You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
hippy
@Oliver Schick
I'm afraid CTT don't appear to be particularly expert in how to comment on Traffic Regulation Orders (not Traffic 'Restriction' Orders). Much easier to turn to the pros at the CTC (who do this sort of thing all the time):
https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2018/02/a63_tro_response_.pdf
I'm afraid it's entirely pointless to encourage letter-writing campaigns on this sort of issue. People often imagine that consultations are votes. They're not--they're evidence-gathering exercises, a bit like when the officiating clergymen asks in church whether anyone knows of any impediment to a marriage. The number of people objecting has no bearing on what has traction in an objection--generally only if a procedural mistake has been made (hard to nail down here) or a material error (even harder to show here). There has to be some kind of legislative or quasi-judicial background to which an appeal can be made, and there's precious little in the case of the powers of highway authorities.
The CTC submission is too long but does include arguments. Whether those have any traction remains to be seen, as HE can basically do whatever they like there--appeals to the policy context are worthy but the context is often ignored.
I still hope they see sense and don't go ahead with it, but the signs are not good--all the relevant statutory organisations 'support' it (as queried by the CTC letter, why?) and that leads one to expect that it'll just be waved through.