You are reading a single comment by @ffm and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
These are all interesting points to consider, but it's worth noting that car ownership and usage is even lower among people with disabilities than the general population. Interesting to consider whether someone with a disability moving into an area with modal filtering could successfully appeal to have it taken out on the basis that it creates a disproportionate impact on them
Also worth pointing out that the argument about being able to drive to large shops is directly contrary to the other argument about local businesses (i.e., the kind that you walk to) suffering from LTNs.
ffm
I support filtering, and while I imagine some (not at all all) will be using this sort of argument disingenuously, there is certainly a case to be made for impact assessments for disabled people, especially people with mobility difficulties. The test under the Equality Act (and before under the Disability Discrimination Acts) is whether a measure causes additional and unreasonable hardship for disabled people (I'm undoubtedly not quoting the correct legal terminology, but that's the gist of it), as changes like this can be disproportionately tough for them.
Say you're a wheelchair user and you can't use local shops because they tend to be too small, and you don't have a helper to do your shopping for you; in that case, you may well rely on driving to a larger supermarket with wide aisles and better access. If (which after a settling-in period I don't believe will persist) filtering means that you have to spend much longer driving to places, that can seriously affect your independence, and there may be a disproportionate impact.
Now, as above, arguments like this are sometimes used disingenuously, but often sincerely, too, and one must always keep in mind that many people see driving as something very positive and/or necessary, and many people, often those of whom you might not expect it, will also immediately, and quite genuinely, think of the impact on others, not on themselves. Quite apart from people fuming with rage, there are often very reasonable points made by people.
I think these issues can and should be addressed, but there is often justified case for complaint, because many, quite possibly most, filtering schemes are ill-conceived, largely because officers doing them have never thought about filtering before, and in the present cases because it's all a bit rushed and without any input from local knowledge. Local people usually know important things that officers can't come up with by means of a desktop study.
tl;dr I hope filtering succeeds, but there's more thinking to do, and some of the schemes I've seen really are very bad, sadly (including the one in my own area).