Oxford Blues

Peter Walker asks the not unreasonable question "Why do traffic reduction schemes attract so many conspiracy theories?" I think 'theory' here is a generous term. Walker details the recent problems encountered by Oxford council (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2023/jan/10/why-do-traffic-reduction-schemes-attract-so-many-conspiracy-theories). Oxford is a chronically congested city, where circa 33% of residents don't actually own a car. The councils were tasked with improving public health (discharges from cars are especially problematic) and the city centre environment, making it more pedestrian and cyclist friendly. These aims would be achieved by restricting car journeys through the centre of Oxford. The council want to install six traffic filters across Oxford. The intention is to 'nudge' people into using buses, bikes or walking, rather than using private cars for short trips. There will be no physical barriers but the filters will have numberplate recognition cameras. People who pass a filter and are not exempt, could be fined. Being a registered carer, a health or care worker, the carrier of a blue disability badge, the owner of a local business etc are all exemptions. Even locals who are not exempt will receive up to 100 passes for each vehicle freeing them from the charge. The entire scheme is initially for a trial period, after which public acceptance will be judged. In spite of all these safeguards, the Oxford scheme has apparently become a 'lightening rod' for fears of a global assault on 'freedoms'. Some folk (generally from outside Oxford), describe the traffic reduction scheme, as a first step in a conspiracy to "strip people of their fundamental rights and personal possessions, in the name of the environment". The World Economic Forum and the UN have been variously identified as the instigators. 'Not Our Future', a loose collection of climate change deniers, Covid vaccine objectors etc, organised a march in Oxford against the scheme. 'Freedom' to drive through the city centre is one thing. Perhaps, however, local folk should have relative freedom from damaging atmospheric pollution, congestion etc. The concept of 'fundamental rights' can be somewhat dodgy. With rights come responsibilities!