Earl Aelfheah

Of course THEY (MetroCount) do because THEY are trying to sell their product at a time when more accurate tools are coming into the market. It doesn't mean it is true - it is a claim. A claim the likes of Aldred even challenge. But you claimed that: You do see this presumably? So you finally accept that the manufacturer does state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of (even slow moving) vehicles? Because you have been denying it over many, many posts.

So some great news. After 114 pages, we have reached something of a consensus concerning the work of Professor Rachel Aldred and her team. Previously Rockets and First Mate have rubbished her research, but have recently conceded over on the West Dulwich LTN Action Group thread, that she is indeed an expert, even citing her work personally. Below is a summary of some of the conclusions her work has reached across a series of studies, some London wide and others based on in-depth London borough research. We can now all agree that LTNs lead to: Their roads that are safer Their streets that are less dominated by traffic They have lower crime levels They benefit deprived areas and under-represented groups They have no adverse impact on fire service response times They are supported by the public They enable more active travel They lead to reduced car use They enable young people to be active# Links to all the studies here: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

It literally does not mean this. You've cut off the bit where is says: They literally state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles. So you also now accept her analysis (having previously rejected it, and her, as biased and unreliable)? This is great news. So both you and Rocks now accept the conclusions she reached, that LTNs help to reduce traffic?

Where have I u-turned exactly? And where have I lied about what you have said? Are you quite OK?

And there you go. You cited the manufacturer. You quoted the manufacturer as having said their equipment was inaccurate at counting slow moving vehicles (implying that their view was highly relevant). When confronted with the fact that they had not said what you claimed, in fact the exact opposite, you then suggest that the manufacturers view shouldn't be taken seriously. You must see how ridiculous this is? Are you really so incapable of just admitting an error. It's incredibly sad. Ha ha……oh my…. It's an entirely different matter to whether or not they said what you claimed they said. Something you perfectly well understand. I’m happy to discuss this point separately, but you’d then (with no sense of irony, having invited it) accuse me of deflection.

I haven’t deflected from the debate. Rockets claimed that the manufacturer of the ATCs had said something they haven’t. I just pointed out that what he said wasn’t true. It was Rockets who insisted on long, repeated exercises in deflecting, dissembling and distracting, rather than simply admit his mistake. I didn’t feel like letting the lie sit unchallenged. The manufacturer has explicitly said that their counters are very accurate at counting traffic volumes even under slow moving or congested conditions. Whether or not one should place weight on the word of the manufacturer is an entirely different matter. But it was Rockets, not me, who was citing them as someone who’s view was relevant / important.

I must admit, I have massively enjoyed your conversion to taking the "word of the likes of Rachel Aldred and people who actually know what they are talking about", in light of your numerous posts casting doubt on her credibility. Plus your quoting from a paper that you've previously rejected the conclusions of and rubbished as biased. But in case that doesn't break the irony meter, you have also previously criticised one of Rachel Aldred's team for using visual / manual counting to produce cycling data in relation to the Dulwich LTN. Saying that the 'counting methodology and timings' have been criticised. It's weird, don't you think, how you'll cite the manufacturers, and Rachel Aldred and her work, and the data they've collected, only where you think it aligns to something you already believe? And denounce them, as unreliable and lacking credibility in all other circumstances? Did you figure out what confirmation bias means in the end? I know you were struggling with it earlier.

The difference an hour makes: ...and back to: So close. Unless you've spent pages claiming that they've said something else, briefly acknowledge that they haven't, and then still seem to act like you've never misrepresented their position.

You were the one who suggested we should take their word for it, when you (falsely) claimed that they had stated the equipment didn't work at counting slow moving traffic. But at last you finally accept that the company have indeed said otherwise. It only took several pages of deflection for you to finally sneak that mealy mouthed climb down in.

Don't be silly. You're the one that started citing the manufacturer, claiming that they'd 'admitted' their products were inaccurate at counting slow moving vehicles. I'm just pointing out that they haven't said the things you claimed. It's funny how, as with Rachel Aldred, you’re happy to cite someone as a reliable and credible source only in so far as you think they may confirm something you already believe, or would like to believe, whilst rubbishing them the rest of the time. But whether a particular source (that you original quoted) is reliable or not, is of course, irrelevant. It really is just a case of you stating someone had said one thing, when they in fact they have said something else, and choosing to deflect and obfuscate rather than simply admit a mistake.

Which is also untrue. “MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions... It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy” It's really very sad that when you have claimed the manufacturer has said one thing and they are clearly on the record saying something else, that you can't just be man enough to admit a mistake.

You didn't claim that ATCs were imperfect, or that Rachel Aldred had said that ATCs were imperfect. What you did claim was that the manufacturer had 'admitted' that their ATCs were inaccurate at counting vehicles travelling under 10mph. “MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions... It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy” You often use this tactic - say something that is untrue or misleading and then try to change track and say 'that's not what we're discussing', meaning you're trying not to discuss it anymore. It's extremely transparent. Anyway, as you're clearly never going to correct the record, let me ask you this: Now that you have found that you do in fact value Rachel Aldred's expertise; The paper you’ve quoted from concludes that LTNs have a positive impact in reducing traffic. Can we assume that you accept that conclusion?

You said something that was untrue and you can't bring yourself to simply admit it. You've now switched track from making false claims about what the manufacturer has said about their own product, to quoting someone else (who you've previously mocked as lacking credibility.. quite unfairly I might add). It is you who are desperately trying to change the subject.

The paper concludes that LTNs have a positive impact in reducing traffic. So I assume that you accept that Rockets? Yes, the Rachel Aldred paper does not say they are inaccurate (”a small number of undetected errors should not bias the overall results"), simply that they are 'imperfect'. The manufacturer also acknowledges that their ATCs are imperfect, but states that they are still 'very accurate' (with accuracy exceeding 95%). All counting methods, including manual counting are imperfect. This is also completely irrelevant to your false claim about that the manufacturer has said they are inaccurate when they have in fact said the exact opposite.

So there you go. Claim the manufacturer has said one thing. Then when they are quoted saying the opposite, switch track. Irrelevant as it is to what you claimed the manufacturer has said, let’s look at the that paper. It concludes that LTNs have a positive impact in reducing traffic. Something that presumably you also accept now. Good news! You have selectively quoted from the bit of the paper discussing limitations, and which describe ATCs as ‘imperfect’. Had any other count method been used, including manual counts, the limitations of those methods would also have been discussed, because that's how academic analysis works, and all methods have limitations. All are imperfect. The section discussing limitations concludes: ”a small number of undetected errors should not bias the overall results". It does not say they are inaccurate (not to any degree that would substantially change the results), simply that they are 'imperfect'. The manufacturer also acknowledges that their ATCs are imperfect, but says that they are still very accurate (accuracy exceeding 95%). And then there is the fact that you have quoted from someone who you have repeatedly disparaged, and described as lacking credibility, but have admitted that you are wiling to accept as an expert only in so far as they say something you (mistakenly) think says something that backs up a completely different point that you've made about the manufacturer having 'admitted' something that they clearly have not. But fundamentally it’s all irrelevant. Your claim was about what the manufacturer had said in relation to their product and on that it is very clear that you are wrong and incapable of just admitted your error like a grown up.

The context of the report which discusses the strengths and limitations and concludes that on balance, there is good evidence that LTNs are effective in reducing traffic. Aldred does not validate your position in the slightest. Your position is that the manufacturers of ATCs have have 'admitted' that they can't count vehicles travelling under 10 mph.

You're deflecting as usual. You didn't claim that ATC's were imperfect. You claimed that the manufacturer had 'admitted' that they couldn't count vehicles travelling under 10 mph. Also, re. the quote above, this is under the 'strengths and Limitations' section. You are of course ignoring the strengths, and ignoring the wider conclusions of the review (which is supportive of LTNs); As usual focussing on a couple of lines stripped of their wider context. You have also admitted that you only care about comments Rachel Aldred makes where you believe they might align to a view you already hold. Look up what confirmation bias is.

That's not what confirmation bias means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Ok, one more time, with the relevant context. The Times article that you are quoting says: "The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”. [note these quotes have already been heavily edited down to two discontinuous three word snippets with commentary placed in between them by the Time's journalist; a journalist that has written well over 30 anti-LTN, anti-ulez articles, plus several about the 'war on motorists'] It explained: “Vehicles travelling very slowly might not be classified correctly, either the axle hits are too far apart so it splits them and places them into an unknown vehicle class, which doesn’t get included by default, or it attaches those axle hits to a vehicle in front or behind.” MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions because the axles passing are continuously recording. It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy" What this means is that in stop-start traffic you may have issues with vehicle classification, but they are still very accurate at counting traffic volumes (at least according to the manufacturer), which is how they're used to monitor the impact of LTNs. You keep highlighting a comment (already with context removed in the article) taking out the explanation which follows regarding classification versus volume / counts. You also completely ignor the most relevant part which directly addresses their view on the accuracy of vehicle counts: MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions... It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy Whether one should rely on what the manufacture says is a another question. Your claim was that they had 'admitted' that their product couldn't count vehicles travelling under 10mph, which again, for the avoidance of doubt, is clearly, demonstrably untrue. This is literally the definition of confirmation bias. You will rubbish her research, impugn her credibility, but only in so far as what she says doesn't conform to something you already believe, or want to believe. It shows that you are not a serious person.

You have repeatedly said that Rachel Aldred is biased, and rubbished her research findings. For what it's worth I think she is a highly credible expert, but it's ridiculous that you're now holding her up as someone whose opinion you value, when you've posted multiple time about how she's part of a pro-LTN conspiracy and totally unreliable.

Thanks for sharing. great pics. Amazing how few cars there are. Such a shame that the Crystal Palace isn't still standing.

😂 you’ve just done it again. Cut off the context which makes it clear that this is directly in relation to recording vehicle classifications. If you thought about it for just 1 second you’d also realise that it explains the adjustable default (the default they recommend changing depending on what you are looking to record). This is the most egregious case of confirmation bias, it’s actually embarrassing. You don’t have to ‘read between the lines’, or ‘interpret’ what is in the software manual. Firstly because read in context by anyone who has basic comprehension skills it’s obvious that it refers to recording vehicle class and to recording vehicle frequency, which are separate things. But even more obviously because the manufacturer has responded directly to the specific question that you claimed they’d answered one way, by answering the other. It doesn’t matter whether I ‘believe everything companies tell me’. You claimed that they had stated one thing (that their products don’t count vehicles travelling under 10mph), and they are absolutely clear that their equipment is very accurate in recording vehicle volumes under slow and congested traffic conditions. Exceeding 95% accuracy in fact. I can’t work out if you’re being cynical or you genuinely don’t understand it.

Well I am shocked that you did exactly what I said you would with that link. 🙄 Your latest quote "as with any axle-based classifier....vehicles should be free-flowing." confirms exactly the point I made above. If you're using it for vehicle classification then ideally vehicles should be free flowing. All you have done, again, is take something that applies to the collection of vehicle classification data and pretended that MetroCount have said it applies to the collection of traffic volume / vehicle count data. We don't have to wonder about what they think on this, because MetroCount have explicitly stated, that their ATC is: "..very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions" Again, you can play these games as much as you like, but MetroCount are absolutely clear about the accuracy of their equipment in recording vehicle volumes under slow and congested traffic conditions. Exceeding 95% accuracy. It's actually quite sad how determined you are to imply meaning and read between the lines in a lengthly software manual, whilst ignoring what they've said, really, really specifically and clearly on the matter being discussed.

Here’s a link to the manual that explains how MetroCount's software works, how one can change settings and analyse the results - fill your boots. It’s pretty long so no doubt you’ll find a line or two that you can quote out of context to try and calm your cognitive dissonance. If you want to know what the manufacturer has to say specifically about the accuracy of their product in counting vehicles which are slow moving however, then I’ll help you out:

The have different setting so you can measure different things 🤦‍♂️. In the case of LTNs what they're measuring is traffic volumes. You are arguing that they’ve said their devices are inaccurate for counting vehicles which are slow moving, when they have said in writing that they are very accurate. Even you must see how ridiculous that position is.