Your say / East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood
‘Legitimate concerns of many east Bristol residents are being dismissed’
Zoe Banks Gross presents a well-meaning but ultimately flawed argument in favour of the East Bristol Liveable Neighbourhood trial scheme.
The core issues of child safety, public health and air pollution are undeniably important.
But Zoe’s recent opinion piece in Bristol24/7 relies on several logical fallacies, misrepresentations and one-sided arguments that dismiss the legitimate concerns of many east Bristol residents.
is needed now More than ever
1. False dilemma – the framing of car use vs public health
The article presents the issue as a binary choice: either residents continue driving short distances and perpetuate health inequalities, or they support the EBLN scheme and promote active travel.
This ignores the reality that many people in east Bristol rely on cars for legitimate reasons, including work schedules, disability and childcare logistics.
It also dismisses alternative ways to encourage active travel without imposing restrictive measures on motorists.
2. Anecdotal evidence – the emotional appeal of the child accident
Zoe recounts a tragic accident to bolster support for the EBLN but a single case does not establish a pattern or justify a policy shift.
Her piece fails to provide any broader statistical analysis on child pedestrian injuries in east Bristol compared to other areas.
Effective road safety measures, such as better crossings, reduced speed limits near schools and improved traffic management can address these issues without restricting road access.
Beaufort Road in Redfield is a noticeably more pleasant place for active travel since the start of the EBLN trial, but elsewhere the scheme has been met less favourably – photo: Martin Booth
3. Correlation vs causation – linking car use to obesity and health inequalities
While it is true that Lawrence Hill has high childhood obesity rates, attributing this solely to car use is a classic example of the post hoc fallacy.
Many factors contribute to obesity including diet, socio-economic conditions and genetic predispositions.
Reducing road access does not guarantee that families will become more active; it may simply make their lives more difficult, particularly for those balancing multiple jobs and childcare.
4. Misrepresentation of the opposition – strawmanning disabled people’s concerns
The argument that EBLN opponents are misinformed or exaggerating the impact on disabled individuals is dismissive.
Even if some exemptions exist, disabled residents still face increased journey times, road diversions and accessibility challenges.
The assumption that fewer cars on the road will automatically improve conditions for disabled people ignores the fact that many rely on vehicles as their primary mode of transport.
……………………………………………
……………………………………………
5. Selective use of data – comparing east Bristol to affluent areas
The article highlights how affluent areas like Clifton and Cotham have successfully implemented similar schemes, implying that east Bristol should follow suit.
However, it fails to acknowledge key differences: wealthier areas have more accessible public transport, higher rates of remote work and fewer residents who rely on their vehicles for employment.
Simply transplanting a policy from one socio-economic context to another does not guarantee success.
View this post on Instagram
6. Oversimplified air pollution argument
While air pollution is a serious issue, the claim that the EBLN will meaningfully reduce it is not substantiated.
The policy may simply displace traffic onto surrounding main roads, creating congestion and worsening pollution in other areas.
A holistic approach – such as improved public transport, targeted emissions reduction measures, and better urban planning – would be a more effective solution than blanket restrictions.
7. Appeal to authority – Chris Whitty’s report
Zoe cites chief medical officer Chris Whitty’s report as if it provides direct justification for the EBLN.
While Whitty’s report supports active travel and cleaner air, it does not advocate for restrictive measures like the ones proposed in east Bristol.
This is a classic appeal to authority, where expert opinion is invoked to support a policy that the expert has not explicitly endorsed.
8. Ignoring the impact on local businesses
The article praises studies showing that pedestrian-friendly streets can increase business revenue, yet it ignores counter-evidence.
……………………………………………
Read more:
- People walking spend more in UK shops than motorists, finds ‘Pedestrian Pound’ research
- Are LTNs and pedestrianisation good for businesses?
- Crackdown on anti-driver road schemes and blanket 20mph limits to put local consent first
- Community champion delivers anti-LTN petition to new prime minister
……………………………………………
Many local businesses rely on accessible roads for deliveries and customer access.
Similar schemes in other cities have led to reduced footfall and economic downturns for small businesses, especially those that depend on passing trade.
Conclusion
While the goals of the EBLN scheme – safer streets, healthier residents and lower pollution – are commendable, Zoe’s article presents a one-sided and flawed justification for it.
By using emotional appeals, misrepresenting opposing arguments and failing to engage with the practical realities of residents, the piece does a disservice to the complex debate.
A more balanced approach that genuinely considers all stakeholders’ needs, rather than imposing a top-down solution, is necessary for meaningful and equitable urban planning.
This is an opinion piece by Annabel Lacey, a single mother who lives in Barton Hill and currently works as a teacher to young adults
Editor’s note: AI was used to help write this opinion piece
Main photo: Martin Booth
Read next:
Our top newsletters emailed directly to you
