Rockets

Yup, and your point is what exactly as what we are saying amplifies that and validates the point of this thread. Selfish drivers and driving doesn't magically go away if you put in a school street. It just moves to another street which is the very point the OP was, in part, making. Again. Commonsense. Just by putting in an intervention of any kind does not magically fix a problem. It shifts it somewhere else. All they succeed in doing is managing the symptoms not the cause. Has anyone bothered to look into why so many schools have a problem with this? I very often see people parking on Court Lane, well out of sight from anyone at the school, and decamping kids on bikes and scooters to wheel the last bit to Dulwich Hamlet school - no doubt to try and convince their friends that they no longer use a car to get their offspring to school!

No, too many motor vehicles for a road is the cause of congestion. What people are saying is if you force more cars down fewer roads and that leads to congestion then pollution will increase. Again - commonsense. And if the tools you are deploying to discourage cars journeys are leading to more congestion then the whole exercise has been pointless. Again - commonsense. Closing streets to traffic during school hours only works if people stop using their cars. If they don't then you are moving the cars from one street to another and are increasing congestion. Again - commonsense.

No but it does if those people who insist on driving less than a mile are spending more of that time in congestion - does it not? That appears to be pretty commonsense.

Ha ha ha......we all can see what you do......you do it all the time and your quotation marks get-me-out of-jail card is laughable. I have been very clear why I have a problem with activist researchers being touted as impartial. I, and many other, have a problem with that. You don't. We will never agree. C'est la vie. I just refer you to what @Penguin68 said in the FOI responses thread. Clearly someone who has a lot more experience of research than you or I and someone who clearly knows what they are talking about.....I think that pretty much rests our case for the prosecution!

I didn't use the word corrupt. You said I did. You're putting words into people's mouths again. But the worm is turning and people are finally seeing through the deliberately misleading noise and starting to challenge councils on their plans. I think more LTNs have been blocked, delayed or removed in recent times - why? Because the wider public are increasingly aware of the games the councils, authorities and active travel lobbyists have been playing for years. Remember when people said it was a "small vocal minority" who opposed these changes - well that has obviously changed else councils would not be doing U-turn after U-turn.

But these are numbers the London Assembly has "thrown around" so maybe speak to them. They used it as a catalyst to discuss what was causing the congestion in London and there is a whole thread on the output from that London Assembly meeting so maybe refer to that.

Especially when their careers in their current party come to a grinding halt!

Err, are you saying that the Greens are not a political rival to Labour? Funny how those convictions only come to light when many politicians don't get what they want....do you honestly think that Cllr McAsh would have defected had he been allowed to lead Southwark council? Absolutely 1000% not.

@Sue of course it matters - 100% it matters. He was an elected official who asked the electorate to entrust the running of a local ward to him as a Labour councillor, under Labour's mandate. He also held a senior position within the Labour local leadership team. Suddenly he leaves and jumps to a political rival and gives his previous political party both barrels. This is why many people distrust all politicians and things like this just goes to confirm that.

Ha ha, @ianr maybe I am more sceptical towards politicians than others as my dad insisted I watched Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister and read Private Eye in my younger years! It opened my eyes to politicians and how they will flip flop to suit their own personal goals! One does wonder if Cllr McAsh would have made the same "principled" jump to the Greens if he had not had his Labour career knee-capped by Labour HQ over the leadership of the council.....

Hallelujah! The penny finally drops! And this very much part of the game...get a Dr. of something to do it and the masses will believe it is impartial. The drugs and FMCG industries had a big problem with this in the 2000s....many of them commissioned research from "rent a result" Dr's from Russia who would tell you what you wanted to hear for the right price.

Ah that was it.... When you realise politicians are only ever in it for themselves then everything starts to make sense.

Aren't most marxists radical by default...and he was a self proclaimed marxist on his twitter feed for years but deleted it as I suspect it did not sit well at Labour HQ. The big worry for Labour might be that he takes votes away from them (but not enough for him to win a seat) especially as there may be a significant protest vote against them at the national level as they are making such a pig's ear of things. I suspect though Labour are glad to see the back of him - to say he was a thorn in their side is an understatement and his loss of the leadership of the council was clearly part of the purge Labour has been embarking on to rid itself of some of the far-left lunatic fringe that have blighted them for so long. The Greens of course are willingly take any disaffected far-left Labour rejects in the same way Reform are hovvering up the lunatic elements of the Tories. The fact he went in with both barrels on Labour is hardly surprisingly but wonderfully hypocritical of someone who thought they were about to lead a Labour council. My how politicians flip-flop to suit their own personal agenda. How long before he falls out with the Greens...where to then? Why do I think he had an affiliation with the Greens before he became a Labour councillor? Or did I imagine that?

But you can clearly see which poster is being removed so did that answer your question? And it is all very premeditated as she stops on the first attempt because someone comes in the shop and disturbs her. Not the actions of someone who can claim any impartiality after that and she tarnished every piece of work her name is associated with on LTNs as a result.

You mean when Aldred referred to them as innovative when she was awarded the funding to research them....impartially? See the announcement below and her quote. https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/university-of-westminster-to-lead-major-ps15m-new-study-on-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london