Read on Twitter
Dealing with this tactic is long overdue. Above all it’s not true. There’s wide support for diff policies including school streets, cycle lanes, lower speed limits, peak hrs closures, ANPR enforcement, alternate designs etc. All of these are evident in Enfield groups alone. /.1 https://twitter.com/Junkcom/status/1342873902570156040
LTN advocates pretend otherwise, using this generalisation to get on the front foot to detract from a glaring lack of evidence & a multitude of points they can’t answer. The eg above is typical – in reply to a thread, the substance of which it makes no attempt to address. /.2
Most of those raising concerns about LTNs do so solely in relation to their local scheme. I've never claimed a basis on which to question schemes other than Enfield. Those with concerns question the general evidence provided, but all are concerned with a specific scheme. /.3
Which doesn’t mean any deny the concept of an LTN could work in the right place, with the right design. That’s just of no significance in mitigating the flaws that are manifest in an individual scheme and so of little relevance to specific concerns being raised /.4
(Although, in the context of the no. of schemes being rapidly introduced, it does seem shocking how little evidence exists, and given the extent to which questionable evidence is uncritically amplified by LTN advocates it's hard not to infer an Illusory Truth campaign) /.5
In Enfield (especially #BowesLTN) there is a very strong basis for the concerns being raised. The schemes have been badly designed and implemented, they're having & will continue to have a negative impact on pollution and road safety, & in a way which is socially regressive. /.6
And in this context the generalisation above becomes even more ridiculous – for two reasons./.7
(1) Not being an expert able to come up with a better proposal doesn’t invalidate criticisms (To use an old example not knowing how to solve the issue of domestic abuse wouldn’t prevent it from being right to object to a policy that sought to ban all relationships) /.8
(2) If a policy is counter productive it is entirely legitimate to argue that doing nothing would be preferable. Clearly if a scheme increases pollution, makes the busiest roads less safe and has a socially unjust impact then it *would* be better to do nothing. /.9
Pointing this out does not make you an advocate for the status quo.
The implication that it does can only be founded on the idea that any change must always be for the better, and that all concerns can be dismissed. That's a terrifying foundation for any policy.
/.10
The implication that it does can only be founded on the idea that any change must always be for the better, and that all concerns can be dismissed. That's a terrifying foundation for any policy.
/.10
