What kind of father sacrifices his children in order, he thinks, to win an election

Callistemon21

^What will be banned is traffic passing through the neighbourhood^

Care workers for a start? How will they get to their patients?
Already they are on wages which do not reward the value of their work. Can they afford to change their cars, pay constant charges?

Delivery drivers?

People visiting relatives and friends?
We know someone who is finding it too expensive to visit elderly relatives; she cannot afford to change her car and using public transport is impossible.

Care workers, or others, visiting people within the zone won't be 'passing through', will they?

Blondiescot

Germanshepherdsmum

Absolutely Doodledog. Realistically it will take years to provide everyone with any, yet alone good, public transport. People who live on a frequent bus route have little idea how difficult life can be for those of us in rural areas, wholly dependent on our cars and on deliveries.

Exactly. I've just quoted one example of how difficult it can be for us.

Exactly, I have to drive 4 miles for my nearest bus stop and I have to try to park outside someones house.

Yes, CC, but this government attacks everything by making things more expensive. That might work if you can afford to choose to opt in if you want to prioritise whatever it is they want to curtail; but for many, if not most of us, they are simply removing a choice that is available to the better off.

Carrots are better than sticks - governments in democracies are supposed to work for us, not control us. Yes, there will need to be a mind shift if people are to give up their cars and use public transport, but I think that many would do so if they could get to and fro in good time on a clean and reliable bus at a cost that was lower than taking the car.

^ Yes, there are six local buses but these duplicate each others routes for at least part of the way.^

We have dear Maggie T and privatisation to thank for that. Private companies only like profitable routes. Though they'll take the subsidy to run a couple of useless services a day on rural routes...

To be effective public transport has to be nationalised and run to benefit the population rather than shareholders.

Lathyrus

I do think the public transport issue is important. Unless it’s in place expensive inner city areas are going to find themselves without key workers who can’t afford to live there and who have little option but to drive and won’t be able to afford that either.

Transport tends to be good in Inner London but not so good if you live outside where you can afford the rent.

It’s hard to recruit and retain to schools and hospitals in Inner London anyway.

The nurse at our local GP travels in by bus every day, a journey of well over an hour even if she leaves before 7am.
There are many teachers in city primary schools travelling long distances, at the moment using their cars but likely to have to use buses in future and leave home very early indeed. At the moment the parking is just about affordable, but it is becoming very difficult and expensive. Coupled with ULEZ it will be impossible.

Also, please stop the sneers? Rishi is not onto a vote winner because people don't understand the problem. I, for one, understand it all too well, and won't be voting for him anyway. You have every right to an opinion, but when you express it by putting others down it weakens your argument considerably.

Asthma (which I had as a child and which recurred when I was 50) is a real problem and potentially lethal. Dr Christian Barnard, the famous heart surgeon, died because he had left his relief spray behind and I never go out without it. It's just as much a problem in rural areas as in the cities but politicians never address that. We need much better public transport otherwise we must depend on cars and delivery vehicles. In cities LTNs seem only to divert traffic thus increasing local pollution elsewhere. 20mph speed limits result in people driving in a lower gear which results in more exhaust pollution, not less. And EVs are expensive, like heat pumps.

The critical bit in your linked article, Glorianny is this:
Residents and businesses still have access to the neighbourhood by motor vehicle using different routes, but through-traffic is greatly reduced.

The 'different routes' can add 20 minutes to a shortish journey (eg a commute to work) and result in far greater queues and pollution in the non-pedestrianised areas.

I absolutely appreciate the problems associated with asthma and pollution, but having brought up four children next to a very busy London Road I am still not sure how much can be directly attributed to the pollution? Asthma was certainly very unusual at our London primary school, far less common that hayfever from which two of my children and myself have suffered.
My grandmother lived in the country in a very clean-air area and suffered very badly from ashthma brought on my pollen.

What will be banned is traffic passing through the neighbourhood

Care workers for a start? How will they get to their patients?
Already they are on wages which do not reward the value of their work. Can they afford to change their cars, pay constant charges?

Delivery drivers?

People visiting relatives and friends?
We know someone who is finding it too expensive to visit elderly relatives; she cannot afford to change her car and using public transport is impossible.

I do think the public transport issue is important. Unless it’s in place expensive inner city areas are going to find themselves without key workers who can’t afford to live there and who have little option but to drive and won’t be able to afford that either.

Transport tends to be good in Inner London but not so good if you live outside where you can afford the rent.

It’s hard to recruit and retain to schools and hospitals in Inner London anyway.

Germanshepherdsmum

Absolutely Doodledog. Realistically it will take years to provide everyone with any, yet alone good, public transport. People who live on a frequent bus route have little idea how difficult life can be for those of us in rural areas, wholly dependent on our cars and on deliveries.

We're in a very urban area and have a small supermarket close by, but the larger Tesco a couple of miles away isn't accessible by any of our local buses without at least three changes. Yes, there are six local buses but these duplicate each others routes for at least part of the way.
I'm grateful to have so many buses (and fortunately can still drive) but non-drivers locally have limited access to larger shops.
No wonder so many of us need to drive!

Yes it was MayBee but rather than blaming them forever for that why not recognise the ongoing need for fossil fuels for many years to come, and the need to be as self sufficient as possible?

Well let's first look at what LTN's mean. If you live in the neighbourhood no one is going to stop you using your car. What will be banned is traffic passing through the neighbourhood.
www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/get-active/2020/in-your-community/what-is-a-low-traffic-neighbourhood
Basically that means that those who can walk or cycle will find it easier to do so. Those who live in the area will find driving easier. Air pollution will be reduced. People (especially children) will be healthier.
I don't understand any of this "We can't do X until Y is better"
Any measures which help to solve the problem of air and traffic pollution in our cities and neighbourhoods should be welcomed. Because if we don't do something the next child to die from complications caused by air pollution could be your GC, and is always someone's.
Mind reading this thread I can see Rishi is on to a vote winner.

Germanshepherdsmum

Sacrificing his children? A tad melodramatic.

We won’t have sufficient green energy for our needs for a long time. Meanwhile, is it sensible to be reliant on other countries for the fossil fuels we will continue to use? Do you drive a petrol or diesel car MOnica? Do your tradesmen and deliveries arrive in electric vehicles? Do you have good public transport services in your area?

Wasn’t it the Conservatives that did away with our gas storage facilities and made us dependent on market forces for our energy?

Hope your public transport is better than ours! Unreliable, grubby and 3 rd world. If you want to catch Covid - fine.

“just cannot get my head around the idea of a father prepared to sacrifice his children for a petty political gain“

good grief, going a bit over the top aren’t you?

I’ve had asthma since I was a small child despite living in a rural area. I can’t go anywhere without my inhaler. I don’t underestimate the problems of others but you seem to think those in rural areas are fine Imogen. We’re not. Many of us suffer badly from the pollen from food crops and we have no alternative to using cars.

Hyperbole.
Sacrificing his children? Really?

His wife could use her influence and wealth in India to persuade her country to reduce their emissions, a million times more harmful and a far greater contributor to pollution than the few in this country.
But somehow, I don't think she will.

I was very surprised on moving from the Midlands to the South West how many more children were diagnosed with asthma here, in a rural area with clean air, and how many scarcely bothered to bring their inhalers or seemed to suffer from ill-effects at all.
Having a child one year who really did suffer very bad asthma attacks, and learning all the warnings and responses, made me wonder about the diagnoses of the others.

Germanshepherdsmum

Absolutely Doodledog. Realistically it will take years to provide everyone with any, yet alone good, public transport. People who live on a frequent bus route have little idea how difficult life can be for those of us in rural areas, wholly dependent on our cars and on deliveries.

Exactly. I've just quoted one example of how difficult it can be for us.

Good, cheap, reliable public transport is a must. Simply banning cars isn't going to work. If I wanted to visit my FiL in his care home, I could drive there in less than 10 minutes. If I was to use public transport, it would take me around an hour, as I'd have to get at least two buses each way. That's just one example off the top of my head.

Schools in LTNs and the children who attend them, as well as adults who live and work in the immediate areas, hugely benefit in a relatively short time from their creation.
Many politicians send their children to schools in the countryside with acres of playing fields where they are not so impacted by emissions of that nature.
I am very disillusioned by politicians continuously effecting life changing decisions which do not in the main affect them at all.

Absolutely Doodledog. Realistically it will take years to provide everyone with any, yet alone good, public transport. People who live on a frequent bus route have little idea how difficult life can be for those of us in rural areas, wholly dependent on our cars and on deliveries.

Very well said

LTNs is a poorly thought out scheme though. I agree that we need to take drastic action to reduce emissions, but IMO the way to do that is to massively increase good, cheap, reliable public transport (and not just in London). Then we can move onto making it more difficult to drive everywhere. The people coming up with ideas such as ULEZ and LTNs won’t be affected by them. Westminster apparently has more electric charging points than the whole of Birmingham and other huge areas, and anyway they will be taxied about on expenses.

The schemes are unpopular for good reason - they restrict movement, and particularly that of those who can’t afford an electric vehicle (which are not good for the environment either) and not fit enough to cycle everywhere.

Give us decent buses first, and people will probably support the car-restriction schemes (and I’m not a driver, so don’t personally pollute the air).