| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:LTNs and the definition of a residential road | |
| Posted by: | Simon Hayes | |
| Date/Time: | 29/12/22 14:25:00 |
| Oh dear. More babbling about bad faith and inevitable nonsensical statistics that price nothing. You simply dismiss anything that fails to tally with your prejudice. In Ealing the LTN experiment was imposed to combat ‘future rat running’ (a term which shouldn’t be included in any reasoned debate). It wasn’t to address any problems that existed or might even have arisen in future. In the words of disgraced ex council leader Julian Bell they were imposed to ‘take advantage of Covid’ because it was what he and a small band of cycling zealots wanted. They used the dft data, subsequently shown to be wildly inaccurate, to try to justify the plans, even though the lived experiences of those within the new LTNs was that traffic was very light. The result was traffic chaos, massively increased congestion, including on some LTN roads, and a concerted campaign of misinformation, manipulated data and outright lies from the council. They couldn’t prove any of the claims made about pollution or traffic evaporation. All they did was mobilise a lot of residents to protest against the schemes, scaring Labour into changing leader and removing most of the LTNs just ahead of an election year. They are now being watched very carefully. TfL’s accident data shows a drop across London. Nothing to do with LTNs but probably more to do with traffic being slowed to almost walking pace in many areas. And the majority of accidents involved buses, lorries and vans, which indicates that that larger vehicles rather than cars are the issue. A bit rich if you to dismiss counter arguments as ‘bad faith’ when your entire world view us so utterly skewed. Your supposed stats about South Parade have already been proven to be based on false data. You ought to understand that London doesn’t just belong to you and the LCC. |