Raeburn

Is what I’ve just done.

It’s all images of proteins, cancer cells etc? There’s one of scattered data set graphs early on. Are you looking at the same article?

All discussion on here is about mis-interpretation/mis-representation of LTN data, or LTN data incorrectly gathered. Never images? If anything the article highlights issues with conflating and projecting to draw conclusions.

Heartblock, this article is about flaws in visual images used in research papers.

What are you talking about Rockets? The policy was there, it was bought forward in Covid to enable safer, better travel for people to get about their lives.

Rockets .....car sales are down, house-prices are down, maybe everything is down? Testament to Isla is that they keep their value, are serviceable, and get passed on as children outgrow them - the small ads on here show that.

In the images posted above you can see the emergency access route is clear/unaltered. Top one, just below the Carlton Avenue sign.

The sign (in the picture above) reads; ‘….Yinka Illori designed the modular pavilion to be used for future projects just like this’.

Quick look on Google street view/Apple Maps Look Around, you can find the site more clearly using details in 2nd pic - end of cemetery, high brick wall, lamp post etc. The location is further along Court than the foreshortening in first pic makes it appear. Both Street View and Look Around images are pre-LTN, and there?s no yellow lines either side at this point. The narrow access problem existed long before 2020.

Amsterdam? The entire city is now pretty much one-way, creating neighbourhood cells and preventing through traffic. Roadspace for vehicles is minimised, giving priority to walking, cycling and active travel. It's the gold standard for healthy street design - projects based on it are literally called 'mini-Holland'. https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2019/03/19/i-want-my-street-to-be-like-this/ Fifty years ago Stop Killing Children' protests occurred across Holland, including Amsterdam, where residents closed residential roads to through traffic, and prevent drivers killing more kids; https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/amsterdam-children-fighting-cars-in-1972/ That's why you were able to enjoy cycling in the city so much.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Raeburn - I still hold-out I saw an analysis of > increase in car ownership within the Waltham > Forest LTN based on DVLA registrations, and as I > stated at the time some were suggesting it could > be linked to the gentrification of the area post > LTN installation. If I find that post I will be > sure to share it with you but I didn't make it up > - so, no, I won't be correcting my post on the > basis of analysis by Rachel Aldred (which is clear > what you are basing your assumptions on - but do > feel free to correct me if you're not). > > It is interesting isn't it that a basic Google > search on Waltham Forest LTN car ownership leads > you to the inevitable SEO optimised Rachel Aldred > and Anna Goodman articles on how wonderful the LTN > in Waltham Forest is - which in itself is quite > telling but I suspect that's a discussion for > another day and I don't want to trigger an > accusation of deflection from you! ;-) Please post when you find it, genuinely curious where your story comes from. SEO'd or not, I'd have thought this would be big news in such a long-running, model project. DuckDuckGo doesn't turn up anything, nor including Vincent Stops as you mentioned (a detail that resonated with the London Fields story I suggested). Best of luck with your quest.

Rockets, I was genuinely curious, I first asked where you had read; 'Waltham Forest's LTN led to a significant increase in car ownership within it's boundaries.....' and what a 'significant increase' is. You didn't provide a source, because there isn't one. A basic google tells you otherwise about Waltham Forest LTN. Trying to help you, I suggested you could have mistaken it with relatively recent chatter about London Fields LTN? There was FOI, which the initial poster mistakenly added a '0' to a figure and passed off as a huge rise in vehicles in the LTN. Maybe it was nothing to do with your first post, but your 'significant increase' resonated with this story. You're now deliberately conflating two different stories/falsehoods, and somehow putting the onus on others to distract from your own misinformation being called out. Bit late, but I'd ask you again to correct your post.

But Rockets, you were happy to post complete disinformation about an LTN on the other side of London?

The London Fields one was a made-up figure that was posted with an extra '0' on it. Please correct your earlier post to highlight that car ownership went down in Waltham Forest LTN.

Rockets Wrote: > And on the Waltham Forest increase of car > ownership within the LTN I am trying to find it (I > believe it was something Cllr Vincent Stops > tweeted based on DVLA data for registered cars > within the postcodes within the LTNs and that it > was linked to the gentrification of the area on > the basis of the LTNs). You might mean London Fields, and the stat which was posted and subsequently dismantled?

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Waltham Forest's LTN led to a significant increase > in car ownership within it's boundaries..... Curious, where are you reading this? And what is a significant increase? I'm using google, but can't find anything that remotely supports this, but points to the opposite.

Well, it was absolutely fine for the low slung car with sports suspension I filmed doing it on two pavements, and heading up Court Lane. I can see there's a lot of ambition to discredit and take away from this planned, positive change, so I'll leave you all to it.

Not quite sure how cameras were installed pre May(cost + installation can't be cheap, plus presumably there's planning regs, Dulwich Estate, possibly licence for recording on highways, data protection etc to apply) and plans were made to open up then, if the Council tactic were simply ignoring the emergency service stakeholders. I'll point out again; it's motorists that ruined up a perfectly good temporary solution, and motorists that can't be trusted so we need expensive ANPR cameras. I'd direct any annoyance here, not at the work to bring positive changes that have been made.

Rockets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My point was they ignored it from the moment they > received it - which was July 2020 - not sure where > you interpreted my note as my suggesting they > actively ignored a letter from the future...maybe > it was wishful thinking on your part. > > They ignored it for at least 14 months (and it > will be more given the changes being suggested > won't be in for some time)....that's horrendous > and a complete dereliction of duty by our > councillors and the council. Lives were being, and > are still being, put at risk by their stubbornness > and refusal to open the DV junction to emergency > vehicles. > > It's clear from all the comms sent by LAS recently > that LAS (and MPS for that matter) are reminding > Southwark that they have been telling them this > since July 2020 - they are the type of comms that > go in ahead of a public enquiry so everyone know > where the responsibility lies. > > Why did the council ignore the advice of the > emergency services? Was it that they felt their > strategic goals with LTNs were more important than > the needs of the emergency services? Are they so > disorganised that they didn't read it? Or was it > another "oversight"? Rockets, this was in the FAQ of the Southwark LTN review - my emphasis; 6. Why are there no questions about access for emergency services? People are free to comment and raise specific issues throughout the survey; this can include access for emergency services. We address any issues directly with the emergency services themselves as part of the review process. They have a formal role as a statutory consultee in relation to traffic and highways schemes, which will also be taken fully into account when developing our future plans after the consultation. We have fortnightly meetings with the emergency services across the borough, and this has been in place since Sept 2020. We discuss any incidents advised by the services and have instigated a number of changes to the Streetspace measures to facilitate access for the Police, ambulance and Fire services. So please, stop posting this stuff, it's simply untrue. Southwark listened, cameras were installed in/before May in preparation, now the junction will be open to emergency vehicles; happy? If you're not happy still, direct some ire at the drivers who mounted the pavements around the planters, and got those big concrete blocks put in. Was perfectly good emergency vehicle access until then.

You inferred Southwark actively ignored a letter (from the future), and/or have subsequently ignored it? And changes are being made (presumably) in/after consultation with stakeholders like LAS. Great news, right?

Rockets, the LTN was implemented in May/June 2020 - this letter was sent July 2020. The layout is now being adjusted to improve emergency vehicular access. Positive news, right? Please stop wilfully misrepresenting facts.

Ok P3Girl, you text-edited and changed the narrative, which confirms it was not an Imgur mix-up and simply you purposefully posting disinfo. I hoped to learn more about other gatherings last week but you fabricated them. Sorry if this discredits any future posts you make. Good luck with your cause.

Hi @P3girl, You've posted images from completely unconnected events? - first image is in Birmingham(!) in June 2021, not Ealing last week - second is Ealing Sept 2020, not Lambeth last week - final image is also Ealing Sept 2020, not Hackney last week. Could you correct your post with proper images from the events please. Wether by mistake or on purpose, it's not helping anyone, and undermines any reasonable points being made.

Good news Artemis; gvmt released info on this last week, inc reiterating plans for 50% of journeys in cities and towns to be walked or cycled by 2030. This 50% objective has been at the heart of Transport messaging this year, aligning with the UK/UN's Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Reassuring to hear; https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-publishes-worlds-first-greenprint-to-decarbonise-all-modes-of-domestic-transport-by-2050 Statement from Sustrans here; https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/news/2021/july/walking-and-cycling-should-be-natural-first-choice-for-short-journeys/ But better analysis here, put into more context; https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/07/14/uk-unveils-revolutionary-transport-decarbonization-plan-but-still-to-spend-27-billion-on-roads/

No, I don?t think it?s acceptable - I keep agreeing with this - so we need to reduce the traffic on all these roads too. Would love to have more incentives/penalties to drive this change, so it?s not indefinite. Do I think it?s unfair? Yes, no one should be breathing someone else?s fumes, that?s why this is unfair. AlexandHelenC Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Absolutely infuriating responses, Raeburn. Let?s > consider the possibility that the LTNs do not > result in a substantial reduction in overall > traffic (which seems to be the case after nearly a > year of the measures being imposed) - would you > find it acceptable that the residents on those A > Roads suffer the consequences of the displaced > traffic indefinitely, while others enjoy the > benefits of their roads being closed? It?s a > simple question but one that the LTN supporters > consistently avoid.