15 Minutes of Pain

[Bper]

Well very soon they are starting to look at implementing 15 minute cities but also looking at a separate issue of banning drivers from moving from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. 

15-minute cities: How to develop people-centred streets and mobility. A 15-minute city re-imagines streets and public spaces to prioritise people not driving, building more vibrant neighbourhoods where walking and cycling are the main ways of getting around. It enables and encourages people to choose not to drive.

Neighbourhood to neighbourhood driving ban: this would effectively mean drivers would have to leave their neighbourhoods and take a designated route around the town or city and only re-enter at approved routes. No direct  travelling between neighbourhoods would be allowed and cameras and heavy fines will ensure you do not. Canterbury council are to implement this despite widespread opposition from locals.

This is not a fantasy it is a reality that has already been tried across many other countries.  With the ULEZ zones extending throughout the country, this is another nail in the coffin for us car drivers.

It would be good to hear member's comments on these proposals,  but please keep it clean.😅

 

[Cyker]

Yeah I've read about that - Pie in the sky stuff and totally not grounded in reality. The architects seem to think people just pop to the local shops and don't have to commute considerable distances to work or never have to go to the dump or to some specialist non-local shop for e.g. building materials or something...

This is what I mean about these idiot think-tanks living in ivory towers in their own fantasy world... they think of people like numbers and statistics and treat real life like a computer game where there are no unforeseen consequences for their naive visions.

 

 

[Yugguy1970]

I do think it's daft that we have shops in the centre of an area that no house is more than 10 minutes walk away but very few do.

I always walk unless I'm getting something heavy or hot food.

We also have, in Rugby, a "pedestrianised" area that is always open to cars.

So yep, park and ride outside the city, have hire and drop electric transport inside.

[DerekHa]

Oh lummy! This is all new to me.

I can see and even understand to a degree introducing ULEZ zones in the big city's but introducing a system that penalises car users from travelling outside their "nieghbourhood". !Removed! stupid idea in my opion and can see the Civil Liberty's people having a field day with the very idea and having a lot more support than they normally get.

There would have to mass surviellance on a par with that used by the Chinese govenrment to monitor every movement, just look at the the kickback against the use of the Hikvision camera's being used over here and in the U.S right now!

Then there's the business community, how are they going to react when their trade drops off a cliff. Having to travel for hospital appointments and the like.

If they're going to bring in this sort of idea then they're going to have to ensure that everyone had access to all the services they need are within that 15 minutes time frame. Doomed to fail in my opinion.

 

[Cyker]

Yeah, it's the sort of thing that sounds good to someone who doesn't know how real life works, but it would only work as part of some totalitarian regime.

I think whoever came up with it played SimCity a bit too much...

[davidif]

Smacks of Big Brother!

[Bper]

Yes it is scary but just look how within a very short period of time the ULEZ expansion scheme is now rolling out to many other cities of the UK. How do they enforce it? with camera's. What is needed to enforce neighbourhood to neighbourhood driving bans? Oh yes, camara's. 

The infrastructure for all this is being put into place right under our noses. What has Mayor Khan done? shut roads down, narrowed lanes, caused traffic jams worse than ever. But still raising more revenue. 

The 15 minute cities are being implemented in various countries throughout the world as new build urban areas are constructed.Take London for instance, many of the buildings are now empty as working from home is now seen by many companies as a preference.  What happens to these used buildings? well they can be converted into mini service centre's, serving the local communities in one small area.

London is an ideal location due to the inner, outer and M25 orbital routes that can be used to implement neighbourhood to neighbourhood driving bans. Both of these schemes will be welcomed by both government, local councils and green lobbies all badged under air pollution sustainability and climate change.

No doubt there won't be any consultation with the public to voice their objections as anyone denouncing these plans will be seen as a climate denier and child pollution killer. The revenue will increase as each zone you enter will be chargeable just like the London underground. Modest to begin with and increasing yearly in order to pay for further outline areas to be brought in.

Of course this will not happen overnight but I suspect it will be phased in over the coming years.

When the congestion charge was first brought in did we imagine it would evolve from £5 to £15 per day . It may be helpful to know that the congestion charge was inspired by Singapore road pricing scheme. 

[Cyker]

I don't think we've become that cowed yet; There's already a lot of opposition building rapidly for the LTNs; There was a big demonstration recently outside the council demanding they be rescinded, and a lot of the cameras are being regularly vandalized by the residents now because they're so sick of them.

If they tried to implement what you suggest I suspect there'd be literal rioting eventually, as if there's one thing this borough is good at it's staging a riot  

They'd be signing London's death-warrant if they did anyway - Already people are leaving the capital because of how expensive housing is combined with the ability to work remotely; Nobody really wants to be here except for jobs because it's turned into such a ****hole, and if they make it so uneconomical and restrictive the rate of exodus will only increase.

Can't charge people if nobody wants to go there...

 

[Bper]

22 hours ago, Cyker said:

I don't think we've become that cowed yet; There's already a lot of opposition building rapidly for the LTNs; There was a big demonstration recently outside the council demanding they be rescinded, and a lot of the cameras are being regularly vandalized by the residents now because they're so sick of them.

If they tried to implement what you suggest I suspect there'd be literal rioting eventually, as if there's one thing this borough is good at it's staging a riot  

They'd be signing London's death-warrant if they did anyway - Already people are leaving the capital because of how expensive housing is combined with the ability to work remotely; Nobody really wants to be here except for jobs because it's turned into such a ****hole, and if they make it so uneconomical and restrictive the rate of exodus will only increase.

Can't charge people if nobody wants to go there...

 

You mentioned LTNs, for those that are not familiar with this it stands for Low Traffic neighbourhood Schemes. I didn't touch on this in my post but does this not look like a precursor to neighbourhood to neighbourhood driving bans? I honestly believe that it isn't a question of people not being that cowed yet I think it's general acceptance to many local and governmental implementation of schemes that public objection is so often now ignored and implemented anyway.

There will always be a political argument and opposing views of the rights and wrongs of these schemes but the motorist is always hit disproportionately and exploited to the hilt to wring every last pound they can from them. You notice I said pound, it used to be pennies but that's inflation for you.
Vandalising cameras has little impact overall to the implementation of these schemes as they are replaced or relocated and always paid for by the very people of the borough through council tax. While inconvenient to local authorities they are a cash cow to the companies that supply and fit them.

Demonstrations whilst a fundamental right, are slowly being eroded. For example,  did you know that in England and Wales the right to protest is protected under the European Convention of Human Rights? However, this only applies to peaceful protest and does not extend to any violence inflicted or damage caused during a protest.

It must be noted that this right is not absolute and can be limited in certain circumstances. An example of this is when a protest or assembly would result in a threat to public health.

It is therefore not surprising that as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.K additional legislation has been passed which puts restrictions on the right to assembly. This legislation makes it an offence for groups to assemble, which would include a protest or march.

This legislation gives the police the power to break up groups and they can fine or even arrest an individual who they believe has committed an offence under the legislation.
This measure can be reinstated and brought in when it suits the situation by the London Mayor. But the fundermental issue is will the driving restriction proposals be implemented? I believe they will but not until smaller schemes are brought in all under environmental badges which is the ace card now for any new reasons to enact them.

These schemes perhaps will be re-named or tweaked but I do think we will see these in our lifetime. I can't see any reason why they wouldn't. 🤔

 

[Markyswan]

I have a brother that lives in London and he is fed up with the restrictions on driving. Loads of roads closed off with barriers and flower boxes. He thinks it's going to get worse.

I wouldn't be surprised if they do stop drivers travelling between areas. He  hates driving in London now. That mayors a joke.

 

[Rhymes with Paris]

I don't advocate choosing which laws to follow in the country where you live.

But I do like the southern Italian mantra of , make as many laws as you like, but that doesn't mean we have to follow them.

It is easier when you are old and simply do not give a rat's furry behind anymore.

I suppose if I were to drive outside my zone and was fined, and ran out of money to pay those fines, ultimately I would be given a prison sentence.

And then someone would say, you can't jail an old man who cannot walk very far for doing his shopping.

Maybe this is what is known as the horns of a dilemma.

 

[Bper]

Hi All, Anyone think this wouldn't happen well it is. The those who may not like her just listen to the facts it may open your eyes it's going ahead in Oxford next.

 

[Markyswan]

I watched this last night and it is worrying if they can do this in a couple of area's what's stopping then doing it in London or other towns and cities.  Spoke to my brother earlier who lives in London and he said they may look to move out next year.

[Bper]

Hi Mark,

I don't think this sits well with many people as it smacks of big brother. But it is now beginning to take momentum and is being discussed in many areas or the media.

For us motorists it is yet another blow to what little enjoyment we can gain from our driving. For many it will be seen as a flash in the pan idea, but that's what was first said by many including myself at the time when the congestion charge was first talked about. 

All our ideas of why it wouldn't work proved to be wrong. Look at it now along with the ULEZ expansion scheme and the revenue these take off the motorist.

The worst thing is despite public objections the local councils are going ahead regardless.

If it gets to operate in Canterbury and Oxford as now planned it is inevitable that other towns and cities will roll this out as well. Time will no doubt tell.

On a separate note I understand your brother looking to move out of London, we moved out 5 years ago for many of the same reasons.

[Markyswan]

Bob just come back from seeing him and he said definitely moving out next year after 18 years. He said he will look for another job rather then stay in London, he can't really afford to live there anymore. I noticed cameras everywhere we went. Talk about big brother. Bet your glad you moved out mate.

[Bper]

5 minutes ago, Markyswan said:

Bob just come back from seeing him and he said definitely moving out next year after 18 years. He said he will look for another job rather then stay in London, he can't really afford to live there anymore. I noticed cameras everywhere we went. Talk about big brother. Bet your glad you moved out mate.

Hi Mark,

I saw camera's going up all over the place when we lived in London, Who was it that said 

 “When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford.” I think he was having a laugh to be honest. 🙄

[Hybrid21]

Something has to be done to limit car travel.

New cars are too easy to buy and now most families have two or three cars and drive everywhere rather than walk, cycle or take public transport.

What will it be like say in another 30 years if nothing is done now ?

 

[Bper]

Hi Iain,

Are you saying limit car travel based on environmental issues as I am sure we would all like a cleaner planet.

You say "what will it be like in 30 years if nothing is done now" and people drive everywhere rather then walk or take public transport. Well a couple of reasons. 

 Cars are and will always be an essential mode of transport for most people. The infrastructure of rail, buses etc have become for many a last option as they can neither rely or afford to use them anymore. Every step of the way the motorist has been hit with more and more restrictions driving many to up sticks and move out of cities and find better lives in other parts of the country.  

We are constantly told by government that we must reach net zero and reduce our carbon footprints all the while them flying across the globe for meetings that can be done on Zoom etc. The hypocrisy is astounding. We make 1% of global emissions.

Lets say we do reach zero what about the rest of the world, China India etc etc.

Funny how we are always doing our bit in this country to be the first without thought or expense to the people who live here.😟

[Roy124]

On 12/12/2022 at 7:55 PM, Bper said:

Hi All, Anyone think this wouldn't happen well it is. The those who may not like her just listen to the facts it may open your eyes it's going ahead in Oxford next.

 

You've just saved me £48.

I was considering going to see Katie Hopkins live.  I like her style, I thinks she speaks a lot of truth, but I could only take 3 minutes of that clip. 

[Bper]

8 minutes ago, Roy124 said:

You've just saved me £48.

I was considering going to see Katie Hopkins live.  I like her style, I thinks she speaks a lot of truth, but I could only take 3 minutes of that clip. 

HI Roy,

I know a lot of people don't like her but it was about for me the introduction of the 15 minute cities and neighbourhood to neighbourhood driving restrictions which are being rolled out. It takes people to bring this to the attention of the masses as the MSN do not.😊

[Yugguy1970]

Thought I'd look at the concept itself.

https://www.15minutecity.com/

"Everyone living in a city should have access to essential urban services within a 15 minute walk or bike. "

Is that so bad?

 

[Cyker]

Depends on what 'essential urban services' is.

Hint: It won't be what you think it should be.

The thing is, you could say most of us, esp. city dwellers, already live within 15 minutes of what could be defined as essentials, yet most of us still have cars. That already shows evidence that 'essential urban services' would not be adequate. Why? Because there will always be things that you can't have locally, or require more transport capacity than Someone On A Bike, necessitating travel.

And it doesn't even deal with work; Not everyone lives near where they work, esp. tradesmen and maintenance people. What are they supposed to do?

As I said, this sort of thing is dreamed up by someone who thinks of people as things and not people. They think humans are simple and all have the same needs. But we aren't and we don't.

 

[Roy124]

Cyker, when I were a lad many years ago our daily shop was across the road.  Spuds was usually a separate visit as it was weighted out not bulked out. 

If that shop had been a bike ride away it would have still been two trips.  Shopping was a daily event. 'Town' was a short bus ride and possibly a 15 minute walk. 

Again purchases would either weight out or bulk out.  It also took time, an extra 20 minutes if you got the bus times wrong. 

A daily shop does not work if you work. 

[Bper]

57 minutes ago, Yugguy1970 said:

Thought I'd look at the concept itself.

https://www.15minutecity.com/

"Everyone living in a city should have access to essential urban services within a 15 minute walk or bike. "

Is that so bad?

 

Hi Guy,

As Canterbury and Oxford are now planning to roll this out lets look at some of the implications.

On the surface, these 15 minute neigbourhoods might sound pleasant and convenient. But there is a coercive edge. The council's plans to cut car use and traffic congestion by placing strict rules on car journeys. Under the new proposals, if any of Oxford?s 150,000 residents drives outside of their designated district more than 100 days a year, he or she could be fined £70.

Advocates like to present 15 minute cities as ?people centred?. But we should be sceptical of these claims, given that they only seem to come from high-placed politicians, wealthy institutions and out-of-touch academics. And it was only after lockdowns that the previously unthinkable idea of confining people to their local areas for the greater good was able to gain currency.

As usual, it is ordinary people who will suffer the costs of the 15 minute city. Particularly, urban car-owners and families who regularly travel across town to visit relatives or friends, or to go to work. And we shouldn?t forget the needs of older citizens, those with disabilities and children ? as well as the women who so often look after them.

The many practical problems of the 15 minute city are easy to see. Advocates seem to have forgotten that simple bad weather can make a car indispensable. And as Oxford City Council concedes, while most of the city ?has very good accessibility to a district centre? there are clearly a few areas outside of this 15 minute walk?. This means that residents will have to content themselves with ?local centres? ? though these ?have a much smaller range of facilities, and are often slightly less well connected by public transport?. People-centred? Hardly.

What is posed as a revival of Britain?s green and pleasant land is in fact a coercive drive to put motorists on a leash. Those homes with a car will have to count how many times they use it to cross town. There will be permits, penalties and almost certainly more ubiquitous surveillance. All of this, just so that Oxford officialdom, which has declared a ?climate emergency?, can claim to be achieving the council?s ?Net Zero .
 

[Bper]

29 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Depends on what 'essential urban services' is.

Hint: It won't be what you think it should be.

The thing is, you could say most of us, esp. city dwellers, already live within 15 minutes of what could be defined as essentials, yet most of us still have cars. That already shows evidence that 'essential urban services' would not be adequate. Why? Because there will always be things that you can't have locally, or require more transport capacity than Someone On A Bike, necessitating travel.

And it doesn't even deal with work; Not everyone lives near where they work, esp. tradesmen and maintenance people. What are they supposed to do?

As I said, this sort of thing is dreamed up by someone who thinks of people as things and not people. They think humans are simple and all have the same needs. But we aren't and we don't.

 

Cyker,

 

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.👍