Comedian Joe Lycett’s Channel 4 show has been criticised for suggesting that some councils’ main motivation for implementing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods is to raise money by fining motorists.
In the piece, the ‘Joe Lycett’s Got Your Back Show’ visited one Low Traffic Neighbourhood in Parsons Mead to demonstrate how ‘easy’ it was for motorists to be unknowingly fined.
Comedian and writer Sophie Duker, who was presenting the segment, started by admitting she didn’t know what the signage denoting the low traffic neighbourhood zone meant.
She said: “I last passed a theory test in the noughties so I don’t know what this (sign) is.”
After meeting a ‘local hero’ and anti-LTN campaigner who admitted being fined multiple times for breaking the rules, the presenter then starts warning motorists approaching the zone that if they don’t have a Broad Green permit they face a fine of £65 for driving through.
This takes the biscuit! ? #GotYourBack @joelycett @sophiedukebox pic.twitter.com/YqpumpdLod
— Channel 4 (@Channel4) August 26, 2021
The show then looked at how much money councils were ‘putting away’ in fines from motorists breaking the new laws.
Duker then went to Croydon Council’s offices to ‘put signs up fining people for doing things they have always done for years and years’, in order to serve ‘justice’.
Cycling campaign groups were quick to respond to the claims made in the show with many taking to Twitter to voice their feelings.
Croydon Cycling Campaign wrote: “What ‘takes the biscuit’ is that you haven’t reported the following facts: Locals are exempt; Croydon Council gives 3 free permits to households inside the zone. People who live outside the area can still drive into it, just not rat run through it.”
Another local cycling safety group described the segment as ‘shameful’.
They commented: “This is so shameful. Should we just disregard the law just because we feel like it?
“Comparing using a phone when waiting for someone on foot with curbing a behaviour (ratrunning) that is deeply damaging to people’s health and wellbeing is deeply misinformed. Shame on you.”
Hi Sophie, there seems some confusion about what Low Trafgic Neighbourhoods do. Here is @GreenpeaceUK with a great explainer on why they are a good thing. https://t.co/HEVVktWvNL
— Jono Kenyon (@Jono_Kenyon) August 27, 2021
The Independent’s Policy Correspondent Jon Stone also weighed in on the argument.
He said: “If you don’t know what road signs mean then please don’t drive a car.
“The claim that councils are doing LTNs for the fine money is a conspiracy theory.
“The programme made no effort to present the rationale for the scheme or any alternative point of view at all.”
> Department for Transport say councils must give walking and cycling schemes time
Channel 4 has been contacted for comment.
37 thoughts on “Joe Lycett’s Channel 4 show criticised for promoting anti-LTN ‘conspiracy theory’”
Obviously you only need a
Obviously you only need a permit if you’re on a low flying motorbike, the sign says so
Just another arsehole with a
Just another arsehole with a platform selfishly perpetuating the ‘drivers as victims’ line, which of course is a complete lie.
Wanker.
Simon E wrote:
What else is a “comedian” to do when they have run out of intelligent material?
Joe Lycett never ran out of
Joe Lycett never ran out of intelligent comedy material. He has never had any. Ever. His performance as host of British Sewing Bee is shameful (I know – the wife watches it!). It’s puerile, smutty garbage that is utterly devoid of comedic value.
What do you mean run out?
What do you mean run out? That implies there was some in the first place.
Even people who are anti-LTN
Even people who are anti-LTN must have watched that and thought everyone involved was clueless.
If she has no idea what that
If she has no idea what that sign is or can’t even deduce what it is, I hope she has stopped driving.
I managed about 2 minutes of that drivel.
LAs make money out of motorists – well obviously the ones that don’t do the basics or can’t be arsed to walk half a mile, or have plenty of money and are happy to pay the fine.
Since the drivers they stopped were not locals why were they taking that route and not the flyover one?
I know, she literally starts
I know, she literally starts the segment with “I don’t know what that road sign means”. Fuck off the roads then until you learn it. Ignorance is not a defence.
“crossing this invisible line
“crossing this invisible line in the road / an invisible checkpoint” – but it’s not invisible. There is signage telling you that in general, no motor vehicles are allowed. How is that an invisible checkpoint?
I’m actually impressed that
I’m actually impressed that 95% of comments are about the piss-poor attempts of the show with the road sign knowledge and “invisible” barriers. First of all, if actual physical barriers were put up, the Anti_LTN people would be moaning that the barriers were blocking access to locals and Emergency services.
But main take away is every road sign is pretty much an invisible barrier. If you go past a change of speed sign, there is not a gate to force you to drop to that speed. Traffic lights don’t have a physical barrier to stop you when on red.
Traffic lights don’t have a
Traffic lights don’t have a physical barrier to stop you when on red
In Lancashire, there’s no psychological barrier either!
Clear breach of broadcasting
Clear breach of broadcasting standards: booking Joe Lycett for this or any other comedy programme, when he has proved throughout his career that he is not funny.
You beat me to it. I’m sure
You beat me to it. I’m sure the word ‘funny’ must feature as an essential requirement somewhere in the job description for the post of ‘Comedian’,
Lady holding a letter says
Lady holding a letter says “they keep sending the same thing”, obviously hasn’t read the road signs and twigged why.
That’s interesting.
That’s interesting.
One article today states that councils are so starved of money that they can’t perform basic functions like fixing potholes.
Then a second article states that councils using LTNs as a moneyspinner to provide cash is s “conspiracy theory”.
Funny old world.
No it doesn’t
No it doesn’t.
Nigel is frequently misleading on this subject.
Nigel the liar keeping up
Nigel the liar keeping up form? Surely not !
Didn’t he announce he left the forum for good ?
hirsute wrote:
Yep, then changed his username twice, then got suspended for abuse, then came back under his original moniker…sad really.
And Nigel the liar should not
And Nigel the liar should not be responding to you , as he said he would ignore people who were offensive towards him.
hirsute wrote:
Yeah, I like to think I’ve put the hours in!
Money spinner
Money spinner
One that relies on people being facking stoopid
Joe Lycett is most excellent
Joe Lycett is most excellent at trolling though…
But not so good at strolling.
But not so good at strolling. Can he not walk that far?
Sriracha wrote:
not even relevant. People who live in the zone will have the BG permit. People accessing the zone from outside will presumably learn to enter from the correct side.
The only situation where a 2mile diversion occurs is when a delivery driver (such as hermes or Tesco) needs to make deliveries on both sides on the line.
It’s all pretty
It’s all pretty straightforward: this Channel 4 ‘programme’ is by morons for morons. It’s the same as the Express and Mail going on and on about road tax and cycle lanes causing traffic jams. There is no arguing with people this dim- all you can do is enforce the LTNs and just keep collecting the fines.
“I last passed a theory test
“I last passed a theory test in the noughties so I have no idea what this sign means…”
Hand your flaming licence in then!! I last passed a theory test in the 90s and I understand what the flaming sign means without having to watch the rest of the drivel! If you can’t understand a basic no vehicles sign, then you shouldn’t be on the road.
“I last passed a theory test
“I last passed a theory test in the noughties so I have no idea what this sign means…”
I don’t know when the motor vehicles prohibited sign was introduced, but I’m pretty sure it predated the noughties, as does the speed camera sign. Anything else on the sign is quite self explanatory. There is simp,y no justification for failing to know what the sign means.
The fact that drievrs are being caught shows that
a) drivers don’t know their highway code roadsigns
B) drivers think the rukes don’t apply to them
C) drivers are not paying attention when they are driving.
Seriously, whose fault is that?
That signage has been
That signage has been standard since the 1960s, as I understand it. It’s simple – a red circle means that whatever is in the circle is banned. Hence speed limit signs are red circle.
I think it is 60% answer A, 30% answer C, 10% answer B.
I passed my car test and
I passed my car test and motorcycle test 10 years prior to Sophie. I know what the sign means. Maybe she just didn’t pay enough attention?
I’m not sure the problem is
I’m not sure the problem is so much attention – more likely retention. Most people tend to view knowing the Highway Code not so much as a prerequisite for being competent to drive, but as a requirement for passing the test. Once they’ve got their licence it’s just so much superfluous information that they can cheerfully forget.
You’re right, retention is
You’re right, retention is probably the issue with people not knowing off the top of their head but abandoning the ability to decipher simple signs is the sort of thing that means they should not be in command of two tonnes of steel.
Let’s assume someone has forgotten what many specific signs mean, surely as long as they retain some sort of knowledge and are willing to think they ought still to be able to decipher them. In this case, whatever the things are in the red circle are prohibited – even if you have never seen a red circle with a car and a motorcycle in it, it’s work-out-able. Then there’s a sentence saying what permits will mean you are exempt from the no access – you don’t need to have heard of a BG permit to know that you don’t have one, so again it’s simple. The last image is of a camera – I’m pretty sure most people know that this means it’s enforced by camera (rather than a physical barrier, which they seem to think a-lack-of causes all manner of confusion) but again, what would your guess be.
given the overall style of
given the overall style of this segment of the show, I cant bring myself to watch the whole thing to see if its all like it, just think of who the target audience really is.
Panorama, even modern Panorama, this very much aint, it feels like a very young adult orientated show and it feels like a scripted exchange to get across information in a “made for tv” stylee to viewers who maybe havent even sat a driving test of any kind yet, so would relate to a tv presenter host saying gee I dont know what this sign means please nice mr interviewee who thinks driving 2miles extra is a bad thing, can you explain it to me.
So Sophie is doing a bike
So Sophie is doing a bike related charity gig.
https://m.facebook.com/TheBikeProjectUK/photos/a.150650591764566/1939574002872207/?type=3
I wonder if they know her views on LTNs?
I saw she was appearing too.
I saw she was appearing too. I’ve supported The Bike Project for a while and have attended Jokes for Spokes via zoom during lockdown year. Also, I’ve just persuaded our flats to donate abandoned bikes from our communal bike store to the project. Sophie Duker’s participation in that nonsense report doesn’t sit right at all.
Most of the comments here
Most of the comments here appear to be entirely devoid of understanding how people actually cogntively function.
The majority of driving or any other task is conducted by habit and by doing what everybody else does. Compliance for most road features is heavily re-inforced by the behaviour of other users, try disobeying traffic lights or driving on the right.
An LTN enforced by cameras has the issues of being relatively novel and also that most of the other cars will be proceeding straight through the signs without slowing down at all, in fact slowing down to read and/or digest the sign would put the road user at odds with other users.
As a real world example of this see bus lanes, people are generally afraid to drive in them even if the sign tells them that they are not active if nobody else is driving in the lane.
Given the novelty and the stated intent of enforcement not revenue raising it would make a lot more sense to send a first time infraction a leaflet rather than a fine.
Oh and is there a plan to “cancel” Sophie for not being team bike… seriously
massive4x4 wrote:
You appear to be entirely devoid of understanding how people actually cogntively function….
Your suggestion that first
Your suggestion that first time offenders get a leaflet rather than a fine is a lot harsher than what usually happens in South London.
None of the LTNs in my area were enforced by camera initially – just planters in most cases and signs in others. A significant minority of drivers ignored the signs and passed between the planters in the wrong direction. But most people understood or followed the signs; even if, as you suggest, they were novel or on a regular rat-running route of theirs that they follow out of habit.
After five months, cameras were installed* but not switched on. There were more signs added about the cameras. This reduced through-traffic further, but still a minority continued to ignore the signs and now did so at greater speeds. After another month, the cameras were switched on but offenders were sent warning letters rather than fines. Then finally after two weeks of letters, they began to issue fines and even then, first-time offenders were issued with a letter. In effect, offenders were given a six month grace period, plus warning letters rather than fines and eventually fines. It seems like an overly reasonable length of time to adjust to a new route layout.
*Re the introduction of cameras: Originally planters were closer together to dissuade speeding traffic. However as LTNs have been subject to ongoing live consultation, planters were widened or removed and cameras introduced at the request of the London Fire Brigade, to ensure emergency vehicles could pass through certain roads at speed should they need to. Hence the widening of gaps or removal of physical barriers, alongside even more signs to make sure you cannot possibly miss that there are cameras. So you’re correct, there was no intention for LTNs to be revenue raising – and the people who claim they are could easily outwit councils by not ignoring the multiple, huge, easily understandable signs.