Topics

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago


George Coulouris
 


A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 
*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 
Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 
Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 
Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 
The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 
Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 
Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 
Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •



John Stewart
 

The analogy falls apart, though, because at least in proposed Canonbury West LTN, the effect will be to shift traffic to other streets.  So the analogy is a ban on smoking in one pub, leading to all the smokers going to other pubs which are just as bad.

 

I am a bicyclist and in general in favour of well designed LTNs, but this one will be terrible.

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 16 September 2020 6:14 p.m.
To: CCC <CamdenCyclists@groups.io>
Subject: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

What a great analogy:

 

Josh Blacker (Ealing councillor)

A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 

*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 

Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 

Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 

Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 

The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 

Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 

Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 

Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •

 


George Coulouris
 

Well designed LTNs shift the through traffic only to nearby main roads (which will probably become congested). The analogy holds up: smokers have to use smoking rooms or shelters which are crowded and unpleasant so 50% gave it up.


On September 16, 2020 6:45:59 PM GMT+01:00, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:

The analogy falls apart, though, because at least in proposed Canonbury West LTN, the effect will be to shift traffic to other streets.  So the analogy is a ban on smoking in one pub, leading to all the smokers going to other pubs which are just as bad.

 

I am a bicyclist and in general in favour of well designed LTNs, but this one will be terrible.

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 16 September 2020 6:14 p.m.
To: CCC <CamdenCyclists@groups.io>
Subject: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

What a great analogy:

 

Josh Blacker (Ealing councillor)

A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 

*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 

Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 

Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 

Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 

The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 

Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 

Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 

Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •

 


--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


Richard Fletcher
 

The smoking analogy holds imo. 

The public perceives a necessity (freedom to drive), as smokers considered they had a right to smoke in a pub.  The political decision in the UK to ban smokers came from peer pressure and a change in social opinion. The medical evidence against smoking had been conclusive for years. Public opinion started to shift against smoking as the middle classes and opinion makers gave up and started to recognise the health risk. Then more enlightened countries went about and banned it in pubs, the tourists started to complain, and more and more people stopped going to the pub

Today we have a similar situation. The health risks of air pollution through vehicle exhausts are well known as is the accident risk. These facts have been known for decades. Mitigation strategies have been used, such as air bags, seat belts, and street furniture. However public opinion is moving against vehicles in neighbourhood, with the need for more pavement space, the added risk from covid with air pollution.  Now we need an enlightened country or town to lead…. to cut the accident risk and lower air pollution by bringing in an urban speed limit of 20 mph EVERYWHERE, on all roads. Thus air pollution would be reduced, and accident risk. Cyclists may start to resume using the roads in numbers. Drivers may think, hold it with an electric bike I can get about just as well. ( 60%+ of people are put off cycling because of accident risk)

Other localised measures will be employed as is happening now

Richard


 

On 16 Sep 2020, at 20:26, George Coulouris <george@...> wrote:

Well designed LTNs shift the through traffic only to nearby main roads (which will probably become congested). The analogy holds up: smokers have to use smoking rooms or shelters which are crowded and unpleasant so 50% gave it up. 

On September 16, 2020 6:45:59 PM GMT+01:00, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:
The analogy falls apart, though, because at least in proposed Canonbury West LTN, the effect will be to shift traffic to other streets.  So the analogy is a ban on smoking in one pub, leading to all the smokers going to other pubs which are just as bad.
 
I am a bicyclist and in general in favour of well designed LTNs, but this one will be terrible.
 
From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 16 September 2020 6:14 p.m.
To: CCC <CamdenCyclists@groups.io>
Subject: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago
 

What a great analogy:

 

Josh Blacker (Ealing councillor)

A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 
*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 
Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 
Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 
Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 
The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 
Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 
Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 
Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •

 


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


Tony Raven
 

I agree.

 

Z

 

 

Tony  😊

 

 

From: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Fletcher <rickyfletch@...>
Reply to: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 08:37
To: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

The smoking analogy holds imo. 

 

The public perceives a necessity (freedom to drive), as smokers considered they had a right to smoke in a pub.  The political decision in the UK to ban smokers came from peer pressure and a change in social opinion. The medical evidence against smoking had been conclusive for years. Public opinion started to shift against smoking as the middle classes and opinion makers gave up and started to recognise the health risk. Then more enlightened countries went about and banned it in pubs, the tourists started to complain, and more and more people stopped going to the pub

 

Today we have a similar situation. The health risks of air pollution through vehicle exhausts are well known as is the accident risk. These facts have been known for decades. Mitigation strategies have been used, such as air bags, seat belts, and street furniture. However public opinion is moving against vehicles in neighbourhood, with the need for more pavement space, the added risk from covid with air pollution.  Now we need an enlightened country or town to lead…. to cut the accident risk and lower air pollution by bringing in an urban speed limit of 20 mph EVERYWHERE, on all roads. Thus air pollution would be reduced, and accident risk. Cyclists may start to resume using the roads in numbers. Drivers may think, hold it with an electric bike I can get about just as well. ( 60%+ of people are put off cycling because of accident risk)

 

Other localised measures will be employed as is happening now

 

Richard

 

 

 

On 16 Sep 2020, at 20:26, George Coulouris <george@...> wrote:

 

Well designed LTNs shift the through traffic only to nearby main roads (which will probably become congested). The analogy holds up: smokers have to use smoking rooms or shelters which are crowded and unpleasant so 50% gave it up. 

On September 16, 2020 6:45:59 PM GMT+01:00, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:

The analogy falls apart, though, because at least in proposed Canonbury West LTN, the effect will be to shift traffic to other streets.  So the analogy is a ban on smoking in one pub, leading to all the smokers going to other pubs which are just as bad.

 

I am a bicyclist and in general in favour of well designed LTNs, but this one will be terrible.

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 16 September 2020 6:14 p.m.
To: CCC <CamdenCyclists@groups.io>
Subject: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

What a great analogy:

 

Josh Blacker (Ealing councillor)

A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 

*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 

Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 

Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 

Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 

The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 

Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 

Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 

Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •

 


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

 


Adam G
 

I think we need to keep some nuance though.  I'm not against cars driving in cities above 20 MPH.  People need to move, and some vulnerable groups still find private transport as essential.  The key thing as that such traffic is on roads that are designed for them, to ensure good flow without negative impacts on other groups.  That is where LTNs come in, in my view.  It does not make sense for traffic to flow through residential roads which were never designed for such a load.  Residential neighbourhoods should be primarily for residents to live in - with road safety and clean air a right not an option. 

There are good examples in East Asia and Nordics where 'traffic trunk roads' are identified and prioritised for cars (with real protected cycle lanes where needed), and all other residential roads are prioritised for bikes and residents.  That means filters on all rat run routes, entry exit routes into neighbourhoods that work for residents but disincentivise people driving through them as they would be less efficient routes than other traffic prioritised roads, etc. At present we have extremely little action by Camden and Brent in certain areas - Kilburn High Road / Edgeware Road / Boundary Road is one of the best examples (potentially as they are split responsibilities). 

As a father of two who cycles to work daily (in normal times), until my kids can cycle or go in the buggy behind my bike safely between major areas I'll still have to use non-bike based transport more than I want to. 
   
I think CC does an amazing job promoting key schemes.  Do we need to take a step back and have a master plan we can promote to hit critical mass of LTNs and routes in the borough?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:05, Tony Raven <tony@...> wrote:

I agree.

 

Z

 

 

Tony  😊

 

 

From: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Fletcher <rickyfletch@...>
Reply to: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 08:37
To: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

The smoking analogy holds imo. 

 

The public perceives a necessity (freedom to drive), as smokers considered they had a right to smoke in a pub.  The political decision in the UK to ban smokers came from peer pressure and a change in social opinion. The medical evidence against smoking had been conclusive for years. Public opinion started to shift against smoking as the middle classes and opinion makers gave up and started to recognise the health risk. Then more enlightened countries went about and banned it in pubs, the tourists started to complain, and more and more people stopped going to the pub

 

Today we have a similar situation. The health risks of air pollution through vehicle exhausts are well known as is the accident risk. These facts have been known for decades. Mitigation strategies have been used, such as air bags, seat belts, and street furniture. However public opinion is moving against vehicles in neighbourhood, with the need for more pavement space, the added risk from covid with air pollution.  Now we need an enlightened country or town to lead…. to cut the accident risk and lower air pollution by bringing in an urban speed limit of 20 mph EVERYWHERE, on all roads. Thus air pollution would be reduced, and accident risk. Cyclists may start to resume using the roads in numbers. Drivers may think, hold it with an electric bike I can get about just as well. ( 60%+ of people are put off cycling because of accident risk)

 

Other localised measures will be employed as is happening now

 

Richard

 

 

 

On 16 Sep 2020, at 20:26, George Coulouris <george@...> wrote:

 

Well designed LTNs shift the through traffic only to nearby main roads (which will probably become congested). The analogy holds up: smokers have to use smoking rooms or shelters which are crowded and unpleasant so 50% gave it up. 

On September 16, 2020 6:45:59 PM GMT+01:00, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:

The analogy falls apart, though, because at least in proposed Canonbury West LTN, the effect will be to shift traffic to other streets.  So the analogy is a ban on smoking in one pub, leading to all the smokers going to other pubs which are just as bad.

 

I am a bicyclist and in general in favour of well designed LTNs, but this one will be terrible.

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 16 September 2020 6:14 p.m.
To: CCC <CamdenCyclists@groups.io>
Subject: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

What a great analogy:

 

Josh Blacker (Ealing councillor)

A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 

*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 

Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 

Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 

Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 

The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 

Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 

Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 

Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •

 


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

 


Tony Harms
 

No-one has to smoke

But quite a lot of people have to drive and a considerably larger number will be seriously incommoded by not being able to do so.  It won't just affect whether they can go to the pub but the jobs they can hold, the schools they can choose and their ability to leave home itself.

So the analogy is not terribly good and perhaps not the most useful one for convincing others rather than bolstering your own opinion.

One might think that the disadvantages of promoting conflict on our society were evident Cf: Brexit. 

Then there is the  question of whether it is really a good idea not to reduce traffic use directly but to push it onto those streets which in London often have the highest pedestrian density, not to mention their own residential use,  while leaving "residential" streets to become in effect private car parks. 

Most people accept that we need to reduce car use and that's a good starting point. Taking the actual steps to do so, however, is difficult.  Why not recognise that rather than alienating what support there is? 

Thanks for listening.












From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Fletcher <rickyfletch@...>
Sent: 17 September 2020 07:37
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago
 
The smoking analogy holds imo. 

The public perceives a necessity (freedom to drive), as smokers considered they had a right to smoke in a pub.  The political decision in the UK to ban smokers came from peer pressure and a change in social opinion. The medical evidence against smoking had been conclusive for years. Public opinion started to shift against smoking as the middle classes and opinion makers gave up and started to recognise the health risk. Then more enlightened countries went about and banned it in pubs, the tourists started to complain, and more and more people stopped going to the pub

Today we have a similar situation. The health risks of air pollution through vehicle exhausts are well known as is the accident risk. These facts have been known for decades. Mitigation strategies have been used, such as air bags, seat belts, and street furniture. However public opinion is moving against vehicles in neighbourhood, with the need for more pavement space, the added risk from covid with air pollution.  Now we need an enlightened country or town to lead…. to cut the accident risk and lower air pollution by bringing in an urban speed limit of 20 mph EVERYWHERE, on all roads. Thus air pollution would be reduced, and accident risk. Cyclists may start to resume using the roads in numbers. Drivers may think, hold it with an electric bike I can get about just as well. ( 60%+ of people are put off cycling because of accident risk)

Other localised measures will be employed as is happening now

Richard


 
On 16 Sep 2020, at 20:26, George Coulouris <george@...> wrote:

Well designed LTNs shift the through traffic only to nearby main roads (which will probably become congested). The analogy holds up: smokers have to use smoking rooms or shelters which are crowded and unpleasant so 50% gave it up. 

On September 16, 2020 6:45:59 PM GMT+01:00, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:
The analogy falls apart, though, because at least in proposed Canonbury West LTN, the effect will be to shift traffic to other streets.  So the analogy is a ban on smoking in one pub, leading to all the smokers going to other pubs which are just as bad.
 
I am a bicyclist and in general in favour of well designed LTNs, but this one will be terrible.
 
From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 16 September 2020 6:14 p.m.
To: CCC <CamdenCyclists@groups.io>
Subject: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago
 

What a great analogy:

 

Josh Blacker (Ealing councillor)

A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 
*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 
Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 
Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 
Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 
The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 
Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 
Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 
Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •

 


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


Douglas Schwab
 

Hi
Imho the smoking analogy works and doesn’t. We know cars and smoking are unhealthy, but being asked to quit is a slow process, both are recognised addictions. 

The difference is in how society supports addicts. If society gives addicts the easiest routes and the most convenient spots to congregate then socially we are not helping addicts who wish to stop. Car use and smoking abatement are not best served by cold turkey stops, but by inconvenience that changes behaviour. Inconvenience also encourages those who have quit and want a massive change in their use. And the benefits to non-addicts are real.

Like banning smoking from pubs, let’s make the car user’s journey less convenient than the cyclist or pedestrian’s journey. How many people would smoke if they didn’t need to stand huddled in the rain? How many would hop in the car if it added 15-20 minutes to their commute? Or had to get out to press a button to make the traffic lights change?

Ending car addiction cold turkey is unrealistic, making car addicts anti-social is very, very possible.

Thanks for letting me share my views.

Bye for now




Douglas








On 17 Sep 2020, at 11:57, Tony Harms <anthonyharms@...> wrote:


No-one has to smoke

But quite a lot of people have to drive and a considerably larger number will be seriously incommoded by not being able to do so.  It won't just affect whether they can go to the pub but the jobs they can hold, the schools they can choose and their ability to leave home itself.

So the analogy is not terribly good and perhaps not the most useful one for convincing others rather than bolstering your own opinion.

One might think that the disadvantages of promoting conflict on our society were evident Cf: Brexit. 

Then there is the  question of whether it is really a good idea not to reduce traffic use directly but to push it onto those streets which in London often have the highest pedestrian density, not to mention their own residential use,  while leaving "residential" streets to become in effect private car parks. 

Most people accept that we need to reduce car use and that's a good starting point. Taking the actual steps to do so, however, is difficult.  Why not recognise that rather than alienating what support there is? 

Thanks for listening.












From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Fletcher <rickyfletch@...>
Sent: 17 September 2020 07:37
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago
 
The smoking analogy holds imo. 

The public perceives a necessity (freedom to drive), as smokers considered they had a right to smoke in a pub.  The political decision in the UK to ban smokers came from peer pressure and a change in social opinion. The medical evidence against smoking had been conclusive for years. Public opinion started to shift against smoking as the middle classes and opinion makers gave up and started to recognise the health risk. Then more enlightened countries went about and banned it in pubs, the tourists started to complain, and more and more people stopped going to the pub

Today we have a similar situation. The health risks of air pollution through vehicle exhausts are well known as is the accident risk. These facts have been known for decades. Mitigation strategies have been used, such as air bags, seat belts, and street furniture. However public opinion is moving against vehicles in neighbourhood, with the need for more pavement space, the added risk from covid with air pollution.  Now we need an enlightened country or town to lead…. to cut the accident risk and lower air pollution by bringing in an urban speed limit of 20 mph EVERYWHERE, on all roads. Thus air pollution would be reduced, and accident risk. Cyclists may start to resume using the roads in numbers. Drivers may think, hold it with an electric bike I can get about just as well. ( 60%+ of people are put off cycling because of accident risk)

Other localised measures will be employed as is happening now

Richard


 
On 16 Sep 2020, at 20:26, George Coulouris <george@...> wrote:

Well designed LTNs shift the through traffic only to nearby main roads (which will probably become congested). The analogy holds up: smokers have to use smoking rooms or shelters which are crowded and unpleasant so 50% gave it up. 

On September 16, 2020 6:45:59 PM GMT+01:00, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:
The analogy falls apart, though, because at least in proposed Canonbury West LTN, the effect will be to shift traffic to other streets.  So the analogy is a ban on smoking in one pub, leading to all the smokers going to other pubs which are just as bad.
 
I am a bicyclist and in general in favour of well designed LTNs, but this one will be terrible.
 
From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 16 September 2020 6:14 p.m.
To: CCC <CamdenCyclists@groups.io>
Subject: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago
 

What a great analogy:

 

Josh Blacker (Ealing councillor)

A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 
*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 
Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 
Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 
Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 
The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 
Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 
Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 
Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •

 


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.


George Coulouris
 


I find myself agreeing with Adam’s perspective on LTNs. There is much more to say them, and we shall no doubt be doing so as and when Camden bring forward some specific schemes. For now, I’d like to add that if the introduction of LTNs can bring about a significant reduction in private car use, the time gained by all the remaining drivers due to reduced congestion on main roads may well balance the extra time they will have to spend driving longer routes 'around’ LTNs rather than through them.

Adam also raises the interesting topic of  20 mph speed limits in cities. Most Inner London boroughs have already adopted a borough-wide 20 mph limit (applying to all or nearly all the roads they manage) and TfL have announced that 20 will be the limit on red routes inside the London congestion zone. The introduction of those limits were predicated on the clear road safety evidence seem where they have been applied elsewhere and their safety outcome has been as expected.
That leaves 3 principal red routes in Camden without a 20 mph limit: Camden Road, Euston Road and Finchley Road, (Camden High Street and Camden Street are red routes but have already had 20 mph limits applied).
All 3 of those principal red routes are so very heavily congested throughout the working day that it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to gain the theoretical journey time reduction offered by travelling at 30 mph. So we are left with a possible ‘benefit’ for drivers using just 3 roads in Camden at unpopular times. I’d suggest that the loss in pedestrian safety and convenience and the reduction in air quality near those roads far outweighs that benefit.

George Coulouris

On 17 Sep 2020, at 10:33, Adam G <adamgagen@...> wrote:

I think we need to keep some nuance though.  I'm not against cars driving in cities above 20 MPH.  People need to move, and some vulnerable groups still find private transport as essential.  The key thing as that such traffic is on roads that are designed for them, to ensure good flow without negative impacts on other groups.  That is where LTNs come in, in my view.  It does not make sense for traffic to flow through residential roads which were never designed for such a load.  Residential neighbourhoods should be primarily for residents to live in - with road safety and clean air a right not an option. 



John Stewart
 

Based on recent experience in Islington, beware poorly designed LTNs bringing out new opponents of bicycle friendly measures, including from bicyclists.

 

And the sooner the bicycle lanes on Euston Road are removed, the better for the future of bicycling in London – the extra pollution from taking away two lanes is terrible – and as a bicyclist I would never use Euston Road for that reason, and because there is too much traffic.

 

 

 

John G Stewart
5 Alwyne Road
Canonbury, Islington
London N1 2HH
Home Telephone: 020 7359 4590
Mobile: 07841 112 094

 

Жизнь прожить – не поле перейти. [Life is not a walk across a field.]

– последняя линия «Гамлета», поэма Бориса Пастернака

[last line of “Hamlet”, a poem by Boris Pasternak, translated by Ann Pasternak Slater]

 



 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 17 September 2020 17:49
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

 

I find myself agreeing with Adam’s perspective on LTNs. There is much more to say them, and we shall no doubt be doing so as and when Camden bring forward some specific schemes. For now, I’d like to add that if the introduction of LTNs can bring about a significant reduction in private car use, the time gained by all the remaining drivers due to reduced congestion on main roads may well balance the extra time they will have to spend driving longer routes 'around’ LTNs rather than through them.

 

Adam also raises the interesting topic of  20 mph speed limits in cities. Most Inner London boroughs have already adopted a borough-wide 20 mph limit (applying to all or nearly all the roads they manage) and TfL have announced that 20 will be the limit on red routes inside the London congestion zone. The introduction of those limits were predicated on the clear road safety evidence seem where they have been applied elsewhere and their safety outcome has been as expected.

That leaves 3 principal red routes in Camden without a 20 mph limit: Camden Road, Euston Road and Finchley Road, (Camden High Street and Camden Street are red routes but have already had 20 mph limits applied).

All 3 of those principal red routes are so very heavily congested throughout the working day that it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to gain the theoretical journey time reduction offered by travelling at 30 mph. So we are left with a possible ‘benefit’ for drivers using just 3 roads in Camden at unpopular times. I’d suggest that the loss in pedestrian safety and convenience and the reduction in air quality near those roads far outweighs that benefit.

 

George Coulouris

 

On 17 Sep 2020, at 10:33, Adam G <adamgagen@...> wrote:

 

I think we need to keep some nuance though.  I'm not against cars driving in cities above 20 MPH.  People need to move, and some vulnerable groups still find private transport as essential.  The key thing as that such traffic is on roads that are designed for them, to ensure good flow without negative impacts on other groups.  That is where LTNs come in, in my view.  It does not make sense for traffic to flow through residential roads which were never designed for such a load.  Residential neighbourhoods should be primarily for residents to live in - with road safety and clean air a right not an option. 

 

 


Paul Allen
 

I agree with regards Euston Road. It would be better to redirect cyclists to Tavistock, Torrington etc, but please can we have the link to Howland Street fixed (it's been out of action for a year now) and get Westminster to create as good a parallel extension to that route.

Finchley Road needs CS11 brought back to life (Westminster again!) and the dangerous Swiss Cottage gyratory removed - they are horrible for motorists as well, due to the stress of "crossing the streams".

BTW, I cycled along the new bus & cycle only lanes at Bishopsgate and New Oxford Street - they are too narrow creating unnecessary danger for cyclists.

Regards, Paul

On 17 Sep 2020, at 18:08, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:

Based on recent experience in Islington, beware poorly designed LTNs bringing out new opponents of bicycle friendly measures, including from bicyclists.
 
And the sooner the bicycle lanes on Euston Road are removed, the better for the future of bicycling in London – the extra pollution from taking away two lanes is terrible – and as a bicyclist I would never use Euston Road for that reason, and because there is too much traffic. 
 
 
 
John G Stewart
5 Alwyne Road
Canonbury, Islington
London N1 2HH
Home Telephone: 020 7359 4590
Mobile: 07841 112 094
 
Жизнь прожить – не поле перейти. [Life is not a walk across a field.]
– последняя линия «Гамлета», поэма Бориса Пастернака
[last line of “Hamlet”, a poem by Boris Pasternak, translated by Ann Pasternak Slater]
 


 
From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 17 September 2020 17:49
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago
 
 
I find myself agreeing with Adam’s perspective on LTNs. There is much more to say them, and we shall no doubt be doing so as and when Camden bring forward some specific schemes. For now, I’d like to add that if the introduction of LTNs can bring about a significant reduction in private car use, the time gained by all the remaining drivers due to reduced congestion on main roads may well balance the extra time they will have to spend driving longer routes 'around’ LTNs rather than through them.
 
Adam also raises the interesting topic of  20 mph speed limits in cities. Most Inner London boroughs have already adopted a borough-wide 20 mph limit (applying to all or nearly all the roads they manage) and TfL have announced that 20 will be the limit on red routes inside the London congestion zone. The introduction of those limits were predicated on the clear road safety evidence seem where they have been applied elsewhere and their safety outcome has been as expected.
That leaves 3 principal red routes in Camden without a 20 mph limit: Camden Road, Euston Road and Finchley Road, (Camden High Street and Camden Street are red routes but have already had 20 mph limits applied).
All 3 of those principal red routes are so very heavily congested throughout the working day that it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to gain the theoretical journey time reduction offered by travelling at 30 mph. So we are left with a possible ‘benefit’ for drivers using just 3 roads in Camden at unpopular times. I’d suggest that the loss in pedestrian safety and convenience and the reduction in air quality near those roads far outweighs that benefit.
 
George Coulouris
 
On 17 Sep 2020, at 10:33, Adam G <adamgagen@...> wrote:
 
I think we need to keep some nuance though.  I'm not against cars driving in cities above 20 MPH.  People need to move, and some vulnerable groups still find private transport as essential.  The key thing as that such traffic is on roads that are designed for them, to ensure good flow without negative impacts on other groups.  That is where LTNs come in, in my view.  It does not make sense for traffic to flow through residential roads which were never designed for such a load.  Residential neighbourhoods should be primarily for residents to live in - with road safety and clean air a right not an option. 
 
 



Tony Raven
 

Sure, there are some people and purposes which you need a motor vehicle for but the large majority of journeys most people don’t.  Getting rid of those unnecessary journeys would make a big difference.    The traffic trunk roads though don’t address the biggest problem which is the pollution those vehicles produce and the air quality related deaths that result.  In time with EVs that might change but for now it’s a big problem.

 

Tony

 

From: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> on behalf of Adam G <adamgagen@...>
Reply to: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 11:04
To: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

I think we need to keep some nuance though.  I'm not against cars driving in cities above 20 MPH.  People need to move, and some vulnerable groups still find private transport as essential.  The key thing as that such traffic is on roads that are designed for them, to ensure good flow without negative impacts on other groups.  That is where LTNs come in, in my view.  It does not make sense for traffic to flow through residential roads which were never designed for such a load.  Residential neighbourhoods should be primarily for residents to live in - with road safety and clean air a right not an option. 

 

There are good examples in East Asia and Nordics where 'traffic trunk roads' are identified and prioritised for cars (with real protected cycle lanes where needed), and all other residential roads are prioritised for bikes and residents.  That means filters on all rat run routes, entry exit routes into neighbourhoods that work for residents but disincentivise people driving through them as they would be less efficient routes than other traffic prioritised roads, etc. At present we have extremely little action by Camden and Brent in certain areas - Kilburn High Road / Edgeware Road / Boundary Road is one of the best examples (potentially as they are split responsibilities). 

 

As a father of two who cycles to work daily (in normal times), until my kids can cycle or go in the buggy behind my bike safely between major areas I'll still have to use non-bike based transport more than I want to. 

   

I think CC does an amazing job promoting key schemes.  Do we need to take a step back and have a master plan we can promote to hit critical mass of LTNs and routes in the borough?

 

On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 at 09:05, Tony Raven <tony@...> wrote:

I agree.

 

Z

 

 

Tony  😊

 

 

From: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> on behalf of Richard Fletcher <rickyfletch@...>
Reply to: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 08:37
To: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

The smoking analogy holds imo. 

 

The public perceives a necessity (freedom to drive), as smokers considered they had a right to smoke in a pub.  The political decision in the UK to ban smokers came from peer pressure and a change in social opinion. The medical evidence against smoking had been conclusive for years. Public opinion started to shift against smoking as the middle classes and opinion makers gave up and started to recognise the health risk. Then more enlightened countries went about and banned it in pubs, the tourists started to complain, and more and more people stopped going to the pub

 

Today we have a similar situation. The health risks of air pollution through vehicle exhausts are well known as is the accident risk. These facts have been known for decades. Mitigation strategies have been used, such as air bags, seat belts, and street furniture. However public opinion is moving against vehicles in neighbourhood, with the need for more pavement space, the added risk from covid with air pollution.  Now we need an enlightened country or town to lead…. to cut the accident risk and lower air pollution by bringing in an urban speed limit of 20 mph EVERYWHERE, on all roads. Thus air pollution would be reduced, and accident risk. Cyclists may start to resume using the roads in numbers. Drivers may think, hold it with an electric bike I can get about just as well. ( 60%+ of people are put off cycling because of accident risk)

 

Other localised measures will be employed as is happening now

 

Richard

 

 

 

On 16 Sep 2020, at 20:26, George Coulouris <george@...> wrote:

 

Well designed LTNs shift the through traffic only to nearby main roads (which will probably become congested). The analogy holds up: smokers have to use smoking rooms or shelters which are crowded and unpleasant so 50% gave it up. 

On September 16, 2020 6:45:59 PM GMT+01:00, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:

The analogy falls apart, though, because at least in proposed Canonbury West LTN, the effect will be to shift traffic to other streets.  So the analogy is a ban on smoking in one pub, leading to all the smokers going to other pubs which are just as bad.

 

I am a bicyclist and in general in favour of well designed LTNs, but this one will be terrible.

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 16 September 2020 6:14 p.m.
To: CCC <CamdenCyclists@groups.io>
Subject: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

What a great analogy:

 

Josh Blacker (Ealing councillor)

A propos of nothing*: Once upon a time, people could smoke in pubs and cafes. This was harmful to them, to others, and generally made the environment pretty unpleasant. But it was the status quo. 

*yes, this is a thinly-veiled thread on LTNs. 

Other people smoked regardless of the impact their choice had on you. They smoked around your children, who were breathing in toxic air. The public health implications were huge. 

Campaigns were launched to ask people to change their behaviour, to little effect. The then-CMO said “voluntary agreements were not reducing the health risks from passive smoking quickly enough”. Something drastic had to be done. 

Enter, the smoking ban. This was hugely controversial - 78% were against it in 2007, shortly after it took effect. Your personal choice was now restricted, for the benefit of other people. 

The health effects were immediate. Heart attack rates fell noticeably. Longer-term fewer people will suffer from passive smoking - and with smoking down by almost a half, from smoking itself. Our communal spaces are much more pleasant, too. 

Public support has done an about turn. From 78% against to 83% in favour ten years later.
It takes incredible bravery in politics to do something on the face of it so deeply unpopular, but sometimes the evidence tells you action must be taken. 

Behaviour change is hard. Asking nicely often doesn't work. Changing the implications of people's choices - to smoke you have to leave the pub and go outside, for instance - gives people a reason to change those choices. 

Thanks to @JXantheW have realised I misread YouGov support in 2007 - people broadly in favour. But opposition was very vocal and angry: "The anti-smoking fanatics will use the ban to victimise and stigmatise smokers," Forest said. That's language we recognise from LTNs... 

• • •

 


-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

 


Tony Raven
 

I don’t.  Euston Road is by far my quickest way between KGX, EUS, MYB, PAD.  The alternatives you suggest are much slower and more tortuous to navigate than the Euston Road bus lanes.  So no thanks please.

 

Tony

 

From: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> on behalf of "Paul Allen via groups.io" <paul_t_allen@...>
Reply to: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Date: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 18:31
To: <main@camdencyclists.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

I agree with regards Euston Road. It would be better to redirect cyclists to Tavistock, Torrington etc, but please can we have the link to Howland Street fixed (it's been out of action for a year now) and get Westminster to create as good a parallel extension to that route.

 

Finchley Road needs CS11 brought back to life (Westminster again!) and the dangerous Swiss Cottage gyratory removed - they are horrible for motorists as well, due to the stress of "crossing the streams".

 

BTW, I cycled along the new bus & cycle only lanes at Bishopsgate and New Oxford Street - they are too narrow creating unnecessary danger for cyclists.

 

Regards, Paul



On 17 Sep 2020, at 18:08, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:

 

Based on recent experience in Islington, beware poorly designed LTNs bringing out new opponents of bicycle friendly measures, including from bicyclists.

 

And the sooner the bicycle lanes on Euston Road are removed, the better for the future of bicycling in London – the extra pollution from taking away two lanes is terrible – and as a bicyclist I would never use Euston Road for that reason, and because there is too much traffic. 

 

 

 

John G Stewart
5 Alwyne Road
Canonbury, Islington
London N1 2HH
Home Telephone: 020 7359 4590
Mobile: 07841 112 094

 

Жизнь прожить – не поле перейти. [Life is not a walk across a field.]

– последняя линия «Гамлета», поэма Бориса Пастернака

[last line of “Hamlet”, a poem by Boris Pasternak, translated by Ann Pasternak Slater]

 




 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 17 September 2020 17:49
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

 

I find myself agreeing with Adam’s perspective on LTNs. There is much more to say them, and we shall no doubt be doing so as and when Camden bring forward some specific schemes. For now, I’d like to add that if the introduction of LTNs can bring about a significant reduction in private car use, the time gained by all the remaining drivers due to reduced congestion on main roads may well balance the extra time they will have to spend driving longer routes 'around’ LTNs rather than through them.

 

Adam also raises the interesting topic of  20 mph speed limits in cities. Most Inner London boroughs have already adopted a borough-wide 20 mph limit (applying to all or nearly all the roads they manage) and TfL have announced that 20 will be the limit on red routes inside the London congestion zone. The introduction of those limits were predicated on the clear road safety evidence seem where they have been applied elsewhere and their safety outcome has been as expected.

That leaves 3 principal red routes in Camden without a 20 mph limit: Camden Road, Euston Road and Finchley Road, (Camden High Street and Camden Street are red routes but have already had 20 mph limits applied).

All 3 of those principal red routes are so very heavily congested throughout the working day that it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to gain the theoretical journey time reduction offered by travelling at 30 mph. So we are left with a possible ‘benefit’ for drivers using just 3 roads in Camden at unpopular times. I’d suggest that the loss in pedestrian safety and convenience and the reduction in air quality near those roads far outweighs that benefit.

 

George Coulouris

 

On 17 Sep 2020, at 10:33, Adam G <adamgagen@...> wrote:

 

I think we need to keep some nuance though.  I'm not against cars driving in cities above 20 MPH.  People need to move, and some vulnerable groups still find private transport as essential.  The key thing as that such traffic is on roads that are designed for them, to ensure good flow without negative impacts on other groups.  That is where LTNs come in, in my view.  It does not make sense for traffic to flow through residential roads which were never designed for such a load.  Residential neighbourhoods should be primarily for residents to live in - with road safety and clean air a right not an option. 

 

 

 


richendawalford
 

I was interested in the phrase “a poorly designed LTN”.  In what way could an LTN be poorly designed? I’ve thought of a few:

  • A non-main road still carrying through traffic.  But that would contradict the definition of an LTN.
  • Filters that do not allow the passage of cargo bikes, mobility scooters, etc.
  • Filters that do not actually stop drivers, e.g. unenforced cameras.
  • Filters that motorbikes use without any penalty. (I expect this to be a common problem.)
  • Filters, signage, etc. being done on the cheap will not make the LTN pretty, but that can be fixed later when it becomes permanent.
  • The location of the filters will determine the routes used by residents to reach their homes. What would be the optimal design here?  What factors to consider? Should one try and minimise the total distance travelled? Or minimise the number of vehicles passing any one home? Or something else?  It strikes me that this might be an important issue but I’m not aware that any existing LTNs have experienced this as a problem.

 

Have I missed any potential design flaws?  Does anyone know what caused the Lambeth LTN to be scraped? Was it poor design?  Sorry that this post is mainly questions, but I’d really like some answers!

 

Richenda Walford
London Remembers  & Facebook & Twitter: @LondonRemembers

George Walford International Essay Prize

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of John Stewart via groups.io
Sent: 17 September 2020 18:08
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

Based on recent experience in Islington, beware poorly designed LTNs bringing out new opponents of bicycle friendly measures, including from bicyclists.

 

And the sooner the bicycle lanes on Euston Road are removed, the better for the future of bicycling in London – the extra pollution from taking away two lanes is terrible – and as a bicyclist I would never use Euston Road for that reason, and because there is too much traffic.

 

 

 

John G Stewart
5 Alwyne Road
Canonbury, Islington
London N1 2HH
Home Telephone: 020 7359 4590
Mobile: 07841 112 094

 

Жизнь прожить – не поле перейти. [Life is not a walk across a field.]

– последняя линия «Гамлета», поэма Бориса Пастернака

[last line of “Hamlet”, a poem by Boris Pasternak, translated by Ann Pasternak Slater]

 

 

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 17 September 2020 17:49
To:
main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

 

I find myself agreeing with Adam’s perspective on LTNs. There is much more to say them, and we shall no doubt be doing so as and when Camden bring forward some specific schemes. For now, I’d like to add that if the introduction of LTNs can bring about a significant reduction in private car use, the time gained by all the remaining drivers due to reduced congestion on main roads may well balance the extra time they will have to spend driving longer routes 'around’ LTNs rather than through them.

 

Adam also raises the interesting topic of  20 mph speed limits in cities. Most Inner London boroughs have already adopted a borough-wide 20 mph limit (applying to all or nearly all the roads they manage) and TfL have announced that 20 will be the limit on red routes inside the London congestion zone. The introduction of those limits were predicated on the clear road safety evidence seem where they have been applied elsewhere and their safety outcome has been as expected.

That leaves 3 principal red routes in Camden without a 20 mph limit: Camden Road, Euston Road and Finchley Road, (Camden High Street and Camden Street are red routes but have already had 20 mph limits applied).

All 3 of those principal red routes are so very heavily congested throughout the working day that it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to gain the theoretical journey time reduction offered by travelling at 30 mph. So we are left with a possible ‘benefit’ for drivers using just 3 roads in Camden at unpopular times. I’d suggest that the loss in pedestrian safety and convenience and the reduction in air quality near those roads far outweighs that benefit.

 

George Coulouris

 

On 17 Sep 2020, at 10:33, Adam G <adamgagen@...> wrote:

 

I think we need to keep some nuance though.  I'm not against cars driving in cities above 20 MPH.  People need to move, and some vulnerable groups still find private transport as essential.  The key thing as that such traffic is on roads that are designed for them, to ensure good flow without negative impacts on other groups.  That is where LTNs come in, in my view.  It does not make sense for traffic to flow through residential roads which were never designed for such a load.  Residential neighbourhoods should be primarily for residents to live in - with road safety and clean air a right not an option. 

 

 


John Stewart
 

For last bullet point, how about filters that make a taxi or delivery vehicle that currently travels 125 feet having to go 0.9 miles to get to my house, and in the process being stuck in front of a primary school and going  on a residential street that has the bad luck to be the street that all traffic now has to take.  And all cars and vehicles having to do a three point turn in front of my building when the road becomes one way. 

 

I’m a bicyclist with a broken ankle (hiking accident) so dependent on taxis to get around at the moment.  And my elderly neighbours similarly dependent. 

 

Best wishes

 

John

 

 

 

John G Stewart
5 Alwyne Road
Canonbury, Islington
London N1 2HH
Home Telephone: 020 7359 4590
Mobile: 07841 112 094

 

Жизнь прожить – не поле перейти. [Life is not a walk across a field.]

– последняя линия «Гамлета», поэма Бориса Пастернака

[last line of “Hamlet”, a poem by Boris Pasternak, translated by Ann Pasternak Slater]

 



 

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of richendawalford via groups.io
Sent: 18 September 2020 17:37
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

I was interested in the phrase “a poorly designed LTN”.  In what way could an LTN be poorly designed? I’ve thought of a few:

  • A non-main road still carrying through traffic.  But that would contradict the definition of an LTN.
  • Filters that do not allow the passage of cargo bikes, mobility scooters, etc.
  • Filters that do not actually stop drivers, e.g. unenforced cameras.
  • Filters that motorbikes use without any penalty. (I expect this to be a common problem.)
  • Filters, signage, etc. being done on the cheap will not make the LTN pretty, but that can be fixed later when it becomes permanent.
  • The location of the filters will determine the routes used by residents to reach their homes. What would be the optimal design here?  What factors to consider? Should one try and minimise the total distance travelled? Or minimise the number of vehicles passing any one home? Or something else?  It strikes me that this might be an important issue but I’m not aware that any existing LTNs have experienced this as a problem.

 

Have I missed any potential design flaws?  Does anyone know what caused the Lambeth LTN to be scraped? Was it poor design?  Sorry that this post is mainly questions, but I’d really like some answers!

 

Richenda Walford
London Remembers  & Facebook & Twitter: @LondonRemembers

George Walford International Essay Prize

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of John Stewart via groups.io
Sent: 17 September 2020 18:08
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

Based on recent experience in Islington, beware poorly designed LTNs bringing out new opponents of bicycle friendly measures, including from bicyclists.

 

And the sooner the bicycle lanes on Euston Road are removed, the better for the future of bicycling in London – the extra pollution from taking away two lanes is terrible – and as a bicyclist I would never use Euston Road for that reason, and because there is too much traffic.

 

 

 

John G Stewart
5 Alwyne Road
Canonbury, Islington
London N1 2HH
Home Telephone: 020 7359 4590
Mobile: 07841 112 094

 

Жизнь прожить – не поле перейти. [Life is not a walk across a field.]

– последняя линия «Гамлета», поэма Бориса Пастернака

[last line of “Hamlet”, a poem by Boris Pasternak, translated by Ann Pasternak Slater]

 

 

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Coulouris via groups.io
Sent: 17 September 2020 17:49
To:
main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

 

I find myself agreeing with Adam’s perspective on LTNs. There is much more to say them, and we shall no doubt be doing so as and when Camden bring forward some specific schemes. For now, I’d like to add that if the introduction of LTNs can bring about a significant reduction in private car use, the time gained by all the remaining drivers due to reduced congestion on main roads may well balance the extra time they will have to spend driving longer routes 'around’ LTNs rather than through them.

 

Adam also raises the interesting topic of  20 mph speed limits in cities. Most Inner London boroughs have already adopted a borough-wide 20 mph limit (applying to all or nearly all the roads they manage) and TfL have announced that 20 will be the limit on red routes inside the London congestion zone. The introduction of those limits were predicated on the clear road safety evidence seem where they have been applied elsewhere and their safety outcome has been as expected.

That leaves 3 principal red routes in Camden without a 20 mph limit: Camden Road, Euston Road and Finchley Road, (Camden High Street and Camden Street are red routes but have already had 20 mph limits applied).

All 3 of those principal red routes are so very heavily congested throughout the working day that it is unrealistic for anyone to expect to gain the theoretical journey time reduction offered by travelling at 30 mph. So we are left with a possible ‘benefit’ for drivers using just 3 roads in Camden at unpopular times. I’d suggest that the loss in pedestrian safety and convenience and the reduction in air quality near those roads far outweighs that benefit.

 

George Coulouris

 

On 17 Sep 2020, at 10:33, Adam G <adamgagen@...> wrote:

 

I think we need to keep some nuance though.  I'm not against cars driving in cities above 20 MPH.  People need to move, and some vulnerable groups still find private transport as essential.  The key thing as that such traffic is on roads that are designed for them, to ensure good flow without negative impacts on other groups.  That is where LTNs come in, in my view.  It does not make sense for traffic to flow through residential roads which were never designed for such a load.  Residential neighbourhoods should be primarily for residents to live in - with road safety and clean air a right not an option. 

 

 


Steven Edwards
 

Sorry John, your point is a bit unclear.

But. An intervention is an intervention.

Once initial teething issues are overcome, filters usually settle down & drivers learn where they are entitled to go.

SATNAV has literally driven the increase of rat-running traffic.
It will, once LTNs become accepted (fingers crossed), enable drivers to make the best choice of route:
which would include the option of making a motor-free short-cut (thus freeing-up space for vehicles like taxis).

Bus gates and ambulance gates are good variations.


Steven


On 18 Sep 2020, at 17:44, John Stewart <john.stewart@...> wrote:

For last bullet point, how about filters that make a taxi or delivery vehicle that currently travels 125 feet having to go 0.9 miles to get to my house, and in the process being stuck in front of a primary school and going  on a residential street that has the bad luck to be the street that all traffic now has to take.  And all cars and vehicles having to do a three point turn in front of my building when the road becomes one way. 
 
I’m a bicyclist with a broken ankle (hiking accident) so dependent on taxis to get around at the moment.  And my elderly neighbours similarly dependent. 


Steven Edwards
 

Hi Richenda / John,



re:

Does anyone know what caused the Lambeth LTN to be scraped? 

• I do hope you’re mistaken on this one.

Lambeth has been blazing ahead. I’ve not heard anything to suggest this has changed…(?)

Here’s a Tweet from @clairekholland 6 hours agp:




I'm pleased to be able to share @lambeth_council's plans for a low traffic neighbourhood
in the Tulse Hill area

This is the 5th LTN we have introduced in the borough
 as part of our emergency transport programme funded by




• Whereas, neighbouring Wandsworth, caved in to the motor noise rabble, far short of the specified ’Trialling Period’.
From Thursday afternoon:



For fans of 'Slow TV' here's the Mellison Rd / Trevelyan Rd in #Tooting this afternoon This is a route motorists use to avoid the A24 and Tooting Broadway junction This isn't caused by the CS7 cycle lane, it's just back to normal now the LTN is gone



Steven
 




On 18 Sep 2020, at 17:37, richendawalford <richenda@...> wrote:

  • The location of the filters will determine the routes used by residents to reach their homes. What would be the optimal design here?  What factors to consider? Should one try and minimise the total distance travelled? Or minimise the number of vehicles passing any one home? Or something else?  It strikes me that this might be an important issue but I’m not aware that any existing LTNs have experienced this as a problem.
 
Have I missed any potential design flaws?  Does anyone know what caused the Lambeth LTN to be scraped? Was it poor design?  Sorry that this post is mainly questions, but I’d really like some answers!


richendawalford
 

Thanks for correcting me – yes, I meant the Wandsworth LTN.  Of course when an LTN is first implemented there is going to be confusion while the Sat Navs and the drivers learn the new road layouts.  No decision should be made until it’s all settled down, and the real effect is understood.  

 

Richenda Walford
London Remembers  & Facebook & Twitter: @LondonRemembers

George Walford International Essay Prize

 

From: main@camdencyclists.groups.io <main@camdencyclists.groups.io> On Behalf Of Steven Edwards via groups.io
Sent: 18 September 2020 21:38
To: main@camdencyclists.groups.io
Subject: Re: [camdencyclists] Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are a lot like the indoor smoking bans of a decade or so ago

 

Hi Richenda / John,

 

 

 

re:

 

Does anyone know what caused the Lambeth LTN to be scraped? 

 

• I do hope you’re mistaken on this one.

 

Lambeth has been blazing ahead. I’ve not heard anything to suggest this has changed…(?)

 

Here’s a Tweet from @clairekholland 6 hours agp:

 

 

 

 

I'm pleased to be able to share @lambeth_council's plans for a low traffic neighbourhood

in the Tulse Hill area

 

This is the 5th LTN we have introduced in the borough

 as part of our emergency transport programme funded by

 

 

 

 

• Whereas, neighbouring Wandsworth, caved in to the motor noise rabble, far short of the specified ’Trialling Period’.

From Thursday afternoon:

 

 

 

For fans of 'Slow TV' here's the Mellison Rd / Trevelyan Rd in #Tooting this afternoon This is a route motorists use to avoid the A24 and Tooting Broadway junction This isn't caused by the CS7 cycle lane, it's just back to normal now the LTN is gone

 

 

 

 

Steven

 

 

 

 

 

On 18 Sep 2020, at 17:37, richendawalford <richenda@...> wrote:

 

·        The location of the filters will determine the routes used by residents to reach their homes. What would be the optimal design here?  What factors to consider? Should one try and minimise the total distance travelled? Or minimise the number of vehicles passing any one home? Or something else?  It strikes me that this might be an important issue but I’m not aware that any existing LTNs have experienced this as a problem.

 

Have I missed any potential design flaws?  Does anyone know what caused the Lambeth LTN to be scraped? Was it poor design?  Sorry that this post is mainly questions, but I’d really like some answers!