Forum topic: Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
Alex Lyness
29 Nov 2019 21:12 #4983
Share
Share by email
Roger - My wife and I fit both of those groups (we have a young child and both work full time in central London) and we are strongly in favour of reducing levels of traffic and pollution in our streets - so we do exist.
The level, speed and size of traffic passing by our front windows are too high for a residential street in my opinion. This is is despite the presence of speed humps on our road which mostly mean people slowing down and then accelerating aggressively. It’s why I can’t see how the alternative suggestions of speed humps and cameras I’ve seen across the various forums will solve the problem.
The level, speed and size of traffic passing by our front windows are too high for a residential street in my opinion. This is is despite the presence of speed humps on our road which mostly mean people slowing down and then accelerating aggressively. It’s why I can’t see how the alternative suggestions of speed humps and cameras I’ve seen across the various forums will solve the problem.
Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
David Hughes
29 Nov 2019 21:54 #4984
Share
Share by email
Let's remember this thread is about a Quieter Neighbourhood; namely making life better on the streets where we live. Which in turn means excluding cars/drivers who are not driving to a destiny within the neighbourhood. Sure vehicles, including heavy lorries, need to enter, but the primary need is to reduce unnecessary vehicle movements creating better lives, especially for children, who have suffered most from the car-age.
Kids, of an age to be decided by parents, should be at play in a streets like these.
Kids, of an age to be decided by parents, should be at play in a streets like these.
Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
PGC Webmaster
29 Nov 2019 23:38 #4985
Share
Share by email
roger dougall wrote:
A vast majority of us need to drive on a daily basis.
Still yet to see a post by anybody who works or has a young family who is pro this scheme.
A couple of assumptions here that don't survive closer scrutiny.
Alex Lyness has already answered Roger's second point , and I'm sure that he's not the only person who works or has a young family who favours this scheme or something similar.
Turning to the claim that "a vast majority of us need to drive on a daily basis", this is simply untrue. Quite a few people do, of course, but I imagine that the majority of people living in the affected area don't.
People who work. Anyone working in central London would almost certainly use public transport to get to work, and for that large category of people there is no "need" to drive to get to Southgate or Palmers Green stations from anywhere in the neighbourhood. If you can't walk, there are buses within ten minutes' walk of everywhere in the area. Or you can get on a bike. I'd be very surprised if anyone living less than ten minutes on foot from one of those stations would drive there, and that accounts for a lot of the houses in the area.
People with young families. Again, some will need to drive, but many won't. Again, there are buses within easy reach and services round here are very good.
It's an easy assumption to make that most families having cars has made their lives easier and saved them time. But the ironic thing about over reliance on private cars, is that, instead of freeing up people's time, they have in many cases led to people spending much longer travelling and stuck in congested traffic. There was a time when town centres would have had shops covering all your everyday needs within walking distance. Out of town shopping centres, brought about by the spread of cars, put paid to that.
Because of road danger from heavy traffic, parents now spend large amounts of time ferrying kids around. Back in the day the kids would have travelled on their own, on foot, on a bike, on the bus, and parents would have had more time for other things.
And of course there are huge physical and mental health benefits from active modes of travel (walking, cycling, public transport), which have been repeatedly confirmed by researchers.
Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
roger dougall
30 Nov 2019 14:40 #4986
Share
Share by email
If speed humps don't work then why were a load installed on Fox Lane only 9 months ago?
Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
Alex Lyness
30 Nov 2019 15:09 #4987
Share
Share by email
I said they don’t work in my experience. The council may have evidence to the contrary - maybe worth asking them?
My personal experience of speed humps on our road is they are great in theory but the majority of people just see them as an obstacle slowing down their journey down our road which drives the hard braking and accelerating I see outside our front window on a daily basis.
My personal experience of speed humps on our road is they are great in theory but the majority of people just see them as an obstacle slowing down their journey down our road which drives the hard braking and accelerating I see outside our front window on a daily basis.
Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
Ann Jones
30 Nov 2019 20:29 #4988
Share
Share by email
I just wanted to say that you might be forgiven for thinking that there is not so much active opposition to the proposed original plan and the revised plan that appears on this forum because of the low volume of people voicing their concerns on this forum. That is because the people with children or elderly parents and also working parents don’t have as much time to engage on this forum to share the reality of our time poor lives such as
1. Muggings forcing us to pick up our children
2. Needing to get to and from work, visit elderly relatives or shop in between homework and cooking dinner and going to whatever sports training or activities our children take part in.
3. Traffic will evaporate — I find that Bourne Hilll, the High street and Cannon Hill (Presumably others too) are massively congested at present. And google maps, Waze etc will ensure that if volume drops, commuters will quickly fill the void.
4. Three w9 buses an hour, when they come, is not an adequate alternative
5. people who find walking or cycling difficult or impossible are ignored by the scheme . I feel for the poor person who wrote about having to drive to Aldermans Hill pharmacy. A few people on here seem to think their reality is not worthy of consideration.
6. The more expensive alternative involving cameras and ANPR appears not to be given due consideration in Enfield Council’s plans.
7. We have every reason to distrust Enfield Council given their failure to listen to opposition on cycle lanes and bin collections and the failed planters initiative.
Many people opposed to these plans are active elsewhere. I would be grateful if my post was allowed to be considered as simply my point of view and left on the forum for other like minded people to read.
Thank you.
1. Muggings forcing us to pick up our children
2. Needing to get to and from work, visit elderly relatives or shop in between homework and cooking dinner and going to whatever sports training or activities our children take part in.
3. Traffic will evaporate — I find that Bourne Hilll, the High street and Cannon Hill (Presumably others too) are massively congested at present. And google maps, Waze etc will ensure that if volume drops, commuters will quickly fill the void.
4. Three w9 buses an hour, when they come, is not an adequate alternative
5. people who find walking or cycling difficult or impossible are ignored by the scheme . I feel for the poor person who wrote about having to drive to Aldermans Hill pharmacy. A few people on here seem to think their reality is not worthy of consideration.
6. The more expensive alternative involving cameras and ANPR appears not to be given due consideration in Enfield Council’s plans.
7. We have every reason to distrust Enfield Council given their failure to listen to opposition on cycle lanes and bin collections and the failed planters initiative.
Many people opposed to these plans are active elsewhere. I would be grateful if my post was allowed to be considered as simply my point of view and left on the forum for other like minded people to read.
Thank you.
Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
David Hughes
30 Nov 2019 22:52 #4989
Share
Share by email
You'd think that drivers would see traffic control features like 'speed humps' as a reminder/reason to drive at not more than the displayed speed, but evidence seems to suggest that they see them as an annoying impediment. Instead most vehicles seem to accelerate the moment the rear wheels hit the ordinary road surface after the hump. I interpret that to mean that they either believe their own thoughts about streets, if they have any, to be the legitimate ones, or they don't think at all. Which is just another way of saying what Alex Lyness said in the previous contribution to this thread.
That being the case it's probable that the only answer is to stop or photograph the culprits which would be an expensive business.
That being the case it's probable that the only answer is to stop or photograph the culprits which would be an expensive business.
Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published
Darren Edgar
02 Dec 2019 13:42 #4992
Share
Share by email
roger dougall wrote:
A point well put by David Berkovitch. A vast majority of us need to drive on a daily basis.
Still yet to see a post by anybody who works or has a young family who is pro this scheme.
50 hour a week full time worker in Central London here with a young family (wife + 1 child). I'm in favour. I've also loved using the cycle lanes as the most enjoyable part of my 10 mile (each way) commute.
Moderators: PGC Webmaster, Basil Clarke
Time to create page: 0.767 seconds
