Earl Aelfheah

He's started another thread because he's a monomaniac.

The 'crystal roof' website I quoted from uses the same data (metropolitan police statistics). The quoted trends are for the postcode. I just caveated it a little because I'm not sure that you can say too much about such a small area (as overall numbers are so small that a couple of crimes can skew things). But all in all, there is nothing in any of the available data or research (imperfect as that will always be) to back up the claim (completely unevidenced) that the Local LTN has increased crime. I'm not talking about 'narratives'. I'm talking about available data. Some general, some more specific.

I agree. But the research that has been done, suggests that LTNs generally reduce crime. Of course that doesn't mean that it's necessarily true universally of specifically, but in the absence of any recorded increase in crime (in fact most police stats at least suggesting crime is falling) and the aforementioned evidence from other areas where similar interventions have been studied, I'm not sure why one would assume crime has gotten worse as the result of the local LTN. I'm suspicious of anecdote, leading to speculation on an effect, followed by an assertion of causation.

The crime rate has dropped every year since 2020 according to the 'crystal roof' website (which analyses crime stats by postcode). Centred on postcode SE21 7DG it shows crime rates as follows: 2020: 100 2021: 75.9 2022: 66.9 2023: 50.8 It doesn't include stats for 2024 yet. Not sure how accurate this is for a small area in reality. But suggests that the wider area is seeing a fall in crime.

This is uncontroversial (except for those who are ideologically opposed to any measures they consider 'anti-car'). No one wants LTNs for the sake of it. Certainly not where there is evidence that they might make thing worse. The data that was collected and published on the Dulwich LTN specifically however, did show a reduction in traffic and an increase in active travel. There isn't any reliable data on emissions, and I suspect the shifts are too small to have any significant impact on emissions one way or the other. Together with other policies however (for example the ULEZ and wider measures to encourage more active travel), there is evidence that air quality is improving in London.

So I'm confused. The manufacturer has 'of course' said that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles, even in slow moving traffic. Or they have very specifically 'admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph)'?

You still don't understand what confirmation bias is do you? Over on the other thread, just to remind you, you said: I don't believe I have ever claimed that you had 'validated' her research. I don't believe for one second that you have such expertise. I believe I said that you had conceded that she is indeed an expert (or at least 'someone who knows what they are talking about), even citing her work personally. I think you'll find that this is true, but feel free to point out where I am lying. So to clarify, you do think she knows what she's talking about, but you disagree with the conclusions of all (?) of her published research?

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