Forum topic: Fox Lane Quieter Neighbourhood: What Better Streets think of the proposals

On the specific I would say that cars turning left into side streets are an everyday occurrence and whatever speed a driver(s) is taking, suitable care is entirely appropriate.
But wider I worry about a broad societal mind set which seems to permeate and comes out in part here, “it’s no good simply blaming the driver for speeding; that’s too late if an accident has happened”. Well, yes, if you’re speeding and there’s a related accident there’s a fair chance we can all guess where the finger may well be pointed.
Essentially we risk accepting that bad driving behaviour is endemic on roads so we need to ignore that and work everything for everyone else around it. We have an acknowledged core problem and that should be the target for action. A similar example appeared in a recent SOGL door dropped leaflet highlighting an apparent increased air quality risk from speed humps on Fox Lane. Now I would see the issue there as being drivers unwilling to hold to a speed at say 18mph, so obviating the need for the acceleration/ braking said to be the issue; the humps being proposed purely because even a 30 mph limit (and sensibly less under Highway Code guidance on that street) can’t be followed by far too many. Again we have an acknowledged core problem and that should be the target for action.
And as for the claimed air quality risk implication - spitting in the ocean given that all of London breathes in illegal levels of health detrimental air.
I’ve lost count of the number and range of “solutions” to Fox Lane I’ve heard over the years from residents, all passionately proposed and doubtless all with some merit. We now have one proposal based on discussions, workshops, speed / volume and time data, point to point information and probably more, put together by specialists with a wider network of other specialists and experience to draw on. It might be time to acknowledge experts, however much some may be tired of them.

"A similar example appeared in a recent SOGL door dropped leaflet highlighting an apparent increased air quality risk from speed humps on Fox Lane."

Ironically given their complaint about EMH affecting trade, I now refuse to shop at any local businesses sporting their leaflet/window advertisements, the most recent I've seen being to encourage slip & trip claims against Enfield Borough Council in relation to the EMH improvements.

So complain about council tax being spent on EMH (actually TfL funds) but then encourage people to sue the Council and reduce its pot of funds further.....

[This post has been redacted to remove inappropriate and insulting language

So that's effectively ambulance chasing lawyer's agents if i understand correctly - The apparent contradictions in apparently wanting to support an area are weird (Enfield borough and its Council are of course key players in that mix). On that theme I’ve personally been constantly amazed over the past three years or so as apparently key business and local community figures, while purporting to be leading a campaign, instead have frequently undermined the areas and local business they claim to support: The estate agent, you would imagine would wish to enhance the area, instead decries it; the local Business Association, in a full page press marketing advertorial, spends much space outlining how horrible things look / are on their patch; Save our Green Lanes, and linked individuals, projecting pretty much daily what a total disaster the very same road is; and very similar occurs in nearby Winchmore Hill, where an equivalent non-stop horror show is depicted by their own local shop “champion”.
Would you come to an area so depicted to live or shop or invest when there are so many alternatives? It’s unlikely, or at least would make you stop and think, so just why do they do it? This is not even brand management for primary school stuff.
Strikes me that it’s long past the time for local businesses to take back control of their own destiny and promote a positive image to potential investors, of all forms. I guess that’s what they want.

You summise correctly, Karl. Basically encouraging people to sue the council (using no win no fee ambulance chasers no doubt) in respect of the tactile paving they consider a trip hazard (ignoring that it's put there to stop that hard of site stepping into oncoming cycle traffic) and other things.

Constantly complaining about damage to business but no actual evidence because, simply put, they can only collect evidence which shows the impact of the ongoing works. It won't be till the scheme is finished at least a year that robust data showing its impact can be collected and analysed.

And I agree with your sentiment, SOGL attitude actually puts me off using these local businesses. I'll just cycle straight past on the lovely EMH and fill my paniers at Sainsburys instead.