Debate on 15 minute cities on Radio 4 now.

[Cugel]

Any legislation which restricts behaviour central to free and open society should have rapid annulment clauses written in, should conditions or reasons significantly change.

Show me an example of town planners doing this in the UK.

With big business bending the ear of our regulators more than ever, I don't see why a cautious approach should be seen as odd.

Would a cautions approach include reading up on what a new scheme actually involves? Or would you just join any street protest that comes along, and spread gossip on the internet?

Here I feel the need to confess to being one of the anti-freedumb types the libertarians amongst us are worried about. Firmly in favour of many restrictions on all sorts of human freedumbs, I am!

Not murdering with cars is a-one of the restrictions I'd impose; not even a light maiming, no. Poisoning all the other humans with various personal freedumbs is another one I'd restrict with extreme prejudice. If it's wrong to feed your neighbours with a mushroom quiche made with Amanita Phalloides then it must be just as bad to choke their children into fade & die with your car and wood burner emissions. Cries of, "I was just exercising my right to make a different sort of quiche" seem an inadequate defence of the consequences of such freedumbs.

Freedumb - vastly overrated when you consider how much freedom it removes from others, especially if it's their lives or ability to walk and talk. Or have a planet that doesn't kill large numbers of them with weather once a month. The argument that, "I don't mind if others have the freedumb to run me over on a whim as long as I have such a right" is a poor bit of reasoning, surely?

Cugel, obviously a complete totalitarian, then.

[rareposter]

It's ludicrous to protest against something just on principle that "we don't trust the government". Why not actually check what they are proposing first?

Because that involves facts and checking of rather boring, mundane (and sometimes quite complex) information that many people have neither the knowledge, experience or mental capacity to process.
Why bother with stuff like that when a 15-second TikTok video can give you all the dramatic moments in seconds?!

Mainstream news too has long since moved away from reporting facts to going after clickbait with dramatic headlines - the actual meat of the item is usually buried 3 paragraphs down in amongst 12 pop up adverts and 8 other suitably clickbaity links.
eg
TERRIFYING moment plane was seconds from DISASTER in storm-lashed landing!
vs
A plane landed normally at an airport in moderate turbulence that was well within aircraft limits.

The first one is a very Daily Mail-esque headline and will easily give a page of copy with adverts, links to other stories, photos of various aircraft completely unrelated to the story and possibly a quote from scraping through social media like "@andy123 tweeted 'I thought we were all going to die!'"
The second (factual) headline isn't a story at all. Plane landed at airport is not exactly "hold the front page!"

The first page exists because people will click on that. Then they'll click on some of the adverts (sometimes inadvertently cos they deliberately jump them around the page). It drives clicks and ad revenue. The story is irrelevant and, in many cases, actually very very dull.

Same here - something can be misrepresented, you can get a dig in at the council (everyone likes a good dig at those in positions of power, councils are ripe for this cos they can always be painted as wasteful, incompetent, petty...).
I can see why people gravitate towards conspiracy theories - it's a comfortable little world where climate change doesn't exist, pandemics aren't dangerous, most things can easily be blamed on "others"; a world where you can assert things without any evidence and people will praise you for "telling it like it is". You can feel like you are enlightened - not like "those" sheeple, you are "doing your own research", you feel like you have knowledge that very few others have discovered so you feel clever and powerful.

Facts have long since ceased to matter.

[Cugel]

It's ludicrous to protest against something just on principle that "we don't trust the government". Why not actually check what they are proposing first?

When "politics" (the business of having conversations so as to arrive at mutually acceptable compromises on policies) has been reduced to the farcical shouts & dangerous antics of red & blue clowns in The Spectacle Circus Show, it seems much easier to the audience to simply root for a blue clown or a red clown, since all of them only do farce, pratfall and watch-the-doors-fall-off.

Outside the tent reality waits with tooth & claw, which may soon be red.

Cugel, hiding in a caravan at the rear of the parking lot.

[mattheus]

Cugel, hiding in a caravan at the rear of the parking lot.

You can't park that there mate Boyo. 2-hour limit, you see? Or I'll have to ticket ya.

[Cugel]

It's ludicrous to protest against something just on principle that "we don't trust the government". Why not actually check what they are proposing first?

Because that involves facts and checking of rather boring, mundane (and sometimes quite complex) information that many people have neither the knowledge, experience or mental capacity to process.
Why bother with stuff like that when a 15-second TikTok video can give you all the dramatic moments in seconds?!

Mainstream news too has long since moved away from reporting facts to going after clickbait with dramatic headlines - the actual meat of the item is usually buried 3 paragraphs down in amongst 12 pop up adverts and 8 other suitably clickbaity links.
eg
TERRIFYING moment plane was seconds from DISASTER in storm-lashed landing!
vs
A plane landed normally at an airport in moderate turbulence that was well within aircraft limits.

The first one is a very Daily Mail-esque headline and will easily give a page of copy with adverts, links to other stories, photos of various aircraft completely unrelated to the story and possibly a quote from scraping through social media like "@andy123 tweeted 'I thought we were all going to die!'"
The second (factual) headline isn't a story at all. Plane landed at airport is not exactly "hold the front page!"

The first page exists because people will click on that. Then they'll click on some of the adverts (sometimes inadvertently cos they deliberately jump them around the page). It drives clicks and ad revenue. The story is irrelevant and, in many cases, actually very very dull.

Same here - something can be misrepresented, you can get a dig in at the council (everyone likes a good dig at those in positions of power, councils are ripe for this cos they can always be painted as wasteful, incompetent, petty...).
I can see why people gravitate towards conspiracy theories - it's a comfortable little world where climate change doesn't exist, pandemics aren't dangerous, most things can easily be blamed on "others"; a world where you can assert things without any evidence and people will praise you for "telling it like it is". You can feel like you are enlightened - not like "those" sheeple, you are "doing your own research", you feel like you have knowledge that very few others have discovered so you feel clever and powerful.

Facts have long since ceased to matter.

A fine and depressing analysis of the nature of mass media in an age wherein there's long been a triumph of exciting image over mundane substance. Infotainment loves hyperbole and the glamour of bogey-thing jousting.

I'll be going for a bike ride soon, to fend of the glooms your peep at the hard reality of our situation has induced.

Cugel, far from the madding crowd but still trapped in madworld with everyone else.

[mattheus]

It's ludicrous to protest against something just on principle that "we don't trust the government". Why not actually check what they are proposing first?

Because that involves facts and checking of rather boring, mundane (and sometimes quite complex) information that many people have neither the knowledge, experience or mental capacity to process.
Why bother with stuff like that when a 15-second TikTok video can give you all the dramatic moments in seconds?!

Mainstream news too has long since moved away from reporting facts to going after clickbait with dramatic headlines - the actual meat of the item is usually buried 3 paragraphs down in amongst 12 pop up adverts and 8 other suitably clickbaity links.
eg
TERRIFYING moment plane was seconds from DISASTER in storm-lashed landing!
vs
A plane landed normally at an airport in moderate turbulence that was well within aircraft limits.

The first one is a very Daily Mail-esque headline and will easily give a page of copy with adverts, links to other stories, photos of various aircraft completely unrelated to the story and possibly a quote from scraping through social media like "@andy123 tweeted 'I thought we were all going to die!'"
The second (factual) headline isn't a story at all. Plane landed at airport is not exactly "hold the front page!"

The first page exists because people will click on that. Then they'll click on some of the adverts (sometimes inadvertently cos they deliberately jump them around the page). It drives clicks and ad revenue. The story is irrelevant and, in many cases, actually very very dull.

Same here - something can be misrepresented, you can get a dig in at the council (everyone likes a good dig at those in positions of power, councils are ripe for this cos they can always be painted as wasteful, incompetent, petty...).
I can see why people gravitate towards conspiracy theories - it's a comfortable little world where climate change doesn't exist, pandemics aren't dangerous, most things can easily be blamed on "others"; a world where you can assert things without any evidence and people will praise you for "telling it like it is". You can feel like you are enlightened - not like "those" sheeple, you are "doing your own research", you feel like you have knowledge that very few others have discovered so you feel clever and powerful.

Facts have long since ceased to matter.

Sadly, I am well aware of the truths in this post! Well put though, thank-you SIr.

[Biospace]

<snip> ...

Going purely on how you've responded to my post which calls 15 minute cities a "fabulous idea", but with a caveat that we shouldn't ridicule those who naturally question rather than naturally trust government, you come over as a particularly keen planning officer or other official with a passionate hatred for anyone who disagrees with you personal perspective on life.

I'm aware a lot can be lost in the written word and having read plenty more posts written in your name, I do hope I'm wrong

Whilst pausing briefly to thankyou for your kind words, may I observe that:
blind mistrust in government is just as bad as
blind trust.

We agree on this, completely

It's ludicrous to protest against something just on principle that "we don't trust the government". Why not actually check what they are proposing first?

It would be, yes. And indeed, it is important to carefully check out facts to understand what is proposed rather than making assumptions - preferably directly rather than through media channels or some other second hand way.

However, there are people joining the dots with respect to many top-down changes taking place in a variety of western nations - it seems there is finally some agreement on an international level to try and get to grips with the way we're slowly killing life on Earth.

If people choose to question why there's not more transparency, or why certain approaches are being taken and what is planned, I will defend their right to do so.

[mattheus]

It would be, yes. And indeed, it is important to carefully check out facts to understand what is proposed rather than making assumptions - preferably directly rather than through media channels or some other second hand way.

However, there are people joining the dots with respect to many top-down changes taking place in a variety of western nations - it seems there is finally some agreement on an international level to try and get to grips with the way we're slowly killing life on Earth.

If people choose to question why there's not more transparency, or why certain approaches are being taken and what is planned, I will defend their right to do so.

Is sending death-threats to the town council/planners a good way to do this?

Look, I hope I've made it clear that I understand why people get into these sceptical mindsets - thanks to several posters writing good posts about this - but can we PLEASE stop defending batsh1t crazy responses to sensible plans to make our lives betterer?!?

[analogy: pyschiatry is a good way to treat disturbed murderers in prison, probably better than hanging them. But that shouldn't stop the police arresting murderers, or violent domestic abusers, or ... ]

[pete75]

there may well be a lot of problems imposing on areas not designed for it.
Ironic they're trying to cut down on car use in Oxford, a city that has enjoyed much prosperity from making the things for a century or more.

If there's one thing pre ww2 urban areas are not built for it was the motor car. Once motor car dominance became an obvious problem, residential areas were built as cul-de-sacs or other measures to remove through traffic by standard. Measures to filter out through traffic from older areas are a response to deal with the many problems that vastly increased levels of motor vehicles have imposed upon then

Hmmm, not sure that's entirely true. My son lives in a typical thirties bay-windowed semi in an are full of similar houses. All were built with garages and there are many similar all over the country. Whoever developed the areas had car use in mind.

[mattheus]

there may well be a lot of problems imposing on areas not designed for it.
Ironic they're trying to cut down on car use in Oxford, a city that has enjoyed much prosperity from making the things for a century or more.

If there's one thing pre ww2 urban areas are not built for it was the motor car. Once motor car dominance became an obvious problem, residential areas were built as cul-de-sacs or other measures to remove through traffic by standard. Measures to filter out through traffic from older areas are a response to deal with the many problems that vastly increased levels of motor vehicles have imposed upon then

Hmmm, not sure that's entirely true. My son lives in a typical thirties bay-windowed semi in an are full of similar houses. All were built with garages and there are many similar all over the country. Whoever developed the areas had car use in mind.

Shame most of those garages weren't big enough for 2023 cars!

But anyway, "pre-WW2" probably isn't relevant here. OXFORD pre-dates that by quite a lot - go look on Streetview, there are some very old buildings (and some narrow bridges) which are not conducive to everyone travelling thru daily by car.

[Biospace]

Is sending death-threats to the town council/planners a good way to do this?

Look, I hope I've made it clear that I understand why people get into these sceptical mindsets - thanks to several posters writing good posts about this - but can we PLEASE stop defending batsh1t crazy responses to sensible plans to make our lives betterer?!?

[analogy: pyschiatry is a good way to treat disturbed murderers in prison, probably better than hanging them. But that shouldn't stop the police arresting murderers, or violent domestic abusers, or ... ]

People here weren't threatening anybody, nor were they defending those who do. And I fully understand your anger with those who do.

I also totally understand your enthusiasm for what is proposed in cities, but enthusiasm can sometimes lead to unnecessary attacks on others which with some people simply creates division and mistrust.

I'm sure you intended for various words you used against those who don't jump head first into your way of thinking to be witty, but your demand that I should provide you with proof that town planners are anti-libertarians and questioning as to whether I would "just join any street protest that comes along, and spread gossip on the internet" because I'd suggest that people should be free to question and debate, a little of an over-reaction especially given I was in complete agreement with you.

Anyway, let's look forwards to those in charge being able to demonstrate to sceptics that these ideas will make life better for everyone, especially those living in cities.

[mattheus]

Is sending death-threats to the town council/planners a good way to do this?

Look, I hope I've made it clear that I understand why people get into these sceptical mindsets - thanks to several posters writing good posts about this - but can we PLEASE stop defending batsh1t crazy responses to sensible plans to make our lives betterer?!?

[analogy: pyschiatry is a good way to treat disturbed murderers in prison, probably better than hanging them. But that shouldn't stop the police arresting murderers, or violent domestic abusers, or ... ]

People here weren't threatening anybody, nor were they defending those who do. And I fully understand your anger with those who do.

You misunderstand me: the problem isnt' thee or me, or most peeps on this thread [who mostly don't live in Oxfordshire, and aren't protesting against the measures]:

- There are actual people making death threats.
- There were actual people on Oxford streets this weekend waving banners with slogans about crackpot conspiracy theories.
- There are driving "libertarians" in Oxford setting fire to the LTN planters and wooden barriers. (The bill for repairs is £10,000s already, IIRC)
THEY are the concern.

The words that you think are written in jest are mainly born of frustration. Finally SOMETHING good is being done in my nearest provincial city, and people are commiting crimes to stop it, while on here we wringe our hands and say "I understand your frustration, yes it IS a bit like the Jewish ghettos, good point!"

[mattheus]

Councilors received death threats: https://cherwell.org/2023/01/14/oxford- ... -lockdown/

The council gave very clear answers to these concerns, published in several outlets:
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23179 ... k-council/

That was in December; there have been several more, and yet "sceptics" keep spreading lies about the schemes. Is that OK?

Here's a simple example for the protestors to digest:

" "If a vehicle passes through the filter at certain times of the day, the camera will read the number plate and (if you do not have an exemption or a residents’ permit) you will receive a fine in the post.

"Residents will still be able to drive to every part of the city at any time – but in the future, during certain times of the day, you may need to take a different route (e.g. using the ring road) if you want to travel by car." "

Then they followed up with another go:
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23177 ... ref=twtrec
"

Will Oxford residents be confined to their local area?

No.

The misinformation online has linked the traffic filters to the 15-minute neighbourhoods proposal in the City Council’s Local Plan 2040, suggesting that the traffic filters will be used to confine people to their local area. This is not true.

The 15-minute neighbourhoods proposal aims to ensure that every resident has all the essentials (shops, healthcare, parks) within a 15-minute walk of their home. They aim to support and add services, not restrict them.

For the benefit of Oxford residents, what we are aiming to do is to ensure that areas of the city such as Barton, Blackbird Leys and Rose Hill have all the essential services that areas such as East Oxford and Jericho already have.
"

(I've italicised the last bit, as it's something oft-overlooked in the discussion)

[Biospace]

You misunderstand me: the problem isnt' thee or me, or most peeps on this thread [who mostly don't live in Oxfordshire, and aren't protesting against the measures]:

- There are actual people making death threats.
- There were actual people on Oxford streets this weekend waving banners with slogans about crackpot conspiracy theories.
- There are driving "libertarians" in Oxford setting fire to the LTN planters and wooden barriers. (The bill for repairs is £10,000s already, IIRC)
THEY are the concern.

The words that you think are written in jest are mainly born of frustration. Finally SOMETHING good is being done in my nearest provincial city, and people are commiting crimes to stop it, while on here we wringe our hands and say "I understand your frustration, yes it IS a bit like the Jewish ghettos, good point!"

We seem to live in an age of increasing division, which is not good. I too am frustrated when I see protests which cause harm whichever 'side' they're on - the fuel protesters have created havoc for many, and although I sympathise with their concerns, when people's lives are placed directly at risk it isn't good.

There is an argument that millions of lives could be lost as the seas consume our coastal zones and soot and higher temperatures further melt the Arctic ice and a few tens or hundreds lost in order to make a point could well draw much-needed attention to the problem, but arguments are better won with evidence, reasoning, debate and if necessary, silent protest - not violence or actions which lead to violence.

[pete75]

If there's one thing pre ww2 urban areas are not built for it was the motor car. Once motor car dominance became an obvious problem, residential areas were built as cul-de-sacs or other measures to remove through traffic by standard. Measures to filter out through traffic from older areas are a response to deal with the many problems that vastly increased levels of motor vehicles have imposed upon then

Hmmm, not sure that's entirely true. My son lives in a typical thirties bay-windowed semi in an are full of similar houses. All were built with garages and there are many similar all over the country. Whoever developed the areas had car use in mind.

Shame most of those garages weren't big enough for 2023 cars!

But anyway, "pre-WW2" probably isn't relevant here. OXFORD pre-dates that by quite a lot - go look on Streetview, there are some very old buildings (and some narrow bridges) which are not conducive to everyone travelling thru daily by car.

Almost every place in the UK predates WW2 by quite a bit.

Why do I have to look on Streetview to see what a place I've been to many times looks like? Not everyone gains all their experiences online. You're right though, there are a lot of old buildings in the centre of Oxford. Many of them need demolishing to make way for proper roads to suit the level of car ownership in the place.