The Freedom for Drivers Foundation has long argued that there is way too much scaremongering about the impact on people’s health of air pollution. We published a paper two years ago (see Reference 1 below) that in summary said that we believe it is not a major health crisis but simply a major health scare fed to a gullible public by a few politicians and by journalists wanting a story. We also criticised the relative contribution of vehicles to existing air pollution. Most air pollution arises from home and office heating, building and industrial activities and from home activities such as cooking and smoking.
Is there actually a public health crisis? The simple answer is NO. The evidence does not support such claims. In reality air quality has been steadily improving and will continue to do so from technical improvements to heating and vehicles. Meanwhile life expectancy has been increasing. There is no public health crisis!
The Covid-19 epidemic has given a great opportunity to see the likely impact of removing cars and other vehicles from the roads as businesses closed down and home working spread like wildfire.
The Daily Mail (see Reference 2) has reported on a study by Stirling University with the headlines: “Decline in vehicle use in lockdown had no impact on reducing toxic particle emissions and suggests traffic is ‘not a key contributor to air pollution” and “It found no significant fall in harmful toxic particulate matter – known as PM2.5” based on roadside measurements. That was despite a 65% fall in traffic.
Particulates are more dangerous than NOX and as people spent more time at home, they may have increased their exposure to them. But it is clear that removing vehicles from the roads does not cut particulate emissions. Although NO2 levels fell, which mainly come from transport, the Mail article suggests that might cut attributable deaths but in reality there is no certainty about the impact of NOX emissions on life expectancy and it may be a totally spurious claim.
We have also recently debunked the alleged claim linking asthma to NOX emissions. There are a number of possible causes for asthma and very poor air conditions (worse than generally experienced) can trigger or exacerbate attacks, but one has to be very careful about a specific linkage.
Life expectancy data tells us that there is no air pollution health crisis. But London boroughs such as Lewisham argue we have to remove vehicles from our streets as a matter of urgency – see Reference 5 for Lewisham air quality data.
A lot of published data on air quality and sources of air pollution are out of date as road transport has rapidly changed as vehicles are replaced. Less than 50% of air pollution in London now comes from vehicles and stopping private cars will have minimal impact as most vehicle emissions come from buses and goods vehicles.
Another problem is that much of London’s air pollution blows in from outside the metropolis. According to London Councils (see the report in Reference 6), 75% of particulates actually originate from elsewhere.
In summary, closing roads to reduce vehicles in London generally, and in boroughs such as Lewisham specifically, based on a claimed need to reduce vehicle emission makes no sense at the present time. The recent epidemic impact when vehicles were much reduced shows that there was nil or minimal impact on air quality so it would be a pointless exercise.
In reality the Low Traffic Neighbourhoods introduced in boroughs such as Lewisham has diverted traffic onto main roads and created more traffic congestion. It also means longer routes have to be driven and traffic piles up on residential roads (see photo of Horncastle Road above). Overall air quality has surely been made worse as is clear from residents’ comments on the impact. These “experiments” to cut traffic should be abandoned now!
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The following is an interesting article recently received from a contributor who prefers to remain anonymous. It no doubt reflects the views of many of our supporters:
“Over the recent months of attempting to carry on with life under the dark cloud of Covid19 we have all learnt that there are sacrifices that we must make for the greater good of the community. The great British public have rallied to the cause and, in the main, accepted the restrictions to the conduct of their daily lives.
My fear is that we are being forced to accept a number of limitations to our freedoms that are not justified by the Covid crisis but are being implemented without care or consultation.
I am specifically concerned about the redistribution of the road space in favour of pedestrians and cyclists and against the interests of other road users be they private motorists, commercial users or those on public transport.
The widening of payments and cycle lanes, the closures to facilitate pavement restaurants, and, worst of all, the closure of many routes through suburban areas all come at a cost. There is more congestion and hence more pollution and longer journey times consuming more fuel and adding to the burden of private citizen and business operation alike.
Anyone who has tried to get a response from a local council over the last few months will be familiar with the refrain that “Due to Covid 19 there are restrictions on staffing and many services may take longer to implement”. Given that councils are unable to provide basic and urgent care and support services it is a miracle that they are somehow able to create road closures complete with blooming planters overnight!
Perhaps we should question our representatives about what their priorities are.
A cynical person might suspect that they are diverting the few available resources they have to these road closure schemes because the current Covid 19 regulations allow them to introduce them with little or no consultation. It is quite clear that many of these schemes have been ill thought out and are causing chaos. This is hardly surprising given that so little thought has gone in to considering the consequences on neighbouring streets. My only thought is that what the council can put in place overnight residents could remove in the same timescale.
This is only one part of the concerted effort to bully and demonise the motorist. It is said that there should be no taxation without representation and maybe this is a lesson that the motoring public can learn. If the available road space is to be redistributed in favour of pedestrians and cyclist then the burden of tax should move in the same direction. That motorists are treated as cash cows and required to pay more and more for less and less is nothing short of a scandal that will eventually lead to acts of civil disobedience”
<END>
Wandsworth Road Closures
On the subject of road closures, the following is a note recently received on a demonstration against them in Wandsworth on the 12thSeptember:
“The onewandsworth group are arranging a peaceful socially distant protest, details can be found below
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using the Contact page to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
The population of the UK contains a high proportion of “disabled” people. According to Government statistics they actually represent 22% of the population (that’s 13.9 million people). In London a borough such as Lewisham reports that 15% of the population consider themselves disabled.
Disabled people face numerous problems such as access to health services and access to employment. They often rely on “carers” for assistance with many activities such as shopping.
How do Low Traffic Neighbourhoods such as the Healthy Neighbourhood plans (and associated road closures) in Lewisham and other boroughs affect them? We certainly know from the numbers responding to our campaign against the road closures that a very large number of them object to the road closures.
The problem is that many disabled people rely on motor vehicles for transport as they have difficulty using public transport and suggestions that they should cycle are treated with derision. They also often cannot walk far. They don’t just own cars and use them, they use taxi services or get transported by carers in vehicles. In addition, they often have support from social service workers who use vehicles to get around.
For example, this is one comment just received “I strongly disagree with these closures, I work for the Borough of Lewisham and respond to vulnerable clients in the Borough. These road closures have delayed us responding to our clients, and one day the outcome will result in more serious consequences. Sitting in traffic, unable to access roads, this is not solving anything. If anything the situation is causing more pollution, congestion and more aggressive drivers. The fact that we as residents of the borough were not consulted is not acceptable”.
Life has become much more difficult for disabled people since the road closures were introduced in Lewisham with much extended journey times as a result. Simply accessing Lewisham hospital is a common complaint.
Has Lewisham Council considered the impact of the road closures on disabled people? In other words, have they done an “Equality Impact Assessment” as required by the Equalities Act 2010? So far as we are aware they have not done so. Paul Howarth submitted a Freedom of Information Act request on this subject back in February but does not appear to have received an answer – see https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_so_called_healthy_neighborho
Just like the lack of public consultation, it seems the Covid-19 epidemic is being used to bypass and abandon the normal requirements for new road schemes.
An interesting recent publication from Lewisham Council was from the Stronger Communities Select Committee (see https://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=6323&x=1 ). The Council is reviewing its obligations under the Equalities Act and have produced a draft report. But perhaps surprisingly they don’t cover this issue. Note that Lee Green Ward Councillors James Rathbone and Jim Mallory actually sit on this Committee so they should surely take a great interest in the impact of the road closures on the disabled community but not obviously so to date.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has embarked on a steadily intensifying witch-hunt amounting to the complete obstruction of motorised commercial and private mobility, through the misuse (potentially illegally) of Temporary Traffic Orders during the Covid-19 outbreak. These have been used to implement lowered speed limits, carriageway narrowings, superfluous cycle lane widenings, and so-called “Modal Filters” (roadblocks in plain English). This has incensed, amongst others, London cabbies: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1289098/Sadiq-khan-London-news-public-transport-tfl-taxis-disabled-vulnerable .
This policy particularly adversely affects the elderly and the infirm – who often have no alternative to private car use – but also increases congestion, unnecessarily elevates vehicle emissions and wastes precious economic time. This is time that can be ill afforded, as the whole country seeks to climb out of the deep economic well created by the Covid-19 outbreak.
Campaigns Manager, Roger Lawson, is spearheading the investigation of a legal challenge (https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/lewisham.htm ) to measures implemented in the borough of Lewisham without adequate public notice or consultation.
COVID-19 was not supposed to bring with it rampant inconsiderate cycling schemes and “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods”.
Abusing emergency powers, Park Lane for example is now down to one lane Northbound. With a pre-existing cycle lane already in the park, there is now a parallel, totally redundant one on Park Lane. Mayor Khan inexplicably thinks that this is effective traffic management.
In the past, local authorities had in place a perfectly good, real consultation process that had to be completed with residents, local public transport AND all three of the emergency services, prior to any road closures, so that public safety and response times could be met. Sadly this approach no longer prevails and people’s lives are being put at risk in a mad rush to slash vehicular access.
If you know of any instances of emergency vehicles being delayed by these (or any other traffic impeding) measures in the London area (or indeed anywhere else) and that have had adverse health implications for anyone, which is a failure in a local authority’s basic duty of care, for which they may be punishable in law, then please send us a message.
What local and national politicians actually need to do is avoid the pitfall of making excessive provision for cyclists at the expense of adequate road space for vehicles. The constraints applicable to the realistic extent of future commuter cycling – i.e., distance, terrain and weather; plus the current imperative of avoiding public transport, indicates that car use will be the primary practical mobility solution for the overwhelming majority of road users. So under current circumstances there should actually be concerted efforts to smooth and ease motorised traffic flow and increased provision for car parking; instead of the very opposite.
Transport Minister Grant Shapps’ incomprehensible call to local authorities “to make significant changes to their road layouts to give more space to cyclists and pedestrians, to help embed altered behaviours and demonstrate the positive effects of active travel” is the root of all the road space reallocation problems currently taking place https://www.localgov.co.uk/Roads-to-recovery/50932 .
We have a rolling campaign to oppose these fundamentally anti-mobility and anti-democratic policies which are all part of Sadiq Khan’s London Transport Strategy which he adopted a couple of years ago but is now using the Covid-19 epidemic as an excuse to bring them in without proper public consultation. See https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm for more information and to register your support.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Last night (on 25/8/2020), Janet Daby and Vicky Foxcroft, two M.P.s who represent Lewisham constituencies, hosted a Zoom conference to hear people’s views about the road closures in the borough. There were as many as 100 attendees when more wanted to join but apparently could not do so. I will only summarise some of the proceedings and the key comments.
It was clear by the end of the event that there were only very few people supportive of Lewisham Council’s plan for a “Healthy Neighbourhood” (or Low Traffic Neighbourhood as others call these schemes involving road closures). Most of the speakers opposed the current road closures and I’ll give some of the comments below. The supporters of the scheme talked about saving the planet, cutting air pollution and road traffic accidents and getting everyone out of cars.
But it was very obvious how many were reliant on vehicles. For example one of the first speakers, Dr Petula Peters who has to take her sister to hospital said it was now an absolute nightmare with the new road arrangements. Her GP was also having difficulties getting to see patients.
Several people complained about the impact on the South Circular as traffic is now forced to use that more. Others spoke about the impact on the elderly and disabled and the lack of an equality impact assessment. It’s all terribly divisive one person said.
The lack of consultation was also mentioned by many people and one good point made was that there was no traffic modelling undertaken before the roads were closed. That would have predicted the current problems.
Many minor roads that were previously quiet were seeing much more traffic as vehicles divert around the closed roads – this prompted some people to ask for the scheme to be extended over a much wider area.
Viv Hammond summarised the views of many in these words: “It has totally changed our lives”. She is very concerned about the air pollution created and it is “making life very difficult”. As Vicky said “the whole idea that cars will go away is just ridiculous. They have cut Lewisham in half. Everyone can’t walk or cycle. A badly thought out scheme that has not worked. What are M.P.s going to do about it?”, She was clapped at this point.
In the concluding remarks from Janet Daby she mentioned that the Council planned a public meeting and consultation in September. She summarised the objections and concerns and will talk to the Council but note that M.P.s have no direct influence over local Councillors.
Perhaps the mood of the audience was summarised by one person who interjected just before the meeting was closed and the audio turned off. He said “A load or rubbish – they’ll do nothing”. It indicated the frustration of residents and the view that Councillors are simply not listening to complaints and acting on them.
But it’s worth pointing out that Lewisham Council’s policies are partly being driven by central Government edicts, as one speaker in the meeting indicated, over which even Labour M.P.s might have some influence. I suggest voters ask them to make representations on the issue.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) are being promoted by local councils and central government and are actually being implemented in many locations around the country. Typically they are called “Healthy Neighbourhoods”, “Healthy Streets”, “Mini-Hollands” or other fine sounding names when in reality they usually consist of mainly road closures (“modal filters”, “school streets”, etc) that obstruct the use of roads. The object is stated to get us all to use “active travel” modes such as walking or cycling so that we live longer. But do they really do so? And what are the disadvantages?
These schemes are currently now being implemented using Temporary Traffic Orders using the claim that the Covid-19 epidemic justifies emergency measures to enhance social distancing without any advance public consultation whatsoever. But they have aroused very strong opposition in several London boroughs once people have seen the result. See Ref.2 below for a list of some of them in London).
It is frequently claimed that traffic “evaporates” once these schemes are installed, but is that true? A recently published academic study (see Ref.1 below) of three mini-Holland schemes in outer London gives a very different picture however.
The three boroughs studied were Enfield, Waltham Forest and Kingston. They selected over 3,000 people at random and gave them a survey of their travel behaviour with a follow up later to see the changes (although there was a high drop-out rate). There was a particular focus on their use of cycling.
Based on reports of past-week cycling, the authors suggest there was a trend towards higher cycling levels in the mini-Holland areas than the non mini-Holland areas. But this effect was not statistically significant (i.e. may not be true). Bearing in mind that these are self-reported numbers in addition which are likely to be biased, the claimed effect is likely to be a mirage.
The report also says “There was generally little or no evidence of differences by mini-Holland status in the proportion of individuals doing ‘any walking’ or ‘any active travel’ in the past week”. In reality therefore the mini-Holland schemes have had no impact on active travel use.
On car use the report says: “For past-week car use, there was a non-significant trend for those living in mini-Holland boroughs to be less likely to report any past-week car use than those living in non mini-Holland areas. Time spent driving in a car in the past week showed no consistent pattern in the results, and no evidence of a difference in any contrast [sic]”. In other words, car use had not changed.
At the follow up survey, in those living in mini-Holland areas there was an increase in the proportion saying that there was “too much” support for investment in cycling (from 27% to 33%). These differences were highly significant which shows the population were not convinced of the merits of the programme.
The report’s authors make some positive comments about the effect of the mini-Holland interventions but their conclusions are hardly consistent with the data they report.
In reality there is no substantial movement that is statistically significant into active travel modes, and car use continues at the same level.
Emergency Service Access
One of the complaints from those living in LTNs is the impact on emergency services access (ambulances, police cars, fire engines). The College of Paramedics has warned how lives could be put at risk and emergency response times increased as road closures, cycle lanes and one-way systems cause problems for ambulances and delay response times.
Richard Webber, a College Spokesperson, recently said “Previous traffic calming measures have caused delays for emergency vehicles. So now we are particularly concerned new measures are being rushed in without proper consideration and there will be a risk of further delays for ambulances and other emergency responders. For someone not breathing or having a heart attack, stroke or allergic reaction this risks causing significant harm. We would urge councils as they implement these new measures to give proper consideration to access for emergency vehicles and ensure they are not delayed reaching the scene of an emergency.
We fully support and understand the need to improve routes to protect cyclists and pedestrians, particularly while there is a reduction in the use of public transport following the Covid-19 epidemic. However, the designs must take into account fully whether an emergency vehicle – whether ambulance police or fire – can gain access in a hurry, rather than making it difficult to do so.”
But in reality little account is being taken of emergency service access. For example in Lewisham there are numerous reports of ambulances and police cars being blocked. They are supposed to have keys to open locks on the bollards on some roads, but they do not. Even if they do have keys, significant delays are caused.
Photo below shows an ambulance with blue flashing lights being blocked in Manor Lane Terrace Lewisham.
In summary, there is no evidence that Low Traffic Neighbourhoods produce any significant benefits while there is clear evidence that they delay emergency service vehicles. Residents also report massively extended journey times and increased air pollution on major routes as traffic is diverted onto them.
We suggest that encouraging active travel may be a good thing, but there are better ways to do it than just closing roads. Closing roads simply does not work to encourage active travel and the extreme versions of LTNs implemented in boroughs such as Waltham Forest and Lewisham will never get general public support.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Transport for London (TfL) have launched an initiative called “Streetspace” – see Reference 1 below. To quote they are: “creating more space for people to safely walk or cycle as our city emerges from the coronavirus lockdown. Temporary cycle lanes and wider pavements are among the changes we’re making as part of Streetspace for London”. In reality this means less space for road traffic and in addition it includes creating car-free zones and low traffic neighbourhoods by introducing road closures as we have seen in many London boroughs recently. This is a natural consequence of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (see https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm ) which we have consistently opposed since it was adopted. But the Covid-19 epidemic has been used as an excuse to sneak these damaging changes in without any public consultation.
TfL and the London Borough of Lewisham have just announced a scheme as part of the Streetspace progamme that covers the A21 between Catford and Lewisham. It includes:
See map above for the details. For example a right turn from Courthill Road onto the A21 is banned. These changes could make life very awkward for some people. It is suggested that they are only temporary but you can expect them to made permanent unless enough people object.
Note that although this is a TfL Programme (and financed by them even though they are supposed to be short of money), it has clearly been supported by Lewisham Council.
Go to Reference 2 below for more details and for how to object. Or simply send your comments to: streetspacelondon@tfl.gov.uk
Similar changes are happening all over London under the Streetspace programme and are likely to increase traffic congestion as we are already seeing from such schemes in Lewisham (see Ref. 3) and other boroughs. Make sure you tell your local councillors and MP what you think about them.
But the lack of any proper public consultations on these schemes is totally undemocratic and is undermining public respect for politicians (including the Mayor of London) who are pushing these schemes through.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
Magazine Private Eye covered the road closures in Lewisham in its latest edition, under the headline “Load of Bollards”. Here’s some of what the article said:
“Anger is growing in London over the current craze for ‘low traffic neighbourhood’ (LTN) schemes which seek to reduce the number of vehicles in residential streets through the use of bollards, planters, ‘pinch’ gates etc. But traffic is like water – block it off in one place and it will find the easiest alternative route.
In the borough of Lewisham, the Lee Green LTN displaces traffic from wealthier east Hither Green to the less affluent, more racially diverse west side. Several formerly quiet west Hither Green residential streets now endure more air pollution and congestion.
Clean-air campaigner Rosamund Kissi-Debrah describes the scheme as ‘a slap in the face’. In 2013 her nine-year-old daughter Ella died of an asthma attack thought to be linked to an air pollution “hot spot” near her west Hither Green home. Ms Kissi-Debrah told the local News Shopper. ‘It’s environmental racism… I don’t just campaign for my children, 1 campaign for all children. But some are more equal than others’”.
Lewisham Supporters News:
This is what we have sent to our campaign contacts on the latest news on Lewisham:
We have submitted the Change.org petition signatures (over 3,500) and all the comments received to date to the Mayor, other Councillors and Lewisham Council staff. So far all we have received is an acknowledgement from the Mayor’s Secretary. Clearly the views of those opposed are being ignored as has been evident from when these “Healthy Neighbourhood” proposals were first put forward in Lewisham.
The latest news from Lewisham Council is that cameras are being installed at four modal filter locations in Dermody Road, Manor Lane, Manor Park and Ennersdale Road. It will be a £130 fine for infringers of the road closures.
Coulgate Street, near Brockley Station, is now being closed to through traffic from 8am until 10pm each day allegedly “to help create safe space for social distancing and to support the economic recovery of local businesses as shops, cafes and other businesses reopen”.
The Council has complained about the amount of vandalism of the planters and bollards they installed. We do not condone illegal acts but is this any different to the “direct action” of Extinction Rebellion and BLM to close roads, to vandalise statues and other illegal acts? It just shows the strength of local opposition to the road closures. Direct action is only taken by those who feel their political representatives are ignoring them.
Comments Received:
We certainly have no objections to encouraging people to follow a healthy lifestyle, i.e. by getting some exercise by walking and cycling. This writer tries to do so every day. But closing roads is creating enormous inconvenience to many people. Here are a few recent comments received in the last 24 hours:
“Blocking roads will highly affect driving time, produce more congestion and make the journeys impossible but not reduce the pollution. Just wonder what would be those idiots next move. The best would be out of council”.
“I live in the area and recently tried to get from Blackheath Hill through Lewisham, all the diversions caused me to have to go back on myself detouring through New Cross, Through Brockley and Forest hill to get to Downham. It was a complete disgrace, we couldn’t understand why every single road was blocked or closed. It took us nearly 2 hours to get from Blackheath Hill to Downham that day as traffic was everywhere. What fantastic planning and a complete farce!!! Please help me to raise my objections. I see no reason to pay my council Tax, if Lewisham Council won’t do anything to help me. We are going to move away from Lewisham now anyway, I will be giving them nothing from now on, useless bunch of Twats!!”
“As you acknowledged, there was insufficient local consultation and a questionable use of the new Coronavirus legislation to push through these road closures. In addition, as a resident outside the road closure streets and very close to the South Circular, this has proven to be extremely disadvantageous. We have increased journey times, increased air pollution but also no longer have the option to enjoy the local benefits on the other side of the train tracks without a fourty minute round trip walking which, especially with a child under two and two full time jobs to manage, is not always an option. I would also add that Lewisham Council should have taken a more holistic approach to greening the community and improving sustainability in the long-term. The lack of traffic impact modelling of the road closures, the lack of analysis of effective behavioural change, and also the lack of implementing other measures which would better support social distancing (which I agree is spurious) or greening Lewisham compared to road closures; this could have been included”
“I would like to object to all these road closures that Lewisham are doing. It is total stupidity. Would they like to drive their car in all this carnage.”
“I 100% object to this, I am disabled and unable to walk or cycle. I don’t want to spend hours in traffic”.
“For us it means we are now completely cut off, by car, from the area in which we live. Our only exit out is on to the Lee High Road. We are also cut off from the borough in which we live, unless we drive round to central Lewisham or drive through Lee Green, the south circular and Catford. And come back the same way. We will not be doing these journeys by cycle or walking”.
“Very interested in objecting to this. I am disabled, rely on my car and can’t use public transport because of anxiety and panic attacks”.
“Yes these closures are an outrage. A separate East Berlin – style mini-state has been created. The Covid reason is utter BS. They are in fact spreading Covid since people are stuck in buses and works vans for longer as they held up by increased traffic on surrounding roads. As for the closed off roads being described as “residential” – the A205 is residential, the A20 is residential and so on. Are their residents of a lower order and thus more “pollutable” maybe? I have actually accused the Council of being racist in this respect”.
“We have been affected enormously. A 1 minute drive now takes over 40mins to get home. When schools start in Sept our child will also be heavily affected”.
“Road closures and ULEZ extension charges are punitive let alone in the middle of a pandemic – this will affect small business owners and tradesmen, people who can’t cycle or who are not fit enough to cycle huge distances, we already have a terrible bus service and I don’t want to catch COVID 19 on it and how do we get our shopping home? Typical left-wing council why would I be surprised? Anti business and free movement and pro indoctrination is their agenda. Appalling, as a tax payer and business owner I am disgusted by the arbitrary and arrogant attitude of this council who can’t even manage to take up the weeds from our streets, who replace paving stones with poorly laid tarmac, who cannot deal with rodent infestations which abound in our filthy streets, now this – they are pathetic!!!!!!”
Legal Action:
We have consulted solicitors over possible legal action, at considerable expense, but it is not an easy or straightforward case to pursue. It will require a judicial review which is a costly and lengthy legal process. More information will follow on this and possible fund raising to finance it.
What the Council Should Have Done:
Everyone would like less traffic and it is certainly the case that in areas of Lewisham and in particular roads there are problems because the roads were not designed for the volume of traffic that now uses them.
A typical example is the South Circular, a major road that has not been significantly improved for many years. This is basically a historic failure by Transport for London, the Mayor London and local boroughs to develop a sensible plan to improve the road network in South London. Road closures in Lewisham are actually pushing more traffic onto the South Circular, worsening the already bad air pollution. This is not wise when this is actually a residential road.
But even local roads such as Upwood Road in Lee Green have suffered from increased traffic and excessive parking effectively making it a one lane road and hence conflicts between drivers are common and cycling on the road may be discouraged. This problem could be solved quite easily rather than imposing a road closure which fails to recognise the needs of residents and by those attending the adjacent Colfe’s school.
Installing modal filters is a cheap and nasty solution that should not have been considered, even on a temporary basis. Using the Covid-19 epidemic as an excuse makes no sense either. The Council should have looked at the local issues and developed appropriate measures that would not inconvenience a large proportion of the population.
There are better solutions available! But will the Council listen?
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
There is a great deal of irrationality in the world at present. A good example was a webinar I attended this morning run by Landor Links on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). These are being promoted by the Government and frequently consist of road closures using the euphemistically named “modal filters” Several of the speakers promoted the wonders of such schemes typically using slides showing the joy of cycling in sunny weather. They failed to cover how the residents of boroughs such as Waltham Forest got to vote on the proposals, before or after implementation – they did not of course! I know there is a very large amount of opposition in Waltham Forest, in Lewisham in the Oval area, in Islington and several other parts of London. But the Covid-19 epidemic is being used to justify emergency measures without any public consultation.
It’s all quite disgraceful as democracy is being undermined and the road network is being destroyed. Traffic congestion in Lewisham for example has been made a lot worse to my personal knowledge and that’s even before the schools return. Labour controlled Councils are frequently a particular problem as they tend to like to decide what is good for you rather than listening to their electorate or taking into account any rational arguments.
This is all part of the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy which we have been campaigning against for some time (see https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/against-mts.htm ). But boroughs such as Lewisham controlled by keen cyclists are pushing through simple anti-car measures without any reason and to the disadvantage of many groups of people who need to use vehicles.
You can “follow” this blog by clicking on the bottom right in most browsers or by using this Contact page: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/contact.htm to send us a message requesting. You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.
