Earl Aelfheah

I fear we?re pretty screwed when it comes to climate change and improving the environment. I walked passed a house with a sports car, a huge 4x4 SUV and a vintage car in their drive yesterday. They had a ?Clean Air for All? and a ?say no to road closures? sign displayed unironically.

I really hope they make the pavement widening permanent. That stretch is always busy with shoppers at weekends. No reason the bus stop couldn?t be reopened and the Eder pavement are permanent

@Firstmate. Are you saying that these statement (direct quotes) are true? "No .... she [Professor Rachel Aldred] does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? papers... Also I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel."

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > first mate Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I also do not agree with rah's take on what > > Heartblock has said and > > > doubt very many others will either. > > > > I simply corrected two demonstrably false > > statements. Professor Aldred does have over 25 > > peer reviewed articles and she isn?t ?employed > by > > or paid by people paying for her research?. > > > > I have absolutely no problem with challenging > the > > data, or the conclusions of a particular piece > of > > research, but that is not what those statement > > do. > > > > What are the matters of fact you disagree with > > exactly? > > > So Rahx3 - do you at least acknowledge that > working for a cycle lobby group, and heading their > policy unit, whilst doing paid research (much of > which is funded by the organisation the lobby > group is lobbying) that is designed to prove the > effectiveness of the measures said lobby group is > pushing is a conflict of interest? Honestly, I don?t think there?s much point in having this conversation. I?ve corrected two demonstrably false statements. It?s no good saying someone hasn?t published something they have. It?s no good saying someone is paid by an organisation they are not. If we can?t even accept matters of fact, then there is little point trying to have a sensible conversation about more nuanced issues of interpretation or judgment.

first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I also do not agree with rah's take on what Heartblock has said and > doubt very many others will either. I simply corrected two demonstrably false statements. Professor Aldred does have over 25 peer reviewed articles and she isn?t ?employed by or paid by people paying for her research?. I have absolutely no problem with challenging the data, or the conclusions of a particular piece of research, but that is not what those statement do. What are the matters of fact you disagree with exactly?

I don?t hold anything as ?gospel?. But I do think she?s a serious researcher and I don?t think it?s reasonable to make false statements questioning someone?s output and professionalism and then fail to correct the record when challenged.

.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rararah, really is there any need to be quite so > rude? It isn?t a ?character assignation?. You stated that Professor Aldred does not have over 25 peer reviewed articles (she does) and stated that "I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel" (which I don't believe is true). Perhaps 'character assassination' is too emotive. It might be fairer to say that you have questioned another academic's professionalism and credentials in a way that is unjustified. This could be considered rude. Certainly ruder than anything I have said. It's particularly stark considering the colour brochure you have held up as an exemplar of reliable research, which is produced by a Ltd company, and paid for by a property developer.

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Interesting article -- > https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-t > ransport-today/features/69199/do-inclusive-transpo > rt-strategies-really-consider-the-needs-of-all- It is, thanks.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, close inspection of data, is not > 'rubbishing' research, it is part of the important > scientific inspection and critical analysis that I > teach. > > Students are taught to critically review published > research -Was the data collection valid? Was the > methodology appropriate? Does the conclusion > reflect the statistical data? > > I only wish that the safety research conducted by > the German company Chemie Gr?nenthal for their > sleeping pill- that it marketed around the world > as safe for everyone, including expectant mothers, > had been critically reviewed. To be fair, this: "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." Is rubbishing someone's research, based not on the grounds of data, but on an inaccurate character assassination.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'Centric is a neuroscience research lab creating > strategies to improve public health. > We work as a research & data driven lab to help > organisations make effective decisions for > supporting mental and physical health, > specifically for communities that are the most > susceptible to poor health outcomes' The glossy brochure, (sponsored by property company Lend Lease) is authored by three people who describe their credentials respectively as 'holding an MSc in neuroscience', having 'an arts degree' and finally 'a PhD candidate'. The individual with the MSc is the 'Lab Director'. The Centric Lab is the trading name of Noble Research NP Ltd. It's not yet filed any accounts. None of this mean that one should not consider the publication on it's merits. But considering that an academic paper, published in a peer reviewed journal by an award winning University Professor has been dismissed on the grounds that they had a voluntary governance role at a cycling charity...

Came across some local congestion / traffic flow data here if anyone is interested. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/scoot_and_atc_data?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow I'm sure everyone will find a way to use it to prove what ever point they're trying to make ;-)

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lastly... > > One of the best reads on society, mobility, > pollution and equality I have read. Grab a coffee > and read all of it. An excellent piece of work. > > https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57a5a729414 > fb58fa3e0e0a6/t/609173a702d0e054885d2ec0/162014507 > 6839/Equitable+Urban+Mobility.pdf This seems to be a consultancy (an arm of Noble Ltd) and the document is sponsored by Lend Lease. I'm not saying that invalidates it, but considering people are dismissing a paper published in the Journal of Transport and Healthwork, because the author had an unpaid role with a cycling charity....

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > if I was paid by a pharmaceutical company to > prove that a drug worked, my research would be > compromised. I don?t believe being a Trustee for a charity is a paid position btw. I?m not sure how Rachel Alfred can be said to have been paid to ?prove? something.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am glad we have finally established > that Rachel Alfred's research is neither impartial > or unbiased nor particularly scientific. Have we established that? I thought heartblock had said he didn?t dismiss her research. She is an award winning and established academic with a record of publications in peer reviewed journals and an h-index of 29.

@ Rockets. Cycling has increased ever year since 2014 except one: 2019. TFL state that this was ?mainly driven by trends in outer London, and reflecting unusually poor weather during the counting periods?. We saw record increases in 2020. It?s not a declining picture is it? But the academic research is all biased and TFL are deliberately misleading people. Which makes sense, because common sense would suggest that mixing with heavy traffic as a pedestrian or cyclist is relaxing.

Rockets Wrote: > TFL were cutting the data differently to show a win. It's > what organisations do when the data isn't showing > what they want it to show.. It's interesting. TFL are misrepresenting the data. Academics are biased in their research. All the evidence suggesting better cycling infrastructure and quieter streets encourage active travel is dubious.

And can you explain your comment about cycling in London having gone down. In how many of the years between 2014 to 2020 has it dropped? Just to be clear.

So no more cycle infrastructure?

And I looked back. I didn?t say professor Aldred had 25 peer reviewed papers on the subject of LTNs. I said ?Rachel Aldred is a Professor in Transport at the University of Westminster with over 25 peer reviewed papers. I was pointing out that she is a serious academic. But the point was not about one academic. It was that virtually all the evidence points towards the fact that if you create dedicated space for cycling and walking, you encourage cycling and walking. We can play games, argue about credentials, pick apart data points and try and score rhetorical ?goals? but do you genuinely disagree with this central point @Rockets? Do you believe a kid is as likely to drive on a busy road as one with less traffic or a segregated lane?

People can look at the data themselves. The upwards trend in cycling has been sustained over time. You?ve taken a single data point, but you?re ignoring the clear trend.

welcome back

I?ll drink to that Heartblock

I didn?t say she had 25 peer reviewed papers on LTNs.

🥳