Forum topic: Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published

Not sure that I implied that the number of people using motorcycles would increase, only that it could happen. There are lots of reasons why a present-day citizen would be less likely to do so than the adults of my childhood, especially in a congested city like London. Though of course cyclists like me do take the risk with some help from cycle lanes.

Motorists take note: leave plenty of room when you pass a cyclists............a cyclist can wobble for all sorts of reasons. Comments should be on 'The View from the Saddle' thread rather than this one.

The core of all this seems to be whether there is a desire to have, as Candy Newman and other Oakfield residents have promoted, streets which forms part of your own immediate neighbourhoods, which are quiet and pleasant, and where local community can flourish; or instead act as a conduit for cars and other vehicles to lash through on their way from somewhere to somewhere else. We currently have a lot of the latter type of street in the Fox Lane area and rectification is inevitably going to involve some relatively minor changes to the status quo. Let’s hope that the next iteration of the plan has the balance between all of our streets and needs reasonably aligned.

My guess is Roger's last post has probably been drafted simply to try and antagonise those of us who believe motor vehicle use needs to fall to help the fight against climate change, reduce obesity, address the 25,000 and upwards road deaths/serious accidents in the UK each year, tackle deaths and serious illnesses from pollution and reduce noise . But if that isn't the case, then why not park your car on Alderman's Hill and walk the short distance from your home ? And buy your teenagers bikes that will be much better for their health and well-being than motorbikes?

Lots of debate here, but mindful that the extended deadline for response is not far away it's worth thinking if there is anything more that can be said to the Council.

I'd urge everyone (even if you've already submitted comments) to request more details about the design of the scheme and the rationale behind the design - whatever scheme they end up trialling.

All we've got is a map; the Council have not explained how the scheme will operate. For example access for large vehicles and the many other points raised on this forum.

The rationale for the particular design has not been explained. For example, on what basis do they believe the reduction in journeys made will offset the extra length of journeys that are made? What have they found from other schemes - what are the hallmarks of a successful scheme?

Have they thought through the issues fully. For example, if the hope is that some car journeys will be replaced with bikes, have they considered the impact of our disconnected cycle paths - coming out from the low-traffic area onto Aldermans Hill or Cannon Hill does not make for pleasant cycling.

I don't want to us to be experimented on with a poorly designed scheme, so I'd encourage everyone to ask to see the evidence of how the scheme has been designed. I will be very suspicious if Council make changes based purely on residents feedback - there are some well-informed people on this forum but we're not traffic engineers and don't have experience of designing low-traffic neighbourhoods so it's reasonable to expect the Council to share the rationale for the design.

A related observation - I used Google maps to give me a driving route from St Monica's church on Green Lanes to an address in Barnet. Guess what? - to get to the North Circular at the junction by Broomfield School it wanted to send me up Fox Lane and Old Park Road to get to Aldermans Hill rather than continuing along Green Lanes to the triangle.

I'm afraid I haven't grasped Graham Bennet's contribution to this thread given that the Council's underlying aim is to make The Lakes Estate a better place to live, partially/mainly by discouraging through-traffic from driving across the estate, and persuading it to stick to stick to the main roads that were designed to carry it. Possibly/probably there is also a hope that some through-traffic drivers will give up and either use public transport or cycle; it seems to me both are quite possible given that some/many drivers simply do it by habit.

Just in case Graham B. hasn't picked up that I cycle I should confirm it now. True it's not a lot of fun on many roads in London, and much more so than it was when I was young. Drivers then were often ex-cyclists and understood cyclists needs: mainly don't pass closely to someone on a bike because all sorts of things can make them wobble.

Personally I don't think cycle lanes are at the heart of the issue at hand now. Sure they can create a little security and priority on main roads, but in a city, where traffic speeds should be slow, the risk of being on the carriageway ought not to be high. Think about the cycling countries in northern Europe: cyclists there carry their babies on their bikes or in a trolley behind their 'bike', and I haven't heard that casualties are high. In France cyclists can ignore traffic lights.

I guess there's quite a lot more to be said in this conversation, but for today I would only say that with regard to the journey to Barnet, Google Maps will have to change its advice should the Quieter Neigbourhood scheme be adopted more or less as it now. Times change.

Why is sharing a 'work around' to a problem of roads being closed at one end classed as antagonising?

The roads won’t be closed. Answer to your question in my earlier post.

Mmmmmmmmm?I would bet most of us don't agree with the pedantic definition you are using for closed.