heartblock

I think enthusiasm for an intervention means that one can fail to recognise confirmation bias sometimes, which can lead to this type of behaviour when challenged, imposing their own agenda and cherry-picking confirmative information and rejecting negative information.

Blind is different from double blind. Blind would involve analysis without knowing if treated or untreated. So one passes the data to an independent statistician, it’s a very easy way of not being unintentionally biased. Unintentional bias, is something all researchers have, we are all very keen to do good and improve lives, I have no doubt that the ethics and morals of the research group are for the greater good, but I do believe the published data and methodology is flawed and they have allowed their enthusiasm for this intervention to lessen their awareness of bias. Some low traffic interventions may work well if planned to take account of types of traffic, external factors and unique situations. So this is the issue in Dulwich/East Dulwich. Private School traffic, non-local traffic, neighbouring boroughs with traffic interventions that impact Southwark, important bus routes in low PTAL areas and combination of several interventions on other residential roads have made this not a well planned intervention. The lack of any information for over a year from Southwark and the poor response and attempt to suppress a TFL report all fits into this inability to recognise bias and look at data and monitoring in a logical and neutral manner. Councillors ‘wanting blood’ because a TFL report proves a negative result of LTNs is very revealing.

Hi ab29- Complex - as FOI's only had limited success for transparency. Just google Southwark Council TFL Catherine Rose Dale Foden and the e-mails from the TFL FOI will come up Catherine Rose complaining to Will Norman about the report as it doesn't paint a positive picture and says it was 'intended to show improved bus journey times' on Croxted Rd, when the report say's the opposite Leeming, Newens, Rose complaining to Will Norman about having to 'push back' against an independent report. Newens at one point describing the TFL report having 'lazy assumption'. Dale Foden reminding Councillors to go through officers, rather than bombarding the poor TFL community partnership officer. " Our councillors want to see blood" says Dale Foden to John Birch (TFL) at one point. The two TFL technical officers were then subject to abuse at the Council meeting, leaving upset and in tears. The TFL report was weirdly released to local paper by TFL, but it appears to have been smothered after that....but Southwark News has some detail. The e-mails make for an interesting read.

Critique of research is taught at undergraduate level - critical analysis, it's not a personal attack, but you are correct, I shouldn't use 'pish'. Maybe poor methodology, badly conceived, no baseline, no control areas, incomplete and second hand data-collection, lack of rigour, lack of blinding, no set procedures to empirically test whether a finding is reproducible and poor use of statistics and a lack of transparency ..... in my opinion. I've commented on air pollution for over 30 years, mainly in the realm of cardiovascular and respiratory inflammatory processes, away from this forum - so yes you do not see my output. As for unwarranted attacks, I have no doubt that the excellent administrator looking after this forum will very quickly shut down anything they consider contravening a protected characteristic and if you think this has happened you have a duty to report it. As for TFL report Cllr Catherine Rose definitely wanted this 'report' from TFL to disappear. It's all been up on EDF in the past... you obviously missed it.

TFL reported that LTNs in Dulwich and Herne Hill were responsible for increased traffic on Croxted Road. ULEZ and CPZ both tackle car usage and pollution across the borough and seem to have good empirical research to back up. I would welcome speed cameras on my road after witnessing the death of someone involved in an accident outside of my home one late evening. There are some great examples of council run local transport services, such as the yellow bus in Brighton that I suggested years ago. Mr. Chicken seems set on being sarcastic, patronising and likes to gaslight anyone they disagree with, by labelling them ‘pro-car’ ‘anti-clean air’ .. declaring that no one has any sensible solutions or suggestions. We are obviously all complete fools and can barely understand the superior mind of this feathered individual. Sadly the same patronising, patriarchal and unseemly attack, happens to Rosamund Adoo Kissi-Debrah, clean air advocate and a very vocal campaigner against LTNs. Rosamund describes the surge in traffic by her home, “like a slap in the face” “insane” and “environmental racism”, “gloating that your children can now go out and play or cycle does not help things” , “It’s as if now that the traffic is not in their neighbourhood, they are not concerned where the traffic is”.

Well that’s the issue. Not everyone believes that LTNs are ‘anti-pollution’, mainly because there is no empirical data in existence that proves that LTNs reduce pollution. I wish they did, unfortunately from the view of those living on Croxted Rd walking their kids to school LTNs have increased both noise and air pollution by diverting traffic from four residential roads to one ‘sacrificial’ residential road - backed up by the TFL report to Southwark Council.

To my shame I have never read this document fully until today, very enlightening. https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf

Agreed, which is weird as I’m always being told that very old A roads in existence pre 1860 such as East Dulwich Grove and Lordship Lane were ‘built and designed for cars'.

Comparing proof of the nature of our planetary system is a poor comparison, it isn’t research into an intervention. One wouldn’t give a population a drug that might harm certain sectors of society until it was proven that it did no harm. We went through this with Thalidomide. Anything applied to an individual or population without consent that may adversely effect a cohort in that population should be proven to do no harm, then it should be proven to give the effect required. Mmmh well that’s definitive then... I’m told that LTNs are an intervention that benefits the health of a population by encouraging active travel and reducing car use, so a public health intervention? So in any public health intervention, harm may be experienced by different individuals than those who receive benefits. One ethical framework suggests that, “… the greater the burden imposed by a program, the greater must be the expected public health benefit, and the more uneven the benefits and burdens (that is, burdens are imposed on one group to protect the health of another), the greater must be the expected benefit”.

When someone publishes research with: empirical data and double-blinded analysis on a pre and post methodology that proves that pollution over a specified area that includes boundary roads and LTNs, proves a significant drop in overall car, exhaust and tyre wear pollution post implementation - I will cross the Rubicon and become a very vocal advocate of LTNs.

I think the onus is on those applying the 'treatment' to prove that it does no harm, not on the patient who has been forced onto the treatment without consent. You sound like an ancient quack blood-letting to do some good. 'go on, prove that this doesn't work' - Good try Dr. Sea-lion. But....... as you asked so nicely, Prof. Alfred and Dr. Goodman's Longitudinal study into mini-Holland scheme, the 'poster-boy/girl' of every subsequent scheme found........ No evidence either way of change in car use associated with interventions So, that's one for you Dr. Sea-Lion. Do you want the link? I'm sure you have already read it though.. I bet you loved the bit where they talked about 'perceived' improvements in cycling. We love it when 'perception' replaces actual data... especially when applying leeches.

Mr. Chicken seems to be a seal-lion and not poultry. 'Lessons learnt' in both the articles that are available are not primary research, but conclusions based on meta-analysis (the third article appears to be a Childs drawing) and neither article is about LTNs but a variety of measures to reduce car use - many of them seemingly very sensible. Again do upload the primary, empirical research that proves LTNs reduce pollution and car-miles travelled. As this is a health-intervention - as promoted by LTN advocates - then we should all expect the same research standard as a pharmaceutical drug or procedure. First do no harm. Second have a positive effect.

Remind me of the research that empirically proves LTNs reduce pollution and car USE/ congestion and pollution? Car use was dropping in London pre-Covid (TFL data) and cycling was increasing (TFL data), traffic was not increasing on minor roads TFL data in response to FOI request when ‘increasing traffic on minor roads’ was used by Councils to justify LTNs on minor roads - TFL later admitted the ‘increase’ was due to an administrative exercise and in fact traffic on minor rds was stable and in some cases reducing. There was an increase in traffic and congestion on larger rds though.... LTNs really are green-washing, and actually make an excuse that something is being done, it’s a bit like huge companies having carbon offsets to excuse their polluting activities, bring in ULEZ, bring in cheap, reliable publicly owned and I would encourage free at the point of use public transport, also close all private schools and get kids to go to fully funded and locally accessible state run schools. LTNs are centrist pish.

There is NO evidence that School streets and LTNs discourage parents of private schoolchildren to drive. The older ‘research’ on evaporating traffic was based on local car ownership and interviews with local residents active travel. Not ACTUAL traffic on boundary rds. The recent research that claimed traffic reduction on boundary rds was flawed as many rds inside LTNs were erroneously classified as boundary rds outside of LTNs. Pish

The thing is..it’s not simple because parents, carers do. The whole evaporation thing is complete pish. I cycled or walked to school, the problem here in ED is the private school catchment area and poor PTAL in that same catchment area. Southwark Council did not factor in private school traffic in their ‘plan’ because there was no plan. I never see kids dropped off at the non-private school on ED Grove but JAGs, Alleyn’s and the School on Half Moon are a joke....parents parked illegally and idling in their very large cars, transporting one child. The parents are not local and really don’t care about polluting my road. The real story is that In ED and Dulwich there has been high levels of active travel for years, which has been increasing steadily. School streets are a great idea, but when mixed with large numbers of poorly conceived LTNs and selfish non-locals transporting one child to a private school it impacts residents negatively.

It's always framed as 'anti' or 'against' when anyone dares mention traffic on another road, parents terrible parking, idling engines. School-streets well planned - great. School streets poorly planned with no mitigation for parent's selfishness - not so great. It's important to understand cause and effect. It's also important to understand the major schools streets in ED are Croxted and East Dulwich Grove - so what has been planned for these roads to help with routes to school....mmmhhh?

Professor Aldred was on the LCC committee that promoted and pushed for LTNs. The minutes also describe the 'sacrificial roads' indicating that traffic should be diverted to these areas to give cyclists roads with no or very little traffic. In those minutes 'evaporation' not mentioned, but increasing traffic on larger (and residential roads with low income, high BAME residents and low car ownership) roads deemed suitable for increased traffic and pollution, so that mainly white. middle-class and wealthier cyclists could have low traffic journeys. Safe routes - yes, increase in PT - yes, planned areas of low traffic - yes, encourging walking, cycling and PT use- yes. Diverting polluting traffic to poorer and high density housing areas with high BAME... go reflect on yourself. Do the research - the minutes exist.

I thought that cars evaporated.....

No, no numbers, bit busy with the full-time job... trying to stop people dying of cardio-respiratory disease... ....but I imagine Southwark haven't researched that piece of work either. One can be a homeowner and still be financially burdened. Weirdly rental is so expensive in ED, I imagine one has to be earning quite a lot. Landlords pass on costs to their renters, so however you look at it, there is an issue. I have asked McAsh about trade permits .. about two years ago, and trade parking spaces... it was all ''yes, yes, a good idea.. yes, yes - I can see it's an issue'' shortly before the Council elections when asking for my vote.... and then... nothing. ED Grove could host about 4 x trade parking spaces very easily and all residents would welcome a few 'free' (well not free, we all pay council tax) guest passes. We all have boilers that break, windows that need fixing, etc. etc. why should people in flats and terraces be charged, while those with off-site parking have the privilege of not paying. Oh if only I lived in Gilkes Crescent - with my three vehicles stored on - the road, my garage and my drive.. and the fourth in my second home in Suffolk/ Lake District/ Norfolk...how lovely, and a lovely traffic free road, with a future park on the corner. Southwark Labour Party Council - serving the wealthiest in the borough, while charging the poorest. It's definitely Marxist ....sorry Socialist...ooooops .. no maybe Centrist?

My main issue with CPZ (and I do support the principle) is that someone with a 2-3 million pound house with off-Street parking and a garage can have a trade come and work on a bathroom, kitchen and not pay for parking. If I or anyone else in a flat with no off-Street parking and work across a month we have to pay guest parking for 20 days. So a tax on the poorest. And no trades will not pay... the customer pays. Southwark should give all residents in flats or terraces with no off-street parking 20 days of free ‘guest’ passes, to at least address some levelling up. The more Southwark Council spends on the community, the more I see benefits for the wealthiest in our Borough and less for the poorest. Labour is no longer a Socialist endeavour.

More money spent on those poor..poor people living in Dulwich Village, for another 'park' in Gilkes Place...well, it's a terrible life owning a 2-3 million pound house, with a garage, 3 cars, an enormous garden and a second home....with an additional car there of course..

Maybe poultry only vote on one policy? It's not a difficult concept - one considers all the policies and one votes for the candidate /party who aligns most favourably. I actually voted for McAsh .... as apart from his stance on LTNs I agreed with almost everything he expressed and at the time I held out some hope he would address the traffic issues and other neighbourhood problems on East Dulwich Grove - all promised at my door pre-local elections. And yes LibDems and Greens far more progressive than Labour now, so it will be very easy to not vote for Kid Starver and the LPs dodgy NHS and fossil fuel policies in the main elections or LP in the Council election. Apart from LTNs I'm very much aligned to the Green Parties policies (I know of course us anti-LTNers are all raving right-wing, petrol guzzling, anti-vax, climate deniers according to some...) As for my Road - even Southwark recorded a 20% increase in traffic on their dashboard and an increase in travel time for the 37 bus.... but that dashboard has now not been updated for over a year... so who knows? Traffic still terrible during school terms. It would be really nice for Southwark to turn its attention to the traffic issues on Croxted, ED Grove, Lordship Lane where people live, walk, cycle, go to school. But no - and this is the issue with LTNs and why they are Green-Washing, shove in an LTN, on some already reasonably traffic free roads (the excuse for LTNs being an 'increase' of traffic on minor roads - debunked by TFL itself as that 'increase' was due to a different counting exercise being introduced - traffic was actually reducing on minor roads before Covid!) and then just ignore issues on roads that actually have high density housing, schools and bus routes and high NOx and PM levels... Job Done apparently - ridiculous policy.

Why would I vote Tory in a Council election, it’s about more than LTNs. I actually voted for two Green Party and one Labour.. but all Green next election. Some people believe that LTNs are green-washing and a diversion from real policies to tackle climate change and pollution - why do you think it was a Conservative policy? Do you really think a Boris policy has rigour and is thoroughly thought out. From all published and observed evidence I have seen, LTNs may even increase pollution due to causing idling traffic and making journeys longer. ULEZ is great, but does need a better scheme for people needing to buy new cars and/or some more thought on local cheap public transport in areas of low PTAL.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - LTNs are green-washing, Sunak reviewing them for the wrong reasons, but fine by me. Should be reviewing them as no evidence that they reduce air pollution and I have only seen a marked increase in traffic and idling cars on Croxted and ED Grove. Won't make me vote Tory... but will vote Green for some REAL Green policies.

Is there a timeline for the response from James McAsh?