- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
ANPR protected LTN in LB EalingLow Traffic Neighbourhood in Ealing ripped out 'during school run'
A Low Traffic Neighbourhood being trialled in Ealing has been shut down by the council.
The council claim the closing of a nearby road for a period of two months means they were left with no option other than to shut down LTN21.
It also said however that 'the implementation of low traffic neighbourhoods has caused significant division within local communities'.
Shortly after Ealing Council announced its decision, a local school posted a warning on its website urging children and parents to take 'extra care' while travelling.
The road due for closure, Swyncombe Avenue, links Hounslow and Ealing on the southern border of the LTN21 but is closing to eastbound traffic from Monday.
The council allege this closure would make LTN21 unworkable and therefore they have been forced to remove it this weekend
Social media users said that the removal of the LTN began on Friday 'during the school run'.
This is how much @EalingCouncil care about kids safety.
They rip out the LTN during the school run and a kid on a bike has to dodge a crane.
It’s truly embarrassing to live in Ealing right now. @_petermason @SpacePootler @RailtonLTN @willnorman @jonburkeUK @AlanDyeNB pic.twitter.com/KyOUZ3FMcv
— Mark Eccleston (@MarkEccleston1) May 21, 2021
The council says ultimately it wants people living in LTNs to be the ones to have the final say on the trial schemes.
This will be done through a 'Controlled Parking Zone' style consultation on each LTN in the borough, 'keeping schemes that work and are supported, and removing those that do not'.
Ealing Council Leader Peter Mason (Labour) said: “Ealing Council promised to listen to local people’s views on active travel initiatives like LTNs, and we have done just that.
"The decision on LTN 21 has been brought forward because of the closure of Swyncombe Avenue and we will be ending the trial this weekend.
“Remaining LTNs will be subject to a CPZ style consultation, with a vote for local people on whether they think the LTNs will work in their neighbourhoods.
“I’ve pledged that the council I lead will be open, transparent and inclusive. That means being honest about what works and what doesn’t.
“This decision is about giving local people control over change in their neighbourhoods. Our commitment to tackling the climate emergency and enabling active travel and cycling remains unchanged, but we know we must take people with us.”
Ealing Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Gary Malcom responded to the news by demanding all LTNs are removed.
My letter as @EalingLD Leader to the new Leader of #Ealing Council in response to the news of the removal of LTN21, to demand all of the LTNs are removed as well as a similar scheme to an LTN in Fishers Lane, Southfield #Chiswick. pic.twitter.com/tczOFLDaMB
— Cllr Gary Malcolm 🔶️💙 (@CllrGaryMalcolm) May 21, 2021
Following the announcement, a local school in the area, Fielding Primary urged children to take extra care when walking home.
Posting on its website, the school warned: "Pupils and parents are recommended to take extra care when travelling to and from school because traffic levels may change.
"Teachers are talking to classes this afternoon about taking extra care walking home from school today."
Here comes Ealing's future. Bravo @EalingCouncil https://t.co/XFybwJ0K5i
— Railton LTN (@RailtonLTN) May 21, 2021
Latest Comments
- ktache 1 sec ago
Not many animals cause grinding noises when underneath a vehicle.
- eburtthebike 19 min 41 sec ago
I listened to the BBC R4 prog "Should cyclists stay in their lane" and it was pretty much what you'd expect from the BBC, a well-informed cyclist...
- eburtthebike 37 min 33 sec ago
Of course you don't actually want to spend money intended for infrastructure on infrastructure, you want to spend it on plans for infrastructure,...
- Veganpotter 52 min 4 sec ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- Hirsute 1 hour 14 min ago
You have to add images via a reply to yourself after the topic is created. One at a time too.
- Hirsute 1 hour 16 min ago
“Plus, riders who pair CarBack to their smartphone using the Trek Accessory app can enjoy even more features, including the ability to see the...
- Tom_77 1 hour 32 min ago
Had a Kona Blast sometime around the turn of the century, that was a pretty decent mountain bike for not much money....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 7 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
- HoarseMann 2 hours 39 min ago
Decathlon have the Garmin Varia RTL515 on offer at the moment for £129.99: https://www.decathlon.co.uk/p/rearview-radar-varia-rtl515-65-lumens/_/R-...
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 49 min ago
So when you said "all Jews" you didn't actually mean all Jews, just religious ones. However even that distinction is erroneous, as you must surely...
Add new comment
33 comments
"Ealing Council promised to listen to local people’s views on active travel initiatives like LTNs"
The real problem is that, with where we are now, changing our roads to be less favourable to motor vehicles and more to active travel options is quite a radical departure from existing reality (and previous policy) and human beings, in the main, don't like change, especially if they think it might affect them adversely.
All of which means that waiting for the mjority of the public to be in favour of something before being prepared to try it makes it extremely unlikely to ever happen with any consistency.
I absolutely understand the desire to try and win over the public before trying something but given the stated goals and aims of the country in terms of making active travel safer and more efficient, whilst also dealing with the climate and obesity crises, we cannot just sit and wait until the majority of the public decides they are on board with it.
And I speak as someone who lives on a street that had traffic calming measures, and a one way system, imposed on it, against the wishes of the majority of residents ... and yet now (20 years) no one here at the time will admit to having opposed it because it has made such a positive difference.
But all the evidence shows that the majority are very much in favour of LTNs, and it is the politicians who support the status quo.
I feel like drivers are so entrenched and rabid in their opposition to any changes to the car centric nature of cities perhaps the only way forward is for all new developments to be new towns developed from the start as low traffic areas.
When those who favour quality of life over ease of driving move out and the old urban spaces become exclusively populated by car junkies, dominated by cars and less livable maybe they will eventually have their epiphany. But if not at least others can have the urban plan they want.
These people are living in London, car usage is not essential there at all. Public transport is extensive and reasonably priced and the quickest way to get anyway is likely by bike but still they must drive their cars.
Yes, drivers are entrenched in their view; they have their cars, and they will use them when they want; even if it's driving 500 metres down the road for a pint of milk & a paper.
They don't want to use public transport, walk or cycle, etc that's too much trouble - it's easier to hop in the car.
I really don't know how we end this view......
Duntshill Road: is the big problem there actually the parked cars? It's odd that we allow people (including me) to occupy a space in public ownership to store a vehicle. If you were to use the same space to store an old sofa or some firewood, you'd be in trouble. Even a skip needs lighting and a permit (not often enforced).
I know that the Liberal Democrats are a broad church (Lembit Opik anyone?) but demanding that the consultation that the council suggests must not happen, don't listen to anyone, just rip it all out... seems a bit short of liberalism and democracy.
Parked cars in roads are my biggest bugbear - and it's become a real issue in the last 10 years. PCP/ finance deals means more people can afford car/ cars, without thinking were they keep it when not in use - and it's just accepted, so more and more do it. And nothing happens.....
In an ideal world, if you have no space to park your car - tough, you can't have one; but that's a vote loser, so it won't happen.
"Ealing Council Leader Peter Mason (Labour) said: “Ealing Council promised to listen to local people’s views on active travel initiatives like LTNs, and we have done just that."
Which they clearly didn't do before ripping the LTN out. Rapidly followed by
"“I’ve pledged that the council I lead will be open, transparent and inclusive. That means being honest about what works and what doesn’t."
So how is ripping it out before people have been consulted being "open, transparent and inclusive."? Is this being ripped out before the verdict in the CUK case against the council which did something similar?
The only positive thing you can say about this labour politician is that the Lib-Dem is worse. There is something fundamentally wrong with our politics when two parties can so viciously attack something supported by the majority, and they should look very closely at their motives and reasons for such an undemocratic attitude. Are they all car addicts? Is there no climate emergency in Ealing? How far above sea level is it?
Do I ask too many questions?
WHOA! An anti-LTN Lib-Dem?? "Vulnerable users"??
I did wonder how he was defining "vulnerable users"?
Or is it just an admission that those who oppose LTNs shout the loudest?
I don't think there's much point speculating about what the "silent majority" want. How do we know what a silent person wants unless they cease to be silent?
According to this article, a YouGov poll last year found that 26% strongly supported LTNs and less than a third of that number (8%) were strongly opposed to them. That makes me think that silent people are more likely to be supporters of LTNs, not opponents. LTNs were somewhat supported by 31% and a similar number somewhat opposed them:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/oct/22/despite-a-...
I'm not sure what you mean by "badly motivated polling" in the context of my post or this article. It's not the Guardian saying LTN's are popular, it's a YouGov survey where they asked over 2000 members of the general public. The Guardian is merely reporting the results and commenting on them.
And I quite like Yes, Prime Minister so thanks for the link. I see what you're trying to imply but Yes, Prime Minister is satire and not meant to be taken literally. Satire must have at least a small element of truth to be funny but if it's exactly the same as the truth then it's no longer funny.
You might want to check what a conflict of interest actually is. We all know that Greenpeace want to save the planet. A conflict of interest would be if they had shares in the world's biggest manufacturer of planters.
Fair Fuel UK don't have a conflict of interest either, unless they are in league with the Vogons who'll find it easier to demolish the earth once it has mysteriously gone on fire.
And YouGov are in business so that there is at least a degree of independence and rigour. It's not perfect, but they would soon fail if perceived just to tell the customer what they think they want to hear. So they are open about who commissioned the poll, as is the Guardian article that portec linked.
It's not the same thing as undisclosed payment for research though. Greenpeace published a survey which they paid YouGov to execute. They're being totally open about it and publishing it, including the questions and all the stats. 5 mins to find it - search "Greenpeace LTN" and you'll find the Greenpeace page about it, with a link to a pdf on YouGov's site.
Undisclosed research funding is a problem because it may be published in exactly the same place as independent research, not be editorially independent, and have inconvenient results suppressed. If you think the same has happened here, you are welcome to suggest it and present your evidence.
The key is "commissioned by". Greenpeace did not undertake the work themselves. They commissioned YouGov to do it to nationally accepted standards of polling. The results will be accurate to within plus or minus 3% on a representative sample of 1000 people, so with a representative sample of 2000, it will be even more accurate.
Had 'FFUK' commissioned YouGov they would have found the same.
In Ealing, where we are talking about the scheme having been recently ripped out, the share of vote for Labour and Greens - who both supported the schemes, went up in the London Assembly and Mayoral elections, ooh, less than a month ago. This pattern appears to have played out across London, where the lion's share of the UK's recent LTNs have been delivered over the last year. Anti LTN candidates got trounced. Pro LTN candidates did well.
Even if you analyse Sadiq Khan's worse-than-expected vote, it's not because Shaun Bailey or the other anti-LTN candidates triumphed. At all.
Then throw on top the opinion polls - including independent ones not commissioned by Greenpeace, that show a clear majority of Londoners and indeed folks across England like LTNs.
Isn't it funny that folks who claim to be all for evidence "looking at the results of the latest elections" then dismiss evidence they don't like, and just make massive whopper claims on top. Sigh.
It is not the first time he has shouted "look at how well Shaun Bailey did, it must mean Anti LTN's are popular" when Bailey did pretty much exactly the same as Goldsmith at the previous election in terms of percentage share.
His main priority was reducing crime and he wanted to increase constables by 8000.
They are NOT unpopular in Islington borough, where every bye-election in an LTN ward was won overwhelmingly by Islington Labour, who had introduced them and who had LTNs (aka 'People Friendly Streets') as an explicit policy.
0.6% of Ealing borough's population attended a protest - and we don't even know if they were all from Ealing - and the council has caved in to shouty loudmouth drivists.
Finally, every time there's a proper representative sample taken and a controlled analysis, it finds that LTNs are overwhelmingly supported in London, even by drivers, as reported elsewhere on road.cc:
https://road.cc/content/news/backers-london-ltns-outnumber-opponents-thr...
Bravo! Nearly up to Socrapicyclist's standard.
No, it doesn't. I just has to compel people to travel actively. It would undoubtedly be more popular if it brought people with it but fundamentally it doesn't have to.
Yay LTNs! Yay, send all the traffic down the povvos' roads! Yay!
Is there a more egregious example of how LTNs can be really bad than the dreadful mess in Ealing? The actual reason the council's taking them out is that it was about to lose a legal challenge against the unlawfully discriminatory effect of the ones it put in.
When equalities law says the effects of something are racist, perhaps reconsider your plans...
You managed to crowbar in an accusation of racism into something that is not even vaguely related to race. Is there a racism equivalent to Godwin's law? If there is you've just illustrated it.
Perhaps you've personally been adversely affected by traffic being diverted down your street due to an LTN and if so I get that you'd be annoyed by that but there has to be a better solution than ripping out the LTN that makes life so much safer and more pleasant for non-motorised traffic. The solution is more LTNs to get more people to leave the car behind when they don't need it, not fewer LTNs.
Those who were most affected are predominantly operating within certain service oriented job functions. Those functions are overwhelmingly staffed by non white ethnicities. But yeh. I'm sure it's Goodwin's law, Or brexit or something right. Sounds definitely more feasible...
Godwin's law isn't a criticism, it's an observation: any discussion long enough will eventually come round to discussing the Nazis, often because of something someone's said or done _which is comparable_.
In this case, we're discussing racism. Going 'oo-err, you said racism' is just daft.
We are talking about how unbelievably racist LTNs tend to be, and how this particular one is literally being dropped because it was about to lose a court challenge based on equalities law. But you'd rather that wasn't discussed, because...?
Dave Dave; is that like New York? So bad they named you twice?
Just to be clear, this is not the case. Ealing has suspended LTN21 - the many other temporary LTNs remain.
The council has suspended LTN21 because of road works.
So why didn't they just say that instead of indulging in all that rabid anti-LTN rhetoric?
Not true. The council rapidly arranged some roadworks to save face. LTN21 was about to face (and obviously lose) a court challenge under equalities law. Obviously most, if not all, LTNs are deeply discriminatory, but this one is particularly egregious.
Have you actually looked at the map of it, or are you just knee-jerking? It moves traffic away from one school (full of rich white kids) and some allotments, onto a road with three schools (which just happen to be full of poor BAME kids). It's absolutely blatant. Absolutely disgusting, too.
Did you used to advise Trump on his alternative facts? Now you're jobless, maybe you could sexual intercourse* off back to where you came from.
*I couldn't use the common term for fear of being prosecuted.
Pages