Earl Aelfheah

@legalalien It?s not that confusing. Look at scopus. It gives details of publications and the journals they?ve been published in, (as well as h-index and citations if you?re interested). You can see that Professor Aldred has well over 25 peer reviewed articles. https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=24068404200 It does matter a lot in academia by the way, as Heartblock will well know. It is completely out of order to impugn someone?s academic credentials by misleading others over their outputs. It is not the same thing as critiquing the research itself, which is of course entirely legitimate. As for implying that someone?s research conclusions are being manipulated to meet the needs of a funder, that is an accusation of research misconduct and about as serious as it gets in HE. I wouldn?t have made such a big thing about it, but he?s insisted on doubling down and I really do think it?s time he retracted his comments. I won?t say anymore because it?s boring. But hope he will do the right thing and correct the record.

legalalien Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I just googled and it?s confusing, either 50+ or > 25+ > > https://roadsafetygb.org.uk/cyclingevent/index.php > /programme/rachel-aldred/ > > https://www.roadsafetytrust.org.uk/trustees/dr-rac > hel-aldred > > But given peer review seems to be such an > amorphous concept and vary across disciplines does > it really make a difference? ?No .... she does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? papers? I cannot deal with inaccurate scientific academic reporting. There are articles and there are peer reviewed articles, I speak as a scientist with many international peer reviewed papers. Also I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel.?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets is Rockets...ha ha not sure quite how to > take that.... > > Anyway, what many people struggle with in respect > to Rachel Aldred is that she led policy for the > London Cycling Campaign, which has been > instrumental to lobbying councils for LTNs, and > now writes research reports, many of which are > funded by TFL or organisations set up by TFL, > that tell everyone how good LTNs are. > > That is a glaring and obvious conflict of > interest. So if TFL commissions independent academic research it?s automatically compromised? What are you talking about? You don?t want them to fund research into transport in London? In truth, you are questioning her probity and effectively accusing her of research misconduct. Make a proper complaint if you believe it and present the evidence that she has acted improperly so that it can be investigated, instead of the online smears and innuendo. Heartblock has denied that she is an academic with over 25 peer reviewed papers, (in response to a general thread questioning her credentials). As someone who claims to be an academic of some standing and who has implored others not to attack the person, but to look at the data, it?s actually outrageous. I invited him to simply acknowledge that he has made a misleading statement about another?s academic output. But he insists first on doubling down and repeating it, then trying to reframe his accusation in a way tagt is quite disingenuous, and lastly has tried to deflect and ?move on?. It?s not good enough.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Shall we keep on topic about local LTNs? Maybe > someone could explain the EDAus why their road is > now the driveway and parking area for Melbourne's > Waitrose and Ocado deliveries? Perhaps you should acknowledge that you have made an entirely false statement about another persons Academic output first.

cidolphus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rahrahrah > Considering that your source article (Wikipedia) > was created by none other than Rachel Aldred > herself then it lack as certain credibility. > > She is quite clearly a lady with a certain agenda. I have no idea what this means. What Wikipedia article?

@heartblock Just to remind you. Rockets, claiming that cycling in London has been in decline over recent years 🙄, said: ??Rather than Wikipedia or (ahem, cycle lobbyist) Rachel Aldred I am sourcing my (up-to-date) info from TFL.? I pointed out in response, that ?Rachel Aldred is a Professor in Transport at the University of Westminster with over 25 peer reviewed papers.? Rockets continued to question her credibility and to make insinuations regarding her funding, and then said: ??I can't stand another discussion on what awaiting peer review means.....? I repeated that: ?She has over 25 peer reviewed papers. They're not 'awaiting peer review'.? And then you chipped in with: ?No .... she does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? papers? I cannot deal with inaccurate scientific academic reporting. There are articles and there are peer reviewed articles, I speak as a scientist with many international peer reviewed papers. Also I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel.? Rockets is Rockets. But you claim to be an academic. You?ve made a big show of your status as a scientist, mocking others for their lack of analytical rigour. I don?t think it is right for you to keep doubling down on minimising Professor Alfred?s output, or the inference that her funding is somehow dodgy. You?re now trying to pretend that the claim was that Professor Aldred has published 25 peer reviewed papers specifically on LTNs. It?s not very subtle. This is not what was claimed. You were denying her academic output in an attempt to undermine her credibility, along with Rockets.

I?m sorry Heartblock, but I am just not going to let you get away with that again. When I pointed out that Rachel Aldred was a serious academic with more than 25 peer reviewed papers, you claimed that ??there are articles and there are peer reviewed articles? and then went on the say ??I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel.? You?ve made a big show of your status as a scientist, mocking others for their lack of analytical rigour. I don?t think it is right for you to keep doubling down on your denial of Professor Alfred?s output (which I linked to earlier I. The thread and is there for anyone to see), or the inference that her funding is somehow dodgy.

Just to wind up TheCat a bit more- I saw a tweet pointing out that ?the oven ready deal has just been defrosted?

On the actual data - does it show a reduction in vehicles travelling last the school both on EDG and Melbourne Grove South, or not? Last week you were claiming the opposite and using it as an argument for why the LTNs should be removed. Happy to discuss the data too, but only in the context and with an acknowledgment of the wider body of evidence. I?m not going to get in to conspiracy theories that seem to suggest that the count data has been faked.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No .... she does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? > papers. Yes I am going but cannot deal with > inaccurate scientific academic reporting. There > are articles and there are peer reviewed articles, > I speak as a scientist with many international > peer reviewed papers. Also I have never been paid > or employed by the organisation paying for the > research, unlike Rachel. 🤔

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh dear Goldilocks... just continued gaslighting > and we were all getting on so well. Data - made up > figure and not a 'fact'. On my bit of road there > is nowhere for the 28% increase to disappear as > all the other roads are closed- how 28+20% > (equating to more than 1000 vehicles) and 48% of > traffic can just 'evaporate' when there is nowhere > for that traffic to go - surely must give you a > slight question mark on this made-up data? > > It is so sad that I can see the pro-LTN point of > view, yet disagree and all you can do is gaslight > my experience and my reading of the data. If a > table of counts has no data counted in Sept 2019 - > then no data was collected. > > Here is that table again. Pre-implementation Phase > 1 and Phase 2 - no data collected in EDG central - > it is very clear isn't it? > > Anyway - showing that no data was collected and > therefore it is nonsense to keep hanging onto the > only decrease on EDG -an outlier as ALL other data > for the whole consultation shows increases in > cars, motorbikes and HGVs is a pointless action by > me as the Council and you seem dedicated to this > one statistic generated by a 'guess'. > > I'm obviously used to far more rigour and critical > analysis than both you and Southwark Oh please. It?s not just the vehicle counts. You?ve also rubbished the peer reviewed, published research looking at the effects of LTNs. You deny the possibility of ?evaporation? even though it?s a well researched, well documented and widely accepted concept. You even tried to impugn the reputation of a well regarded academic researching in this area. The evidence all reaches broadly the same conclusions. And yet you seem obsessed with Trying to find discrete bits of data that you might be able to find flaw with, whilst at the same time completely ignoring (or rather deliberately avoiding any acknowledgement of) the overwhelming direction of a significant body of evidence. Answer me this- If a wide body of evidence all suggests that LTNs are reducing traffic and increasing active travel, why would you conclude the opposite is true? You talk of rigour, but are so obviously falling into the trap of confirmation bias it?s painful to watch. Especially from someone who talks so much about how rational and rigorous they are.

So just to recap. The same people who were last week saying the LTN pushed more cars past the school, are now demanding that the LTN is removed so that more cars can be pushed past the school? Oh, and they say all the vehicle counts are fake, then pull a 48% figure out of the air? It?s absurdist nonsense. At this point one has to conclude that there are some people on here who are more interested in trying to prove themselves right, than doing what?s right.

Read this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias Then look at all the published research examining the effects of LTNs and the data gathered by vehicle counts. Once you?ve done this, ask yourself honestly, what is the thrust of 99% plus of that evidence? Don?t go straight to looking for any bits that you think might be flawed. Consider what the overwhelming direction of that significant body of evidence is first. You can then look at where there may be issues with discrete bits of data, but don?t go straight there without first seeing where it sits in the full context of all the available evidence. If you?re still convinced that LTNs (and like the poster above, congestion charge and the ULEZ) actually increase traffic and reduce active travel? well good luck to you and your conspiracy theories.

For those who are interested in what's actually happening, rather than desperately looking for anything that might be spun to support a prior belief. Here is a summary of what's been achieved:

Look at the data, it's pretty clear. There are fewer cars driving along EDG. Yes, at one end some vehicles are turning off a little later. It used to be that they would cut through past the school. As everyone here has said, they were desperately worried about traffic by the school and health centre on EDG (at least up to the point that the data shows the LTN reduces it). I think most people, if they were honest, would agree that it's better traffic is turning 200 metres further down the road in this instance. At the southern end there is almost no change, and traffic is actually falling month on month at an accelerating rate. Across the length of the road, traffic is down more than 20%. Again, this is an example of a few people searching as hard as possible for a reason to object; To the point that they're now arguing for an increase in the number of cars driving along EDG, passing the school (both on EDG and past the entrance on Melbourne Grove) and passing the health care centre. Things they were claiming to be of deep concern just last week. It's absurd. Would you really prefer traffic to rise across the entire areas, including along the central section of EDG rather than have some cars turn 200 metres later to avoid a school? Traffic down. The number of people walking and cycling up. And you would reverse it all just to feel that you've 'won'... what exactly, I don't know. Fewer kids walking to school? More traffic across the whole area? *slow handclap*

How would scrapping a scheme that has reduced traffic, result in 'less traffic for everyone'? It wouldn't, clearly. With regards the coupe of hundred metres of road between Melbourne Grove and LL, there is a choice. You can either divert some of the traffic past the school, or not. I think the current prioritisation is preferable. Not least because if you make it easier to cut through from Grove Vale to EDG, you actually increase the total amount of traffic across both streets. To just refuse to make a choice and to say 'less traffic for everyone/ milky bars are on me', isn't a serious response.

Just to put all this in context, EDG South is a 350m stretch of road. Traffic there is up 4% on pre-scheme levels, but currently dropping (it's fallen 6% in the last month). EDG East is a 260m stretch, where there there has been an increase in traffic as a result of cars and HGVs being directed away from a school. As I explained above, I think it's absolutely right that cars should drive a couple of hundred metres further down the road before turning, rather than being directed past the school. Not so far up this thread, you were arguing that LTNS increased traffic outside Charter. Now you seem to be calling for them to be removed so that traffic on EDG East can be moved towards it. Everywhere else, including the main section of EDG between Townley Road and Melbourne Grove has seen a decrease in traffic. Across the whole area, traffic is down and walking and cycling are up.

I would rather that cars didn't cut pass the entrance to East Dulwich Charter on Melbourne Grove. It's instructive that you were arguing against the LTN on the grounds that it supposedly increased traffic outside the school, but now argue that cars should be encouraged to pass the school rather than drive an extra couple of minutes to avoid it. It's clearly better to have less traffic and more people walking and cycling. It's clearly better to have cars avoid driving passed the entrance to a school and yes, if that means a 2 or 3 minute diversion further along the road in order to avoid it, I do think that's preferable. You didn't answer my question about whether the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if the LTN was removed, but up to you.

The number of cars travelling along EDG is down (by more than 20%). There is a counter at the junction of EDG and Lordship Lane however, that's shown and increase ('EDG East'). If you look at the turning patterns it will be clear why this is. Cars that would have previously turned off before Lordship Lane, cutting down Melbourne Grove (passed the school), now don't. And vice versa. So originally, there would have been fewer cars on the East section than in the central section. Now there are fewer cars generally, but more staying on between MG and Lordship Lane. There is a school on Melbourne Grove and Derwent and Elsie are small, residential roads. Personally, I think it's right that traffic should have to drive round. It's a really small diversion and overall traffic has decreased significantly. There has been a massive increase in the number of kids walking and cycling too, along Melbourne Grove and via Calton Avenue. Anyone who is familiar with ED Charter cannot have failed to see this. Now, I've answered your question and you still haven't answered mine: Do you think the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if all local restrictions on cars and all the quiet routes are removed?

I find it incredible that you reach the conclusion that the LTNs have not reduced traffic or increased active travel despite all evidence to the contrary. But fair enough, I guess it's just an article of faith. And the huge increase in the numbers of kids walking and cycling to school? I mean you can actually see it with your own eyes if you won't accept data. Do you think that would continue if one were to remove all the quiet routes and invite more cars to drive through the area?

Tell me you genuinely think that removing LTNs won?t increase traffic and reduce the number of people walking and cycling in the area.

It?s pretty clear that there are no data that would satisfy those determined to believe LTNs somehow increase traffic and reduce active travel (against all evidence). It?s become about proving a preconceived idea / objection, and nothing else. It?s embarrassing to watch individuals picking through data looking for anything that they think might bolster their prior beliefs whilst completely ignoring the big picture (wood for the trees?). Very reminiscent of how climate deniers operate - you don?t have to prove your argument, just sow enough doubt to have people question the existing evidence. It?s almost a perfect example of confirmation bias. If you tell me you genuinely think that removing LTNs won?t increase traffic and reduce the number of people walking and cycling in the area, I would be surprised.

@rockerts - you avoided answering the question I put to you and I think it probably tells me the answer. At this point I think you know what would happen to the number of kids walking and cycling to school were the LTNs removed. It would drop significantly.

Honestly, do you think the number of kids walking and cycling to school would increase or decrease if you remove all restrictions on cars locally and all the quiet routes? I mean the data is clear what would happen, but what do you think? What?s your gut tell you?

@Rockets - the data is getting clearer and clearer. I know you?re invested in your position, but I can?t believe that you honestly think that removing the LTNs wouldn't increase traffic and reduce active travel.