- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
ANPR protected LTN in LB EalingLabour MP says low-traffic neighbourhoods “have left women feeling unsafe”
Last July when a video went viral on social media of a tree falling over in a London suburb, narrowly missing a pedestrian, local MP Rupa Huq seized on the footage to criticise the low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) then beginning to be rolled out in the borough her constituency is located in.
Eight months on, Huq, the Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton is stepping up her campaign against the measures being implemented by Labour-run Ealing Council, designed to stop residential roads being used by motorists as rat runs to avoid congestion on main roads.
In the past 10 days alone, she has spoken on the issue in the House of Commons, appeared on BBC London News, and penned a column for Telegraph.co.uk – and in doing so has deployed a new argument against LTNs, claiming that they make the streets less safe for women.
> “Shameful”: BBC “perpetuated falsehoods” in divisive low traffic neighbourhood report
The prompt for that is the disappearance and murder of Sarah Everard, although from what is known of the police investigation to date, the young woman was abducted while walking home not in an LTN, but along the busy South Circular Road in Clapham.
In a Parliamentary debate on the Police and Crime Bill last Monday, Huq said to Home Secretary Priti Patel: “The tragedy that befell Sarah Everard is a cue for rethinking so much, including readopting and designing out crime principles in our built environment.
“As one small Asian woman to another, may I ask that in all new housing developments, and in the reappraisal of the low-traffic network road changes that are due, consultative consideration of women’s safety and fear of crime is mandated, so that appropriate natural surveillance is built in?
“We must avoid creating nouveaux ghettoes, where perceptions leave women trapped and vulnerable.”
It was a theme she expanded upon in a column published on Sunday on Telegraph.co.uk, taking as her starting point the 33-year-old’s murder and her own question to Patel.
Few would argue against making the streets safer for women.
But it’s striking that, months after raising objection upon objection against LTNs – the most common of which are countered in this piece in the Guardian by Peter Walker – it’s only now that opponents have seized upon the issue. Certainly it wasn’t mentioned at all by the MP in an earlier Telegraph column criticising LTNs, published last November.
As active travel campaigner Sarah Berry points out in this blog post entitled What Rupa Huq is getting wrong on low traffic neighbourhoods, recent research into such interventions in the London Borough of Waltham Forest as part of its Mini Holland project did find that there had been a decreases in overall crime and in particular highlighted significant reductions in violent and sexual crime.
Berry highlights another study published this year which found that investing in infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists had caused a 38 per cent increase in people on foot, and 52 per cent in those on bikes, in the areas analysed.
“The streets within schemes like low traffic neighbourhoods are busier with foot and cycle traffic, creating more eyes on the street and a greater atmosphere of safety,” she wrote.
“So how is it that Huq can claim that these streets will be less safe for women? She does so off the back of an idea that it’s not pedestrians or cyclists that keep streets safe, but passing motor traffic.
“But given the seemingly almost daily stories of drivers not noticing things in their path such as pedestrians, signs, and speed limits — the idea that passing traffic will notice and prevent a crime from taking place is difficult to believe.”
In her Telegraph column last Sunday entitled Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have left women feeling unsafe, Huq recounted how she was stabbed during a mugging when she was in her twenties, adding that “I was able to attract help because of passing traffic.”
That differs, however, from her account in a Manchester Evening News interview in 2013, however, when she said: “I limped to a nearby house and the people there called an ambulance.”
She wrote in the Telegraph that “I have been emailed and stopped in the street by women saying that they now feel scared in the newly quiet ghost streets after dark, and even by men saying that they feel penned in like animals.
“When I recounted them on social media, even reproducing examples, these genuinely held perceptions were dismissed as rubbish,” she added.
Yet when, in late January, one Twitter user posted about the increased presence of cyclists and pedestrians in an Ealing LTN – something one might think Huq would welcome in helping to reduce crime by having more people around – he received a dismissive reply wondering whether the bike riders were displaying lights.
Bully for you!
Hope they all had lights - been pitch black other there for a good couple of hours https://t.co/k73eMI9Keh
— Rupa Huq MP (@RupaHuq) January 27, 2021
We first reported on Huq’s opposition to LTNs in July last year, when referencing a video of a tree falling in her constituency, she said that the incident “makes this proposed madcap scheme that will gridlock the hood and cause mayhem for emergency vehicles even more ludicrous.”
Scary incident in South Ealing. Luckily everyone unscathed.
Makes this proposed madcap scheme that will gridlock the hood and cause mayhem for emergency vehicles even more ludicrous. Please object https://t.co/5SjhNV4Xns https://t.co/KwO6Er7Knj
— Rupa Huq MP (@RupaHuq) July 5, 2020
> Labour MP uses falling tree clip to argue against Low Traffic Neighbourhood plans
The perceived blocking of access to the emergency services has been a common objection raised to the implementation of LTNs – although ambulance services across the UK, including in London, have said that they do not affect response times
Within Ealing itself, the local council responded to such concerns by removing bollards from LTNs and deploying ANPR CCTV cameras instead – which has led Huq, and other opponents, to claim that they are being used as a means of raising revenue from motorists.
Interesting figures show £466,440 of fines netted in just the few weeks to 17/1 with no physical barriers to prevent driving thru Ealing’s multiple LTNs replaced by numberplate recognition and (often poor) signage
Ker-ching!
Three new ones on way - 3 wks consultation underway https://t.co/vmiLbHTXQO
— Rupa Huq MP (@RupaHuq) March 7, 2021
That tweet received a number of negative comments in the replies, including this Twitter user highlighting that when the bollards were in place, many stolen, and others querying why a sitting MP was apparently condoning law-breaking behaviour.
In just the first 2 weeks of LTN21, 77 bollards were stolen - a cost of around £15,000.
That’s another reason these cameras are a good idea - because certain people can’t behave themselves. 🤔
— Mark Eccleston (@MarkEccleston1) March 8, 2021
As we reported yesterday, according to a survey published earlier this month, LTNs do enjoy strong levels of support across Greater London as a whole – there are three times as many people who support them as those who are opposed, with a similar ratio found among those who live within such an area.
> Backers of London LTNs outnumber opponents by three to one
One other finding from that survey is worth noting, given that Huq is a Labour MP with a constituency in a Labour-controlled borough – Londoners who voted for the party in the 2019 General Election are, at 53 per cent, more likely than Conservative voters to be in favour of LTNs.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- David9694 58 min 13 sec ago
The news from Exeter traders is to good today: Justine must furious with all the drivers not carrying anything causing all this traffic:...
- Barraob1 1 hour 3 min ago
Have you done an elite event? They charge more and deliver less. I live in Ireland
- David9694 1 hour 10 min ago
Elderly man sentenced following serious crash in Ringwood...
- Slartibartfast 3 hours 5 min ago
What I find most amazing is that they didn't use this an opportunity to encourage drivers to check their vision and get an eye test. I was waiting...
- slc 3 hours 47 min ago
The Cugel I knew typically prevailed on others to prepare food. But I was always curious about the porridge of drist and raisins enjoyed on the...
- kingleo 4 hours 46 min ago
Cyclists have been riding in Bister for about 150 years, and now all of a sudden they are a great danger to pedestrians.
- the little onion 5 hours 13 min ago
I didn't remove the sound because I didn't think that it mattered - quite clearly the swearing was in reaction to an act of frankly horrid...
- Nigel_2003 6 hours 14 sec ago
Know how the limiter screws on your derailleur work and use the right ones to keep chain on a manageable cog at the back and/or chainring at the...
- Freddy56 6 hours 23 min ago
Story one: "Here is all the deals at 50% off."...
Add new comment
39 comments
Any ideas why my comment was removed? I'm not bothered as others have covered similar ground but genuinely interested to know. There have been offensive comments allowed to stand in these forums over the years so I wondered what could possibly earn mine the chop
"The prompt for that is the disappearance and murder of Sarah Everard, although from what is known of the police investigation to date, the young woman was abducted while walking home not in an LTN, but along the busy South Circular Road in Clapham"
Facts are irrelevent to this person. She's already decided she's going to cherry pick to suit her agenda. Petty vendettas like this should be above elected representatives, but clearly she has a lot of spare time.
She's the sister of "ex Blue Peter presenter and wife of Charlie Brooker" Konnie Huq. I bet family gatherings at their house are fun... Like to think I can imagine Charlie's response to her "logical" arguments...
"Here's one i made up to suit my agenda earlier"
Rupa appears to be a bit "confused" (I'm being generous) on a number of accounts:
1. the volume of traffic makes no difference to personal safety - as the recent tragic abduction of a woman walking along the south circular road demonstrates.
2. The perception of safety isn't just confined to women walking alone. Before the LtNs were introduced many of the local roads were akin to race tracks at night - which meant that as a cyclist I was very conscious of cars travelling much faster than the 20mph allowed. There haven't been any attacks on women in the last 6 months (or before) but there have been a number of nasty fatalities including two cyclists killed by vehicles.
3. my own experience is that there are more people running / walking / cycling walking with kids / walking dogs on the pavements in the LTNs.
I live 300m away from Rupa and go out for a walk between 8 and 10 every night. There are noticeably more people walking / running / cycling along LTN roads between those hours than there were before they were introduced. I've also seen enough Uber / licensed vehicles doing drop off to know that the comments on "women can't get a taxi home"'are nonsense.
Rupa's comments on the way the LTNs were introduced are fair - the council acted in a high handed manner and the road signage is deliberately misleading / designed to confuse motorists.
That said, the bollards are now removed and emergency vehicles can now pass through easily. Most of the LtN punch points also have enforcement cameras on them - blue badge holders are for some reason exempt even though they are in a vehicle in the first place.
Ealing council and TfL have completely failed to address the junction light timings and road works that account for many of the delays on the periphery but equally local residents are claiming that the tailbacks are new when they've happened every rush hour for at least 20 years.
Get outta here with your...fffacts, and ......logic!
Dirty pervert...
I actually changed my post straight after submitting it - I don't know Rupa to say whether what she's reportedly said is what she actually thinks - so I'll stick with "confused".
She does ride her bike a fair bit though so hopefully that will give her the opportunity to actually see for herself the reality of the situation she's described.
Yeah I've just noticed that - will amend my post accordingly
Who passed the law that says utter nutters must run for office? Everything that comes out of that woman's mouth is a travesty against common sense. Unbelievable.
Polite Reminder: Please remain at least 2 meters from other comments.
I am a Labour Remainer. Even so, I wouldn't vote for this nutter Huq.
“When I recounted them on social media, even reproducing examples, these genuinely held perceptions were dismissed as rubbish,”
Which just goes to show that many people can differentiate between rubbish and reality; unlike Rupa Huq. There must be someone on road.cc who is a constituent, so how about asking her why she has this absurd, illogical, perverse hatred of LTNs.
So is Labour going for the anti-LTN votes now? I'm not sure that's a good strategy.
It's a local Labour council that Huq is opposing!
Rupaul Huq is backing the wrong horse, as she will find out as time goes on . Such a pity she's working against the local council instead of supporting them to improve the lives of her constituents.
Why do you keep giving this publicity seeking oxygen thief free PR?
Gets people arguing in the comments section, drives up traffic, increases ad views
Oh, there are so many other things we could do that would get way more comments and views, and would be way quicker to research and write.
If someone is using speeches in Parliament, the biggest BBC local news channel, and one of the most widely-read newspapers in the country to spread disinformation about LTNs, please excuse this small (by comparison to eg Telegraph.co.uk) active travel-focused website from trying to challenge her.
To be fair - she is an elected representative who has a vote in setting laws. So not a nobody.
She is still backing the wrong horse here.
I don't think she would make the argument that 1980s and 1990s housing developments, full of cul-de-sacs, are a hotbed of assault.
True enough. I just wonder whether the labour voters in Ealing's fair city knew they were getting a Tory NIMBY....
tbf, though the comment piece is now back behind the pay wall, she kind of was making that argument, she cited how Moss Side was redeveloped in the 80s to remove "blind alleys and dingy stairwells" so there were fewer places a victim could get trapped
but no one would be 'trapped' in a LTN, unless they were in a car in a cul-de-sac. The roads are permable to foot traffic and bikes. So the Moss Side comparison does not hold.
well youd have to conclude then by her comparison, she is saying her constituents do feel trapped by a LTN in a way that makes them feel unsafe walking those streets at night, in the same way Moss Side residents in the 80s were fearful of walking those dingy stairwells and lonely alleys at night.
look I dont agree with that view that LTNs are comparable to that situation personally, but I recognise its very difficult for alot of people if they hadnt read the piece in the Telegraph at the time, because none of that detail is really referenced above, to fully understand what she's writing about if its stuck behind a paywall.
and Id rather people debated the actual words/ideas/concepts being used in this that she either raised in parliament or in the mainstream media, because I truly believe those words/ideas/concepts can be countered with proper facts and debate, than just dismissing it all out of hand by belittling it all and her with it.
She has raised concerns without any proof, just her feelings. In fact proof shows less crimes in LTNs from before to since. She used a ludricous example of a tree falling to argue against LTNs. When someone points out lots of cyclists and pedestrians in the area due to low motor vehicle traffic, instead of thinking that makes an area safe, she decides on an anti cycling rant. She changed previous reported facts to make her new case for not having LTNs. She is the equivalent of the Flerther in my eyes who makes themselves sound scientific and might raise something to get the masses thinking "umm maybe" but when a little bit of string pulling unravels the "science" as bunkum, just moves on to the next "proof" they can find.
well I suspect they are concerns raised by her constituents, she says its the topic raised most frequently with her and she is responding in the way politicians pick causes by the weight of their intray, which often leads to more weight given to things that people shout loudest about, but if these are the people who vote for you at the next election, then you listen to them and try to find answers for them, ultimately thats part of her job.
but the way we in the cycling community respond, is to challenge those assertions with the facts, not dismiss the person raising them as ludicrous or any other belittling way, as else we just look like the mob attacking someone who might be completely wrong on the issues theyve raised,but who had totally valid concerns about it and just lacked understanding of all the relevant detail.
Educate and inform, what would Chris Boardman say, should be our mantra on topics like this.
Are they constituent specific concerns though? We have been shown in the article of multiple times she has changed previously reported facts so has she actually got these actual raised concerns to hand out to the press?
She has recently raised the concerns on less traffic meaning women are unsafe by using the unfortunate Sarah Everard and one anecdotal evidence claim when these were never her or consitituent concerns previously. Did any of her constituents raise with her the fact that a tree falling on a the road is a concern now there are LTN's or did she just use it for her own agenda?
Being for or against LTNS is not being for or against cycling*. It is being for or against the safety of the neighbourhood. If she showed any facts that people are suffering or dying because of LTNs then I would be on her side, she doesn't and can't because most of the current evidence shows the exact opposite.
* Although her tweet about lights seems to show she might be anti cycling so again, what is her agenda really?
How does someone get trapped in an LTN with permeable modal filters?
well I cant answer that for them.
But I do recognise there is an issue that if taxis are refusing door to door service because a cluster of LTNs has broken their knowledge/gps, and that forces you to walk the rest of the way home at night through areas with a resultant lower passing volume of traffic because of the LTN, that raises safety concerns for you, which might result in you not choosing to go out in the first place.
If taxis drivers are refusing door to door service when a road is accessible (as they all are in LTNs) then they are breaking the conditions of their licence. Simple. It’s the cabbies fault, not the LTN
It's not true anyway.
Pages