Category Archives: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

Lambeth Shows What’s Wrong with Local Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

A petition on Change.org spells out how London Boroughs such as Lambeth can undermine local democracy by becoming an increasingly authoritarian regime – see https://chng.it/6TQgf76kW5 . It spells out how some Labour dominated councils can destroy democracy. It’s definitely worth signing the petition.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Challenging LTNs

Posted on by
Reply

It’s worth challenging Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) if you object to them. They generally cause more traffic congestion and enormous inconvenience to residents. Lambeth Council recently lost a legal challenge to an LTN in West Dulwich, primarily because the council ignored well argued responses to a public consultation.

There are rules about public consultations but some councils think they can ignore them and push through their desired changes regardless of public opinion or the likely impact. Lambeth is one of the worst councils for ignoring the residents because they think they know best. But they will now have to reconsider their proposals.

For more details see this BBC report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg4178plvdo .

There is also a Facebook group called the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) if you wish to support them.

Roger Lawson (Twitter: https://x.com/Drivers_London )

You can obtain notifications of new posts in future by following me on Twitter (now “X”) – see https://x.com/Drivers_London where new posts are usually mentioned.

Croydon Legal Challenge over LTNs

Posted on by
2

A legal challenge over the use of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) to raise money by fining motorists is being mounted in the London Borough of Croydon. The judicial review claims the Council is using LTNs to raise revenue which is illegal. The claim says there is no environmental benefit and it is just about filling holes in Council budgets.

See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/07/london-croydon-council-unlawfully-used-ltn-court-to-hear/ for more details.

Comment: It is a worthy challenge to stop the misuse of LTN legislation to raise taxes. There is clearly a financial motive behind many LTN schemes as Councils are under great financial pressure at the moment. They anticipate large numbers of fines from such schemes.

The barrister representing Croydon residents is Kevin Leigh.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

South-East London Frustrates Drivers 

Posted on by
1

Drivers in South-East London will be hit by high charges to drive through both the Blackwall Tunnel and the new Silvertown Tunnel when it opens

Silvertown and Blackwall User Charges – 06:00 to 22:00  
   Charges paid via Auto Pay      Charges paid via other channels   
   Standard off-peak charges     Peak charges      Mon-Fri only     Northbound 06:00 – 10:00   Southbound 16:00 -19:00     At all times      
Motorcycle, moped, motor tricycle   £1.50  £2.50  £2.50  
Car and small van   £1.50  £4.00  £4.00  
Large van  £2.50  £6.50  £6.50  
Heavy Goods Vehicles   £5.00  £10.00  £10.00  
Penalty Charge Notice for non-payment – £180 (Reduced to £90 if paid within two weeks)  

Charges will apply from 06:00 to 22:00 seven days a week. For drivers registered for Auto Pay, the off-peak rate of £1.50 for cars, motorcycles and small vans would apply the majority of the time. To manage traffic congestion during the busiest times, there will be a peak charge for four hours northbound in the morning (from 06:00 to 10:00) and three hours southbound in the evening (from 16:00 to 19:00), Monday to Friday. People using the tunnels at night (22:00-06:00) won’t pay anything.  

To help residents, small businesses and charities, and to support people to use new public transport connections, a wide range of concessions and discounts is being provided, including a 50% discount available for low-income residents in 12 east and southeast London boroughs and the City of London. Those boroughs are Barking & Dagenham, Bexley, Bromley, City of London Corporation, Greenwich, Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest. Blue Badge holders should also get a 100% discount.

Comment: the new Silvertown Tunnel had to be paid for somehow and the charges are not unreasonable. But they will deter people from commuting through the Tunnels and make life expensive for some people. The charges are unlikely to stay at the proposed levels for long though.

Another attack on drivers comes from Greenwich Council who are putting in an LTN in east/west Greenwich. There is a petition against the proposals here: https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-new-west-and-east-greenwich-road-closures-and-ltn? Please sign it.

It has been reported that Sadiq Khan will receive a knighthood in the New Years Honours List. A person less worthy of receiving an honour I cannot imagine. A person who has destroyed the London road network and raised taxes to meet his own vanity projects. There is a petition you can sign against this on Change.org – see https://chng.it/RNcYPm78Qh

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

Should Cyclists Have Insurance and Legal Challenge to Lambeth LTN

Posted on by
Reply

Should cyclists have insurance? This is a topic that the Times Newspaper have published an article on. Below are my comments on the subject:

I would suggest that not only are they wise to have it but they should be legally obliged to do so. Cyclists can easily damage the vehicles of other road users but they can also impose a large financial burden on the NHS from their own carelessness by simply falling off.

Cyclists often just ride off after accidents and compulsory insurance would encourage them to stop and report collisions which is a condition of most insurance cover. 

Cycling is becoming more dangerous, particularly to others, as cycling speeds have risen. Lightweight bikes and electric ones have made the situation a lot worse in recent years and heavy cargo bikes are particularly a risk for pedestrians. The problems are compounded by the recent encouragement by councils of more cycling which means we get inexperienced cyclists commuting at speed in our major cities, often racing against their own times recorded on Strava.

The number of fatal accidents to pedestrians from collisions with cyclists are relatively few but they are regularly reported. In London alone there were 31 “serious” injuries to pedestrians involving cyclists in 2016 (Injuries classified as “Serious” are far from trivial and typically require hospital treatment).

Forcing cyclists to have insurance might just focus their minds on riding with more care, paying attention to other road users and not ignoring road signs, traffic lights and pedestrian crossings as they often do at present.

Even minor collisions between cyclists and cars can cause significant damage to paintwork and incur major expense in repairs. The advantage of requiring compulsory insurance is that it avoids the need to assign blame which is often a difficult thing to do.

So my answer to the question of whether cyclists should have insurance is an unequivocal “Yes”.

Lambeth LTN

A group are mounting a legal challenge to a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) proposed in the London Borough of Lambeth. They are raising funds to do so on Gofundme – see https://www.gofundme.com/f/legal-costs-to-force-a-reevaluation-of-the-west-dulwich-ltn

LTNs are always worthy of a challenge as they make little difference in practice to overall traffic levels and typically are supported by people who just wish to move traffic elsewhere.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

New Transport Secretary Has Delusions

Posted on by
4

The new Transport Secretary, Louise Haigh, has said the Labour Government will invest “unprecedented levels of funding” in cycling and walking as a way to improve health and inequality. She apparently thinks this could cut GP appointments “by hundreds of thousands, if not millions a year”. This is delusional.

The general population is fitter than it has been for a long time with increases in cycling and other forms of exercise. But the number of GP appointments and demand for medical services is rising. Why? Because the population is ageing, a minority of people are too fat because of addiction to junk food and people also have higher expectations of the NHS.

She also said: ““We’re in a climate crisis. We’re in a public health crisis; getting people walking and cycling and moving more are essential to solving both of those in the immediate term and in the long term”.

She is also quoted in the Independent as saying “Ms Haigh dubbed the last government’s approach to 20mph speed limits, cycle lanes and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods “ridiculous” after it launched criticism of so-called “anti-motorist” policies. She apparently does not want central Government interfering in what should be local decisions. But we’ll surely end up with lunatic schemes as we have seen in Wales, in several London boroughs and in the policies of TfL and Sadiq Khan. For example, this comes despite a recent YouGov survey indicating that 70 per cent of people in Wales – which last year imposed a 20mph speed limit in built up areas – opposed the policy. Meanwhile, 40 per cent admitted to regularly breaking it.

I suggest Ms Haigh needs to reconsider but this is the kind of dogma we see from socialist politicians who think they know better than the public and like to impose their views on others. Labour is rapidly losing popularity since the General Election and this is the kind of reason why. Practical considerations and scientific evidence are ignored – for example 20 mph limits have not improved road safety figures.

Throwing money at new cycle lanes will not solve the underlying health problems of a minority of the population and claims about tackling a “climate crisis” are simply ludicrous. But is seems the war on the motorist is going to be escalated.  

Roger Lawson

Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/20/labour-investment-cycling-walking-unprecedented-louise-haigh

Independent article: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/20mph-speed-limits-louise-haigh-b2599608.html

BBC Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v8d4lvjryo

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Commons Debate on LTNs

Posted on by
1

On Monday (20/5/2024 at 4.30 pm) there is a debate in Parliament on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) – see https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/pet-ltns-survey/index.html? For details.

It also contains the result of a survey which shows most people are opposed to LTNs.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Another 4 Years of Sadiq Khan, and Rail Renationalisation plus a Petition to Sign and a Public Consultation

Posted on by
2

So in London we have another 4 years of Sadiq Khan as Mayor. That will certainly mean higher Council taxes and more taxes on motorists. Sadiq Khan helped himself to win the election by promising free school meals to primary pupils and no rises in public transport fares – paid for out of your taxes of course.

With a possible Labour Government in Parliament, the outlook is indeed bleak for financial prudency. Labour have promised to “renationalise” the railways when part of the rail network is already in Government ownership and all of it is very heavily subsidised. The Taxpayers Alliance have published a note on this subject showing how misconceived it is – see https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/briefing_railway_renationalisation . As the article points out, “Three of the four largest subsidies given to franchises in 2022-23 were given to renationalised railway services with £697 million, £602 million and £402 million given to ScotRail, Northern and South Eastern respectively”. That’s not peanuts!

Boris Johnson has pointed out that Transport for London (TfL) has been “bankrupted” by Sadiq Khan and he is right. Massive subsidies coming out of taxpayers and motorist’s pockets are the only thing keeping it afloat. Khan wants billions more pounds in subsidies which he might get from a Labour Government, or from a London road tax which he has already asked for.

Three ways that taxes are likely to be raised in London on motorists are by ULEZ schemes,  LTNs and road charging “pay per mile” schemes. There is a new Parliamentary Petition you can sign to enable these to be controlled by Government. Please sign it:  https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659730

There is also a Public Consultation on “Restricting the Generation of Surplus Funds from Traffic Contraventions” from the Department for Transport – see https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/restricting-the-generation-of-surplus-funds-from-traffic-contraventions . This is definitely worth responding to as it is clear that many local councils are abusing their powers simply because they wish to raise money to fill their budget holes. It’s not about improving road safety or regulating traffic or parking.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Debate in Parliament on LTNs

Posted on by
Reply

I have received the following from Parliament:

You recently signed the petition “Carry out an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)”: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748

The MPs on the Petitions Committee have scheduled a debate on the petition on Monday 20 May.

Share your view. To inform the debate, you can answer our survey (everyone reading this should respond) : https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=nt3mHDeziEC-Xo277ASzSpMLsAawCSdBvMh9cdt5o9ZUODBSVFBTREpKRjZKVlBQREo0MkI1VlZQRi4u

Your responses will be anonymous. A summary of responses will be published on the Parliament website. It will also be shared with MPs and may be referred to in the debate or within other parliamentary documents. Please don’t share anything that may identify you.

The debate will take place on Monday 20 May at 4.30pm. Watch the debate: https://youtube.com/live/MNvIS8k1aSc

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

How Councils Rake in Money from Fines

Posted on by
Reply

Many local councils are generating millions of pounds in fines from LTNs and moving traffic offences. They use this as a source of income due to the financial pressures they are under.

A good example is Hammersmith & Fulham in London who are getting £1 million a month from a single Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. This is from camera enforced PCNs which numbered 341,000 in 11 months. Local M.P. Greg Hands launched a petition against the scheme which got over 5,000 signatures and there is widespread local opposition.

The scheme creates enormous difficulties for local residents and businesses as delivery vehicles will often get fined. There are some exceptions for local residents and taxis but the number of fines issued tells you that the council has a very strong financial incentive to promote this scheme regardless – see  https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/clean-air-neighbourhoods/south-fulham-clean-air-neighbourhood-project

Telegraph article:  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/30/hammersmith-fulham-council-ltn-pcn-fines-one-million-month/

Comment: this way of raising money using the excuse of the need to reduce air pollution is unprincipled and immoral. Sadiq Khan has been doing this with the ULEZ scheme and local councils should not be using camera enforced schemes to generate income. There is little evidence of environmental benefit and most of the people fined are visitors who get caught through ignorance of the scheme, or get routed through it by satnav systems.

Roger Lawson

Twitter: https://twitter.com/Drivers_London

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.