Earl Aelfheah

.

Yes. The difference there is that what you've posted is a meme. I'm pointing out a well studied concept in psychology, concerning cognitive bias. Probably the same though - Like someone's opinion on the methodological flaws of an academic paper they haven't read, and those of the independent experts who have taken part in the peer review process, prior to it's publication. The same.

Whooosh That's right. It's almost as though dismissing people whose views you disagree with as 'lobbyists' is just being cynical.

Oh it's absolutely confirmation bias. Have a look at the diagram above if it helps.

See how easy that is?

This is exactly the kind of position I would expect you to take as part of the fossil fuel lobby.

The only fair conclusion to draw from a piece of peer reviewed academic research, published in one of the worlds' most prestigious journals and that you haven't read, is that it's flawed. Really? Based on what exactly? Confirmation bias: People's tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional, and it results in a person ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. I am loath to spoon feed people who have already made it very clear that they have no interest in objectively assessing the research, seeing as they've already dismissed it on the basis of nothing but prejudice (having unashamedly admitted to not having read it... the fact that they can't see any issue with their blatant confirmation bias, is actually beyond embarrassing). Here is the dataset on LTNs however: https://blog.westminster.ac.uk/ata/projects/london-ltn-dataset/ ... I look forward to the tin hat explanation about how, remarkably, it somehow proves what you already believed! What a co-incidence! They included data on all road links (sections of road between two junctions) in London. Across the years 2012–2024, some road links became inside an LTN or became part of an LTN boundary road, while others did not and remained in a control group. The analysis estimated the before-versus-after change in injury numbers after the implementation of each LTN, using the control group to adjust for background changes in injury numbers over time. They observed significant decreases in injuries within the LTNS and no commensurate increase outside of them. In absolute terms, the study concluded, this meant that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury. They also looked at roads which had been part of an LTN, but where it had been removed. In total, 331 injuries, including 44 'killed or seriously injured' events, were observed on roads in a former LTN that had been removed. They estimate that 116 fewer injuries, including 16 fewer KSIs, would have been expected to occur if the removed LTNs had instead been retained. It's a really thorough, multi-year, London-wide study. It's been peer reviewed (which means it has been assessed by other, independent experts in the same field before being accepted for publication, to ensure the quality, validity and originality of the research). The findings are pretty conclusive: LTNs improve road safety.

I don't 'lobby' for active travel measures. I do take the view that people exercising more would be a good thing - which presumably is something you would also advocate? Does that also make you an 'lobbyist'? You also know exactly why Rocket's repeatedly dismisses opinions he disagrees with as those of 'lobbyists'. It's not very subtle and you're not stupid. If I repeatedly dismissed anyone with different views to my own as part of the fossil fuel lobby, would you think that was good faith rhetoric?

I don't see why I should respond to an endless array of questions from people who have already decided that the methodology must be flawed, without having read the paper. Please, Google 'confirmation bias'.

When you refer to someone expressing an opinion on a local parking scheme as one of 'the active travel lobbyists', it is very clear what you are doing. You are not engaging with a view that has been expressed by an individual, you're trying to imply that they are part of an organised (yet undeclared) group of 'campaigners'. It's a way of insinuating that their opinion is not their own, but that they are part of a wider agenda. It's really transparent and often used tactic by conspiracy minded populists and internet trolls. And the fact that when challenged, you tried to deflect by subtly changing your own words to say: ... You didn't say they 'act like active travel lobbyists'. You said they were active travel lobbyists. And now you're again playing semantics. I'm fed up with these constant bad faith tactics.

If you're going to accuse people of being lobbyists (which suggests that they're part of an organisation), then you need to say which organisation they are part of and provide evidence. Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more lobbyist /ˈlɒbɪɪst/ noun a person who takes part in an organized attempt to influence legislators.

This is actually ridiculous. Pay for the paper. Read the article. Then comment. That's how it works. You take in the information, you use your critical faculties to assess it, then form a view, and if you want, share it. If you don't want to pay for propriety material, then you really only have two options: 1) steal it, or; 2) have others steal it for you. Apparently you're offended by the very suggestion of the former, whilst effectively demanding the latter (asking for it to be illegally distributed via the forum). I don't advocate intellectual property theft to be clear. I suggest that you pay for it, read it and then comment on it.

I'm not subscribed to a paid-for service to 'receive Anna Goodman' reports. I'm subscribed to the BMJ. I actually have a general subscription which give me access to a number of academic journals. This is nonsense. I have criticised the council many times. This is just another example of your binary mindset. You can agree with the council on some things and not others. It's not a football match. One can use their critical faculties to come to judgements on individual matters (I know, it's a radical concept). These are not remotely the same things. Saying someone is a lobbyist, suggests that they are part of and (by implication) acting on behalf of an organisation. It implies a hidden agenda. Saying someone has an opinion that they've openly expressed is hardly the same thing. I would ask you what organisation you are accusing me of 'lobbying' on behalf of and where your evidence for this is (again, I know the idea of evidencing your statements, or even attempting too is 'radical', but see if you can try). Nope. Very happy to listen to other opinions, but not to indulge an individual who is clearly acting in bad faith.

I mean yes. If you read the article, he's actually talking about bad road behaviour generally. He also says the “antagonism” between cyclists and motorists portrayed on social media was “not representative of real life”. I agree with him. Unfortunately as flagged by Penguin, some people do seem to be fed (and then unhelpfully post on this website), every single article or opinion piece with a headline that is negative in tone about people using bicycles - seeing it as some sort of football match, between two 'sides'.

Here we go. You didn't say they 'act like active travel lobbyists'. You said they were active travel lobbyists. Well I'm asking you to spell out exactly who on this forum you're accusing of being an active travel lobbyist? What organisation do they work for and where is your evidence?

‘Perhaps’ 🙄. It’s nothing to do with LCC being consulted alongside a number of other stakeholder groups. The insinuation (it’s always innuendo and weasel words, never straightforward), as you well know, is that commentators on this forum (basically anyone with a different opinion), are part of a co-ordinated lobbying organisation. It’s a really transparent attempt to dismiss people’s views as not their own, but as part of some undeclared, organised campaign group. I’m fed up of these types of tactics. Engage with the substance. @Rockets if you want to accuse posters on here of something, be a big boy and spell it out, so that they may respond. Don't be so cowardly. I'm so sick of these rhetorical tactics, constant unevidenced claims, doubling down on false statements when challenged, deflections, insinuations etc. There is just no substance to any of it. It's all just an endless 5 year grievance.

Who are these active travel lobbyists, and what is the lobbying activity you’re suggesting they’ve taken part in?

This is really unhelpful. Who are these 'active travel lobbyists'? Is it just anyone with a different opinion to you? Should everyone start referring to 'inactive travel lobbyists'? Why not just engage with substance of what people say?

The highway code puts it like this:

Both you and Rockets keep demanding that I illegally distribute propriety material for free on this forum. It's a paid for article as has been stated repeatedly. 👇 I'm not giving you any more help. Do the work, formulate your thoughts, and then share your view.

I didn't say this though. You can keep doubling down, but it's a straight forward lie. The quote you have produced (having scoured the forum, desperately trying to wiggle out of simply admitting an error - heaven forbid that you should ever do that), was: "Dulwich Review Consultation Report (August 2021) 55 per cent supported the aims set out in its ‘Streets for People’ initiative". This is not a false assertion. It is a fact. You've also quoted me as saying 'the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable'. Also not a quote from me / completely untrue. And why did you make up these quotes / try to misrepresent things I said on completely different threads? - to deflect from legitimate challenges as to how you’d concluded some research was 'propaganda' and 'statistical jiggery pokery', without having read it. It's not about differences in opinion. These are bad faith tactics used repeatedly - say something that has no basis, and when questioned deflect / change the conversation, often with other misleading statements or personal attacks. It's just 'flooding the zone'. It’’s embarrassing.

Not sure I've posted random opinion pieces on 'cycling'. I do point to data and research in support of my positions. That's because I believe in reading available evidence before forming an opinion (rather than forming an opinion and then trying to take apart opposing evidence to prove a prejudice). I don't live in an echo chamber where I'm being fed 'culture war' stories concerning 'bikes vs cars', which I strongly suspect some are, and as Penguin implied. Most of what you post is unevidenced opinions, or just objectively false assertions. For example, claims that LTNS increase pollution, or increase road danger.

I didn't say the policy itself was necessarily negative. I pointed out that Rockets seems to dig out every article related to bicycles with a slightly negative tone. The fact that you say it should 'serve as a wake up call', kind of makes my point. It is very clear to me that (as inferred by Penguin), some people are deep in a social media rabbit hole and being served up content that is driving some of the behaviours we see across this thread. ...being those where they treat the simple act of travelling by bicycle as some sort of culture war issue.

Right. It 'undermines my position' to have read the paper before commenting. But it doesn't undermine ones position to critique it without having read it? Are you OK? It's a paid for article / not mine to share for free. I've already responded in detail to Penguins baseless speculation about the methodology (again, he clearly hasn't read it). I'm sure Admin would quickly remove it if I did illegally distribute propriety content on the forum. If you want it for free, go and steal a copy from your local research library. I'm not helping you.

You don’t even read the scientific papers you ‘critique’ 🤣 The circumstances are those where you get your ‘news’ from Facebook