclists as a community group not abiding by the rules of the road in this video”, and ‘jc’ described the cyclists – yes, even the children – as a “weird cult, all going nowhere in particular”.
> “Extreme, undemocratic, and dangerous”: Council scraps majority of low traffic neighbourhoods – despite “overwhelming” public support for cycling and walking schemes
Needless to say, the frothing response was ridiculed by cyclists far and wide.
“That this wonderful video (of children enjoying a cycle ride on a safe, low-traffic road) is the content that riles anti-LTNers says everything about their campaign. Well done, Liveable Streatham Wells, you've already won the argument.”
“Honestly, what kind of society do we live in that people would criticise children cycling? An utter disgrace,” a London-based 20mph speed limit campaigner added.
Meanwhile, the organisers of the group responded to Social Environmental Justice’s tweet by simply labelling it “embarrassing”.
While cycling lawyer Rory McCarron posted a video of an entirely different community activity – a demonstration organised by those opposed to the Streatham Wells LTN – showing one of the campaigners driving and using their horn… while holding a mobile phone in their hand.
What was that about “entitlement”?
Add new comment
70 comments
I'm pretty sure that's frowned upon, Mr Thay…
Motorists always seem to be very quick off the mark to accuse other road users of being "entitled"…
I seem to recall that reversing on to a major road from an access point was an offence.
When did that change?
Was it when the Tories decided to ignore the rule of law?
That's very unfair - after all, they only ignored the rule of law in very specific and limited ways
Well, they seem to want to repeat it by ignoring the Supreme Court's Rwanda judgement…
"Of course Rwanda is safe! We've passed a law saying that it is safe!
And by the way, we're going to pass another law defining pi as 3.2 and another saying that cats are really a kind of dog."
It was Indiana that almost legislated for π to be 3.2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill)
However, π can be thought of as one of a series of values depending on what metric you use and strangely we have the lowest possible value for various p-norms
https://azeemba.com/posts/pi-in-other-universes.html
What's the value of pi? When and where are you asking?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_computation_of_%CF%80
I know, Peter: I read that recently in a comment piece about the Rwanda law. It just served the purposes of my attempt at humour…
It isnt an offence but the (very sensible) advice is to reverse in/forward out where possible. In an ideal world driving in and turning round would be the best bet but who has the room for that.
Reversing from a side road is a 'do not'.
It's a do not so not an offence. If a collision occurs the individual reversing would possibly be charged. It just become lazy and acceptable driving. In the same way you should only use sidelights in the urban environment unless there's no streetlighting and the default setting has now become headlights. I've found that headlights actually camouflage pedestrians and cyclists due to the dazzle especially with LED lights that are retrofitted or are on SUVs. When driving I've had people flash me while I'm on sides even though I can see perfectly where I'm going. Headlights only come on when I get to the motorway or NSL.
How is reversing out across a cycle lane any more dangerous than reversing out into a busy road (especially as re erasing out is contrary to the HWC, anyway)?
Next time the wild horses drag me back to Coventry, I'm tempted to go and have a look, as it does seem like good infrastructure.
Just constant excuses from car, van, lorry drivers as to why they can't just drive without crashing into people. And you're right the highway code recommends reversing into your driveway if you live on a busy road so you can emerge facing forwards.
Something to make us in the Celtic isles cry - NL is having an election, and pretty much every party's election manifesto features cycling and their promises on how they'll make daily cycling (even) better in NL. Wielerflits has an overview (dutch): https://www.indeleiderstrui.nl/wielrennen/verkiezingen-op-komst-wat-will...
To give you a flavour, D66 are campaigning on cycle routes in "woon wijken" (liveable communities) just not being enough - they say there should also be mountainbike trails!
"De middenpartij heeft het als enige van de zes grootst ingeschatte partijen ook nog specifiek over de mountainbike, wanneer het ontwerpen van een woonwijk ter sprake komt. 'Met alleen maar parkeerplaatsen en bushaltes? Of juist met fietspaden, wandelroutes en skeeler- en mountainbikeroutes? Wij kiezen voor het laatste.'"
"The middle party is the only one of the six largest parties with specific goals about the mountain bike, when the design of a residential area is discussed. 'With just parking lots and bus stops? Or with cycle paths, hiking trails and inline and mountain bike trails? We choose the latter.""
Would those manifestos count as a real "war on motorists"?
The VVD - the dutch conservatives - want to ensure there are super-cycle-highways between all public transport hubs, and of course conservatives are better at maintaining stuff :
"Daarbij komt ook dat de VVD graag 'supersnelle fietspaden' tussen grote ov-knooppunten wil bouwen. 'Bestaande fietspaden onderhouden we beter', zo valt te lezen. 'Een gezond, sportief en fit Nederland' is een belangrijke pijler binnen het programma.
"In addition, the VVD would like to build 'supersfast cycle paths' between large public transport junctions. ' We maintain existing cycle path s better ' , we read . 'A healthy, sporty and fit Netherlands' is an important pillar of the programme."
It's not all roses in NL though, the PVV - Geert Wilders nationalist party - has _no_ words about cycling!
Ah - the Nationalists are showing how extreme they are!
What I find telling is that in the UK, if we think cycling it's almost all "recreation"*. A nice to have, if we can afford it - which we probably can't. Even if it's only a muddy track somewhere through wasteland which people tip their rubbish in. Outside of that? Probably their are some oddballs who commute (MAMILs).
In NL cycling is just a normal mode of transport (for all), for all purposes of course - BUT they don't forget the joy!
Cycling to - and through - museums [1] [2].
Tunnels improved with art or poetry.
Tracks for cycling in the countryside certainly exist of course, and there are even some specific "cycling attractions" (Belgium this time) [3] [4].
Somewhere in NL even built a hill for cycling!
* Of course - in the UK we know better - driving cars is serious business, the engine that drives the economy ... except that a large percentage of trips are actually categorised as "leisure". (This category looks to have disappeared in the 2022 survey though?)
With regards to the anti-LTN folk, I can only say that Envy is their Sin.
The anti-LTN folk of Streatham seem to forget that Streatham High Rd and Green Lane have been jammed with traffic at peak periods for years. I should know. I stopped driving to training in the car that way years ago. I use two wheels instead.
Absolutely, back in the days when we had a car, even twenty years ago, long before LTNs were a glint in a tofu-eating wokerati's eye, we would happily take a five-mile detour rather than go down Streatham High Road at rush hour, it was a guaranteed one hour to get two miles nightmare.
I'm sorry, but after the reaction to ULEZ (where people are being asked to comply with emissions standards that 90% of cars already meet in order to stop poisoning children) and the Welsh 20mph zones (where drivers are being asked to lift the pedal in their motorised armchairs a few mm, in areas where you'd struggle to do 30mph anyway) British drivers have completely lost the right to call anyone else "entitled".
Not that they had much basis for makign that statement in the first place, mind you...
Why are they reversing out of their driveways? I thought it was common sense to reverse into driveways as you have better visibility to reverse safely and better visibility when you drive back out. It always strikes me as really dumb when I see drivers reversing into a main road.
I came here to say exactly this.
It frustrates me when I see my neighbours cars parked nose first in their driveway. I know some of them don't even bother parking in their driveway, because it is so difficult to see when reversing out onto the road. Means their driveway is empty and their car is on the road making it difficult to see for everyone else...
I'd love to be able to reverse on to my drive. Unfortunately my opposite neighbour always leaves one of their three vehicles parked directly opposite my drive making it very difficult to get in. One of the first things they did when they moved in was to convert their garage into a utility room. Winds me up no end.
Doesn't that cause a problem when reversing out as well though?
It does, I find it easier reversing out though but I have to park my car at an angle to do it.
Sounds like you need a turntable in your driveway
This frustrates me as well. Also when I stop and put the car into reverse to get into a parking bay/driveway or to parallel park the following driver closes the gap to the point I've to either drive round the block or find another parking space. Makes me grateful that my preferred mode of transport is two wheels as motorists are so intolerable to each other as well as to cyclists.
Pages