dfgdghdf

That's the plan yes, but unfortunately some schools have not been sent enough to deliver this.

Again, some schools are running this better than others.

Different schools are running things differently. I am glad you used the tests, but they were strictly speaking optional. Lateral flow tests have a very high false negative rate, particularly when not administered by a trained professional.

I am not. This is first hand information for me. Nothing I have said contradicts your link either.

Depends if the lock-downs are at your doorstep or at the border. The UK had a few opportunities to pursue a zero covid strategy but squandered them all.

The mass testing story is not what you think it is. The tests are optional, self administered, self reported, only available to staff (not students) in many cases and have a 50% false negative rate.

They have been doing this in London. I think it makes a big difference! It also prevents people from parking in the bike lane.

Painted bike lanes do not feel safe enough to most potential cyclists so they don't lead to much modal shift.

We can't all drive though. There is not physically enough space in an urban environment. If you don't provide good alternatives - cycling is one, trains and buses are also key - then everyone will be stuck in traffic.

I listened to your source, but I'm afraid it wasn't very convincing.

The evidence they presented was an ambulance driver who had to go around a modal filter via side-streets to get to a patient who later died. We do not know if the patient died because of the LTN. I am aware of a case where Ealing council failed to delivery keys to an ambulance service - perhaps this was that? That error has now been rectified.

Needless to say, this is a tragedy. However, patients also die because emergency services get stuck in gridlock traffic. What needs to be show is that LTNs in general increase response times; but we were not presented with any data to support this. On the other side, there are examples of ambulances moving rapidly through LTNs, since they do not have to share the space with any other traffic. Remember, London's congestion is so bad that we have an air ambulance service. What we really need is data, and the limited amount we have so far is generally positive towards LTNs. One example we can look to is The Randstad, which is a huge urban area containing many connected LTNs, built from the 70s onwards. It doesn't seem to have problems with emergency service response times.

There's also the risk of missing the forest for the trees here. How many premature deaths occur from diseases of inactivity, toxic levels of air pollution and road accidents? Childhood obesity is around 20% in the UK and even higher in inner London boroughs. If you look at old photos of London, a striking difference to now is children playing safely on residential streets. Ambulance response times are not the only metric we need to keep an eye on.

The hosts like to make sweeping generalizations and talk about the "law of unintended consequences", but I wonder if they understand the law of induced demand?

True, but adults need around 30 mins exercise per day anyway so we can take the carbon budget from that.

It is very flat, but it's also quite wet and VERY windy. The Netherlands would not be the best place to cycle if it weren't for the infrastructure that they chose to build.

You are not alone. Transport for London found safety concerns as the biggest reason people do not cycle in London. Interestingly, many people who do cycle also considered it too dangerous.

For what it's worth, your risk from diseases of inactivity (diabetes, heart disease, etc) are far greater than the risk of cycling, even with poor infrastructure. Most people who take up cycling to work see an increase in life expectancy.

The solution is to separate cyclists from motor traffic on all major roads and introduce 30kmph limits on quiet roads. The Netherlands did this and has far lower accident rates, despite having more children and elderly people cycling. They don't wear helmets either!

* It's illegal in most countries

* It tends to be busy with pedestrians (not everywhere, as you mention)

* It's not safe when crossing side-roads

* It's inefficient if you walk at junctions