Hacker News Reader

Comment by leereeves | Hacker News Reader

Nobody is objecting to the idea of a walkable city. People object to the part where they won't be allowed to travel without a permit.

I quoted this in another comment but I think it's worth repeating:

"When [the traffic filters] are operating, private cars will not be allowed through the filters without a permit."[1]

"Residents [of the area affected by the traffic filters] will be able to apply for a permit to drive through the traffic filters for up to 100 days per year"[1]

1: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/sites/default/files/file/road...

View on HN

But they will be able to travel without a permit, it's just that those journeys may need to be rerouted to take a less direct route to avoid the traffic filters.

Traffic filters are not new to the UK, and plenty have existed for decades in cities like London without controversy or conspiracy. They do not form an impermeable cordon around an area.

They restrict through traffic on certain streets, in order to provide faster and safer routes for either bikes or buses. As far as I can tell the Oxford proposal is less restrictive than traditional filters as permits allow car driver to bypass the restrictions a certain number of times a month.

> those journeys may need to be rerouted to take a less direct route to avoid the traffic filters.

I don't know enough about Oxfordshire to be sure, but it seems unlikely that the goal here is simply to move the traffic to different streets - especially after they said the goal is to eliminate 50% of car traffic.

By making other modes of travel more convenient. They aren't outlawing those trips.

That's about restricting private car access to high traffic shopping streets | parish centres, etc.

People are still allowed to travel, to travel in private cars around those zones, and to travel in those zones on foot, by bus, or in a commercial vehicle delivering goods, etc.

Claiming this equates to people "won't be allowed to travel without a permit" is delibrately misleading.

> That's about restricting private car access to high traffic shopping streets | parish centres, etc.

According to the linked report, it's about:

"Encouraging a change in behaviour to tackle private car use"

The headline targets include replacing or removing 50% of car trips and delivering a net-zero transport network by 2040.

That is great. Private car use is insanely inefficient, and has numerous negative externalities like toxic gas exhaust, increasing the risk of injury to people not in a car, and rubber particulates.

Seems a little fairer than the San Francisco strategy which excludes certain rich neighborhoods from outside car traffic (they can still drive there) but they can drive to anywhere they want. They call it Slow Streets.

> People object to the part where they won't be allowed to travel without a permit.

If you stop and reflect for a few seconds you likely are already aware of this, but you already cannot drive a car anywhere in the city without a permit.

Accepting that restriction doesn't mean we have to accept any and all restrictions.

That said, I'm not familiar with UK driver's licenses - do they normally restrict where and when you can travel?

UK driving licenses are extremely restrictive - the areas where you are allowed to drive are actually quite narrow, though they are quite long and occasionally do connect together.

Wow! You must be against drivers licenses as well I assume, as they permit you to operate a motor vehicle.

If driver's licenses were limited to driving 100 days per year, and used as a tool to eliminate 50% of car trips, I certainly would be against them.

That's fine, you have the right to advocate for a dead city all you want.

Your characterization of this as not being "allowed to travel without a permit" is utter nonsense made to make something rather routine and benign sound like Nazi Germany.

We restrict where, by whom, and how motor vehicles and literally every other form of transportation is used all the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com