LTN accident injuries

[Insuflo]

This is an interesting read:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-third?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other 

[Rockets]

Peter Walker "exclusive"

Bleedingly obvious conclusion 

Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman authored

File accordingly...

P.S. is anyone else kind of surprised to still see Anna Goodman being quoted as a co-author of these, ahem, impartial, reports 😉

Edited July 7 by Rockets

[Insuflo]

Is it dark in that rabbit hole?

Edited July 7 by Insuflo

[march46]

2 hours ago, Insuflo said:

This is an interesting read:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/07/londons-low-traffic-zones-cut-deaths-and-injuries-by-more-than-a-third?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other 

”In absolute terms, the study concluded, this meant that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury.”

Powerful stuff, thanks for sharing.

 

[Rockets]

Alternatively, LTN propaganda derived from statistical jiggery pokery (interesting the link takes you to a summary of the report and the actual report is not available) given as an "exclusive " to an active travel activist journalist who will give the story the nice ride the report authors want.

A report co-authored by someone caught tearing down anti-LTN posters in her local shop.

Yup, and I am the one in a dark rabbit hole....;-)

[Insuflo]

You certainly are. They’re not raisins, please don’t eat them.

[Rockets]

What's happening though because exactly the same article Peter Walker penned in 2021 claimed accidents in LTNs were being halved...?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-schemes-halve-number-of-road-injuries-study-shows

It must be frustrating that Peter Walker is the only journalist who now covers these "news" stories...clearly him always getting the "exclusive" is killing the newsworthiness of the stories for everyone else...;-)

 

 

[Raeburn]

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]

Interesting disclaimers on the notes:

AG clearly refers to Anna Goodman - they seem to have omitted the part where they mention she was caught pulling down pro-LTN posters in her local shop...;-)

• Competing interests AG lives in a former LTN in South London. It is not one of the LTNs studied in this paper, having been introduced more recently than the end date of this study. From time to time, AG volunteers in a personal capacity with local healthy streets and safe routes to school groups.

• Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

• Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

[Earl Aelfheah]

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

Bleedingly obvious conclusion 

A bleeding obvious conclusion, but also one you seem to be insinuating has been manipulated, or is unreliable for some reason? It's a peer reviewed, academic paper in the BMJ. Are you suggesting that safety hasn't improved? Why? I'm confused. 

Here is the link to the research https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2025/07/06/ip-2024-045571

 

Edited July 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

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?

It's a bit like when the council proclaimed what a success the LTNs were because traffic had dropped on the roads closed to through traffic......errr....all a bit self-serving and for propaganda purposes hoping to blind people with headline stats.

BTW do you think having Anna Goodman involved in the report adds to it's credibility? Do you think it is any surprise people question how impartial these reports are when she co-authored them after the lack of impartiality she displayed when she tore down the anti-LTN poster in her local shop?

I know that the report flags the potential conflict of interest AG has and from what I hear from other residents her, and her family's involvement, in the local lobby group extends to far more than a "from time to time, AG volunteers in a personal capacity" which I suspect has had to have been added due to the shop incident which I am sure some justify as been being done "in a personal capacity". That one incident shows she is anything but impartial and, in any other business, she would not be allowed anywhere near reports that are trying to claim the same.

 

 

[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.

[exdulwicher]

14 hours ago, Rockets said:

given as an "exclusive " to an active travel activist journalist who will give the story the nice ride the report authors want.

It wasn't "given", it's freely available online. It's very common that people (in any professional walk of life) will keep an eye on relevant websites, publications etc. Most academics and journalists will be signed up to all sorts of mailing lists, access to journals, social media accounts and so on, literally anyone could have got that report and written about it if they were interested enough. Even you.

Strangely, the Mail and Telegraph - in spite of their massive "interest" in LTNs - haven't picked up on it... Wonder why?!

[Rockets]

@exdulwicher......you can only use the exclusive moniker if you know you're the only person getting it. Peter Walker will be being "given" these on the basis of "exclusivity". 

Here is how it works. The research house, or their PR company, will call Peter and tell him, we have a new report, would you like it as an "exclusive"? He then knows he gets first dibs at the report before anyone else and the PR company/research house will be confident they will get their message delivered in a favourable light from a "friendly" journalist. The Guardian editor will be happy because the story will get clicks on the basis that it is exclusive - they will also be happy because it will get clicks because people like me will click on it to see how it is being spun. And so the game continues.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

58 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....?

Not this again. STATS19 records all serious road accidents and all modes of transport involved: pedestrians, those on bicycle, or travelling by motor vehicle. The study concluded, that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury.

With regards your personal attacks on individual academics, I think that robust academic research, which has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the BMJ is highly credible, yes. That an individual may have a personal opinion outside of their professional capacity is irrelevant. It would be strange if they did not.

So, usual obfuscation aside, can you be clear what you’re actually saying? Is it your belief that the reduction in recorded accidents is insignificant or untrue? Are you claiming that LTNs have not made roads safer, and if so, based on what?

Edited July 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

@exdulwicher......you can only use the exclusive moniker if you know you're the only person getting it. Peter Walker will be being "given" these on the basis of "exclusivity". 

Here is how it works. The research house, or their PR company, will call Peter and tell him, we have a new report, would you like it as an "exclusive"? He then knows he gets first dibs at the report before anyone else and the PR company/research house will be confident they will get their message delivered in a favourable light from a "friendly" journalist. The Guardian editor will be happy because the story will get clicks on the basis that it is exclusive - they will also be happy because it will get clicks because people like me will click on it to see how it is being spun. And so the game continues.....

With the BMJ this is adamantly not how it works. Why you are wrong is all detailed in the press section of the BMJ site (resources for the media section if you want to hunt for it and nitpick).

They will probably have a time sensitive embargo on a press release sent to hundreds of email addresses.

Peter will have gone and done additional interviews to write content that's not in the original press pack - which creates his exclusive.

But once again you are sniping at female academics commissioned by NICE and published in the BMJ... but don't even understand the boilerplate disclaimer on supplemental material. 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, snowy said:

They will probably have a time sensitive embargo on a press release sent to hundreds of email addresses.

No, you are wrong. If that is the case then that is not an exclusive. An embargoed press release sent to hundreds is not an exclusive - it only becomes an exclusive if it is sent to only one person - that is the very nature of an exclusive - the journalist is saying: I am the only person who has this information.

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Peter will have gone and done additional interviews to write content that's not in the original press pack - which creates his exclusive.

Again, that is absolute nonsense - you clearly have no idea how an exclusive works.

1 hour ago, snowy said:

But once again you are sniping at female academics commissioned by NICE and published in the BMJ... but don't even understand the boilerplate disclaimer on supplemental material. 

I am sniping at a co-author of an "impartial" report who has a history of very impartial behaviours when it comes to LTNs as I have zero confidence that the impulsiveness she showed to tear down an anti-LTN poster in her local shop does not permeate into her work. By having her involved in the piece of work discredits the report. 

Surely you can see the issue there?

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

That an individual may have a personal opinion outside of their professional capacity is irrelevant. It would be strange if they did not.

Personal opinions are fine. We are not talking about that though are we? We are talking about someone who was caught tearing down anti-LTN posters which were calling for people to join the LTN debate in her local shop - she was trying to stifle democratic opposition to the LTNs and then is being upheld as an impartial voice in the LTN debate - it's utterly laughable that people think this is ok but actually goes to show the hypocritical nature of many.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So, usual obfuscation aside, can you be clear what you’re actually saying? Is it your belief that the reduction in recorded accidents is insignificant or untrue? Are you claiming that LTNs have not made roads safer, and if so, based on what?

Any clarification?

9 minutes ago, Rockets said:

and then is being upheld as an impartial voice in the LTN debate

Not an impartial voice in a debate where she is voicing a personal opinion. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about an objective analysis of the data, peer reviewed and published in a respected academic journal. If you believe that the data or the analysis is incorrect then say so. Character assassination is not remotely relevant.

[Rockets]

25 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Not an impartial voice in a debate where she is voicing a personal opinion. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about an objective analysis of the data, peer reviewed and published in a respected academic journal. If you believe that the data or the analysis is incorrect then say so. Character assassination is not remotely relevant.

Which is massively undermined by her "personal actions". Surely even you can acknowledge that? So is it ok for a police officer to shoplift in their personal time - they're off-duty so it must be ok?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Again, not interested in character assassination. Explain how you believe the peer review process has been corrupted and why the data analysis is flawed.

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So, usual obfuscation aside, can you be clear what you’re actually saying? Is it your belief that the reduction in recorded accidents is insignificant or untrue? Are you claiming that LTNs have not made roads safer, and if so, based on what?

And perhaps clarify what your actual point is.

The constant innuendo does feel incredibly cynical.

Edited July 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

Lol at rockets - adding to the list of topics they can embarrass themselves with.

I guess I should update the list of national organisations or global research organisations they think are now compromised - as apparently the BMJ and the government's own research funding org the NIHR need to be added. 

Check the research publication date and the date of Peter Walker's article. They are the same, so he will have got the embargoed press release and abstract along with everyone else globally on the BMJ email list for that research topic. 

BMJ publicly state they don't cherry pick 'friendly journalists' with exclusives - it's the BMJ for F's sake - they don't need to.

They're ranked something like top 3 of the global medical journals with hundreds of millions of millions of page impressions of their research each year.

Your notion that 'someone in the PR Team' would individually target a specific journalist on a geeky longitudinal / formative quantitative data analysis report is frankly laughable.

[Earl Aelfheah]

33 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Which is massively undermined by her "personal actions"

Not really. I imagine if you’re an expert and spend a lot of time studying the impact of LTNs, know the data back to front and see the kind of nonsense / misinformation some anti-LTN campaigners regularly propagate - suggesting they increase pollution, crime, and accidents (all things you’ve either claimed or insinuated with zero evidence), I can entirely imagine why she might get frustrated. It’s not remotely relevant to whether or not the research (which she was one contributor to and which has been rigorously peer reviewed), stands up to scrutiny.

24 minutes ago, snowy said:

I guess I should update the list of national organisations or global research organisations they think are now compromised - as apparently the BMJ and the government's own research funding org the NIHR need to be added.

They’re all in on it. 🤣

Edited July 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

6 hours 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....? 

So... LTNs are good then?

You're SO nearly there Rockets... Come on, just that one little extra step... 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets please no more innuendo, character assassinations, or obfuscation; Is it your assertion that the reduction in recorded injuries is insignificant, or untrue? And what evidence do you offer?

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Not really. I imagine if you’re an expert and spend a lot of time studying the impact of LTNs, know the data back to front and see the kind of nonsense / misinformation some anti-LTN campaigners regularly propagate - suggesting they increase pollution, crime, and accidents (all things you’ve either claimed or insinuated with zero evidence), I can entirely imagine why she might get frustrated.

Ha ha, she might get frustrated....frustrated enough to tear down a poster and run off with it like a petulant child....

I mean for any grown adult to do that is humiliating enough but for someone who is supposed to be the impartial voice on LTNs it's a bit of an own goal and one of the best "gotcha" moments. But when folks on here defend actions like this is there wonder there is no accountability.

No wonder a growing number of people are sceptical of anything that group turns out now...hey but it keeps Peter Walker in "exclusives" so it keeps him happy at least...;-)

"Get frustrated" I am still laughing at that.....thank goodness that camera was there to catch her in the act....

 

1 hour ago, snowy said:

BMJ publicly state they don't cherry pick 'friendly journalists' with exclusives - it's the BMJ for F's sake - they don't need to.

@snowy you clearly have zero clue how the media works and anyone with a modicum of knowledge or experience working in the media or PR industry will know I am right.

1 hour ago, snowy said:

Your notion that 'someone in the PR Team' would individually target a specific journalist on a geeky longitudinal / formative quantitative data analysis report is frankly laughable.

But, unfortunately for you, I am absolutely correct. That's how exclusives work....deary, deary, deary me....may I suggest you type "media exclusive" into Google and read the results if you dont believe me....