Talk:Road protest in the United Kingdom

Scope?

should this be limited to Road Protests in the UK and possibly Ireland since the USA already has a good article on their history? I propose a name change to 'Road Protests UK and Ireland'PeterIto (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the US article? Shouldn't it at least be given under "See also".

This article has no text, it is just a list - I suspect that if it were nominated for deletion it wouldn't survive. Options are to merge it with the US article or to have 'Road protests in Europe' article (even if at the moment it just has UK and Ireland). It seems to me that any hope of a worthwhile article is to have it for continents with subsections for each state, rather than to have miniscule articles for each state.

Maybe it should just be a "list of road protests" with links to the relevant sections in the individual road articles. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly but personally I think it would be better to expand it by adding a policy background section from which the protests emerged (ie Roads to Prosperity in the early 1990's and the 10 Year transport plan in 2004); details of the campaigning group (Road Block and Road Alert) and the outcome of the protests (change of policy in 1997 for the first wave, and this time who-knows we haven't got there yet). I was thinking that one could have a short paragraph for each protest (not all of which will have their own articles or websites). All : in all I think we will have a lot of material for an article. Actions in other countries will have different timing (since policy will emerged at different times) and may not be contributed to an English article. There is a long list of current protests in progress in the UK (total bill £10billion) Current UK road schemes PeterIto (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• The process and arguments against - and for - road building operate on all manner of levels, but so far have been left out of the 'Road Protest' article here. If they were to be included it would probably dictate extensive restructuring. (I.e. what about the multitude of local campaigns protesting about local traffic, arguing for a bypass?) The shaping of the UK is full of "road protests" over the last century, enshrined in the democratic process through the first planning acts in the c.1930s through to urban motorway inquiries in the 1970s which were the first with organised & professional public opposition (e.g. Westway), and set in motion the type of public consultation & inquiry process we see now that typically lasts decades. The 1989 road building scheme was just a reactivation of decades of stalled right- and left-wing government policies (ref Traffic in Towns). Almost every major new road had objections to contend with. There were just a very few instances of individuals taking direct action (also an interesting topic which has its own distinct development & history going back centuries) by being chained to trees etc while the road was being built, but this was just a highly visible tip of the iceberg - but this is what this article currently appears to be about.

If this article is to be a "keep" in its current form then try to get some balance in the article, including the consultation & inquiry process, and going back before 1989. (A book like David Banister's 'Transport Planning' (2002) may help with the background - [1]). Else I'd suggest moving this page to a List of roads in the UK subject to direct action protests & reference it from the direct action page. Ephebi (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ephebi, firstly I wanted this article to survive and morph into something viable. I have been steering the focus to the people and politics around road protests (rather than the details of each scheme) and think it will be best to develop it on that same theme and to build in details of the planning enquiry process and law would be great. I think the second half of the article, effective a summary list of current road protests around the county should be split off into a separate article, but that we incubate it here and then split it off when it is more viable as an independent article. I would love this article to show the interactions between policy, activists, the law, transport theories and the planning enquiry protest; feel free to dive in, I am about done on my contribution and will be backing off from it over the next 24 hours to give others the opportunity to contributePeterIto (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done on creating this article, very needed. I might suggest extending it to Great Britain as there have been some interesting protest in the Republic of Ireland. There have been many many protests, especially in the 90's, trying to get a list of these seems important to me as it emphasises the scale of the movement, which was bigger than the just the few high profile campaigns. Do Or Die states that there were 34 such camps in 98-99[2]

Scope is difficult, one view is as a history of a social movement, which is a fine encyclopaedic topic in itself, I've attempted such at Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom. The history of debate on road policy is an equally valid encyclopaedic topic. --Salix alba (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the republic of Ireland is part of GB any more but that is probably the subject of a separate article!! Your point though is a good one, The UK includes Northern Ireland (my passport says The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), but should we include the republic in this article, in which case the name should change again to avoide confusion/offense. Even though the policy narritive will have a different timeline in the two countries there seems to be affinity and communication between the two and I would certainly support a move to formally include the republic, but would probably be against taking it further into other EU countries. I debated adding this content to Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom but in the end desided that it could stand on its own and that there are very many strands of environment protest so the other article should be a top level one, leading into more detailed articles for major areas.PeterIto (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Historical scope

It sounds very appropriate to push the historical context back to at least the 1970's however I think the context should be to see how the nature of focus of protests and the planning process evolved in symbiosis and in particular the stages at which the planning process or policy came under concerted challenge.PeterIto (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If the scope doesn't include all road protests in UK history, including for example those by the railway companies in the 19th century, then the title will need to be more specific, including something like "since 1970". Better to accept all protests I think. -- de Facto (talk). 11:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The historical context will probably split into periods which will make it manageable. Personally I would avoid going back to the Romans, although possibly that would also be interesting, given that Maggie mentioned them when promoting 'Roads for Prosperity' and that Hadrian evidently said something like: "This luxury of speed destroys its own aim: a pedestrian makes more headway than a hundred conveyances jammed end to end along the twists and turns of the Via Sacra". I guess in the end it comes down to what people want to contribute. I don't want it to stray away from Roads and into protests against Railway lines, Canals, Ports, Airports, incinerators etc, that would loose focus too much I think PeterIto (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Geographical scope

Should this be UK only, UK and Ireland or still wider? I vote for UK and Ireland for reasons I have given elsewhere on the talk page. I propose that this scope applies to both this article and the hived off list.PeterIto (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I favour "Road protest in the United Kingdom" as the title. Limit it to the UK only. Ireland is independent, with its own laws, policies and agendas. Including Ireland could result in the article getting very long and very unwieldy, with sentences requiring exceptions and provisos all over the place. -- de Facto (talk). 12:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Anti road only, or also pro-road?

To balance the article, do you think that it should have two main sections, one for anti-road protests, and one for pro-road protests? At the moment it is very biased towards the anti. -- de Facto (talk). 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How should this article be balanced? I think it certainly needs much more on how the planning process works and draws in different opinion etc. I don't think we should end up with it being a battle ground for arguements for or against particular schemes. I am not sure how it would work including 'pro-road' campaiging but that would be very interesting as long as everythign didn't turn to mud in the battle that ensued! Either that or make it explicitely an anti-road building article which at the moment I would favourPeterIto (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse more comprehensive with more balanced. By balance I mean covering not only protests against roads, but also protests in favour of new roads. There is also a requirement to balance the description of each protest with details of notable criticisms of that protest. -- de Facto (talk). 12:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, either it needs to be more explicitly about anti-roads and say so in the title and leader or contain pro-road campaigns as well.PeterIto (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. So which is it to be? I favour the latter. -- de Facto (talk). 12:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a rain-check on answering that for 48 hours to let other people contribute to this manic conversation and get a more considered view, less haste more speed:) PeterIto (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiving of a 'list of roads in the UK subject to direct action protests'

There is a proposal to split of a List of roads in the UK subject to direct action protests. I would be in favour of this, although this article would continue to the current day looking at the sociological and governance issues coming out of these current protests. Should this hived off article be 'anti-road only' or also 'pro-road' campaigns?PeterIto PeterIto (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that we hive off this article and include both 'notable' current protests and also past protests. We will need to define 'notable' at some point. My reason for including past protests is that it will provide a vessel to contain details about smaller, but significant, protests that don't warrant their own article. Each protest can have 5-10 lines max describing to key issues, activities and link out to more resources. Major protests will link to their own articles.I suggest this article is only for anti-road protests to avoid it getting to long and arguementative, this should be clear from the title and leader and there should be clear links to siting promoting the schemes where they are available but pro-campaigns as such should be the focus of a different article.PeterIto (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I do like the idea of a list. There were a very large number of camps in the late eighties, Do or Die claims 34 in 1999 [3] (not all roads though). --Salix alba (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Leader

The article now needs a formal introduction and leader. It is normal for the article title to be the subject of the first sentence. So, something starting: "Road protest in the United Kingdom has a long history...", or similar. Also, the rest of the leader should be a concise summary of the entire article. -- de Facto (talk). 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Loaded scheme names!

Personally I reflected on what name to use for the individual protests and chose to use the protest group name and put the official name in brackets but hadn't completed the task, partly because the they would be very long. We are really in a bit of a cleft stick on this one because the official titles are as full of POV and spin as well. The protesters certainly do not agree that the 'improvement' schemes are an improvement or they would be doing their gardens! I do agree that the official scheme names may be more useful to more people, but possible we should remove blatant POV from the titles as long as the scheme name is still recognisablePeterIto (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So long as the stated names are verifiable (from the scheme plans or announcements perhaps) I believe the full official names should be used. To edit them would be unwise in POV terms. One of the problems with using the name of a protest group is that there may be many groups protesting about a particular scheme (the Longdendale Bypass has at least 4). -- de Facto (talk). 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

agreed, and only one of the current schemes has a very loaded name (although I have seen some real corkers elsewhere) and clearly the proponents do have a strong POV but it may be best to live with that one!PeterIto (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of 'Individuals' section

Wikipedia policy dictates that great care is taken when adding biographical data about living people. It is required that high quality references are provided for all such material added, and that material not complying is removed immediately. There was much unsourced material in this section, so I thought it was better to remove it until complying references are provided. -- de Facto (talk). 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but do I read into your comments that as long as high quality references are provided for all information and also that the information is relevant to the subject that the section should be reinstated? In which case I suggest the section is reinstated and that information that can be verified both from quality newspaper/BBC etc and also ideally from the person's own output should be reinstated. Incidentally I am in communication with Rebecca and is aware of what is happening and has asked me to build a biog. I am also in touch with most of the other people at CBT so can notify them of the articles and ensure that they are accurate that way as well. Stephen Norris is sourced from his own output and CBT etc. Swampy is un-sourced and should remain out until someone can chase them up.PeterIto (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to check the precise details in the policy, but as I understand it, if you can attribute each statement precisely, with a link to an approved verifiable reference, then it's fine. -- de Facto (talk). 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

makes sense. I think Jason Torrance's entry passes. John Stewart fails for lack of reliable reference for some claims. Rebecca Lush's fails due to reference to 'self published source' , Swampy fails due to having no references, Stephen Norris fails due to unreliable (and actually incorrect) source for some of the information- he was not the transport minister who approved Newbury! Not sure if 'Speakers Corner' is reliable, so should assume not and it is also his personal words so possibly fails on that one as well. All in all not a very good show, sorry and thanks for cutting it as per policy. I will reinstate the section with more caution and care in due course. PeterIto (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for individual protest content

This comment related to the List of Road Schemes section of this article...

I am thinking about how to structure road protest content across different wikipedia articles as there are some articles for particular protests, there are sections within other articles on protests and single paragraphs or comments within the text for others and we also have content. How should this work and where should the main content be? My proposal is as follows:

Highly notable in their own right: protests like M11 link road protest should have their own articles, and summaries of the main relevant points in this article and other relevant articles with a 'see main article' pointer to that main article. In general if there is a viable article dedicated to the protest then the main content should exist there. If there is an article for a minor protest we might suggest that it is merged into this one. Mid level: (not notable enough to have their own article) should have its most detailed content in this article, and short summaries and links to it from other relevant articles. Lowest level: Gets a short mentioned in other relevant articles but doesn't get a mention here at all ("two protesters handed out leaflets for 10 minutes as councilors arrived").

Twyford Down is interesting in that the protest is still contained within an article about the Down itself and in my opinion should stand alone as Twyford Down road protest and leave the other article to regain its balance. Thames Gateway Bridge could probably stand on its own, as could M74 imho. The escalation path is therefore that someone mentions a protest on another related article. It then may get its main entry here and summary's elsewhere. It then spins out into its own article with a summary here. Over time an event might fade and become lost in history and fall back down the scale of notability so the 'past protests' list might only include details of the more important older protests and an event that used to have its own article might get merged into this one. Thoughts? PeterIto (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• things should break out into new articles & collapse back in, in line with their notability & volume. Twyford Down is now synonymous w the protest. Would the Down be notable & would there be anything left of the original non-protest article after such surgery? The Thames Gateway Bridge has a long way to go to get to this stage. I'm not a great fan of moving everything around in an attempt to impose order where there naturally is none, but one way round this might be to point another article with a xxx protest title towards xxx so both approaches are covered. Ephebi (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. When there is enough verifiable info, then we can break it out per WP:SUMMARY, but if there is limited information, then we can redirect to this article and bold the appropriate text. When we can break out to a new article, then we have links already in place. Generally I don't see protests becoming less notable, and some like the London Ringways, Twyford Down and Newbury Bypass will always be notable. Regan123 (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Old newspaper quotes

I referenced two early 1990s Guardian newspaper articles to support the sentence "On several occasions protesters received prison sentences for refusing to be bound over, or for breaking court injunctions". If anyone can find a freely available on-line link for them please add them. For now, here are the relevant quote snippets, found on the Gale InfoTrac Full Text Newspaper database subscription service. From The Guardian 1992-07-09: "... who was arrested last week when she blocked lorries while protesting against the extension of the M3 at Twyford Down in Hampshire, was sentenced at Winchester crown court yesterday to six months' prison after refusing to be bound over". From The Guardian 1992-07-09: "... were imprisoned for 28 days last Friday for breaking the injunction by trespassing on the M3 site on July 4". -- de Facto (talk). 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

SACTRA

Discussion copied to here (where I think it is more appropriate) from my talk page.

Welcome back to the Road Protest article Defacto! Before trying to 'adjust' the references of SACTRA in 1994 again please do your research and understand the radical effect this document had on roads policy for the UK government due to its recognition of induced demand and the big changes this created by removing a key plank from the benefit / cost calculations that previously assumed that road users would see major benefits in their journey times. This message needs to be retained in the Road Protest article. PeterIto (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

-- de Facto (talk). 08:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

PeterIto, I didn't 'adjust' the SACTRA references, I attempted to relay an accurate interpretation of how SACTRA themselves, in the cited reference to a later report, interpreted the 1994 report. They don't say that they said that more roads made congestion worse. They actually say that they said that typically new schemes provide a net benefit:

2.30 In fact, SACTRA's 1994 report indicated that, in conditions of congestion, the consumer benefits

of a scheme would be generally reduced by the effects of induced traffic and, in some circumstances, this could then make the net present value of the scheme negative, though this would not necessarily be the case. The Committee's analysis suggested that the more typical case would probably be to make the net consumer benefits smaller, but still positive. The environmental effects of induced traffic

would, however, generally be unambiguously negative.

— Transport and the economy: full report (SACTRA)

The 1994 report did not discover, or even reveal for the first time, "induced demand", it was a phenomenon well known to network designers and road professionals by then. Indeed J. J. Leeming describes it in relation to road provision, with statistics and analysis of the impact that the building of the Doncaster bypass had on traffic between 1959 and 1961, in his book: J. J. Leeming (1969). Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish?. Cassell. SBN 304932132. See the induced demand article. The fact that transport planners may not fully account for it is a reflection of the difficulty in forecasting it, and not a reflection of the usefulness of an adequately planned (including the factoring-in of latent and induced demand) road scheme.

If you think that your "message needs to be retained", then you will need to find a reliable reference which gives that interpretation. -- de Facto (talk). 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)