Read on Twitter
As far as I can tell, there are two key points to note from the flurry of pro-LTN news stories in the past few days
(1) Concerns relating to the socially unjust impact of individual LTNs remain entirely unaddressed. /.1
(1) Concerns relating to the socially unjust impact of individual LTNs remain entirely unaddressed. /.1
(2) Despite their ‘folksy’ underdog pretentions, pro-LTN campaigners have a raft of powerful support (national media, political, celebrity academia) that they can harness whenever needed. /.2
LTN campaigners increasingly dismiss social justice concerns relating to LTNs as a ‘myth’. Such claims are now founded upon the latest report from Prof Rachel Aldred, “LTNs for all?”, which has been widely and wildly misrepresented from the moment it was released. /.3
With regard to social equity, Aldred’s report has two points to make:
(i) Focussing on residential not main roads is not necessarily socially unjust (especially in inner-London)
(ii) Some of the Boroughs with the highest levels of deprivation have relatively more LTNs. /.4
(i) Focussing on residential not main roads is not necessarily socially unjust (especially in inner-London)
(ii) Some of the Boroughs with the highest levels of deprivation have relatively more LTNs. /.4
The only conclusions that can be drawn from this are that LTNs are not automatically socially unjust and that a well-designed LTN, introduced in the right place, could conceivably have a positive impact on social equity. /.5
I don’t think anyone would dispute this. But it certainly doesn’t begin to address, let alone resolve, any of the actual concerns relating to social justice and the socially regressive impact of LTNs that are being voiced in so many trial areas. /.6
This is in stark contrast to the impression given by @peterwalker99, who is increasingly leading the LTN campaign via the pages of @guardian. He immediately used "LTNs for all?" as the basis for a series of distortionary claims. /.7
Presented as “mythbusters”, Walker seems to be claiming "LTNs for all?" provides proof that “schemes benefit everyone” and that social justice concerns have been “debunked” as “evidence does not bear this out”. /.8
The quote he uses from Aldred actually refers to the distribution of demographic groups by street type in inner London.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/5fb246b254d7bd32ba4cec90/1605519046389/LTNs+for+all.pdf /.9
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d30896202a18c0001b49180/t/5fb246b254d7bd32ba4cec90/1605519046389/LTNs+for+all.pdf /.9
Far from debunking a myth, this is merely a tabulation of a point that has been made for weeks. It does not, in any way, speak to the concerns advanced by @rosamund_ElsFdn , @littleninja and a very large number of concerns from specific LTNs such as #BowesLTN /.10
Given that @peterwalker99 is a serious and deservedly respected political journalist, it is safe to assume that he doesn’t unknowingly produce work that is this shoddy. /.11
Like Professor Aldred he doesn’t deny that he is part of the campaign for LTNS, but unlike Aldred much of his recent work shows a clear willingness to compromise his professional integrity for the purposes of propagandising. /.12
And the examples above are far from unique in showing Peter Walker's use of misleading and distortionary straplines to reinforce the key point he wishes to emphasise. Those below illustrate his increasingly regular and carefully timed interventions on behalf of LTNs. /.13
The ‘minority of local dissidents’ reference here gives the false impression of a Govt view, that is not evident in the press release or any other reports. The article does not back up the strapline, but the end references a similar quote from Cycling UK's head of campaigns./.14
Which helps to reinforce and amplify the distortionary vocal minority line he’s been pushing for several weeks -the previous time was via the headline to a piece on a YouGov poll that provided no evidence of a minority for any particular LTN, vocal/loud or otherwise). /.15
Yet in this podcast (perhaps most notable for @jonburkeUK 's strident comments on his willingness to ignore majority public opinion from 11.04) Walker is sensibly measured and circumspect. /.16 https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2020/nov/16/how-traffic-reduction-schemes-are-dividing-neighbourhoods-podcast
So Walker does appreciate the scope for variation and the need to consider individual cases. Yet in much of his writing he seeks to simplify the situation to suggest a certainty about the avoidance of negative consequences. /.17
Which is very odd. Because a large group of people who know better, and who I believe genuinely care about social justice and would not wish to encourage a socially regressive outcome, are choosing to shut out and suppress the basis for concerns. /.18
They seem obsessed with the conviction that those raising issues all do so in bad faith and are really seeking to prevent change or progress. Yet almost all concerns relate to specific LTNs, are based on local expertise and derive from sincere social conscience. /.19
And so respected, intelligent and influential figures seem too unwilling or afraid to adapt, and instead prefer to orchestrate a pile-on against arguments that aren’t being made, in order to risk a seriously detrimental and unjust outcome that literally no-one wants. /.20
@LittleNinjaUK
@stopenfieldltns
@BBvoice4all
@one_lewisham
@OneLevenshulme
@LambethOne
@EalingOne
@OneLevenshulme
@WFStreetsforAll
@stopenfieldltns
@BBvoice4all
@one_lewisham
@OneLevenshulme
@LambethOne
@EalingOne
@OneLevenshulme
@WFStreetsforAll
