"I rode ten miles to the bike shop clenching it between my buttocks": Reader's collapsed saddle nightmare; Anti-LTN vandalism; "Bet you I can"; Pros injured by driver; National champs reaction; Merckx addresses Remco criticism + more on the live blog

Nigel Garage wrote:

I can't help feeling that the shenanigans of the quasi Marxist group "Insulate Britain" are stirring up ill-feeling towards LTNs, which were unpopular before but now seem to be pretty much universally opposed. No one wants to have their freedoms curtailed by a group of far-left eco fanatics, and it's hardly surprising that society is pushing back against this threat.

Rubbish. These anti-LTN fanatics (and they are fanatics) were tooled up and spouting lies and breaking the law for at least a year before insulate Britain very recently turned up.

And LTN's are univerally liked by people who actually live in them

Nigel Garage wrote:

...LTNs, which were unpopular before but now seem to be pretty much universally opposed.

Polls in London have consistently shown an average of around 50% in favour, 20% opposed and 30% undecided, no strong feelings either way or don't know. Stop lying.

"Just because some vested interest group claims they are unpopular doesn't mean they are."

FIFY

Nigel Garage wrote:

Just because some vested interest group claims they are popular doesn't mean they are, in this case evidenced by direct action on the ground and their political backlash.

And because some powerful vested interest groups claim they are unpopular (in London particularly UTAG and the LTDA) that doesn't mean they are, does it? I can't speak for other areas but in the one shown here, near which I live, the opposition comes almost exclusively from a small handful of residents on the affected roads who object to having to drive a couple of hundred yards round the block to get to their driveways. Dulwich Village was a 12+ hours a day continuous traffic jam snaking past the two primary schools within fifty yards of the road closure, it's now quiet, has clean air and there has been no increase in traffic on surrounding roads. There has been a massive increase in active travel.

Your utter hypocrisy in claiming that "direct action on the ground" reflects public feeling is astounding: 'quasi Marxist group "Insulate Britain"' are taking "direct action on the ground", by your logic that shows their views must be popular.

The popularity of LTNs has been shown in national polling, do you have poll figures to substantiate your claims of unpopularity? Of course you don't.

Nigel Garage wrote:

two-thirds of respondents wanted the roads to be returned to their original state

Not two-thirds of residents, you note. All residents were supplied with a unique identifier number for answering the questionnaire online to show that they are actual residents, do you know how many of the 7,500 responses carried such a number? 1400. The supporters of HTNs have made no secret on Twitter and elsewhere that they encourage those opposing LTNs elsewhere in London to fill in questionnaires wherever they can, regardless of residency.

If one were to take the figures at face value, One Dulwich, who are such expert cherrypickers they could make good the shortfall in EU farmworkers singlehandedly, somehow omitted the fact that the people who actually live on the affected roads (Calton Road and Court Lane) support the measures remaining, 67% and 52% respectively.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

two-thirds of respondents wanted the roads to be returned to their original state

Not two-thirds of residents, you note. All residents were supplied with a unique identifier number for answering the questionnaire online to show that they are actual residents, do you know how many of the 7,500 responses carried such a number? 1400. The supporters of HTNs have made no secret on Twitter and elsewhere that they encourage those opposing LTNs elsewhere in London to fill in questionnaires wherever they can, regardless of residency.

If one were to take the figures at face value, One Dulwich, who are such expert cherrypickers they could make good the shortfall in EU farmworkers singlehandedly, somehow omitted the fact that the people who actually live on the affected roads (Calton Road and Court Lane) support the measures remaining, 67% and 52% respectively.

meanwhile those from elsewhere who want to treat their neighbourhood as a convenient shortcut are against. Who'd have thought?

Nigel Garage wrote:

I have to say I know quite a bit about this area as I used to be really good friends with someone who lived locally and went to JAGs, which by all accounts is an excellent (although expensive) school.

More like you know the area well because you used it as a rat run and now you are crying into your coffee that you have to find another route.

Nigel Garage wrote:

Well let's take Dulwich as an example. One Dulwich have collated the figures that Southwark council deliberately buried in three different documents"

As Rendel said these anti-LTN groups all run to support the others.  I mean just look at the One Dulwich Twitter followers, then look at any other "One" group and you will find that they all follow each other and that it tends to be the same twitter followers across them all.  Comprised largely of other "One" groups and cab firms, with a smattering of anti-cyclist individuals thrown in.

I'm going to be bored later and trawl through their followers..... I wonder if your Twitter handle will be amoung them Nigel

The assertion that “Southwark council deliberately buried the Dulwich results” by placing them in a public document they published on the Internet is patently laughable.

The installation of the LTNs was approved and authorised by our democratically elected representatives, not “far-left eco fanatics”, or some interest group ,or because someone in the Transport Department walks to work along that route.

This isn’t class war; it’s UK democracy – suck it up.

“"Hundreds of new schemes have created safe space for people to cycle and walk, supported pubs and restaurants that might otherwise have closed, and allowed us to get the exercise we need. For decades we mourned that children no longer played in the street. Now once again, in some places, they do." Boris Johnson (must be some loony, lefty, unelected eco terrorist).

Nigel Garage wrote:

As for Boris Johnson, well I hate to inform him otherwise but kids have played in the street where I live for years without needing LTNs set up. But that's because of good initial road design (in my case I live in a cul de sac).

Glad to hear there's space for kids. Sounds like a LTN to me - or are drivers rat-running through the garden of the poor people living at the end of the road?

EDIT: so should lots of others be denied your luck in road design because some people are very noisy about it? LTNs themselves are hardly news!

Nigel Garage wrote:

Mary Willoughby wrote:

The assertion that “Southwark council deliberately buried the Dulwich results” by placing them in a public document they available on the Internet is patently laughable.

Well they did. Don't believe me? I challenge you to find the results or any mention of them through any internet search engine. You'll find plenty of pro-LTN propaganda though as you do search.

I know I shouldn't feed, but...

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dulwich+review

*clicks first link* *clicks link in first paragraph* *finds report with all the results*

(*also notes that the next few results are all anti-LTN propaganda campaign sites*)

Nigel Garage wrote:

Well sure, if you know the exact name "Dulwich Review" (how many people would type that in, as opposed to say Dulwich LTN consultation?), 

You mean like this, which returns exactly the same link?

You're right, though, they have nefariously hidden it as a subsidiary result, instead of the main one. I'm sure that's entirely deliberate, rather than a result of slightly crap SEO management. Unfortunate for them that they were too incompetent to stop it returning as the top result for half a dozen other similar searches I tried, like, say 'Dulwich LTN results'.

Nigel Garage wrote:

and then know to click on the link at the end of the first paragraph,

You mean, where it says "The full report can be found here."?

You're right, can't think why anyone would expect to find it there.

Nigel Garage wrote:

and then know to click "Appendix D" from the 20 or so supplementary documents you'd find the correct document.

Yes, because it's only clearly flagged up as the place to look in the first line under 'Public Consultation' in the report summary - those devious bastards, cunningly hiding it like that!

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that Boo is seemingly pointing out that he doesn't think the Anti-LTN people are smart enough to find a report or the data needed. Still he is lucky enough to live in a cul-de-sac and wants to metaphorically pull the drawbridge up after him. 

Nigel Garage wrote:

 

As for Boris Johnson, well I hate to inform him otherwise but kids have played in the street where I live for years without needing LTNs set up. But that's because of good initial road design (in my case I live in a cul de sac).

NG lives in a low traffic road, doesn't want others to have the same pleasure. Preferring to support the ever expanding vehicluar traffic consuming the city.

Nigel Garage wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

NG lives in a low traffic road, doesn't want others to have the same pleasure. Preferring to support the ever expanding vehicluar traffic consuming the city.

Er no, my road was designed in harmony with the existing road infrastructure to accommodate a realistic number of motor vehicles, which is a million miles away from what LTNs are doing - if someone suddenly decided to block off half the throughfares around here the locals would also be up in arms here too.

When was it designed, Nigel?  Because the amount of traffic will undoubtedly have gone up since, so the 'realistic number of motor vehicles' will now be unrealistic.  Time to open up your cul de sac and make it a through road.

Steve K wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

Er no, my road was designed in harmony with the existing road infrastructure to accommodate a realistic number of motor vehicles, which is a million miles away from what LTNs are doing - if someone suddenly decided to block off half the throughfares around here the locals would also be up in arms here too.

When was it designed, Nigel?  Because the amount of traffic will undoubtedly have gone up since, so the 'realistic number of motor vehicles' will now be unrealistic.  Time to open up your cul de sac and make it a through road.

Judging by the age of my house, our road was designed and built around the 1890s, so I'm doubting that they really anticipated a lot of motor traffic. Luckily, the narrow road, combined with parking on both sides does restrict the speed of through traffic, but I'd still prefer the road to be made into an LTN. There was a consultation several months ago, but nothing's happened since (apart from a few families at the top of the road making it into an LTN each Friday evening so that their kids can play in the street).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Steve K wrote:

Nigel Garage wrote:

Er no, my road was designed in harmony with the existing road infrastructure to accommodate a realistic number of motor vehicles, which is a million miles away from what LTNs are doing - if someone suddenly decided to block off half the throughfares around here the locals would also be up in arms here too.

When was it designed, Nigel?  Because the amount of traffic will undoubtedly have gone up since, so the 'realistic number of motor vehicles' will now be unrealistic.  Time to open up your cul de sac and make it a through road.

Judging by the age of my house, our road was designed and built around the 1890s, so I'm doubting that they really anticipated a lot of motor traffic. Luckily, the narrow road, combined with parking on both sides does restrict the speed of through traffic, but I'd still prefer the road to be made into an LTN. There was a consultation several months ago, but nothing's happened since (apart from a few families at the top of the road making it into an LTN each Friday evening so that their kids can play in the street).

I'm lucky enough to live on a no through road.  It's a lovely road to live on, and there are a group of kids (including mine) who play together in the street.  It was built in the 1930s, when traffic levels in the area were clearly much lower.  It would probably be relatively easy (comp purchase some garden space) to open it up and make it a through road, which (following anti-LTN logic) would allievate pressure on the busy main road through the village.  Were I anti-LTN, it would be hypocritical of me not to be calling for such a thing.  But actually, what I'd like is for more children to be able to enjoy the benefits my children do.

if only all roads could be kept at the level of realistic number of vehicles from when they were designed.

The fact is when these LTNs were designed people were not using them as cut throughs, all the traffic used the main roads. But subsequently the proliferation of sat navs and aps like wayz has tought people to use these former residential roads as new through roads, not because they were designed for it at the time, in harmony with through roads built in 1900, but with the miraculous foresight for 2020s traffic levels, by providing additional capacity on residential roads. Really? This is your argument, that the network was designed to account for people using neighbourhoods as highways?

My road was built in the 1930s, had they invisaged current car ownership levels the road would have been more than 2.5 cars wide, such as to allow on road parking and 2 way traffic flow, or parking both sides and one way traffic flow. But it wasn't, so we get two way flow forced into passing places int he line of parked cars, and also people parking on the pavement opposite. This does not feel like it's "in harmony with" anything, and thats just parking not the through traffic. (although that is disauded to some degree because of the parked cars.

Meanwhile your road has been immune from expanding traffic, not because more capacity was provided on the local through roads, but because it can't be used to go anywhere. Children on your road can have similar freedoms to previous generations, elsewhere this is not the case.

I'm surprised people aren't screaming "won't somebody think of the children?" but I guess passage and parking of motor vehicles is the top priority in this society. Some of us would like people's quality of life to come before the convenience of the carprofits of the motor companies.

It would seem Southwark Council are a remarkable organisation; they’ve managed to install LTNs without consultation whilst simultaneously burying the results of the consultation which never happened.

My understanding is that the introduction of Dulwich LTNs was approved by their Cabinet comprising 12 democratically Councillors.

Just a side point - but one not necessarily obvious to those without local knowledge. The particular measures being discussed here are not what most of us would consider to be LTNs. There's only a very tiny closure in the centre of Dulwich Village, benefitting local shops and pedestrians; but the majority of measures around Dulwich Village are timed one-way restrictions (with camera enforced bus gates) to allow for quieter streets during to-and-from school hours, and reduce rat-running during rush hours. The affected roads are literally open both ways for 19 hours a day on weekdays and 24 hours a day on weekends and locals can easily access alternate routes to all locations in the village. Other than that, they have made a tiny stretch of no waiting with yellow lines in the historic village part.

Thanks for the local knowledge. I was actually forgetting this was something to do with bikes...

markieteeee wrote:

...There's only a very tiny closure in the centre of Dulwich Village, benefitting local shops and pedestrians; but the majority of measures around Dulwich Village are timed one-way restrictions (with camera enforced bus gates) to allow for quieter streets during to-and-from school hours, and reduce rat-running during rush hours. The affected roads are literally open both ways for 19 hours a day on weekdays and 24 hours a day on weekends and locals can easily access alternate routes to all locations in the village. Other than that, they have made a tiny stretch of no waiting with yellow lines in the historic village part.

I find this is not uncommon. Several deaths? Set up a committee to report. 2 parking spaces gone? BURN THE CITY HALL!! OK we're British... just deface some signs and set a couple of flower pots on fire.

Nice! "Wrong kind of democracy" here. Also any part of government can be "upholding democracy" one moment and "a small cabal ignoring the masses" the next.

I believe (like most of us) Our Nige is all in favour of "democracy" when the people / council appear to be on the correct side. No point dissecting the argumentation except to note that there's the usual collection of "everyone agrees that..." (really? and if so does that make it right?),  "I can't believe that..." and particular choice of "evidence" - which is always arguable of course.

You're making the mistake of thinking that the vocal minority represent the silent majority. They don't, as the tiny number of demonstrators show.

Nigel Garage wrote:

There was a fantastic piece in Ghe Times by Rod Liddle

That can not possibly be the case

Why not?

Are you automatically anti, on principle, The Times or Rod Liddle?

Hi Flint, I see you have added to the debate by criticising a poster again. I suppose you do need to switch it up between posters and the site. 

I can''t speak for Chris, however if you want to support a columnist who "jokes" about killing people because they don't drive a car, or "joke"s that he couldn;t have become a teacher as he couldn't keep his hands off the 15 year olds (luckily he would have only targetted slight underage girls) then you go ahead. I suppose it is tame to some of the stuff our own PM used to write.

Nigel Garage wrote:

I can't help feeling that the shenanigans of the quasi Marxist group "Insulate Britain" are stirring up ill-feeling towards LTNs, which were unpopular before but now seem to be pretty much universally opposed. No one wants to have their freedoms curtailed by a group of far-left eco fanatics, and it's hardly surprising that society is pushing back against this threat. There was a fantastic piece in Ghe Times by Rod Liddle a couple of weeks back (paywalled, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/you-can-tell-who-the-real-establishme...) showing how the establishment are once again thumbing their noses at the working class through these useful idiots.

insulate britain have nothing to do with LTNs. Might as well say cyclists jumping red lights are stirring up ill feeling against pedestrian from drivers.

Top Trolling from Nigel.

Imagine thinking an article written by Rod Liddle would in any way useful to anyone.

sean1 wrote:

Top Trolling from Nigel.

Imagine thinking an article written by Rod Liddle would in any way useful to anyone.

I think this is only a 4.5/10.  It started out well in that he came up with a random inflammatory comment that had nothing to do with the article, but then he started talking about facts and Rendel owned him.

At this point I think "Nigel" is actually a bot progammed to illustrate the Dunning Kruger effect.

stomec wrote:

At this point I think "Nigel" is actually a bot progammed to illustrate the Dunning Kruger effect.

Nah - like SophisCyclist before, "Nigel" is a puppet account of the road.cc team, designed to generate extra comments.