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 Elizabeth M
-
The private traffic needs to do what the rest of us do and get on the buses.
-
-
Maybe the term 'roadside' could also be used to describe the space on the pavement which is currently used for parked cars.
I'd certainly prefer to see pedestrians prioritised there.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
YES. There are already too many cars and many of them are driven too fast, creating hazard for other road users.
If road-widening has the effect of encouraging speeding, car use and ownership, then the corollary is that road narrowing should have the opposite, beneficial effect.
However the current proposals lack political leadership and support and are made largely for PR reasons. In progress on active travel, Haringey is probably among London's three most-retarded local authorities, but wants to be seen to be doing something.
Now and again the council encourages walking-and-cycling but continues strongly to enable car-use and ownership.
Some of the Borough's car-owners fail to recognise that they are in a minority of Haringey residents, but their sense of entitlement continues. Residents were not consulted about turning the carriageway infrastructure into a transport system that revolves around car-use and car-ownership.
Removing parking on Green Lanes in favour of a bus lane would be a great start.
It might, but such as start is unlikely due to the power of the business-owners. The council is much more inclined to listen carefully to their lobbying, rather than the interests of the wider community. "Green" Lanes will remain an open, running sewer of air pollution for the foreseeable future.
The current proposals are nice, but there is little prospect of progress.
Official, council-approved Pavement Parking is the clearest example of Haringey favouring one class of road-user over another.
Nearly four years ago, the council said they were "looking" at removing it, but would consult carefully. They listened carefully to car-owners and thus, net-zero progress was made on thinning parking bays from the Boroughs 100+ roads with parking over pavement.
The council, backed by the Highwaymen, is likely to remain on the side of the minority of car-owners and business-owners and not on the side of the majority of residents.
-
Permalink Reply by hhnrau on
-
Brilliant post Clive! yet again you've summed things up perfectly. I totally agree with your frustrations. Compared to neighbouring boroughs that are creating streets for people to live in, nature to thrive, tackle climate change, and make us more resilient to future floods and droughts we see tokenistic announcements but no genuine commitment or roll-out.
And if people like where they live they're much more likely to shop where they live.
-
-
Thanks!
If anyone doubts the entitlement of car-owners, they need look no further than the very title of this thread where it is on full display;
“Another Assault on Our Road Use”
To parse this:
Assault = an attempt by a timorous local authority to even up the power relationship between different classes of road user
Our = ownership of the public carriageways by car-owners
Road Use = cars only; no other kind road users may apply
This casual entitlement stems from an unconscious but embedded car-centricity.
The council's car-centric Highwaymen are a bastion of this belief. A new breed of Highways engineer is needed; however the council are content with the current crew. No one is more satisfied than the current Cabinet Member for Highways who lavishes praise on them, and seems to see her role as retailing the opinions of the Highways Department.
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel on
-
Ah, Mr Carter.
Vehicles of all kinds use the roads. The roads are used by other wheeled transport, including those on 2 wheels. We are all road users -they are "our" roads. Pedestrians walk on the pavement and cross the road. They don't sit in the road nor should they.
A bicycle takes up less road space but it is by nature of less utility than a van, a car or a bus. It generally takes one person, is not suited to carrying bulky loads or longer distances and is not weatherproof.
The relationship between different classes of road user is directly related to their utility, space requirements and class numbers. The requirement is for road space for those road users, of which a significant majority remain in vehicles. It is that class of road user and their free movement which faces yet further restriction where no demonstrable need nor balancing advantage has been demonstrated.
Nobody is arguing for uncontrolled parking or obstruction of the highway by vehicles, the Aunt Sally raised in another post above. The roads should be kept moving as far and fast as is reasonably possible.
Were we to recast our cities, inner and outer suburbs wholesale to another model such as that of Amsterdam or we truly had the now-discredited "15 minute city", these measures might be apt. But they aren't.
Those of us who use cars and other vehicles are not necessarily "car-centric". Transport is a question of horses for courses. Many of us walk short to medium distances, take the the bus from time to time and the train into, out and across town. A car or van is used when the utility or convenience is not met by those means. The objection here is to the costly and wasteful further obstruction of vehicle traffic in and around the borough.
The Borough's Highways Dept staff are certainly not in thrall to any pro-motoring lobby. Quite the opposite, as is plain from the latest jargon-filled, anti-motorist "Transport Strategy" published bearing Cllr Seema Chandwani's name. The spread of LTNs and closed roads in the face of strong opposition from residents and simultaneously-narrowed main and trunk roads across the borough has markedly hindered vehicle mobility. Prime examples are Seven Sisters Road, most of the day, where 2 lanes have been made one and traffic lights phasing has been arranged to hold up much of the traffic that could otherwise get through. See also Turnpike Lane, West Green Road....
If your politics are such that you wish to restrict the use of vehicles on our roads, in particular private cars, then say so. Justify that if you can in practical, needs-based and cost benefit terms. This is not about "equality" where use, utility and numbers are not comparable, nor of "power relationships" unrelated to need or actual use. Could it be that use of or enjoying the car is outside your personal need or choice of transport - while for others it is an essential part of their daily life - and you dislike that advantage?
-
-
Good points well made.
-
-
I “wish to restrict the use of (motor) vehicles on our roads, in particular private cars.”
And I own a car. Confusing. It’s not my politics, it’s my not wanting car users speeding up and down the road I live on, taking a short cut to save 30 seconds, using technology that optimises urban road networks solely in favour of motor vehicle users, and to hell with everyone else.
On politics: before the last council elections, Haringey council had the largest ever combined traffic reduction schemes consulted, designed published and ready to go; they got 6 more seats.
In the mayoral election Farah London, an explicitly anti-lTN candidate, came 14th behind Count Binface, a man dressed as a bin.
At the last Tottenham Hale by-election, the explicitly anti-lTN candidate promised to "rip out" the LTNs in a part of the borough with no new traffic filters, surrounded by very large volumes of through traffic; he got 81 votes.
i think these schemes have strong opposition from people, no question. Just look at the 50 or so people, some of them residents, who turned up to the first anti-LTN protest, and the 20 or so people who turned up to the second, and the 3 that I saw who turned up to the third protest, outside Park View Academy. Strongly opposed.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah on
-
"some of them residents" - and some from outside the borough, who did not like their shortcuts taken away.
-
-
THE starting point for the Highwaymen, is that Haringey is seen as a car Borough and especially as a conduit for north-south motor traffic over the Borough. Principally up and down the A10 and on Green Lanes.
In 2019 the Cabinet Member for Highways defended the removal of a bike lane (on "safety" grounds) in order to widen a heavily-polluted gyratory for more motor traffic. The councillor also mentioned "exciting plans":
-
-
The Borough's Highways Dept staff are certainly not in thrall to any pro-motoring lobby
I agree. The Highwaymen's pro-car stance over two decades is internal and native and does not depend on support from the pro-motoring lobby.
The Highwaymen have resisted cycling infrastructure successfully for 20 years. There is not a single example in the Borough of their taking it seriously. There are examples of tiny token steps that seem intended to treat the subject as a joke and sometimes with contempt.
Glossy council publications, especially those whose titles include "Haringey" and "action plan" are not to be taken seriously.
The day after voting in Cabinet for the three LTN trials, the Cabinet Member for Highways issued a virtual apology. It was positioning intended to anticipate any outcome, but not an example of admirable leadership.
Haringey is much an outlier on transport action. Next-door Waltham Forest Council is about 10 years ahead. The likely reason that most London Boroughs are far ahead of our Borough, is chronic lack of interest or imagination among the Highwaymen, coupled with the lack of political-will to effect progress.
This is not about "equality" where use, utility and numbers are not comparable, nor of "power relationships"
Relatively recent changes to the Highway Code have recognised a hierarchy of vulnerability of different classes of road user, but this has not translated into meaningful legislation or enforcement and least of all into improved behaviour by many car users. A minority of drivers use cars aggressively and can and have, wielded them as weapons.
Driving standards are often low; the first thing the authorities could do to thin-out car use is to ban permanently anyone convicted of dangerous driving. The exceptional hardship excuse was dreamt up by criminal barristers and is immoral. It's an example of the courts favouring private interests over public interests.
use of or enjoying the car is outside your personal need or choice of transport –
I have owned and used cars and motorcycles for most of my life; these days I am mainly a pedestrian. But for rural areas and middle-distance journeys, there is no substitute for a car. They can be extremely useful. In dense urban built up areas however, in my view ownership and use needs to be reduced, for everyone's benefit. London has excellent public transport.
an essential part of their daily life – I accept that for some, the attachment to owning and using cars is powerful and their lives may revolve around their cars. For the most heavily-addicted, the car is unconsciously thought of as a kind of detachable, mobile sitting room (with all the ownership entitlement that might go with that).
The often hysterical opposition to LTNs may be explained by psychologists. For the Borough's Boy Racers, their car appears to be part of their identity, with engine exhausts tuned and operated so as to produce howling/growling sounds.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
