Raeburn

6 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Bleedingly obvious because if you eliminate a vast majority of vehicles from sections of road does it come as any surprise that accidents involving, and reported via STATS19, diminish..hardly a big surprise is it....? Interesting that in 2021 Peter Walker was lauding a 50% decrease proclaimed and now a third - can anyone explain that?

Because the data set from the earlier report is over a much shorter time period, and covered fewer LTNs? Presumably that initial review then triggered a more extensive report, over a longer time period, for a clearer view.

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

(interesting the link takes you to a summary of the report and the actual report is not available) 

It is available through that link; you just need to pay for it, as with most peer-reviewed papers.

Rockets,

Seeing as I never said that, and don’t think that, I’d appreciate if you could edit your post to remove my name.

Please stop making things up - keep the Rockets-version of events to yourself in future, 

I don’t believe that Rockets. You are making things up about me.

You’ve woven together a lot of disparate points to come to your nonsensical conclusion there. 
 

As ever, good luck in your quest.

So it should have said ‘an alive man was rushed to hospital’?

No wonder you were so alarmed and confused. It’s great that you bought this for everyone’s attention on EDF …and did zero about it on Twitter within the context of the actual discussion.

‘Over 5 hours after the original tweet they corrected the location.‘

Again, deliberately choosing to omit ‘a man was rushed to hospital’ from that correction tweet, instead preferring to push disinfo on here.

And if time is important, you chose to start this thread three days after the event and the clarity was posted.

As already pointed out, they did correct it?

You seem to be the only person reading ‘a man was rushed to hospital’, choosing to interpret with a different meaning, and trying to create a flap on here.

If genuinely concerned, why didn’t you challenge it on Twitter? Instead you’ve bought it here, isolated one detail, and are creating your own narrative around it. 

Lol

Ok

‘They circulated incorrect and erroneous facts and did nothing to correct it - disgusting.‘

But they did correct it? Immediately.
 

You chose to ignore this when you opened this thread on EDF three days later. You posted without context, to deliberately paint them in a bad light, and are now doubling down on a Twitter post …rather than highlight the very real problem of dangerous roads and drivers.

I’ve pointed out before, misleading, disingenuous posting does nothing to help any reasonable discussion or debate about these topics.

Dulwich Roads literally clarify/correct under their post on the 11th - but you’ve just posted this single one here Rockets

…are you deliberately posting out-of-context to mislead people reading on here?

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

There isn't any because the anti-LTN lobby didn't pay a company to find the results it wanted......the pro-LTN lobby on the other hand have used this tactic from the get-go and then they get pro-LTN journalists like Carlton Reid or Peter Walker (often giving them "exclusives") to amplify the results because they know they won't ever look at the detail and will just parrot supportive headlines.

Activist researchers feeding activist journalists to amplify an activist agenda.

 

The report you posted here - and was published/pushed in loads of mainstream media - is literally a PR splash from an company selling traffic-avoidance softwear.

Brenchley closed this morning. Huge SUV across the pavement, grounded on bell bollard. Two fire engines using gear to lift it off.

I agree, Brenchley is abysmal. I often ride on the pavement because it's so dangerous.

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.

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.