-
I think what they are saying (rightly) is that we need high-quality protection on busy roads and all these other measures. Just one or the other is not enough.
Yes that is what they and you are saying. And by 'busy roads' I think you mean roads where drivers dominate and create real or perceived risk to people outside cars.
The other view, which I think is more visionary, (perhaps the vision of the Hackney LCC and council people) is that in the places where people live, work, hang out, we want to use all these tools to eliminate this type of road use and make a network where people in cars do not dominate & create danger or perception of danger.
skydancer-
I don't think the other view is separate though, it's a view that Mark Treasure and CEoGB would both endorse, I'm sure.
The whole mini Holland in Walthamstow looked to be a great trial of filtered permeability creating genuinely nice streets (though I only saw pictures), but we should keep an eye on the poor standard of the other boroughs' trials, which I believe will be less inspiring.
-
Yes. Unfortunately, there are (in the foreseeable future) always going to be roads (often the most direct) with heavy bus traffic (and Hackney council are very very keen on buses. no traffic reduction there..), and there's always going to be deliveries. And it's on those roads that HCC and Hackney Council are saying 'we just can't do protected lanes' where they should be saying 'we maybe can't work out how to do protected lanes everywhere, but we're going to do high quality protected lanes and junctions wherever and whenever we can..'
mattioats
chameleon
I'm not sure I know any kerb nerds who deny that cycle training will help people (I am not sure about the evidence on strict liability, though can't see how it would do any harm). All children get cycle training in the Netherlands. I think what they are saying (rightly) is that we need high-quality protection on busy roads and all these other measures. Just one or the other is not enough.