Earl Aelfheah

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.

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 🙄