Government continues “angry rhetoric” against low traffic neighbourhoods despite its own report showing more people support LTNs than oppose them

If its only outside schools they can pretend they didn't see it. If its standard everywhere there is no excuse. 

My commute takes me past a very popular state secondary school (that was attended by a famous rock star and has his name on one of the buildings). There are double yellow lines between the school's two main buildings, as well as zig zag lines before the pedestrian crossing that is supposed to allow kids to cross the road  safely between the buildings. And every morning I see parents at drop off time driving onto the pavement at these no parking areas. I've seen parents make sudden u-turns and then have to brake suddenly to avoid hitting kids. It's terrible.

Indeed - genuine concern for place (not placefaking) would certainly be welcome in the UK but a) it needs integrated and b) as always you're much better creating the right conditions [1] [2] [3] - then "places" will make themselves.

If we don't set the groundwork / connect this with our overall transport policy (and planning in general, including development / amenities) it's just the Office for Attractive Visualisations - helping to create visions as if we literally couldn't see all the motor traffic and parked cars, the damage that cause!  Dreams of place if there were BOTH motor vehicles AND people wandering freely through the public space, and as if more than 1% of journeys were cycled.

(Aside - anyone noticed how these visualisations- while utopian in "the pedestrian happily interacting with the driver" - tend not to have more than a scattering of cyclists?  Presumably don't want to frighten UK folks or the planners?  Where it's actually convenient to cycle you tend to see something more like this.)

chrisonabike wrote:

(Aside - anyone noticed how these visualisations- while utopian in "the pedestrian happily interacting with the driver" - tend not to have more than a scattering of cyclists? 

I have made this very point any number of times to councils and planners, pointing out that their own policies put cyclists and walkers first.  Nothing changes.

This will be because some parts of government have Ministers accepting well evidence advice from officials and external stakeholders, whilst another is pushing desperate politically driven, culture war policies!

It does seem particularly unreasonable to state that LTNs should be constantly under review.

Councils should be building an environment where active travel is prioritised, with commitment over 10 years or more, building the blocks one by one.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

It does seem particularly unreasonable to state that LTNs should be constantly under review.

The "optics" here is obviously this is meant to come across as "we're keeping a close eye on them and at the first sign it's inconveniencing people driving / collects a small noisy opposition group, we'll remove it"

...however in a more neutral sense ("evidence-based policy") I think reviewing things is generally good.  And when these have issues / they need less direct access for cars / the motor vehicle road space can be reduced appropriate changes can be done with good data and plenty evidence for skeptics.

Of course currently it tends to be either "we'll set this up to fail then monitor for as just long enough to show there are problems (but not long enough to allow traffic patterns to adjust)" or "we won't say what success looks like so we'll have this under 'experimental' status for years..."

We have LTNs here in Southampton that have been in place for decades, although they were called something different when they were put in.

Here's a thought. Instead of reviewing the roads that have been closed, why don't we review the ones that haven't to see if we really do need through traffic at 40mph+ through residential areas?

A similarity being that they both block progress.  Albeit one in a negative way.

That made me laugh as well. 

Is that over zealous enforcement of the speed limits? Oh no, 80% of drivers speed past clearly marked speed cameras if they know they aren't active so that can't be it.

Is that over zealous enforcement of parking restrictions? Oh no, every double yellow and pavement in the country is constantly covered in people's abandoned private property. 

Is that over zealous enforcement of licensing, insurance and safety of the vehicles on the road? Oh no, over 1 million people are driving on UK roads without insurance. 

"Plan for Shit Drivers"

A driver at the UK drink driving limits can get a 2 year prison sentence in France.

Drink driving is already legal in the UK.

https://www.frenchentree.com/living-in-france/driving/driving-in-france/...

Clem Fandango wrote:

At this point, the Tories are so desperate I wouldn't be surprised if they promised to legalise drink driving - the hard working motorist deserves a couple of cheeky lagers after a hard day's work after all (get back into the office by the way, our rental income is dwindling) & what's a few extra dead cyclists and pedestrians between friends?

How about a "three strikes" rule - you can kill/maim three people using your car before you face any penalties?

Only three?
I assume there'd be some way of buying your way out if you have the cash and you shout "wokerati" and "snowflakes" loudly enough?

Clem Fandango wrote:

Only three? I assume there'd be some way of buying your way out if you have the cash and you shout "wokerati" and "snowflakes" loudly enough?

Well, obviously the "penalties" are going to start off with £50 fines (£25 if paid within 2 weeks)

I've used the 'report a problem' on that government page, as it seems to be full of bullshit. 

I had to double check, I honestly thought that was a parody page