• OBJECTORS write as if the only vehicles that will be impacted by the restrictions in Judd Street are emergency vehicles, or those occupied by the disabled.

This is patently untrue. Most of the traffic is either making unnecessary short local journeys, or it is through traffic.

People use our roads as a convenient route for their journeys, many of which could easily be made on foot, by bike, public transport, by staying on the main roads, or just not made at all.

Remember when the M25 opened. It became saturated with traffic. Providing road space generates new traffic.

Similarly if you reduce access to roads then the traffic reduces, not just on the restricted roads but on all the roads leading to them. It takes time for the traffic to find its level but the net effect is less traffic.

Most people cannot remember a time when our roads were not dominated by motor traffic so it’s easy to assume that it has to be there, like the weather.

This is perhaps not a problem if you are inside the vehicles, but in Bloomsbury (2011) only 26 per cent of households had access to a car.

Most people rely on walking, or cycling, or public transport. As the roads become more pleasant this number will increase. The traffic causes delays for bus passengers.

Many, including children and the elderly, are too scared to cycle. The pollution damages young lungs and kills the elderly prematurely.

Those objecting to these schemes, the people who insist on their right to drive everywhere, are intent on retaining their privilege, dismissing the problems of the young, the elderly, the less wealthy, and the rights of us all to live healthy lives.

NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED