Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

[Deleted member 65149]

Until seeing these mentioned on the news today, I had no idea they even existed.

Low Traffic Neighbourhoods continue to make money despite controversies | Auto Express

One council received £2million in fines from a single LTN in four months, with residents complaining of increased congestion

www.autoexpress.co.uk

I have mixed feelings about them, but overall consider the disadvantages to outweigh the advantages. Looking at areas that I know well that have introduced LTNs (like Ealing) my biggest concern would be an overall increase in pollution. Concentrating all the traffic on the main through routes would surely lead to a slower and more congested traffic flow with resulting far higher rates of pollution, particularly to the detriment of people living on those routes.

I haven’t studied the details but it seems to me that what residents within LTNs gain in the way of quieter roads they lose in not being able to have social visitors. I can envisage many visitors parking on the boundary of an LTN to then walk to their friend’s house. Not much fun for those living just outside the boundary.

The whole thing strikes me as another one of those ideas for improvement that hasn’t been given sufficient thought. It’s like the idea introduced by John Prescott many years ago to provide less parking provision in new developments with the intention of persuading people to do without their cars and get more exercise. All that achieved was even more congested roads and lots of disgruntled residents.

 

[Deleted member 159894]

I wonder if E-Bicycles will become more popular over the next few years?

In a way I'd be up for it, I am sure that I would cycle around locally a lot more if we didn't live at the top of a hill, going out would be fun but coming home a slog. I am just about to pop down the shops and will probably burn half a gallon and disturb the neighbourhood with my noisy car, I would be chuffed to cycle down and even stop for a pint on the way back.

If only we had decent weather more often.

 

[190]

Nothing like that near me but I've seen some extremely angry people on the TV.

The really annoying aspect of this waste of tax payers money is that Local councils are pleading poverty and should not have had the money to spend on hair brained schemes in the first place.

 

[ChrisEdu]

I wonder if E-Bicycles will become more popular over the next few years?

In a way I'd be up for it, I am sure that I would cycle around locally a lot more if we didn't live at the top of a hill, going out would be fun but coming home a slog. I am just about to pop down the shops and will probably burn half a gallon and disturb the neighbourhood with my noisy car, I would be chuffed to cycle down and even stop for a pint on the way back.

If only we had decent weather more often.

I love my eMTB. Trouble is they're expensive and many people don't see their value when you could buy a car for the same, or less!

 

[Big Janner]

Act following public consultation, specifically, those who's lives will be affected.
Don't do what has been going on . . . .bang in the restriction and make thousands of pounds in fines.

If you stop a driver going down one road, said driver will use another street.
Block this one and the driver will, again, move to another.

Result;
No real change in traffic levels in the area
No real change in air quality in the area
A very useful, new, inccome stream for the council involved.

 

[markjay]

I posted about this last year, many areas in London are now closed to through traffic, meaning all traffic is channelled to main arteries (no more using back streets for driving around congested main roads).

I am sure the local residents benefit from less noise and less pollution, but the main roads are now mayham. Especially as they have all lost one lane to cyclists, and the speed limit reduced to 20 mph.

That said... in spite of the personal inconvenience, I think that the idea of making city centres a hostile environment for cars is inevitable. Walk, cycle, use public transport, take an Uber or a black cab, or avoid the journey. Alternatively, move to the countryside. That's it....

 

[Wolfie1]

I posted about this last year, many areas in London are now closed to through traffic, meaning all traffic is channelled to main arteries (no more using back streets for driving around congested main roads).

I am sure the local residents benefit from less noise and less pollution, but the main roads are now mayham. Especially as they have all lost one lane to cyclists, and the speed limit reduced to 20 mph.

That said... in spite of the personal inconvenience, I think that the idea of making city centres a hostile environment for cars is inevitable. Walk, cycle, use public transport, take an Uber or a black cab, or avoid the journey. Alternatively, move to the countryside. That's it....

Or just buy stuff online, yay death to the city centre shops

 

[Deleted member 65149]

I posted about this last year, many areas in London are now closed to through traffic, meaning all traffic is channelled to main arteries (no more using back streets for driving around congested main roads).

I am sure the local residents benefit from less noise and less pollution, but the main roads are now mayham. Especially as they have all lost one lane to cyclists, and the speed limit reduced to 20 mph.

That said... in spite of the personal inconvenience, I think that the idea of making city centres a hostile environment for cars is inevitable. Walk, cycle, use public transport, take an Uber or a black cab, or avoid the journey. Alternatively, move to the countryside. That's it....

Sorry MJ, I thought that someone else must have posted about this before but my search didn’t find it.

As you say, there’s a certain inevitability about it. But I fear that the consequences will be worse than anticipated. There must be lots of small businesses such as shops on those now restricted routes that will lose out from drastically reduced passing trade.

 

[Petrol Pete]

I love my eMTB. Trouble is they're expensive and many people don't see their value when you could buy a car for the same, or less!

Is yours insured for theft separately ? I saw an article the other day where a well know home insurer refused to pay out on a stolen ebike because it was classed as a powered vehicle. Paid out for the other (not surprisingly) cheaper bikes that were stolen but not the ebike ?

Oddly enough had the ebike been a Motability scooter they would have payed out. I personally think if you have a £1.5K eBike stolen along with a £1.5K 'push bike' (stupid term) then they should be treated the same if they have been declared .

 

[flying haggis]

Nothing like that near me but I've seen some extremely angry people on the TV.

The really annoying aspect of this waste of tax payers money is that Local councils are pleading poverty and should not have had the money to spend on hair brained schemes in the first place.

add to that the fact that a lot of these idiotic schemmes were installed quietly during lockdown so people werent able to complain!

 

[SL03WLY]

I have a lot of these around me. As a minicab driver, I face these obstructions a lot. Can't even pick up or drop off passengers to there destinations. Hurts the most when I have someone elderly, disabled or parents with kids. Some of the LTN's zones have been fully blocked off with bollards or massive plant pots. Not nice for Emergency vehicles.

 

[markjay]

add to that the fact that a lot of these idiotic schemmes were installed quietly during lockdown so people werent able to complain!

Well, there's a junction outside Paddington Station that was changed four times in two months last year... and it's still ain't right - I regularly see drivers getting confused there.

Basically it was part of the scheme to convert whole lanes to cyclists lanes (to allow two-way cycling while maintaining social distancing).

There are 3 lanes there, and the cyclists lane has migrated from one lane to the other... they have tried various variations but they always ended-up with cyclists being cut-off by cars turning left.

At current the middle lane is officially the cyclists lane, but car regularly use it (because unless you are familiar with the junction, you wouldn't expect the middle lane of a three-lane junction to be a cyclists lane...). I think the Council just gave-up on trying to find a layout that actually works.

 

[markjay]

This is it:

 

[markjay]

Now, if you look at the writing on the road, you can see on the centre line an arrow pointing straight ahead and the wording 'AHEAD ONLY', erased by still visible (left over from the Council's last attempt).

With the street light at night, both the bicycles and the erased wording and arrow are equally visible... and many cars use the centre lane.

 

[markjay]

This is the approach...:

 

[markjay]

The silver Mini is about to cross the cyclists lane and join the white Merc coupe in the outer lane. So much for road safety for cyclists....

 

[ChrisEdu]

Is yours insured for theft separately ? I saw an article the other day where a well know home insurer refused to pay out on a stolen ebike because it was classed as a powered vehicle. Paid out for the other (not surprisingly) cheaper bikes that were stolen but not the ebike ?

Oddly enough had the ebike been a Motability scooter they would have payed out. I personally think if you have a £1.5K eBike stolen along with a £1.5K 'push bike' (stupid term) then they should be treated the same if they have been declared .

I wish it were only £1.5k! Even my analogue bike is at least twice that.

My bikes are declared during the quotation process, and I make an extra point of discussing their cover with the insurers. After all, technically, if you don't have them covered for use out of the home, they wouldn't be covered out on a ride.

I also have an Asgurd security shed, which is police approved and very strong. The bikes are even kept locked when inside that.

 

[markjay]

On a related note... a family member recently got caught-out, same as this chap here:

PCN Islington council Marlborough Road - FightBack Forums

forums.pepipoo.com

Apparently there are quite a few of those width restrictions around Islington, and they are all regularly clocking offending vehicles.

The issue is that there's no 'No Entry' sign, so drivers are tempted to drive through the wider section, thus committing the traffic offence of not abiding by the two blue arrow signs that say 'pass from the left'. So why isn't there a No Entry sign? There's one on the other side....

I found elsewhere a response from Islington Council saying that the wide gap isn't marked as 'No Entry' because fire engines are allowed through.

Am I the only one who thinks this is an illogical argument? Clearly fire engines are not expected to abide by the blue arrow signs... so why would they not be equally exempt from going through No Entry signs? Not to mention that if the Council really wanted to be anal about it, they could have erected a No Entry sign with the wording 'Except Emergency Vehicles'.

Here's a better view:

The cynic in me says that a No Entry sign would not have been ignored by motorists in the same way that the blue arrow is... and the Council knows it.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

On a related note... a family member recently got caught-out, same as this chap here:

PCN Islington council Marlborough Road - FightBack Forums

forums.pepipoo.com

Apparently there are quite a few of those width restrictions around Islington, and they are all regularly clocking offending vehicles.

The issue is that there's no 'No Entry' sign, so drivers are tempted to drive through the wider section, thus committing the traffic offence of not abiding by the two blue arrow signs that say 'pass from the left'. So why isn't there a No Entry sign? There's one on the other side....

I found elsewhere a response from Islington Council saying that the wide gap isn't marked as 'No Entry' because fire engines are allowed through.

Am I the only one who thinks this is an illogical argument? Clearly fire engines are not expected to abide by the blue arrow signs... so why would they not be equally exempt from going through No Entry signs? Not to mention that if the Council really wanted to be anal about it, they could have erected a No Entry sign with the wording 'Except Emergency Vehicles'.

Here's a better view:

The cynic in me says that a No Entry sign would not have been ignored by motorists in the same way that the blue arrow is... and the Council knows it.

I don’t know whether this is the latest info from the Road Traffic Regulations Act (RTRA) but fire engines weren’t exempt from No Entry signs at one time. The exemptions were for speed limits and the following:

“Section 64 of the RTRA provides powers to make regulations relating to traffic signs including the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD). The TSRGD exempt the police, fire and ambulance services and the Serious Organised Crime Agency from having to comply with the requirements denoted by keep left/right signs, double white lines, zig zag lines at pedestrian crossings, bus stops, clearways and box junctions.”​

To suggest that the existing mandatory keep left arrows are insufficient for the public to understand is to suggest that motorists are generally useless at interpreting road signs. That may well be true, but to my mind is absolutely no excuse for ignoring them.

What I must confess that I’m not sure about is where the indicated road width is measured. Is it between the kerbs (which I think it should be) or between the narrowest points of adjacent street furniture? If it’s between the kerbs, then even an S-Class would be able to get through the example restriction with ease because it’s 7’ wide including wing mirrors.

 

[markjay]

I don’t know whether this is the latest info from the Road Traffic Regulations Act (RTRA) but fire engines weren’t exempt from No Entry signs at one time. The exemptions were for speed limits and the following:

“Section 64 of the RTRA provides powers to make regulations relating to traffic signs including the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD). The TSRGD exempt the police, fire and ambulance services and the Serious Organised Crime Agency from having to comply with the requirements denoted by keep left/right signs, double white lines, zig zag lines at pedestrian crossings, bus stops, clearways and box junctions.”​

I stand corrected.