A party in the park would be good but I don’t think it’s practical to close the roads, other than the max 3 hours allowed for one street.
1 Like
Roads have become much much busier in the last decades. We cannot compare it to when we were children.
Closing streets to cars completely transform the environment.
The needs of cars and parking dominate roads and streets most of the time so it seems pretty churlish to object to closing a street for one Sunday to allow children to play out safely near their homes.
3 Likes
Could we argue the needs of pedestrians dominate the pavements most of the time, therefore it’s acceptable to arbitrarily block pedestrians from pavements every once in a while?
I don’t think that’s a good line of reasoning
Nice staw man there. I’m not playing that game.
I responded directly to what you said and drew an analogy of my own in order to pose a question. That’s not the same thing as a straw man argument (although it would be a straw man argument if I pretended that you’d used my analogy).
I’m not trying to “play a game” - I’m merely politely engaging in debate. Hopefully you will too.
Roads and streets are designed for cars. Pavements are for pedestrians.
The idea of switching things around every once in a while is a nice novelty but it inconveniences people who rely on road access. And it’s certainly not “churlish” to say so.
This whole concept seems very one-sided and slightly unfair. If car users are expected to give up road access, what concessions/incentives are offered in return? We are all humans of equal value (even when we step into a steel box on wheels) and fairness is important.
Play street orders allow for access to the properties in the closed section (marshalls escort the vehicle) - in my experience all neighbours have chosen to work around it (ie not require access). The order is designed to prevent through traffic.
1 Like
Perhaps what Hannah missed highlighting is that cars have a significant negative impact on all those around them. They are dangerous, take up public space, create pollution etc.
Walking does not generally have a similar impact. The roads around here were designed for horses and bicycles weren’t they? I’m not sure how relevant that is though.
Fair comment, although some cars create zero air and noise pollution, and have very effective automatic braking and large crumple zones to absorb impact.
I’m seeing a lot of energy going into anti-car measures. I wish that energy could be re-directed to help car owners switch to battery electric vehicles (particularly Teslas for the reasons mentioned above).
And regarding incentives (mentioned earlier), how about Play Street days fundraising for lamp-post EV chargers?
It’s going to be a long time before we don’t need to look before crossing the road.
I don’t believe play street users should offer a concession to car owners anymore than each car owner should offer a concession to those who would like their car not to drive down that road.
1 Like
The Play Street movement demands concession from car owners but offers no incentive/concession in return.
It doesn’t have to be (and arguably shouldn’t be) a one-way street. Both groups of people could be winners from the Play Street concept. That way we’d avoid this “us vs. them” divisive and confrontational rhetoric between different groups of road users.
Win-win, not zero-sum.
It depends where you start from. Aren’t car owners taking concessions from others every time they drive/park (ie always) because of the reasons I mentioned?
Not all cars have the same impact. Can’t we focus on improving cars?
Let’s not forget that the cars used by carers, tradespeople, emergency services etc ultimately have a very positive impact on our lives, and if we ideologically bully cars off the roads, there might be some unintended consequences?
I thought we were talking about whether it was fine, socially, for people to close their street to through traffic (and perhaps inconvenience some neighbours - FYI objection is sought) in order for them to indulge in playing in the street. We disagreed on whether the play street users should be making (financial) concessions in order to do this. Until cars are able to sense and forecast the movements of small children in this environment I don’t think that improving cars has much to do with the debate.
Periodic play streets are a long, long way from doing this. I would love to see a future where we all had almost instant access to cheap, on-demand non-polluting, silent, driverless cars.
I do agree with a lot of your points. Just wanted to chuck some ideas around and challenge the us-vs-them rhetoric that constantly threatens to divide and entrench different groups of road users
I suggested a fundraiser to raise money for street improvements and incentivise more pedestrian-friendly vehicles, which is different in spirit from asking all participants to pay for their Play Street.
@Beige @anon5422159
This is such a London bubble discussion. Yes, I know this is a Sydenham/Forest Hill forum and therefore intended to be uninfluenced by what happens beyond our post code boundaries. But some of the reasons why the rest of the country relies on cars and motorbikes applies to some people on our patch too.
We have excellent public transport here but not everyone can access it, given our hilly landscape. And others don’t live the whole of their lives inside London and have to use cars if they venture into the rest of the country, where public transport is virtually non existent. (For example, my brother lives in a big town but to get to work for his start time of 7.30 at the region’s biggest employer, five miles away, there is no public transport.)
Closing one small street or part of a street, at the financial and time commitment of residents who are prepared to take legal responsibility for it, for 3 hours (which is all that the regs allow) on one day a month isn’t too much to ask, but a whole cluster of streets for a whole weekend is very disruptive and would need a huge commitment from the organizers, not least marshalls at every entrance, all of the time.
2 Likes
Wow. This thread spiralled.
2 Likes
meh… was hoping i could convince you with some nostalgia!
It makes me feel sad that it makes you feel sad 
. I did know some of my very near neighbours through knocking / saying hello in the street, but having participated in play streets I now know many more and know them better. If the existence of play streets is telling you people don’t know their neighbours ‘naturally’ anymore then can you feel happy that people are getting together to do this?
3 Likes
Indeed! Moving out of SE23 has given me a new perspective on how non-London communities treat car owners.
Anti-car movements and ideology seem to be a very London-centric thing.
That’s not to say Londoners’ concerns are invalid.
However, I’m alarmed by the absolutist, ideological way things are discussed in London. Please don’t take this as a criticism of other forum members - the debate here is generally constructive. However, I see ideological zero-sum, anti-car rhetoric frequently in other Lewisham forums/groups and even in the council chambers, which ought to be making policy based on hard data as opposed to ideology.
Anyway, I don’t want to divert this discussion completely from the Derby Hill Play Street, so I’ll step out of this convo for a bit.
2 Likes
If this is referring to me in this thread then it is a fair point, but the ideas about rights/concessions are deeply founded in the way we have lived our whole lives and I thought going back to first-principles might convince others to reconsider them (though I am less sure now). If it’s of any relevance I own and drive a car.
Was going to say similar.
3 Likes
Not at all. I think your posts make a lot of good points
3 Likes