Earl Aelfheah

After already dismissing it as ‘propaganda and statistical jiggery pokery’ and suggesting it should be ‘filed accordingly’. A bit late to pretend you care about an objective assessment of the methodology. You’re fooling absolutely nobody.

Jazzer trying to pretend like his compadre’s ‘contributions’ aren’t transparently, objectively, 🐎 💩 Dismissing a peer reviewed academic paper as ‘propaganda’ and ‘statistical jiggery pokery’ without having read it. 🤣 Caught making up quotes (posting the evidence himself 🙄) in a desperate attempt to change the subject after being called out. …and then *back to earnest face* hey, I’m just asking questions, I really have an open mind …but I still haven’t read the paper so someone who has is going to have to help me try and find how it might be flawed. 😬🤣 Give us a break.

@Rockets If you want to critique the paper seriously, you’re going to have to read it. If you just want to say it’s wrong and then ask me to help you try and prove your prejudice, I’m not interested.

You don't like the conclusions and so are attempting to critique the methodology without having read it? I'm loath to engage with criticism based on nothing but prejudice, but if it helps (it definitely won't): ...they included 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. 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. 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. It's a really thorough, multi-year, London-wide study. The findings are pretty conclusive: LTNs improve road safety.

Not how search engines work, but social media, yes. It would partially explain the rabbit hole. As Sue points out, it seems wholly impractical and I am very confident that it won't happen.

Do you have some sort of alert set for any story or article concerning bicycles that is slightly negative in tone, or do you just spend a lot of time searching the internet for them?

No it’s not. It’s about one individual repeatedly diverting any discussion about roads or transport, regardless of what it is, back to a road filter introduced in Dulwich 5 years ago. By all means discuss it, but let the rest of us discuss other things, without constantly being forced to relitigate a half a decade old grievance that's not changing. We've already heard all the talking points, many of which are simply untrue (for example baseless claims about increased danger and air pollution, conspiracies around shadowy lobbies etc). You literally responded to a post pointing out some interesting research with: And followed it up with a claim that it was: ...without even reading it. So don't claim you are just asking honest questions. And of course, when this irrational and unhelpful 'contribution' was questioned, you immediately tried to deflect, falsely quoting me more than once whilst also accusing others of It's the usual bad faith contribution, sprinkled with deflection and dishonesty. The thread was about some interesting and very credible research and you've just diverted yet another thread so that you can rail against shadowy lobbies and bore on about a road filter introduced in Dulwich 5 years ago.

I don't know. Who took a thread on the latest research showing a clear and significant drop in accidents and injuries following the implementation of LTNs, rubbished it without even reading it, and then having embarrassed themselves, quickly deflected the conversation onto whether or not there was majority support for the Dulwich LTN (via some false quotes)? It's almost as though this is a repeated pattern, by someone who makes it impossible to discuss roads and transport without using it as an opportunity to return to their monomaniacal obsession over a 5 year old road filter.

For goods under £200, shoplifting is treated as a summary offense and is often dealt with through fines or community service. Changes were made to the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42492488 Shoplifting is a massive problem right now. It's at the highest levels ever recorded according to the OfS.

Excited about this. Hope they’re the ones to finally make that site work.

Wearing a balaclava and hood in 30 degree heat should certainly be grounds for police to stop and search / question you. If it’s not grounds for suspicion I don’t know what is.

Wow. What a sad response. Maybe get that Lordship Pain treated - might help you find your sense of humour.

So nothing? Almost as though the usual monomaniac has made some silly comments and when called out on them, sent things wildly off topic through a series of deflections. 🥱

What’s the next set of local elections got to do with reductions in injury rates resulting from LTNs?

You’re not kidding 🤣

This is a matter of fact. 55 per cent of those surveyed did say they supported the aims set out in Southwark’s ‘Streets for People’ initiative. I assume you’re not claiming otherwise? It’s also not what you quoted me as saying. You do understand that right? ‘Doh!’ Indeed. I love that you’ve scoured the forum looking for a quote that you’ve misremembered and repeatedly misquoted, and then in desperation posted it anyway hoping no one notices. 🤣 Yeh ‘just asking honest questions’. You’re obviously open minded about research you described as “LTN propaganda derived from statistical jiggery pokery” without having read it. And of course, it isn’t just people calling out your bad faith nonsense, it has to be a shadowy ‘active travel lobby’. This is just conspiracy nonsense as usual. …and still no attempt to provide any evidence for your claims regarding congestion, pollution or road safety. Just the usual deflection.

@Rockets So just to recap: You've questioned the credibility of a peer reviewed academic paper that you haven't read. You've claimed, offering no evidence at all, that: LTNS increase congestion and pollution That the filtered junction with Dulwich Village is now more dangerous for pedestrians than previously, ...and insinuated that crime is up due to 'the road closures'. And you've railed against 'putting words in people's mouths' whilst repeatedly quoting me as saying things I have not. It's embarrassing. I don't even think you believe half the stuff you say. No. There are clearly legitimate areas were people may disagree, or may interpret things differently. That is not 'manipulating the truth'. It's an issue of whether someone is engaging in good faith. As Rockets has perfectly demonstrated over and over again, but most recently on this thread, that is not what he is doing.

This is not a quote from me. I did not say that. This is a quote from you however:

The I know you are but what am I retort. Amazing

On one 'side' there is a wealth of data and high quality research. On the other there is someone repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims, many of which are demonstrably untrue.

You haven't. I asked you to share the data that led you to assert and / or insinuate that LTNs increase traffic, pollution, road danger and crime? Of course you cannot do this, because there is none. At the same time, you question the credibility of peer reviewed academic research, without reading it, pretending to care about upholding the highest standards of data analysis and inquiry. You criticise people you claim have put words in others mouths, but do exactly that yourself. You will no doubt have strong evidence to back up the claim that the junction is now more dangerous for pedestrians than previously: ...that there has been an increase in crime: ...and that pollution and congestion is made worse by LTNs:

So it matters what is in the paper. You've been arguing about what's in the paper. But you haven't read the paper? I see.

Does it matter what’s in the paper? You’ve already concluded it lacks credibility without even reading it. I don’t believe anyone thinks you’ll be open to changing your mind after you have. I’m not going to spoon feed you. If you want to read it, pay for it. I didn’t say this. This is untrue. This is not a quote from me. Again, I did not say this.

So you haven’t read the paper? As usual you’ve an existing belief and are looking for information you can interpret (rightly or wrongly) in ways that align with it. And I assume this isn’t going to be forthcoming.

I don’t need to tell you what I ‘think I said’. The beauty of the forum is that it’s recorded. And I’m not playing your usual game of ‘shift the burden of proof’. Obviously I can’t show where I haven’t said the things I haven’t said. You show me where I have said the things you’ve falsely claimed I have (even putting them in quotation marks). I have a subscription. The more interesting question is how have you concluded the research is invalid when you haven’t even read it? Being ‘data led’ is not the slight you think it is. You’ve made some wild claims with zero evidence and are criticising high quality research, questioning the conclusions without even reading it. Aren’t you embarrassed?