Parents of children attending a primary school in Worcester, where children riding their bikes have been put in danger by motorists using a narrow, nearby lane as a shortcut, have established their own guerilla School Street by blocking both ends of the road at school pick-up times, in response to the “horrendous” road safety conditions in the area.
However, the local county council’s cabinet member for transport has criticised the parents’ unofficial actions, which he claims has seen them take “the law and road safety into their own hands, effectively blockading a road without a permit and without permission”.
First #schoolstreet trial day @StGeorgesRCWorc today = 99.99% of positive feedback from parents and residents with some of them helping out. Here’s Thorneloe walk spared from the cut through traffic this pm ?THANK YOU EVERYONE ??@WorcsTravel @mikerouseuk @BikeWorcester pic.twitter.com/SpJRWYJSRO
— Froggybelle (@Froggybelle2) June 26, 2023
Road safety issues have long been a source of frustration and concern for teachers and parents at St George’s Roman Catholic, a small primary school in Worcester. Tucked away, as one parent tells road.cc, on the corner “where a narrower road meets an even narrower lane”, the school has been the sight of numerous near misses involving motorists and children cycling and walking to school.
“There is no room for a pavement, pedestrians and bikes have to squeeze along the side wall to make way for a car, it’s even worse when a van passes,” Isabelle, a resident who has walked her children to school for many years along Thorneloe Walk, the scene of most of the road safety issues, and a volunteer with the school’s Bike Bus, tells road.cc.
“Vehicles reaching the corner of the Walk have to perform a three (or more) point manoeuvre there, which is also the main entrance to school for children on foot/bike/scooters. You can imagine the mayhem at school times!
“The brick wall opposite the school gate has been knocked down twice, and temporary boarding now makes the corner even narrower.”
Isabelle says that there have been several attempts by the school to address the safety issues over the past decade, including weekly ‘bike to school’ initiatives, warnings to parents not to use Thorneloe Walk if travelling by car, and attempts to monitor parking and driving in the area by the council.
An attempt in 2020 to set up a School Street, an initiative adopted throughout Great Britain in recent years which restricts the use of motor vehicles outside schools at drop-off and pick-up times, applying to both school and through traffic, was met with a lacklustre response from Worcestershire County Council, which Isabelle says left parents “completely discouraged”.
> Councils across England ignoring government advice to roll out School Streets
After the brick wall on the lane was knocked down again last November, a petition to install bollards or create a School Street received over 200 signatures within a week – only for the petitioners to be told by the council that their expectations were “unrealistic”.
Footage from one of our bike bus routes to @StGeorgesRCWorc #Worcester. Thorneloe Walk is currently used as a shortcut by drivers at school pickup time ⚠️ Can we get any help from @WorcsTravel to stop this? @mikerouseuk @MelAllcott @BikeWorcester pic.twitter.com/LCpNHFVHvP
— Froggybelle (@Froggybelle2) June 24, 2023
The issue again came to a head last week, when the closure of a main road next to the school, due to a burst water pipe, prompted many drivers to begin using Thorneloe Walk as a short cut.
“Within hours, the traffic through Thorneloe Walk, which is normally bad, became horrendous,” Isabelle, who posted a video on Twitter of the chaotic traffic situation as the Bike Bus attempted to make it to school, says.
“Lorries tried to squeeze through, then had to reverse, cars came head to head from both ends of the walk. All of this in the midst of children.
“It became evidence for us – the county council has not helped the community for over 10 years, the likelihood of an accident was at that point higher than ever. We needed to act and make our voices heard!”
Parents have taken the matter into their own hands this morning.@theJeremyVine @mikerouseuk pic.twitter.com/8KkgmPvNKC
— SHIFT (@goSHIFTscheme) June 26, 2023
On Monday, several parents, clad in hi-vis jackets, set up their own School Street on the lane, to allow their children to walk and cycle to and from school safely.
“It is quite simple to set up: you need a barrier, cones, people, hi-vis, a clipboard for that official look, some leaflets to explain your action and school streets principles, and a smiley face,” Isabelle says.
“We are lucky to have had support from our local city councillors and from Bike Worcester, which is a pressure group promoting active travel within the city.”
She continues: “The amount of positive feedback has been overwhelming. Parents and residents are thanking us every day for taking a stand. I was particularly touched by parents standing in solidarity with us and sharing their horror story of seeing their child nearly run over by the school.”
Second day of our #schoolstreet trial @StGeorgesRCWorc ? Strong feelings of support and togetherness as people stop to share stories of near-misses and incidents from the past. This photo is from a local resident – school gate right behind lorry?? pic.twitter.com/XWDvmfjhrQ
— Froggybelle (@Froggybelle2) June 27, 2023
The parent’s action, the necessity of which was underlined yesterday morning when a lorry driver crashed into a wall on Thorneloe Road, adjacent to the makeshift School Street, has garnered support from several local politicians, including Green Party city councillor Karen Lewing.
“School Streets are popping up around the country, but the county council does not yet have a policy. They say they are working on one but they’re not working as fast as we would like,” she said this week.
The initiative was also praised on Twitter by broadcaster and cycling campaigner Jeremy Vine, who said that “we need to move away from the idea that people who own large metal boxes get priority over the rest of us just because they have an accelerator pedal. It’s nuts.”
However, not everyone is fully behind the unofficial School Street.
Councillor Mike Rouse, cabinet member with responsibility for Highways and Transport at Worcestershire County Council, criticised the parents and residents for taking matters into their own hands.
“I cannot condone campaigners taking the law and road safety into their own hands, effectively blockading a road without a permit and without permission,” he tweeted. “We need to work together to effect change, not force our ideas onto communities without being certain that they’ve consented.”
He continued in a statement: “School Streets and similar initiatives need the support of the school and the local community together in order to become formalised and be successful in the long term.
“School Streets are just one way of encouraging active travel by walking and cycling to and from our schools, we have also achieved this in areas around the county by installing crossing points, and dropping nearby kerbs to allow easier access to do this.
“Where actions like [those at St George’s] have happened elsewhere we see a rise in community tensions, so we call on all those involved to work with us constructively and not to take the law and road safety into their own hands.”
> Children take to the barricades to save School Street
Nevertheless, Isabelle says the success of the makeshift School Street has led to talk that the county council will soon begin to actively promote the initiative, with guidance reportedly being prepared by the Highways department.
“We do hope that the safety of children and their families on the way to school will finally become a priority in Worcestershire,” she says.




-1024x680.jpg)


















116 thoughts on ““We needed to act”: Parents set up unofficial guerrilla School Street after several near misses for children cycling on narrow road used as shortcut by motorists”
Disgraceful that it had to
Disgraceful that it had to come to that, but way to go those good folks!
Hopefully this leads to meaningful change for them.
You’d think the name is a bit
You’d think the name is a bit of a giveaway: Thorneloe WALK
The councillor says
The councillor says
““School Streets are just one way of encouraging active travel by walking and cycling to and from our schools, we have also achieved this in areas around the county by installing crossing points, and dropping nearby kerbs to allow easier access to do this.”
Well, I know there are massive lorries thundering passed the school gates, mounting the pavement, but we lowered some kerbs, so I don’t know what you are complaining about
Has the councillor ever thought that maybe, just maybe, that attitude is the problem here?
Quote:
Sums it up really, the default mindset that space for motorists comes as a first priority, then vulnerable road users if there is any space left over.
The revisions to the Highway Code surely imply that this imperative should be reversed. First put in a pavement fit for purpose, then if there’s room add a proper cycle lane, finally look to squeezing in passage for motor vehicles if there’s room left over, if appropriate – rat runs and cut-throughs aren’t.
Our streets minds are too
Our
streetsminds are too narrow.Worth a look on streetview – I can’t work out how this ever became an access route for what is clearly more than a handful of properties. But not just that – it’s a through road! Open both ends. (Possibly just because drivers might get their cars stuck otherwise). Not one way either according to Streetview.
But… then I looked at Worcester. A small town, flattish, would be ideal size for walking and cycling around. Which would suit e.g. tourism. Oh – it’s horse country, hmm. Let’s look at the main road… nevermind.
As a Worcester resident (and
As a Worcester resident (and who grew up just around the corner from this school and used to cycle past to get to my school) I can confirm that the council are MASSIVELY anti cyclist. Recently there was a proposal to remove three, THREE, on road car park spaces for bike parking and the local paper comments went mental.
Not sure about “flatish” – we’re in the river valley so a lot of the city is either up or over the valley so to speak. Check out Tolladine Road as a major route towards some main housing areas.
Irrespective of the intent of
Irrespective of the intent of the action, it is illegal to block a highway. Just because you don’t agree with something doesn’t make it ok to break the law.
Also, if you know something is dangerous and you keep doing it, particularly as you have children with you, isn’t that reckless endangerment?
If official channels don’t work, get over it and change your behaviour to ensure the safety of yourself and your children. But you have equal rights, I hear you bleat. You can’t exercise your rights if you are dead.
So no one is allowed to walk
So no one is allowed to walk to school.
If you know something is dangerous – you mean driving along a narrow road by choice when you know vulnerable road users are there ?
And do you really think that
And do you really think that road is suitable for traffic? Really?
Keep em coming
Keep em coming
BigDoodyBoy wrote:
Thanks, I hope you’ll offer the same advice to LTN protesters …
Or historically, to
Or historically, to suffragettes and the civil rights movement….
Whether something is illegal
Whether something is illegal or not is not the final arbiter of whether it is ethical or moral.
“Councillor Mike Rouse,
“Councillor Mike Rouse, cabinet member with responsibility for Highways and Transport at Worcestershire County Council, criticised the parents and residents for taking matters into their own hands.”
What does he expect when the council takes no action? Councils and police forces across the country that fail to enforce legislation can expect a lot more of this.
We can see evidence of this inaction when police put up signs such as “Thieves operate in this area” which actually means “Police cannot be bothered to operate in this area”.
Of course the irony is some
Of course the irony is some of, if not the worse driving, comes from parents dropping their crotch goblins off at school.
That’s part of the whole
That’s part of the whole problem of people not being able to see the common good, only their own immediate advantage. But these people have at least the excuse of caring about the safety of their children (to use a more civilised term), even if it is extremely shortsighted.
Someone who should know better though is a “County Councillor for Highways and Transport”, especially since the complaints about that place are not a recent phenomenon. For him acting for the common good is not optional.
When it comes to parents
When it comes to parents there is more selfishness than any common good. Our local school has had to install CCTV after a number of kids have been injured by other parents driving. Near to my parents the road becomes outright dangerous at home time as there are two schools along the road. The pavement and junctions are blocked by parents parked up and the main road narrowed to the point of gridlock if anything like a bus tries to get throgh.
As cyclists we know better
As cyclists we know better than most that this “selfishness” is hugely compounded by expressing itself through 2 tonne (and more) metal boxes driven at high speeds.
But that is so normalised that even you consider it “a given” (see your latest comment above and my answer to it).
That’s why we here, having most of us the advantage of being quite well informed on these matters, have got to recognise the *systemic* nature of the problems riddling our mobility. Individual daily assessments of (percieved) risk and the immediate answer to them (most of the time: use a car) are just the outcome of far larger dynamics at play. In a society were car use (and in a larger context, fossil fuel use) is just totally baked in, it is that fact and the dire consequences stemming from it that needs to be at the forefront of every discussion.
It is a “given” beacause in
It is a “given” beacause in reality, in the real world, for many public transport is not an option, nor is cycling. You can pretend all you like that that isn’t the case but it simply is. The issue is when roads for cars alone is the sole focus. I think you are confusing being “informed” with “bias” and an unrelenting myopic view.
The fossil fuel arguement, especial with respect to cars is largely moot since there is an increasing shift towards elctrification. Audi plan to be seeling EVs only in 2026, Alfa in 2027 as an example. Two brands steeped in motorsport and tradition.
Your discussion with that
Your discussion with that councillor will be very short, as you will quickly discover that you finally share the same views.
It’s pretty ironic that you qualify my views as shortsighted, especially if you really think that EVs are a solution to anything let alone the problems we’re concerned with in this thread.
You decided to digress to the
You decided to digress to the fossil fuel argument as opposition to motor vehicles. Like it or not EVs render that a moot point. The issue is the continuation of creating infrastructure that has a sole purpose for motor vehicles, and any infrastructure for cycling having no joined up thinking. That’s what I am dealing with and foccusing on. I am also not blind to the fact that in this area (and many others) we have a lacklustre public transport system, unreliable trains and bus service that isn’t fit for purpose, hence cars are here to stay.
“You decided to digress”
“You decided to digress”
No I didn’t. Read what I’ve written. And we could even widen the debate to use of ressources in general, all of which is part of the systemic problem I tried to render you attentive to.
EVs are a solution to keep
EVs are a solution to keep the car industry going. Their current policy being selling cars to people don’t need them with financing that they can’t afford.
As is often you are taking an
As is often you are taking an extreme example, but anyway the current finance deal on a Fiat 500E is £329/month.
Current cost of a season ticket for me would be £4532 which works out at £377/month.
The question should be why is public transport so expensive and unreliable as to make it impossible for many to not own a car.
Regardless, EVs have been around long enough now that their cost is coming down new and is comprable to ICE powered vehicles, and there is now a second hand market. So no, not everyone is financing an expensive electric car.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I agree that public transport prices are far too high but your comparison is hardly fairly balanced: I believe you commute into central London, do you not, so using a car would cost you £300 a month in congestion charges, assuming a 40 mile round-trip each day at least £150 a month in fuel, add in vehicle excise duty, insurance, maintenance costs, depreciation you’d be looking at nearer £1000 a month to use the car for commuting.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yes I commute “into” London from “outside” London. My response was to the “hardly fairly balanced” idea that everyone who drives is financing an expensive car and giving a real world comparison of public transport. You have similar costs trying to use public transport outside of London where there isn’t a congestion charge.
Now consider my sister who works relatively locally, where public transport isn’t viable. She owns secondhand Hyundai i20. Or consider my partner who drives our car (which is financed for less than I would pay on a season ticket) to work. He actually did try using the train and bus once and it was utterly unworkable.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Plus whatever the next Govt adds to the annual costs of EVs to replace the £2500 or so they need to replace revenue from ICE cars.
Characteristically, the current Govt have put that off until after the next Election.
The finance on new cars is
The finance on new cars is 17Bn, 92% of new cars are financed, average package is 24 or 25k.
Hardly “extreme”. Seems rather you are using something from either end of the scales.
“The question should be why is public transport so expensive and unreliable as to make it impossible for many to not own a car.”
And this car has to be new because ?
(and how many people actually own their car ?)
“The finance on new cars is
“The finance on new cars is 17Bn, 92% of new cars are financed, average package is 24 or 25k.”
And your point is? I gave you the more realistic monthy cost that people have to factor in if they choose to buy a car on finance.
My example is the cost to me if I have to go back to work 5 days a week, hardly an extreme, it is the reality of anyone commuting by train living a relatively short distance. 30 miles in my case.
Feel free to point our where I said a car has to be new? I actually pointed out that there is a second hand car market.
I gave you the headline
I gave you the headline numbers to support my previous comment on the car industry selling cars to people.
You chose £300 with a bottom of the market car ( and which is a new car).
The realist figure is the 24 or 25 k debt package.
So you are being deliberatly
So you are being deliberatly disengenous now?
You acted as though every car owner has taken on a large finance package beyond their means. I have mentioned the second hand car market growing for EVs and that many if not most are actually not burding themselves with unnafordable finance, and gave an example of the cost of public transport being equally high.
A fiat 500E is not bottom of the market, that would be your Dacia/MG etc. A 500 is one of the most popular city cars and purchased widely. It is you choosing to ignore this in an attempt to shore up your weak arguement against EVs.
Adam Sutton wrote:
In a country where approximately 50% of our electricity is still generated by fossil fuels, electric vehicles don’t exactly render the “fossil fuel argument” moot.
In a country where only about
In a country where only about 1.5% of the vehicles on the road are EV’s its utterly self defeating to be hairshirtist and absolutist about the role EV’s have to place in a decarbonising economy. Like it or not, bitch about tyre particulates or not, along with active travel, revewable energy etc – EV’s have a place.
Playing who can piss higher up the eco wall helps no-one and is a distraction from the utter imperative of decarbonising in a way that makes the majority of the voting population go along with it.
Problem is there needs to be
Problem is there needs to be joined up thinking and that is something missing, especially in politics today.
Good job I was doing none of
Good job I was doing none of that whatsoever then. All I did was point out that electric vehicles in the current situation of energy supply in the UK will be responsible for significant amounts of carbon emissions and so saying that they make arguments about fossil fuel consumption “moot” is inaccurate.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Sounding a bit agressive there? Or is it because you presented a weak arguement that fails to look at the bigger and long term picture and didn’t like that being called out?
“Sounding a bit agressive
“Sounding a bit agressive there?”
Bit rich coming from you.
marmotte27 wrote:
Keep up that was just a sarcastic response to rendell. Hardly agression on my part.
Rendel Harris wrote:
So we have shifted 50% away from fossil fuels and continue to do so. Electrcity is agnostic to how it is generated, and an EV doesn’t care where it comes from. The argument is moot if you are not as short sighted as the likes of just stop oil, consider the long term and support nuclear as means of ensuring we have a baseline to meet energy needs.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Agnostic electricity, that’s a new one. Does it ever have doubts about its convictions in the small hours of the morning when it’s alone? The claim that nuclear energy is the answer to meeting our energy needs is a whole different argument.
I didn’t say nuclear was “the
I didn’t say nuclear was “the” answer did I. Maybe if you were less pedantic you would have noticed that.
Adam Sutton wrote:
You’re unusually aggressive today Adam, something upset you? “consider the long term and support nuclear as means of ensuring we have a baseline to meet energy needs” sounds pretty much like you’re calling it the answer to me.
Rendel Harris wrote:
So we are dropping to ad hominem now? And I am the one being agressive?
You understand how energy works right?
https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?period=7-days&start=2023-06-23&&_k=j56bva
That demand changes and that underneath it all we need an amount of constant as a baseline. Peak demand is around 32GW and nuclear is supplying an almost constant 5GW into the supply. Renewables are great and can add into that demand in the day for solar when demand is higher and wind, when it can. We need that constant and as noted nuclear is capable of that, it could also be energy storage or other means, but that would then bring questions of the enviromental impact of current battery technology. Again this is something evolving, see any article on research into organic batteries that are gaining traction and are not reliant on rare earth materials and are starting to be deployed.
I think it’s “wants” vs.
I think it’s “wants” vs. “needs”. That won’t get sorted out any time soon!
Our energy and resource use – despite some genuine improvements in efficiency (or because?) – is a bit like “predict and provide” and “induced demand” in the transport sector.
Historically the pattern is that as an “improved” technology becomes more efficient / cheaper / cleaner it doesn’t just fulfil the previous demand more effectively and maybe then grow at the previous rate. That demand increases to fill and indeed overwhelm the new additional capacity. (And “what our ancestors considered luxury, we consider necessity” etc.)
At least from what some of them say many politicians / those in government / industry understand this in the case of motor vehicles. It’s not just “pollution” or “safety”. The technology of private motor vehicles is fundamentally space-inefficient and resource-intensive. That applies to EVs also – different resources for e.g. batteries but possibly even more limited.
However even just kicking the can down the road a bit by switching technologies still requires a lot of effort.
I’m just hopeful because in a couple of other super-wealthy countries with unsustainably high resource usage people have been persuaded to cut down on some of the demand – and importantly have gained some health and joy in their lives by doing so [1] [2] !
“Historically the pattern is
“Historically the pattern is that as an “improved” technology becomes more efficient / cheaper / cleaner it doesn’t just fulfil the previous demand more effectively and maybe then grow at the previous rate. That demand increases to fill and indeed overwhelm the new additional capacity.”
Sorry but in taking such a long view, your being “unrelentingly myopic”, in the logic of Adam Sutton.
*you’re
*you’re
and *yawn*
Adam Sutton wrote:
Slow clap…
marmotte27 wrote:
*you’re
and *yawn*
— marmotte27 Slow clap…— Adam Sutton
“you’re” welcome.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’m going to disagree here with a back of napkin calculation. Putting aside the factors of production, etc (another discussion) and just focusing on fossil vs electric fuel…
Figures for car CO2 output per km:
Petrol/diesel – 150g (typical, average)
EV charged with UK average generation mix – 30g (based on 4mi/kWh)
EV charged at home with 100% renewable supplier – 8g (based on 4mi/kWh)
I did not argue that electric
I did not argue that electric vehicles will not reduce carbon output, I was simply disputing Adam’s statement that “The fossil fuel arguement, especial with respect to cars is largely moot since there is an increasing shift towards elctrification” which implies that electrification removes the need to be concerned about fossil fuel use and carbon output, which with our current means of electricity generation is not the case.
I think your calculations are optimistic, by the way: according to Volkswagen’s UK site: “An electric vehicle registered as a new car in 2025 will generate 32% fewer CO2 emissions over its lifetime than a modern diesel car. The figure is even higher, at 40% , when you compare electric cars with petrol cars. This is backed up by calculations carried out by the Federal Environment Agency and published in 2019.”
A 40% saving is certainly not to be sniffed at but hardly the 80% – 94% your calculations envisage.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Yeah as I said, back of napkin calcs. I think VW’s lifetime calcs include manufacturer & disposal which I excluded.
Source values for my usage calcs:
UK average electricity CO2 193g/kWh (govt figures from Bulb website)
100% renewable electricity CO2 58g/kWh (my own supplier Octopus website)
The 4mi/kWh I’ve just taken from the dash of my wife’s car
Overall I agree with your
Overall I agree with your point but don’t be fooled by the 100% renewable schtick.
It’s just marketing nonsense.
They’re just longer-term
They’re just longer-term optimists? If humans and other intensively geoengineering species die out or evolve into something with much lower impact it’s possible – as long as we don’t get into runaway greenhouse effect – that we see a return to accumulating reserves. Maybe even a bloom in plant biomass deposits with warmer climate and more CO2. Then in as little as 3 million years (fairly wide uncertainty here) the earth could be renewing those reserves! If we’re happy with peat then it’s but a few thousand years ’till we could be back in business (for a short period).
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re most likely right, I wonder when Octopus declare 100% renewable at 58g/kWh how much of that is shipping wood chips (“renewable??”) across the Atlantic and then setting fire to it in a power station. I can only go with numbers presented but until I get the solar panels and battery store sorted at home, it’s what we’ve got. Interestingly the EV we have has a 77kWh battery and V2L capability so an option I’m looking at when the domestic supply technology catches up is charging via the sun and/or off-peak grid then having the meter controller dump it back into the house on demand when it’s parked on the drive.
I’m equally sceptical about
I’m equally sceptical about Drax and their biomass, suspect it’s actually quite a long way from renewable.
My main issue with the ‘100% renewable’ claims is that for every person who pays for 100% renewable electricity there must be another customer who is allocated 100% fossil fuels.
So at the same time that a renewable customer is decreasing their personal carbon footprint they are automatically increasing the carbon footprints of others.
The net effect is obviously zero which makes the whole exercise pretty pointless.
Rendel Harris wrote:
There’s that short term outlook, and expectation for overnight miracales again.
mark1a wrote:
The factor that also needs to be considered is where the CO2 is. As much as so many here seem to want to live in a dream world where overnight cars dissappear, that just isn’t going to happen. Having zero tailpipe emmissions is of great benefit to communities and public health. Shift CO2 to where power is generated and as generation methods changes you bring that down as a whole.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I think you might be confusing “inconvenient” with “impossible”.
brooksby wrote:
I think you are a resident of the same cloud cuckoo land as a number of people on here.
brooksby wrote:
It’s just a dispute about “could” and “will”, no? And how are we effectively going to drive (really – force) change. The kind / scale of change it seems we need will mean “change we don’t want” for someone (likely lots of us) so won’t happen voluntarily.
Or just crack open a cold one and don’t worry…
Sounds like it needs to
Sounds like it needs to become a School Street then…
“I cannot condone campaigners
“I cannot condone campaigners taking the law and road safety into their own hands, effectively blockading a road without a permit and without permission,” he tweeted. “We need to work together to effect change, not force our ideas onto communities without being certain that they’ve consented.”
where to begin? Every billion that is spent on a road junction, road widening, by – pass, car park, out of town retail centre . . . Where is the consent? Yet every little LTN or cycle lane has to go through months of consultation, backlash and media hysteria.
With a growing population,
With a growing population, expaning developments and housing you are of course going to need infrastructure to support it and this will include road expansion and reworks, it’s a given. The problem is when there is no joined up thinking about provisioning beyond roads, expanding public transport and taking the opportunity when spending those millions/billions on roads to integrate cycling facilities to give the option for reducing the traffic by supporting active travel.
I currently have an ongoing discussion with a local councillor about the poor infrastructure around here, and lack of foresight when building new housing over the last 10 years or so to provide cycling facilities beyond “shared paths”, this started after she lauded the addition of the white line past a school in the attached photo. She has suggested getting together to discuss, so lets see if anything comes of it. Currently collating various video of the challenges and indeed dangers of the local cycle infrastructure to pass on.
“will include road expansion
“will include road expansion and reworks, it’s a given”
No it’s not. Not if you don’t consider motorised transport as the be-all and end-all of mobility. I think you should reflect on this if you’ve got the chance to speak about mobility with a politician.
LMAO! And people wonder why
LMAO! And people wonder why so many have a dim view of “cyclists”
Back in the real world, yes it does. Unless you expect buses to fly for starters.
Yes, road widening etc.
Yes, road widening etc. happens mostly for buses, a well known fact.
Actually around here yes. A
Actually around here yes. A fastrack bus network was put in, one of the issues though and one I have raised is that cyclists are not allowed to use these bus lanes, and instead are expected to use the pavement alongside which has just been designated shared use. In the broader picture though buses need roads, and are the means for a lot of people to get around locally, and a means to reduce car use locally also.
That reaolly doesn’t look
That reaolly doesn’t look like motor vehicles should be allowed through… It looks like a footway, although I can’t see any problem with letting cyclists through too. But motor cars (and skip lorries!)? That’s a definite no from me.
I feel a bit sorry for
I feel a bit sorry for Councillor Mike Rouse.. I reckon he’s getting a bad rap here.. I mean I don’t know the fella but looking at his twitter feed he looks pretty legit in favour of active travel ‘n’ stuff.. obvs there’s the elephant in the room is that there’s a problem which the locals have ‘fixed’ quickly and with common sense.. but this is ‘councils’ we’re dealing with here.. and they are rubbish. In his position he should be responsible for (e.g. stopping that rat run) but things are rarely as clean cut as we think.. and y’know.. councils.. where people who have nothing better (elected folks) to do with their lives meet people who want to do nothing with their lives (office based council workers).
Quite an interesting,
Quite an interesting, seemingly balanced article promted from that catchily titled 2020 study – “Comparison of Lifelong Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electric Cars with Emissions from Vehicles with Gasoline or Diesel Engines” as quoted by VW – https://www.electrive.com/2020/08/31/study-currently-available-electric-cars-cause-less-co2-emissions-than-ices/
There’s a lot of green bullsheet we’re being fed, mainly by people who make money from us eating said bollocks. EV’s are a good thing, a step in the right direction, but I don’t think it’s enough or a big enough step… If we had a wand and replaced every ICE with an EV tomorrow the grid simply could not cope with it.. apparently 44% of households who have no space for a charger at home.. so the knock on of that is that we to expect everyone to queue up at the local garage to wait for a 30 min fast charge.. What about the costs of EV’s.. they are 30% higher than ICE vehicles.. while that might not be the most obvious ‘environmental issue’ it’s a real world issue for most households. No-one likes fossil fuels but we have 150 years of fossil fuel reliance and infrastucture which needs reversing.. and we live in a world which is ruled by global capitalsm, the biggest offenders of which are the ones who gain the most from destroying our planet. Frankly for me keeping ‘driving’ the best and greenest option is to drive my existing vehicle in to the ground, if we all thought like that then those global capitalist barstewards might not be causing untold issues while raping the lithium, cobalt and other materials out of the congo, chile and god knows where else. We should be saying keep your car for as long as possible and don’t feel the need to keep up with the joneses by buying new.
Good comment.
Good comment.
To “We should be saying keep your car for as long as possible”, I’d add “and drive it as little as possible.”
I honestly think there is too
I honestly think there is too much focus on cars with respect fossil fuels and emissions, but hey we’ve seen how that goes down with some on here ?
The reality is the grid and power generation are key to bringing emissions down and also in the current political climate, ensuring energy independence.
The pedant didn’t like the use of “agnostic” as a descriptor, but the fact is the end user doesn’t care how electricity is generated, your kettle, car or whatever works whether the energy was generated by gas, oil, nuclear or renewables.
Like everything demand drives innovation and an interesting development I’ve seen is organic batteries, that are not dependent on harmful materials.
https://www.cmblu.com/en/technology/
Couple that ability to store renewable energy in a more environmentally friendly storage system, with the concept of small modular reactors and you have a more scalable system to produce clean energy and have less dependency on imports and fossil fuels.
Adam Sutton wrote:
The pedant didn’t like it because it’s wrong. Firstly because it takes a word that solely applies to religious belief and shoehorns it into another context (yes I know that computer nerds have co-opted it for apps that work across multiple platforms but that doesn’t make it right and they are hardly renowned for their elegant and knowledgable use of language) and also because it implies a degree of consciousness in a non-conscious entity. Asking for language to be used accurately and properly is not pedantry.
No you just didn’t want to
No you just didn’t want to address the key point that kills your argument. That being in the medium to long term we are shifting towards decarbonisation through various means, rendering the argument that electric vehicles still produce co2 moot when looking long term and not with a anti car agenda.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Are electric vehicles in use now still responsible for CO2 emissions? Will they continue to be responsible for CO2 emissions until the UK’s entire power supply comes from nuclear and renewable sources? Yes, and the scenario where this will be the case is at least 30 years in the future. You didn’t say that the question will be moot in future, you said it is moot now, which it clearly isn’t. I’m afraid simply alleging that you have killed my argument does not actually kill it, only facts can do that and the fact is that electric vehicles will continue to contribute to global warming emissions output for a long time to come, albeit at a considerably lower level than their fossil fuel counterparts.
It’s been clear that my
It’s been clear that my comments unlike yous are looking long term, I’ve stated that multiple times. I’ve also stated how in the immediate term the benefit is removing tailpipe emissions, and shifting emmissions to energy generation, which will reduce as technology and generation progresses. None of this should need to be pointed out to anyone with a modicum of common sense and understanding that major changes in something like energy generation don’t happen overnight. I await some more shifting goalposts.
Cars are not going. Electricity can and is increasingly being generated cleanly, so EVs make sense. It’s not a difficult one to grasp.
Adam Sutton wrote:
(added parts in bold)
How cheap to go back and amend your comment to make it look as if you have already addressed the points that I raised later showing your argument to be wrong. Unfortunately for you it is quite clear when somebody does this because it bumps your comment back to the top of the “newest first” list and also I quoted your original post in full in my reply. The fact that you feel the need to resort to such an underhand tactic says more about the fundamental weakness of your argument then I possibly could.
Electric vehicles are still responsible for CO2 emissions and will most likely continue to be so at least for the remainder of my lifetime, this is a fact. There is nothing anti-car agenda about it, I very much support the adoption of electric cars as a partial solution to the many problems car use creates, however I am not blind to the fact that they will continue to create (albeit lower) emissions and public health and safety issues in the same way their petrol counterparts do now. This is simply a fact and no amount of telling me that you have killed my argument, nor going back to amend what you have already said, can change that.
Cut it out Rendell. My edit
Cut it out Rendell. My edit and your response crossed paths. It’s obvious that for yourself and particularly Hirsute this is more about cars overall than anything else. Hence being so disingenuous and shifting goal posts when comparing vehicle ownership to anything else. It was purely added to highlight that.
The timing would show that. Just another instance of ad hominem on your part and evidence of weakness and strawmen from yourself.
Heres the facts of my point.
EVs in the immediate term remove emmissions from where they do the most harm. Local community.
Your own comment was that 50% of our power is clean. Highlighting the fact that we are shifting power in general to cleaner sources and therore reducing the overall emmissions of EVs.
It’s. That. Fucking. Simple. Those two pieces together render arguments on emmissions moot, pointless, worthless, assuming you are living in the real world and accept cars as transport are here to stay and there isn’t a magic wand to wave and come up with an overnight solution.
Edit: (incase you have a hissy fit and are responding as I type)
To quote hirsute “EVs are about sustaining the car industry”
Adam Sutton wrote:
Now now Adam, it’s naughty to tell lies. The road.cc setup, as I said, marks the time of a comment as the last time it was edited. My response is marked four hours ago, your edit to make it look as if you’d already addressed my points is marked three hours ago. They did not “cross”, you deliberately altered your comment to make it look as if I was raising a redundant point. You’re welcome to be rude and aggressive, as indeed you have been, but no need to be dishonest.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Now now Adam, it’s naughty to tell lies. The road.cc setup, as I said, marks the time of a comment as the last time it was edited. My response is marked four hours ago, your edit to make it look as if you’d already addressed my points is marked three hours ago. They did not “cross”, you deliberately altered your comment to make it look as if I was raising a redundant point. You’re welcome to be rude and aggressive, as indeed you have been, but no need to be dishonest.— Adam Sutton
Like it or not, I am not being dishonest in the slightest. I didn’t see your response until I had edited. That is a fact. You know how caching of pages works on browsers, particularly on phones? I literally went back to the page and hit edit, not thinking you would have been so keen to respond.
What is laughable is that you think that such a tiny edit, makes such a fundamental change that it gives you some kind of moral high ground. It’s pretty petty and pathetic really.
<fyi – edited a spelling mistake – hope that is acceptable >
Rendel Harris wrote:
You’re welcome to be rude and aggressive, as indeed you have been, but no need to be dishonest.— Adam Sutton
BTW that one is actually pretty hilarous. I didn’t realise you were so sensitive as to believe my responses to the disengenous nature of yours and others responses at times here, would be construed as such, but there you go. If attacking the character rather than the arguement is what works for you, it says more about you than me.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I can’t be bothered to argue with you any more sweetheart, if the best you’ve got is editing your posts in retrospect to make yourself look right well, good luck to you. Can I please just ask you though, as it’s causing me considerable pain because you’ve done it five times now which removes the possibility of it being a typo, to stop writing “arguement”? It’s argument.
It’s also disingenuous not “disengenous” but let’s not try to run before we can walk.
Rendel Harris wrote:
How utterly pathetic, again this says far more about you than myself, or anything I have posted. None of which has been edited in retrospect to make me look right. I’ve posted opinion, you don’t like it and now you’re having a tantrum, resorting to insult. Grow up you sad individual.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Amusingly it appears to be you who’s having the tantrum sweetie, I’ve just asked you to correct your spelling. Hugs x
Rendel Harris wrote:
Amsuingly it appears to be you who’s having the tantrum sweetie, I’ve just asked you to correct your spelling. Hugs x— Adam Sutton
I won’t bother. Don’t want some precious little individual to think I’m retrospectively changing things.
EDIT: one thing I will say looking at this as you spiral into insults, is that as a gay man (something I’m sure you’re aware of form past interaction). Offering hugs, kisses and calling me sweetheart is somewhat more than just childish insult and borderline homophobia. Nicely done.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Goodness me, you are getting desperate now, aren’t you? I used the term sweetheart because that is how I would address the spoiled brat having a tantrum that you so closely resemble. I didn’t know you are a gay man and it’s a matter of complete indifference to me whether you are or not. Oddly enough I have more important things in life to remember than the sexuality of rude and aggressive strangers on the internet.
Given that you remember where
Given that you remember where I work I would assume you would remember, guess it fits to ignore that.
Aggression. Have a world with yourself will you. Goodness you poor snowflake.
Let’s summarise this shit show.
1) I offered an opinion that focussing on vehicle emmissions when manufacturers are committed to zero emissions vehicles isn’t worthwhile.
You then fixated on the fact that electricity generation is still dependent on fossil fuel. Though you yourself stated 50% is renewable. When responding that the long term picture is we are moving away from fossil fuels you then claimed I was claiming nuclear was THE answer. Not true. I also repeatedly said my view was long term, and separately in response to someone else pointed out the immediate benefit from EVs of reducing tailpipe emmissions.
2) Separate to this Hirsute began to focus on costs of motoring finance to which you joined in. Along with claiming EVs just allow manufacturers to survive. This is where goalposts shift multiple times. The assumption being motorists are financing beyond their means. I gave an example of the fiat 500E, but the goalposts shift despite this being one of the most popular city cars.
I the compare public transport costs giving a real world example of my costs. Again you shift the goalposts, seemingly a 30 mile commute by train isn’t the norm. Actually what I missed and will state now, is no my commute isn’t the norm for many. I have three metro lines from where I now cycle to, as well as HS1. Most people have one station and line and a less ability to complete a journey, meaning more car reliance.
3) The above points lead me to back track and edit a comment simply adding that my options are more reasoned when not looking with an anti car agenda (something reasonable to assume you and hirsute are driven by from the previous). Hardly changing the context, hence me not giving a thought that you’d already replied, to which I’d missed. The irony being on reflection your own response was so heavily edited itself. Hypocrite.
This you latch onto and begin an agressive ad hominem attack, dropping to attacking me personally, calling me a liar and claiming I have been retrospectively editing comments so I look right. Untrue.
Separate to this I was able to have quite a reasoned and interesting discussion on the future of energy generation with Hawkins. But you persisted with ad hominem laced with passive aggression.
I’m done now, you’re true self has shone through and is an unpleasant angry little man who gets personal when someone doesn’t agree with his world view 100%.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Amusingly it appears to be you who’s having the tantrum sweetie, I’ve just asked you to correct your spelling. Hugs x— Adam Sutton
You’ve corrected your own spelling here. I like the fact that road.cc allow retrospective edits but I stay away from spolling, gramma, typos & bad inglund responses because inevitably, if I did, I’d make one myself. ??
Yep, I stole that from HP.
Yep, I stole that from HP.
We do need to reduce car use though and all those 0-2 and 2-5 mile trips.
Hirsute wrote:
I can’t remember whom I stole it from
Hirsute wrote:
A totally different matter, but hey-ho. No surprises there.
Of course, my comments were
Of course, my comments were completely irrelevant to the actual story.
Are you taking over from stfd ?
Adam Sutton wrote:
That’s much of it, the detail is important:
EVs can help as part of our greenhouse gas emissions reduction, though that’s all secondary to heating as I think you’ve mentioned. We’d get a lot of benefit by looking at ways to change our transport patterns (eg. not driving short journeys). But that’s hard, whatever is fuelling our cars.
EVs in the immediate term remove *some* of the emissions from where they do harm. Since we’ve regulated on engine nitrogen oxides and particulates the other sources of particulate emissions are important – from tyres and braking. They’re no different with electric cars.
EVs allow centralisation of power generation which means it’s possible to make that cleaner and feed in more long-term (and less global-warming-o-genic) power generation sources. Of course it also hides where the power is generated and how.
Apart from emissions they don’t change the other negatives of mass motoring e.g. *locally* – lots of cars and people not wanting to walk or cycle around them. Also that people don’t walk or cycle because they already have their car.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Its not so much details as common sense as to where we are today.
The simple fact is also that cycling, as much as those here (myself included) love it and find it works. It just isn’t viable for a large number, even the majority of people.
If you want to get people out of cars then the key is public transport, cheap, reliable and frequent public transport that works. But we don’t have that, far from it.
Make that change and then people will likely migrate to using other transport, but as it stands that isn’t going to happen. I probably cycle more miles than I drive in a year now, but public transport just doesn’t work locally here and I am not even out in the back of beyond, so the car stays.
Its fine to harp on about the “other negatives” but lets not forget that like it or not there are positives to the car, it just needs to be used appropriatly.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I differ in the question of “how long” and “what changes can we hope to influence”. Nothing is “viable” without change at some point. We drive cars to the extent we do because of choices – lots of them political choices (it wasn’t just “the market”). It’s clearly possible that a much larger fraction of the (mostly short) journeys could be cycled. People do choose to do it en-mass and transport choices can be changed within a decade. People even do it in small but increasing numbers in places in the UK – where we make it convenient.
Cars will be with us for decades, but choices we make now can change whether we get the same number or more – or less.
I think we should focus on more than simply swapping the power supply of cars (which seems to be about as far as government planning goes).
Yes – one thing we could do here is pick up on the synergy between public transport and cycling (or electric scootering etc). However in the UK better public transport alone won’t be enough to get many people to switch journey modes. It needs a push as well as a pull. But that would mean we need to change / we can’t keep our routines the same…
Agree – but that last point is the tricky bit! Many people are happy with “taming the car” – just as long as it isn’t their car, their essential journey, their freedom.
What do you think appropriate use is?
All harm minimisation of
All harm minimisation of sorts and as you say if we centralise generation that can allow economies of efficiency. Lower global-warming methods can be added without the consumer doing anything.
“Agnostic” cuts both ways though. Currently it allows people to point at their vehicles and appliances and say “look no emissions” (and they do) and think or act no further. Of course they’re just somewhere we don’t know or care about. Humans don’t learn or change if the negative effects happen at distance – or not for some time. That’s part of the reason we’re were we are.
On less dependancy on imports – are we growing our own nuclear fuel now?
chrisonatrike wrote:
In terms of imports the point is we are literally importing generated power from the continent at great cost. As well as this there have already been issues with these cables, so this is another risk to the UK energy security.
Drop the disengenous crap, of course we don’t “grow our own nuclear fuel” but it is energy dense and produces clean power, the waste is far less of an issue as well.
Adam Sutton wrote:
I think you’re right that a massive increase in nuclear is what we will go for. We’ve been trying to increase capacity for some time. It’s currently proving to be slow to get plants built and in an effort to make this happen we’ve already signed up to contracts which will make the electricity expensive when it does come on-stream.
It’s still relying on fuel imports from places further away though – places which we may not have as good relations with as with our neighbours. So it’s not a fuel security panacea.
If you’re thinking long- term the nuclear waste (and decommissioning plants) is certainly that. Again though it shifts the problem domain – we know we’ve got to slash the greenhouse gas emissions pronto, here or on our behalf elsewhere.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I have my doubts about the practicality of nuclear power for electricity generation compared to renewables. There’s this 25 year study: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible (research published here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3).
I think the much quicker turnaround of solar will end up making a big difference as people/companies can invest money into solar and have it being productive almost immediately as the construction is a lot easier. Nuclear requires a whole industry based around it and there’s a significant lead time between investment and getting energy out of it. Also, we don’t have feasible small scale nuclear, so it’s not like people can decide to start generating their own power that way, but solar is trivial for people to buy and deploy and has minimal upkeep (I’ve heard that’s why it’s very popular with automated irrigation systems for growing drugs in some countries).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Oh yes, it’s not a quick fix. Also it’s an intensely centralising technology – which has good and bad sides (eg. promotes long term stability of the managing authorities and wider cooperation, but also requires same). It displaces some of the problems even further into the future.
The debate seems to be about whether anything other than “like-for -like” replacement (in terms of how end users experience it) is possible and about the timescales. Solar can be speedier to roll out but even optimistically I don’t think it can allow us all to keep using the same amounts of energy. Handy for the solar-powered helmet applications though.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I have my doubts about the practicality of nuclear power for electricity generation compared to renewables. There’s this 25 year study: https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-why-nuclear-won-t-cut-it-if-we-want-to-drop-carbon-as-quickly-as-possible (research published here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3).
I think the much quicker turnaround of solar will end up making a big difference as people/companies can invest money into solar and have it being productive almost immediately as the construction is a lot easier. Nuclear requires a whole industry based around it and there’s a significant lead time between investment and getting energy out of it. Also, we don’t have feasible small scale nuclear, so it’s not like people can decide to start generating their own power that way, but solar is trivial for people to buy and deploy and has minimal upkeep (I’ve heard that’s why it’s very popular with automated irrigation systems for growing drugs in some countries).— chrisonatrike
https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/our-stories/discover/2022/the-potential-of-the-small-modular-reactor.aspx
Adam Sutton wrote:
That looks like off-the-shelf nuclear plants which would be a good step forwards. I still think that the speed, ease and cheapness of solar is going to be hard to compete with as nuclear still involves locking away your money for a while until the thing can be built and operated.
Ultimately, we should be aiming for a mixture of technologies as there’s a mix of pros and cons for most energy production.
We absolutely need a mix of
We absolutely need a mix of tech as they all have pros and cons, but coupled together can provide a fairly comprehensive solution (long term). I think for solar it should work in a different way, large scale is a problem in terms of space required. (edit for rendells benefit, as I thought of sometheing else) Though there are plenty of places where deployment on a larger scale can work. Last year we visited the crossness pumping station, fascinating if smelly, and obviously being sewage works there is a lot of land that is unusable, but this now had quite a large solar array on it.
The government rollbacks of incentives on solar was a mistake, as to me it makes sense on a local level. The majority of households now are efficent enough with regards electricity consumption (most of the time) that even a small solar system on the roof would provide close to, if not 100% of a household energy need a lot of the time. We generally tick-over at around 300W with lights and TV on in a detached house. Both working from home is still less than 500W and my other half runs a lot of test equipment while working.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Car parks would be a great place for solar installations – shade/rain protection for the vehicles and a nice revenue stream too.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Plenty of public buildngs are big enough, and it could be used to provide cheaper services of whatever they provide to the customer.
Couple the car park idea with places like shopping centers and you can cut the energy consumption of a place that likely draws a substantial amount of power from the grid.
What about just putting the
What about just putting the solar panels on the cars? Cut out the middleman.
Rolls Royce have tabled small
Rolls Royce have tabled small modular reactors. These would be quicker to build and be in the 500MW range, would use proven technology from their work with nuclear subs and create jobs too. I think this would be far more workable than planning large scale, as has been the case so far. As I’ve said elsewhere it’s about ensuring a baseload to work with that unstable renewables can then add into.
Adam Sutton wrote:
A lot of “would” in there. RR have not “tabled” SMRs; they have floated the idea of getting a large subsidy for having a go at making some.
We do need baseload capacity, but the nuclear industry has been confident that the next amazing technology has been just around the corner since before I was born, and I’m not young. Thorium, fast breeder and fusion reactors were all going to be transforming lives when “the year 2000” still seemed far away and exotic.
The SMR concept will also need lots of communities to accept a reactor close by, and that’s a really tough sell.
Undoubtedly will have its own
Undoubtedly will have its own set of challenges, but also undoubteldy would be a lot quicker to get up and running than somewhere like Hinley point C, and won’t be beholden to foreign companies and governements like Hinkley is with EDF.
And I really enjoyed the ride
And I really enjoyed the ride through the leafy lanes. We saw some loony lefty cyclists who were not wearing helmets. One of them looked a bit funny so we got our dog Tommy to bite him and then we reported him to our local policeman. Then we went home for some buttered scones with lashings of ginger beer. Yay!
Nice day for a bike ride.
Nice day for a bike ride.
Been a bit too windy here,
Been a bit too windy here, better tomorrow hopefully.
Is it possible to forget that
Is it possible to forget that you have a photographic memory?
Asking for a friend.
Rich_cb wrote:
Most amusing (well by your standards anyway). You can’t remember something you haven’t seen, I recall Mr Sutton saying that he commutes into central London from a southeastern county, I’ve never seen anything where he said he’s gay. One doesn’t always see every single comment someone posts.
Is it possible to be so blinded by one’s desperate desire to try to score a point that one overlooks the bleeding obvious? Asking for not a friend.
Do you want some money for
Do you want some money for that space I seem to be occupying in your head?
BTW when you were being more
BTW when you were being more reasoned we actually had a discussion about sexuality. Given I have an atrocious memory it was reasonable to assume that may be something you’d recall also.
In terms of point scoring, come on now you were the one trying to brand me a liar and resorting to ad hominem attacks.
I’d expect you’d be acting differently if someone was calling a strange woman “sweetheart” and offering hugs.