Drivers and their problems

David9694 wrote:

... a garage, complete with turntable so the vehicle emerges going forward.  

Did somebody watch too much Gerry Anderson when they were young?

brooksby wrote:

David9694 wrote:

... a garage, complete with turntable so the vehicle emerges going forward.  

Did somebody watch too much Gerry Anderson when they were young?

You are suggesting an impossibility.

I did. Fireball XL5 and Stingray. I always found Thunderbirds a little far fetched.

Hirsute wrote:

'We can't use new drive because council put bollards in front of it - we're trapped'

TRAPPED I TELL YOU !

Then you read that they use a pedestrian crossing to go over the pavement to the house, failed to ask permission for anything and thought driving over a ped crossing was normal.

World Bollards - "Your house has just quadrupled in value, stop moaning."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/we-cant-use-new-drive-30493444

I read about that in a local news site (owned by the same people as the Mirror).  That article concluded with the householders saying that they have had to park their car several streets away and haven't moved it since March 

The disabled woman's quote

Quote:

The bus does not get me to where I need to go, Polsoe train station is not accessible for wheelchairs and although I am quite physically fit the hills in Heavitree are too steep for a manual wheelchair.

Both those concerns are of outside the proposed changes.  She can still drive - they haven't changed the topology either... Another wheelchair user with ME is saying she has very fragile health (so she literally might be exhausted if a journey by car takes longer than a certain time or even just longer than expected).  Perhaps an exceptional case?

I suspect that for the majority engaging with people individually would show that most issues are summountable.  If we can only cut down on all the other cars driven by people who are actually physically well enough to walk or cycle life would be easier for those whose struggle is this severe.  Additionally those who need some help but don't need something as big as a car (lots, I suspect) might find it now feels safe and convenient to use one.  Perhaps even more convenient than a car if they can get door-to-door?

The place looks hilly.  I can't say if it's possible in a wheelchair (powered / with add-on like this?) for some; clearly it isn't for some.  However I picked a couple of points which appeared to be the least convenient (opposite sides of the LTN area e.g. Dental Centre, Heavitree to Hospital Lane - Google said for a (fit) cyclist the route would be 1.7 miles / 10 min / loss 92ft gain 112ft (34 metres.  Elevation gain is in about half the distance so 2.5% gradient) Doesn't seem excessive for those who aren't severely unfit.  (For reference IIRC 5% is the maximum sustained gradient recommended for Dutch cycle infra - that's for "everyone" not just for "cyclists").

LTNs can benefit exactly those with disabilities or otherwise disadvantaged who often appear in the news as "why LTNs are an attack on the weak, old, and poor" - at least in part because traffic evaporation is a thing.  What won't work is the vast majority of us continuing to enjoy the same elevated level of convenience but at the same time having more drivers and sorting out pollution, our road repair budget, our unpleasant "places", our health issues...

Yup!

Always comes up and (as with any change) people don't know how much better it could be.  Especially those with other issues to deal with.  Given their experience they often think that not only will any change be a real hassle to adapt to it will make things worse.  Our councils (and indeed mainstream society) normally fulfils those expectations...

David9694 wrote:

"There were fears of families being separated by road closures and significantly longer car journeys, as well as worries that it could put some people off moving to the area. One man simply told DevonLive: "I can't get out of my house."

Thanks!  Trapped!  Trapped, I tell you!

I think it's all on the continuum, made dramatic by our inbuilt loss aversion and experience with unsympathetic authorities / "other people" being the problem.

At one end is "what the adverts sold you" e.g. "buy our car and enjoy freedom whizzing down empty open roads, pulling up wherever you want!" / "house in remote beauty spot, right next to the silent, totally unused road which takes *you* smoothly to work / people / amenities in ten minutes, tops".

The other end is "I grew up here" / "lived here for years" / "need to be here for work / medical care / because it's the only spot I can afford within 50 miles" but "things have got worse" (more traffic, fewer buses).  And now "they're *ruining* it" by making life harder by removing parking, making drives longer, no doubt congestion will go through the roof...

I have more empathy for the latter.  In particular we should be sympathetic (and ready to go several extra miles to demonstrate bona fides) to the concerns of those with disabilities, with poor or no sight, or those who are otherwise already "marginal".  Remember - they've ample experience of the councils etc. doing as much for them as they used to do for cycling!  And everyone saying "we hear you" while pushing into the queue in front of them.

As always I find Robert Weetman's musings on "change" interesting (e.g. "divide and rule" / "this isn't going to be easy").  I believe he was involved in disability activism before getting involved in cycling / active travel so brings another dimension to considering this.