LTN Discussion

[malumbu]

Oh just become an environmental journalist Rocks.  You know more than most of them, and ditto for academics.

[Spartacus]

13 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Oh just become an environmental journalist Rocks.  You know more than most of them, and ditto for academics.

Careful.Mal, you are starting to sound like Chicken, and you have always been way above that line.

[mr.chicken]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

you would know I have been very critical of Peter Walker's writing

OK got it, you can't actually criticism any of the substance of the article, so you're attacking the author. I'll chalk that up to "Rockets agrees with the article". 🤣

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

(I am sure you know the same is true for the Guardian with the left and Labour don't you? ;-))

Ah the old "they're both equally bad" card. They are not.

46 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

are starting to sound like Chicken

You seem to be getting a bit obsessed with me, Spartacus. I mean you are name dropping a me a lot. I'll be honest, it's a little bit flattering but kind of in a weird way if you know what I mean?

[Rockets]

35 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

OK got it, you can't actually criticism any of the substance of the article, so you're attacking the author. I'll chalk that up to "Rockets agrees with the article". 🤣

You critique substance of an article not criticism....

And, again, if you had been paying attention on the forum over the years you will have seen I have rewritten many of Peter's headlines and threads for him. He even came on here to attack those who critique his work and when I made suggestions on how the article could/should have been written based on tne actual facts, instead of his pro-LTN spin, he never responded.

35 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

Ah the old "they're both equally bad" card. They are not.

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Oh they most certainly are the same in their spin to appease their political audience and political parties - to suggest otherwise is ludicrous - one sits firmly on the right (appeasing Tories) one sits firmly on the left (appeasing lefties). And both are struggling massively so interpret that as you will.

P.S. if you ever want to read some great stories on the banter between the left and right leaning media during Fleet Street's heydays I would recommend some of Roy Greenslade's books. Probably also worth a read of his book: Press Gang: How Newspapers Make Profits From Propaganda

Edited August 20, 2023 by Rockets

[Spartacus]

24 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

 You seem to be getting a bit obsessed with me, Spartacus. I mean you are name dropping a me a lot. I'll be honest, it's a little bit flattering but kind of in a weird way if you know what I mean?

Only because you are so prevalent on here spouting nonsense that you are make yourself infamous, so its hard to avoid mentioning you  🤣

Edited August 20, 2023 by Spartacus

[mr.chicken]

31 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And, again, if you had been paying attention on the forum over the years you will have seen I have rewritten many of Peter's headlines and threads for him.

I've seen many very peculiar claims from you, but you still haven't said what specifically is wrong it the article. You know substance: facts you think they got wrong, incorrect inferences from the data that kind of thing. And you can't find any because you actually agree with it.

34 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Oh they most certainly are the same in their spin to appease their political audience and political parties

The Guardian is much more critical of Starmer and his policies than the Telegraph is of Sunak and his ones. The Guardian has a more or less permanent section in "opinions" called "Starmer's path to power" which is more or less a laundry list of everything they think Starmer is doing wrong. The Telegraph opinions section is all about... blaming Starmer. Zero introspection on what the Tories might not be doing right.

So to claim that the Telegraph and Guardian are essentially the same is at odds with reality.

[Rockets]

Am I obliged to appease you by critiquing the article when what I was being critical of was the, ahem, "exclusive" nature of the piece? Re-read my post.

If you follow the natural path from there you could probably work out that my criticism was because it was Peter's peers and pals from the cycle lobbyists who probably "exclusively" gave him the story and then gave him quotes for it to attack the government's plans to review their work, sorry the LTNs. The clue is my over-use of the word "exclusive".

My goodness you're a cantankerous Mr Chicken aren't you?

[mr.chicken]

@Rockets well if all else fails try insults 🤣. I'm surprised you didn't yet again accuse me of personal attacks while actually leveling the insults.

 

9 hours ago, Rockets said:

Am I obliged to appease you by critiquing the article

You're not obliged to post useful things to the channel, but if you just want to case shade without substance on anti-pollution things then I'll be here to point out the lack of substance.

10 hours ago, Rockets said:

If you follow the natural path from there you could probably work out that my criticism was

If you want to say something, then say it. Until you commit and make a concrete criticism of the substance, I will continue to point out that you can't actually find anything concrete to disagree with. In other words, you agree with it.

But that must be an awful "personal attack" because I'm not accepting what you personally said 🤣

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

@Rockets well if all else fails try insults 🤣. I'm surprised you didn't yet again accuse me of personal attacks while actually leveling the insults.

Your own track record speaks volumes about your modus operandi in that area. 

[heartblock]

2 hours ago, mr.chicken said:

case shade without substance on anti-pollution things

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.

[mr.chicken]

@heartblock

Ok two things.

1: I'm working on the assumption people agree that pollution from vehicles is too high, the traffic is bad which negatively affects buses, and that strong mixing bikes and cars is unsafe for bikes and prevents people cycling.

No anti LTN/CPZ/ULEZ/anti 20mph limit in some cases person has been prepared to commit on measures they would be happy with to improve the problems I listed. And by "measures" I mean ones that would have an effect and the council can actually implement.

It's a pattern of shooting down everything that would have any effect of car usage.

I am all ears to suggestions, but I've yet to hear any that would in any way work.

2: Scattered, unstructured observations are not the same as good data. Where it's been studied carefully nearby, boundary road traffic is up less than the control areas. Croxted road residents may be correct about the rise, but not about the reason, and it's likely that removing the LTN world make our worse still.

Even if traffic rises happened at around the same time as LTNs went on does not mean the latter caused the former.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by mr.chicken

[heartblock]

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”.

 

 

[mr.chicken]

44 minutes ago, heartblock said:

TFL reported that LTNs in Dulwich and Herne Hill were responsible for increased traffic on Croxted Road.

I can't find this report or the data, only reports on the report. Happy to read it if you can find it, but i just get links to Southwark news, and a few dead google drive links.

 

44 minutes ago, heartblock said:

ULEZ and CPZ both tackle car usage and pollution across the borough and seem to have good empirical research to back up.

Fantastic! You are at odds with a number of other anti-LTN posters in this regard, though I note with interest you decided to not join threads where you'd be on the other side of the debate. You steered clear except to raise one issue with the CPZ.

44 minutes ago, heartblock said:

labelling them ‘pro-car’ ‘anti-clean air’ 

If you have to make stuff up about me... then you must know your point is not really correct. I do not label "everyone" who disagrees with me. I give that label to people who (a) shoot down absolutely everything that would affect cars in any  way and (b) refuse to say what they would be happy with.

 

44 minutes ago, heartblock said:

Sadly the same patronising, patriarchal and unseemly attack,

I love that you pretend to actually care about this. Naturally you are very very selective in who you choose to single out for criticism. We've had talk about genocide and pogroms, not to mention continual unwarranted attacks and you have been entirely silent on the matter when the attacks come from posters who also don't like LTNs.

You're also happy to use sarcasm (something you're complaining about me using) as well as borderline misrepresent other's posts for the purposes of taking a quick jab. You also have described a well researched and widely accepted topic as "pish" and seem to think I'm "patronising and patriachal" for not accepting your word at face value.

You're trying to hold the moral high ground from next to the moral equivalent of the dead sea.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by mr.chicken

[heartblock]

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.

[ab29]

Heartblock do you have a link to the report pls or know where to find it pls?

LTN is a complete scam and harmful st that. 

[heartblock]

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.

 

[Rockets]

The behaviour of the councillors and council officers during that debacle was disgusting but probably not surprising......

Key quote about Will Norman having to intervene:

In an internal email from TfL’s Walking and Cycling Commissioner Will Norman to Catherine Rose, Cabinet Member for Leisure, Parks, Streets and Clean Air, on July 22, he wrote: “I also heard that there was a meeting last night where two of the TfL team were subject to a lot of abuse and were left upset and in tears. This is obviously completely unacceptable if this is the case. Were you aware of this?”

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/tfl-staff-left-upset-and-in-tears-by-abusive-southwark-council-staff-in-meeting-about-dulwich-village-ltn/

Edited August 21, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

15 hours ago, heartblock said:

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.

That's a lot of long words to say "pish". Induced demand is well established in the academic literature. You're dismissing it using many more words, but it's still a dismissal. You have no actual analysis behind those.

I also love the recent meme on here about blind studies. It's literally impossible to blind people to whether the traffic system they are currently driving in has been altered. Not everything that should be studied can be studied blind. Insisting on blind studies is insisting on the status quo.

 

15 hours ago, heartblock said:

if you think this has happened

It came up on this thread which you are active on so you very well know it but remain quiet. Or maybe I just can't hear your voice from all the way up there on your very high horse.

Edited August 22, 2023 by mr.chicken

[heartblock]

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.

 

[Rockets]

And it appears some of their supporters have taken a leaf from their books and decided that if you don't like what you see or hear then just shout and shout and shout in the hope you get what you want.

[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.

[Rockets]

It's almost cultish at times.....

[ab29]

On 22/08/2023 at 18:41, Rockets said:

It's almost cultish at times.....

Yep - the ends justify the means.

What a waste of money the ltn is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66524319.amp

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by ab29
.

[Nigello]

This curren bus upset/diversion has reinforced my fondness for the P13 and made me wonder whether opening up the Court Lane three-way LTN to small buses like this service help get things back on track, to use a metaphor from a different type of transport. Court Lane is wide, most houses have gardens out front to distance inhabitants from what would only be momentary engine noise and it’s ripe for actual use and being of service to the community. A small bus from Rye Lane to H Hill every fifteen minutes would help, don’t you think? 

[MrsR]

LTN axed by Labour-run council after probe revealed it made traffic worse on other roads | Daily Mail Online