Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Another Assault on Our Road Use
Just when you thought Haringey Council's anti-residents parking assault had been beaten back a bit.....
Now the Council intends to spend more money it doesn't have on narrowing the borough's roads - including through routes - and further eliminating space to load, unload and park.
This time, the proposals are characterised as a "Kerbside Strategy". When I last looked, "kerbside" was either "road" and "pavement" separated by a kerb, and sometimes "road" and "verge" likewise.
Now, in a deceptively-worded policy trail in a Commonplace consultation at https://haringeykerbsideandevstrategies.commonplace.is, we are asked to accept that parts of "road" are to be made available available for other uses:
"The kerbside is the space that sits on the road next to the pavement. You might currently find cars, trees, cycle parking, or taxi bays here. Well-designed streets and spaces should benefit everyone, not just a few. We are considering proposals for other kerbside uses such as more trees, planting, car clubs, seating and outdoor eating areas and deliveries. "
The consultation that follows does not ask whether you agree to removing parts of the road for the other uses. It just asks questions as to what one would like to see or prefer for these uses. It also asks you to " Suggest locations for things you would like to see prioritised at the kerbside in Haringey." https://haringeykerbsideandevstrategies.commonplace.is/en-GB/map/Ke...
Some may disagree, but you may want to respond to the survey at Commonplace, and/or to tell your councillors that you do not want any further narrowing of roads or reduction of the limited space currently available for loading and parking in busy parts of the borough. The proposed narrowing at Turnpike Lane is a good example of a costly further restriction in an already slow-moving through road.
NK
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel
-
Intentional killing using an MV is murder too.
PC Andrew Harper's killers were charged with murder in 2019. They were cleared by the jury of murder and convicted of the alternative count of manslaughter, for which they were sentenced to 13 and 16 years in prison.
There is also a special homicide offence called 'causing death by dangerous driving' which has a carefully-considered tariff of sentences depending on the circumstances. A very heavy prison sentence may be imposed regardless of intent.
While to the best of my knowledge no cyclist has as yet been convicted of this offence, I do believe many have courted its commission.
The lawful and heavily-taxed use of the roads by vehicles for which they are designed is not yet an offence, no matter how much the Mayor of London and many who frequent this forum might wish it to be.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson
-
Nigel - every year a thousand pedestrians are killed or injured by motor vehicles in London alone. If it were anything else causing this level of death and injury in the capital a lot more would have happened than bringing in a few narrowed roads and restricted streets.
Only last year Ethan Burdett was jailed for three years for causing the death of four people on the M25. In four years time he will be allowed to resit his test and get his licence back.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
THE list of blunt instruments is endless, but the context here is Road Rage and the items in question are cars.
No other blunt instruments—and certainly none in your list—weighs a ton or more, is large, moves at speed and is wielded by millions on a daily basis. And not always by drivers free from anger-management issues.
A big difference with guns is that firearms are designed to kill or maim, whereas those can be a side-effect with car use.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim on
-
I really don’t understand this desire to want to continue to fill Haringey with cars. Congestion is bad because there are too many cars on the road. Policies which encourage more driving will not improve congestion.
The majority of residents in Haringey don’t own or have access to a car (52.7%, Census 2021), yet they are everywhere, including on the pavements themselves in places like Wood Green high street.
All I see in efforts like this are attempts to slightly redress the balance and give people safer options to travel by foot/bike, and more broadly to make our environment that little bit nicer for everyone.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
People parking on pavements have killed two trees outside my house. I paid £200 for the council to plant one, it lasted six days before being uprooted by someone driving into it. It never recovered. Last year the council replaced it but the new tree was repeatedly driven into and also died. I don't think they'll plant another, I just get to see a dead tree every time I leave the house now. I emptied my water butt caring for it but I am no match for a three tonne white van.
-
-
OVER two or more decades, Haringey Council has contributed to enabling car ownership.
For years, the provision of car parking was mandatory in big Planning Applications; more recently there have been a few car-free developments.
Each new parking space is the Highwaymen's investment in congestion, pollution and hazard.
Haringey Council created and continue to maintain parking bays over pedestrian pavement on 102 roads. The Highwaymen want to retain this capacity.
I might believe the council has begun to be serious about active travel and reversing the trend to more and more car use, if they were to return the full-width of pavements to the pedestrian use for which they were intended.
Although their £1 million tinkering on Wightman Road N4 was half-baked overall, the council did accomplish this.
Further corrections are technically possible but stalled and currently, politically impossible.
-
-
Walking around the Ladder road you rapidly come to the conclusion that we live in a car park. Everything is designed for the convenience of drivers and not pedestrians. The very modest proposal to actually give more space to other road users (yes, even though I am a pedestrian I am also a road user as I cannot go anywhere without crossing one) is a good start.
-
-
I wonder if others have noticed the flawed phasing of traffic lights at the ghastly intersection of Green Lanes and Williamson Road?
As a walker, it is possible to cross to or from the pedestrian island/refuge in Green Lanes (opposite McDonalds) from and to the west side of Green Lanes with the Green man light, and yet to face motor traffic continuing to turn right from Williamson Road into Green lanes.
It's been like this for years. One day may lead to an "accident". This bad-phasing should not be possible, but it must happen daily. Several times I have pointed out the green man light to an oncoming driver.
Once, an oncoming car-user, sarcastically said "thank you" for giving way to me, but oblivious of who actually had the right of way. He could have chosen to run me down, but it was another example of driver entitlement.
I can't help wondering if this example of Highways design is incompetence, poor execution, poor checking, poor management or just a could-not-care attitude to pedestrians, who seem always to come last for the Highwaymen.
-
-
On the northbound carriageway traffic has often passed the traffic lights and are stuck in traffic when they turn red and the pedestrian light goes green. They then start moving once the road ahead is clear despite the crossing being on the green phase.
-
Permalink Reply by Mavic Starfish on
-
Here here Jim, less cars please
-
Permalink Reply by Brian on
-
Another individual who responded stated that Haringey would be spending money that it does not have on this project and it is true that the Council coffers are bust. (The Council was recently awarded a £37m loan @ 5% interest by the govt.) but there has been a huge influx of £££ from fines of drivers straying in to the LTNs.
An FOI request revealed the following figures: the information is broken down into -
Financial Year
Actual income received from LTN PCNs
Total value of LTN PCNs
Number of LTN PCNS issued
2022/23*
£4,896,309.33
£13,478,539.00
103271
2023/24
£5,503,368.80
£20,576,566.00
145681
1st April 2024 - 31st October 2024
£1,762,394.05
£8,562,110.00
63023
*The dates for the 2022/23 period are from 15/08/2022 to 31/03/2023, as the first LTN was launched on 15/08/2022.
This gives a staggering total of income from fines on vehicles in LTNs as £42,617,215.00!
No wonder the Council ignored the responses of those who completed the consultation and went ahead and made them permanent. These sums represent regular, guaranteed income (to my mind the overriding factor in the permanent status of the LTNs - Kerching! - rather than some spurious notion of improving air quality when we know that quite the opposite has been the case on the Boundary roads.)
In addition, if the LTNs were done away with the Council would have to repay the govt. the setup costs of the LTNs. A further disincentive to their removal.
Because these sums have been generated in PCNs they can be used for traffic infrastructure projects.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
