Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
"LTNs are popular, effective and here to stay"
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/15/ignore-myths-low-traf...
"The myths of freedom for the motorist – painted vividly in advertisements that show Land Rovers cruising through completely empty city centres – must make room for the real-life and realisable freedom of kids to breathe cleaner air in their playgrounds, people to walk and cycle with less risk, and for all of us to get to where we need to go without being stuck in congestion."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
With these empty LTN streets women are not safe in these conditions.
Where is the evidence that women are in fact "not safe" in the alleged "conditions"?.
There's a difference between claiming to be unsafe and for there to evidence on of higher rates of assault in low traffic neighbourhoods.
My feeling is that the assertions of feeling unsafe is made by those who want to oppose low traffic neighbourhoods on any grounds.
-
Permalink Reply by Susan
-
You are not listening to women and dismissing our experience of being afraid to walk on empty roads. You need statistics so here are some for you:
- on average, in England, there are 3,000 violent offenses against women.
- 90% homicide victims are killed by men.
- 805,062 police recorded abuse related crimes in 1 year,
- 1 in 4 women experience sexual violence,
- in one year there were 103,135 recorded rape in England...and it is estimated that only 20% of violence crimes against women are reported.
- 24 women per minute are victims of violence.
You should be listening to women and help to make the streets we all use safer places.
-
-
On the other hand calls for help are more easily heard by residents on quiet streets. Plus you're more likely to hear someone coming up behind you.
-
-
You are not distinguishing between crime against women in general and crimes against women that has allegedly been generated inside low traffic neighbourhoods.
Lack of honesty has been a feature of those who fundamentally opposed to LTNs; and who may well be undeclared car-owners (N.B: motivation).
Nowhere in the unsourced statistics is there a single reference to a low traffic neighbourhood.
Crime happens against women in homes. And on roads and streets. Since LTNs are a tiny proportion of all carriageways, it follows that a much or most crime happens outside LTNs.
I do not advocate assaults against women, that is scurrilously implied. I am not in favour of crime.
A positive thing the council has done over the last couple of decades is to expand street-lighting.
This expansion began long before LTNs. Many roads are quiet and naturally benefit from a low incidence of traffic. If those who are implacably opposed to LTNs were genuinely concerned about crime, then we would hear more about street lighting.
If concern and argument about crime against women inside low traffic neighbourhoods were carried ad absurdum, then because all roads can be quiet at some times, we should ban all of them.
At other times, roads are saturated with cars.
Sly, insincere and dishonest argument—I expect by shy car-owners—is likely to continue.
.
-
-
Ladder residents and The Gardens...hmmm...
An unofficial LTN on the west side of Green Lanes shopping/restaurant area throughout The Gardens has already been made by closing two roads that connect it with St Ann's Road.
This was all done without any Ladder residents being consulted.
You have an LTN there which has for a long time created MORE traffic problems on Green Lanes itself. Buses and traffic stacked up between 3:30 and God knows whenever depending on school times etc.or worsened when road works are needed ANYWHERE across this area up to Turnpike Lane.
The restaurants and shopping along this part of Green Lanes has created an estate agent's dream buying zone BUT they also bring traffic too at any time of the day adding to the traffic flow or non flow. You'll have to live with this like us all as the business revenues are a strong attraction for the Council to do nothing. It wasn't like this 20 yrs ago before the restaurant owners moved in.
Some residents on the Ladder roads need their cars for their occupation to carry tools of the trade,,we are not all desk bound laptop workers! We can't all get on a bike to go to work to supply the services that you need!
Some residents genuinely need their transport because of their physical needs. Would you make disabled residents housebound like some sort of low level fascism for the impaired?
You sound like a fit and healthy physical type..well done ! You should be cycling and walking and running etc.
What about the issuing of multiple parking permits for house owners (I know of many 2 or 3 car owners having permits in my road who can pay no matter what)...therefore adding to the volume of parked cars in each of the Ladder roads.
Nothing is ever done about that.
The many businesses you enjoy supplying your needs/repairs etc etc need transport.
Do you ...like many good enlightened folk around here use the services of Amazon, DPD, EVRI, the Post Office, Royal Mail, FEDEX and the many other unbranded delivery vans etc etc etc that daily add to the pollution and congestion ....let alone have created a mass demand for colossal amounts of CARDBOARD PACKAGING!!!
OH..of course SOME of them have green engines!...BUT they are still making a large contribution to congestion on the Ladder and environs?
Think about your fellow worker who lives in the area as a local business..who needs transport for tools etc... they aren't all living in Essex for your convenience simply needing a daily parking permit.
Haringey promotes local SMEs and business workers or do you want the Ladder to end up as a Middle Class community!?! Gated perhaps by LTNs....?
Good luck with that one.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Fowler
-
Oh Dear, your views seem somewhat negative. It would be interesting to see what percentage of households on the Ladder roads need vehicles to take their tools to work; but I would be surprised if it were more than 5-10%. Likewise with households needing their own vehicle due to mobility problems. This kind of argument is always used by car-owners who are too selfish to sacrifice their private car in the interests of reducing traffic congestion and delays for the community. As for the Ladder roads ending up as middle class, here's a surprise: they already are. A "gated community" is a hilarious exaggeration, as on no conceivable level could it work. As to more households using mail order for goods they need, it is fundamentally necessary, due to the end of many shops and services, even in the capital city. In any case, delivery by Amazon or other courier vans/trucks generates far less traffic than every household owning a car to drive to purchase goods. Your point on cardboard packaging is a joke. Have your failed to notice that the Council collects re-cycleable materials weekly? There is no link between changes to roads in the Gardens area, or the LTN in St Ann's (as a resident, this is a huge improvement) and levels of traffic, which have had little to no discernible effect on traffic levels or congestion on Green Lanes. If you have actual evidence of this, then please present it. Otherwise, the arguments you make are like those made by petrolheads all over Britain.
-
-
THE anti-LTN mob currently has out-sized influence with the feeble council, but the main reason they will not prevail in the long run, is the emptiness and dishonesty of their argument. In my view, each one of these selfish zealots needs to disclose their's and their family's car-ownership.
-
-
It's worth reminding people that the original road closure was on Hermitage road, and this then led to large numbers of cars diverting through the Gardens, with traffic jams, accidents etc.
The Gardens acts as a major car parking zone for Green Lanes, for example the retaurants.
Addressing the ladder issue is more challenging - the long thin ladder of roads is very visually impressive, but is a bit of a nightmare from a traffic/parking point of view - though I know there are proposals out there.
In an ideal world we would not have a massive traffic-generating development at the Arena shopping centre & instead this would be flats and other housing with a more limited range of shops (Homebase is already dead).
There's a long history of discussions on traffic on this site (and data gathered through various road closures and surveys), and a lot of progress has been made in the past few years e.g. in St Anns. But Green Lanes & the Ladder remain very challenging with the volume of traffic that uses them & the nature of the road design.
The 'solution' in the 60's & 70's was to knock down lots of houses & build over parks in order to create 6 lane highways, which led to more journeys by car and huge damage to communities (e.g. see the Westway, Croydon etc). We live in a dense city environment & walking & cycling are much more space-efficient & build community rather than taking it away.
-
-
There’s little point repeating here what I’ve already said onanother thread (linked to by Clive Carter in his first post above), but two other thoughts are:
In a consultation survey by the council around 10 years ago into perceptions of safety in Green Lanes, a large majority of respondents said they felt unsafe walking in Wood Green High Road at night and much safer on GL between the Salisbury and the Arena. Why? Because Wood Green is deserted at night while our stretch of GL is humming with life and people. I imagine there are many people — especially women — who share that view when confronted by, say, La Rose Lane late at night, now that there’s almost no traffic as a result of the LTN.
Secondly, as a long-time St Ann’s resident, I found my road, pre-LTN, so quiet that I could walk down the middle at any time, when the only things needing avoidance were a group of children with an instructor teaching cycle training or a learner driver practising reversing round a corner. Post-LTN, it’s still quite quiet, but the danger now comes from the numerous e-bikes and scooters that race along it as a motorway, taking no notice of pedestrians, and a noticeably significant increase in the number of cars parked, with engines idling and one male occupant, for long stretches of the evening, not too close to a street lamp. Just two of the benefits of having a “low traffic” neighbourhood.
-
-
Clive... you said "My feeling is that the assertions of feeling unsafe is made by those who want to oppose low traffic neighbourhoods on any grounds"...
Your "feeling" ?....you've just said that you need evidence not feeling...so where is your evidence?
I can see this has attracted the usual pack who seek to decry the experience of women. For us who have lived her for some time we have a different perspective.
It's convenient to right us off as "the petrol heads" of your imagination. But that has nothing to do with this ! It looks like a rant to be honest. You haven't addressed my concerns.
You live in society so respect other's opinions please.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
