Earl Aelfheah

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.

You have repeatedly questioned the credibility of Rachel Aldred! Funny how you quote her as an authoritative source when it suits you. And yes, they are (like all methods of counting vehicle volumes, including manual counting) imperfect. That is not to say that they are not still highly accurate - probably still in excess of 95% accuracy eh? And just to remind you, what you claimed wasn't that ATCs were imperfect. You claimed that the manufacturer had 'admitted' that they were inaccurate at counting vehicles travelling under 10mph.

Again, stripped of context. Again, exactly as I suspected when you first tried that ham fisted slight of hand, the quote, like the other one you tried to misrepresent, relates to vehicle classification. It's true that Andrew Ellson has also tried to conflate classifciation and volume accuracy / sow some ambiguity in how he's cut that quote (he is famously anti-ulez and anti-LTN, having posted over 30 articles attacking both just since the one you have cut and pasted). In context however it is still relatively clear: 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. Your attempt to use something they've said in relation to the collection of vehicle classification data and then claim that they've said it in relation to the collection of traffic volume / vehicle count data (when they have addressed the issue of traffic volume accuracy, separately and explicitly) is embarrassingly transparent. Once more, for the record: ..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

Again, your quote about stop start conditions refers to classification. You can try and spin things as much as you like but the manufactures are unambiguous about the accuracy of their equipment in recording vehicle volumes under slow and congested traffic conditions.

So exactly as I suspected. You are talking about vehicle classifications (that is determining the type of motor vehicle): “Vehicles travelling very slowly might not be classified correctly" MetroCount have explicitly stated that when it comes to volumes (i.e. the count of the number of motor vehicles) that ATCs are "very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions" They state that for traffic volumes, accuracy exceeds 95%. This is completely at odds with what you have claimed the manufacturer has said.

So exactly as I suspected originally, you (and rather misleadingly the Times article) have conflated classifications of vehicle type with volume / count data. MetroCount have explicitly stated that when it comes to volumes that ATCs are "very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions" They state that for traffic volumes, accuracy exceeds 95%. This does not remotely fit with your statement that “The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) ”

Wow, that's a very long winded self own. Well done. So in summary, you've stated that “The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) ” ..and then in defence of this claim, quoted the manufacturer: "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"

The claim that traffic counters don’t work with slow moving vehicles springs from a genuine (and quickly corrected) error in the use of traffic counter software that took place in Enfield. The RSU software manual states that: “The speed filter excludes vehicles outside the specified range. The default range is 10 to 160km/h or 10 to 100 mph. This may need to be changed for sites with an expectation of significant numbers outside of this range” Enfield failed to change the software’s default setting and so excluded vehicles which were travelling below 10 mph in their analysis of vehicle counts (they would also have missed any travelling over 100). When this error was spotted, they were able to easily re-analyse the data by changing the lower limit and running the reports again through the software. Note: this increased the number of vehicles counted. Inevitably this was grabbed on to by those who had no interest in the reanalysed counts, instead using it to make the following claims: that the oversight was deliberate and had been used as a tactic to show drops where there were none and to hide or minimise increases in traffic that ATCs cannot count slow vehicles that where the same technology showed increases at some sites using the same methods, that this was accurate and should be given significant weight Obviously the three assertions are totally incompatible with each other / logically inconsistent. But when you’re just looking for ways to prove your point, it doesn’t really matter – it’s just about kicking up dust (a tactic regularly and cynically on display across this thread). To answer your question, no, I don't care whether you manage to track down a recommendation on the ideal conditions for installing ATCs. Nor am I demanding (like you) a 'grovelling apology". I'm merely asking for a correction. You claimed that: “The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) ” Yet MetroCount when asked about the Enfield 'controversy' by the Times, stated on the record that their counters are: “very accurate for traffic volumes even in very slow and congested traffic conditions”

Again, no link to that quote. I suspect it's related specifically to vehicle classifications. Any chance you could share it? MetroCount says that their counters are "very accurate for traffic volumes, even in slow and congested traffic conditions". Absolutely nowhere do they say that they do not count vehicles travelling under 10mph. In fact quite the opposite - they claim 99% accuracy. You can't just state things that aren't true and then say 'agree to disagree'.

You have pasted a line with no context, and no link. I would love to know how long you had to search to try and find a single sentence which you could misrepresent as supporting your claim. They don't have a filter for sub-10km/h readings. You can set a lower limit (because you may want to count the number of vehicles travelling over a certain speed). It is defaulted to 10km/h, but can be adjusted. Absolutely no where do they state that they can't measure vehicles travelling at a lower speed. Their website claims 99% accuracy and links to independent tests from which they draw this conclusion. When asked about the false claims that you've repeated, The Times reported that "MetroCount says that their counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even in slow and congested traffic conditions, and that accuracy routinely approaches 99% or higher under normal free-flow circumstances". Your claims that pneumatic counters are wildly inaccurate and count high traffic as low traffic (sounds ridiculous even as I type that), are nonsense.

... Ogmios School of Zen Motoring -

You claimed that: and that: Metrocounts website states that: You have linked to a document which does not in any way state that they can't count vehicles that travel under 10mph. This claim has been widely debunked. It is not true. To state that an increase in vehicle counts is an increase, but that a decrease in vehicle counts is also an increase in traffic is ridiculous. Even you must be able to see just how ridiculous.

Right. So absolutely no evidence evidence of the manufacturer saying that they can’t monitor vehicles travelling under 10mph. Is that perhaps because it's not true?

Claims that they can't count vehicles which are travelling less than 10mph aren’t true. You can set a minimum speed default, as well as defaults for the class of vehicle you want to count etc. It all depends on what you're measuring and happens at the software level. This anti LTN ‘talking point’ started (like many of these things’ with a kernel of truth. In Enfield, there was an error made because they forgot to reset the default speed minimum (which was set to 10mph). This was spotted and the data re-analysed / corrected, but of course, it was used by those looking to undermine any and all data on the impacts of LTNs (a reaction which itself tells you something). If you have evidence of the manufacturer saying that they can’t monitor vehicles travelling under 10mph let’s see the sources please.

Of course… if the data shows an increase in the vehicles counted, it’s an increase. If it shows a decrease in the vehicles counted, it’s because they’re moving slower and also an increase 🙄

This is nonsense. As previously discussed

I've been wondering the same thing. The works seem to have taken a very long time. Found this just now on the Southwark website: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/highways-defects-and-improvement-maintenance/bridges-subways-and-walls?chapter=3 ... so sounds like another month at least.

We are also missing some birthday cards that we know were sent and never turned up. I 100% do not trust our local postal service

Just received a first class letter that’s stamped 13th September 🙄

The absolute state of this thread.

You may notice infractions by people travelling on bicycle more readily than the endemic law breaking by people driving cars, but this is partly because the latter has become so normalised and partly because of your obvious confirmation bias / inability to reflect rationally for even a minute. There are numerous studies which look at this objectively and all conclude that there is no difference in the instances of rule breaking (in fact most show that people are generally more compliant on bicycles). For example, the DfT believes that 85% of drivers regularly break the speed limit in 20 mph zones. Phone use behind the wheel is common place, as are many other offences. And most relevant of all, is the impact of bad behaviours on others. It is absolutely ridiculous to imply that cycling (as I've said above, one of the most benign forms of transport) is some sort of unique menace on our roads. If you genuinely believe this, then you are really not paying attention to road traffic accident statistics. There are tens of thousands of deaths or serious injuries every year on our roads. They are not caused by bicycles.

To suggest that the majority of people are uniquely anti-social when they travel by bicycle is nonsense (you don't have to believe me, there is plenty of research which shows people are no more likely to break the rules when they are travelling on a bike than by car). Using a bike is one of the most benign choices you could possibly make when it comes to getting around, bar walking. It creates minimal pollution, takes up little space, doesn't cause the thousands of deaths and serious injuries that motor vehicles do each year, and improves ones fitness / general health (which collectively reduces strain on the health service). Your post perfectly demonstrates what is so tedious about all the 'anti-bicylce' threads; full of basic prejudice and poor thinking (confirmation bias and group attribution errors).

Great post Malumbu. Agree with your points. There are people who are anti-social and we need to address anti-social behaviour, which includes times when it takes place by someone travelling on a bicycle. I don't subscribe to the 'cyclists are a scourge' narrative. For one thing it's patently nonsense (if we're talking the dangers posed to others in terms of ones choice of transport, cycling is about the most benign choice possible, after walking) and for another it's a classic case of group attribution error. You just wouldn't say there are people on foot who are mugging people in the street, therefore we need to crack down on pedestrians. It's so obviously ridiculous - and yet that's the logic that many of these really basic, 'bicycles bad' threads adopt.

What's 'recommended'?

Thanks, that's interesting. I had a feeling it must have been late 60's / early 70's.