LTN accident injuries

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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?

So nothing? You have nothing but innuendo? If you want to say something, have the courage to say it, and back it up with some evidence.

The truth is, you are well aware that traffic filters reduce injuries. As you said before it’s ’bleeding obvious’. There is nothing in that paper that you can challenge on the substance, so you play the person. It’s so transparently cynical.

Edited July 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you want to say something, have the courage to say it and back it up with some evidence.

I just did. Its just not what you wanted me to say as you tried desperately to divert the conversation onto what you want to talk about...

[Earl Aelfheah]

So you accept that LTNs have led to a reduction in injuries or you do not? Or you just aren’t willing to say? Yeh, no cynical obfuscation there. 

Edited July 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Well I stated at the beginning that closing roads to traffic will reduce injuries caused by said traffic...that's bleedingly obvious...not sure why, other than deflection tactics, you are fixated on that point. It's your usual deflection and distraction tactics and here is a reminder of what I said and I stand by it all...it's impartial propaganda, a bit like your 55% in support of the DV closures claim, amplified by an activist journalist in the guise of an "exclusive ". You're all at it!

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 8 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Well I stated at the beginning that closing roads to traffic will reduce injuries caused by said traffic

You’re still obfuscating. You have suggested before that whilst recorded injuries involving motor vehicles may have reduced as a result of the Dulwich LTN for example, that the area has become more dangerous than it was previously as the result of ‘speeding bikes’, and suggested that the data on injuries involving bicycles isn’t collected (this of course isn’t true). So even in the way you’ve formulated that response, you’re dancing around / being slippery.

Do you accept that LTNs have improved safety and reduced injuries as the research concludes? Or do you dispute it?

20 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman authored

 

File accordingly...

So no interest in the substance of the research? Completely dismissing the independence of the peer review process? The fact that two respected academics have expressed views that you don’t agree with, proves that the research is invalid in and of itself? You must see the problem with that?

Edited July 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

18 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You’re still obfuscating.

No I am not. You are. Your games are very tiresome....and oh so predictable.

I made my point and like your claims of 55% support for the DV closures I take anything Aldred and Goodman publish with a huge pinch of salt and file accordingly...especially if Peter Walker publishes it as an "exclusive".

[DulvilleRes]

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

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.

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

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?

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.

 

A fair dose of hypocrisy right here. The anti LTN posters on these threads won't even tell us who is behind One Dulwich and who funds them, despite posting up their press releases, or are so unconcerned about real local democracy, they can't be bothered to find out. Democracy across the world is struggling to survive, and it is deeply depressing that on a micro level these basic questions aren't answered about an opaque local organisation. 

The incessant hounding of Anna Goodman by these anonymous keyboard warriors is one of the low points of the East Dulwich Forum, and far exceeds any sense of proportionality. It has never been established how the Daily Mail got the story of her ripping down the poster in the first place. Whilst the Mail is virtually the last paper standing in terms of having old-school journalistic resources, they still depend a great deal on tip-offs and press releases. Are there any connections between One Dulwich and the Daily Mail?  Was she dibbed in by her neighbours?

[Sue]

12 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

@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?

I'm waiting with bated breath here too.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

It has never been established how the Daily Mail got the story of her ripping down the poster in the first place. Whilst the Mail is virtually the last paper standing in terms of having old-school journalistic resources, they still depend a great deal on tip-offs and press releases. Are there any connections between One Dulwich and the Daily Mail?  Was she dibbed in by her neighbours?

Oh I see, so it was someone else's fault that she got caught doing it....ha ha...that's beyond typical!!! That has put a smile on my face for the rest of the day! Brilliant - thank you so much - your timing was perfect - I may have to get this post framed!

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Oh I see, so it was someone else's fault that she got caught doing it....ha ha...that's beyond typical!!! That has put a smile on my face for the rest of the day! Brilliant - thank you so much - your timing was perfect - I may have to get this post framed!

I'm so not interested in this gossip. When you can't engage with the evidence / research, but instead resort to character assassination you've really stopped having anything relevant to say. 

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah there is plenty to question about whether the report uses statistical jiggery pockery to get their headline big number of 600 injuries and 100 fatalities have been reduced. Just start doing the math, look at the areas where LTNs have been deployed (I did also notice that the first Peter Walker/ Goodman research article in 2021 did analysis of 72 LTNs - installed during Covid - and the most recent looked at 113 LTNs so are we presuming that since 2021 another 40+ LTNs were put in or have the researchers expanded to LTNs installed before Covid and, as such what do they define as an LTN?).

My suspicions were raised because the number seemed to be very high if you consider LTNs, in their current guise, have been installed in areas like Dulwich Village and when you look at your beloved CrashMap you can see that there have been no fatal and minimal serious incidents reported within the Dulwich Village LTN area since CrashMap started posting STATS19 data and I very much suspect that the situation is similar in many other Covid LTNs as most were installed in residential side-road areas. 

Look, after your 55% of people support the Dulwich Village LTNs erroneous claim I am now very sceptical of any headline stats thrown around by the active travel lobby because when I looked for the data to back up your claim it was clear you were wrong and misinforming people. So I now check the supporting data.

So I was looking for a very simple explanation of how the Walker/Goodman headline was derived and all I could find was the below and I cannot even start to decipher it - @Earl Aelfheah perhaps you can explain it to us in layman's terms as you have bought into the headline and I am sure you have looked beneath the surface to sanity check the methodology this time?

We matched police-recorded injuries from STATS19 data to Ordnance Survey road links that were spatially intersected with LTNs/boundary roads. Conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression models used the number of injuries per road link per quarter of each year (January 2012 to June 2024) to test whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in injury rates.

 

[Insuflo]

In layman’s terms, I’d say: the war’s over, you lost. LTN’s result in cleaner air and safer streets; they are here to stay.

Also, the BMJ Injury Prevention site also gives metrics for where the release of this research has been picked up and discussed: so far, 5 news outlets, 80 Bluesky threads and 22 X (Twitter) threads, both supportive and critical. All very transparent:

https://bmj.altmetric.com/details/179050444

[Rockets]

29 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

In layman’s terms, I’d say: the war’s over, you lost. LTN’s result in cleaner air and safer streets; they are here to stay.

Be careful else @Earl Aelfheah may accuse you of obfuscation....funny isn't it - folks holler for the reasons why you question the report then when you do they see...move on, nothing to see here.....it's all so predictable.

30 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

Also, the BMJ Injury Prevention site also gives metrics for where the release of this research has been picked up and discussed: so far, 5 news outlets, 80 Bluesky threads and 22 X (Twitter) threads, both supportive and critical. All very transparent:

But only one exclusive was given to Peter Walker! 😉

[Insuflo]

43 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Be careful else @Earl Aelfheah may accuse you of obfuscation....funny isn't it - folks holler for the reasons why you question the report then when you do they see...move on, nothing to see here.....it's all so predictable.

But only one exclusive was given to Peter Walker! 😉

But you haven’t given any coherent reasons  for questioning the research. Your obsession with the “Exclusive” tag on the Guardian article is just baffling. Take it up with the journalist or his subeditor.

I came to the Guardian article via someone I follow on Bluesky (Christian Wolmar) posting a link. Despite being a Guardian reader every day for decades, I would never have come across the article otherwise. It never, as far as I can see, appeared on the Guardian home page or was run with any kind of prominence. So,  the Graun is hardly trumpeting their exclusive. As the metrics show, it was available to other news outlets if they wished to pick it up. 

Edited July 9 by Insuflo

[Rockets]

22 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

But you haven’t given any coherent reasons  for questioning the research.

But I did. An hour ago. Any thoughts on that?

I remind you it was not me who took um-bridge over me calling out the fact that these stories are always given, as an exclusive, to a cause-friendly journalist in Peter Walker. It was not me who was trying to convince people that the industry standard to "exclusives" was not being applied in this instance despite the Guardian flagging it as such. I can't help notice how the protagonists in that particular part of this debate have gone a bit quiet....one wonders if that actually did some research and realised they were spouting nonsense! 😉

[snowy]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

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....

 

@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.

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....

i've not gone quiet - i just don't think that your inane posts demand an immediate response.
 

Having worked for the equivalent medical research body in the uk, commissioning and publishing research, i have a little more insight than you on how they work with the press , but thanks for your contribution. 

BMJ states that they don't do exclusives - it's all Cision managed press releases, so unless you have proof that's not the case it's likely to be my earlier interpretation - he added to the story with interviews.
 

as has been pointed out the BMJ site shows the time and date their publication is  picked up and shared by media. The Guardian article is the same day, but much closer to what i guess was the noon embargo time. 
 

i'm also intrigued by your comment about "a growing number of people" - are you now saying NIHR and the BMJ ate no longer reliable sources?
 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But I did. An hour ago. Any thoughts on that?

Yes. It’s incoherent. Your objection to the data analysis as far as I can tell, is that it doesn’t sound right to you, and that you don’t understand how they’ve combined collision and injury data with ordinance survey data to study the areas in and around LTNs.

What it seems to boil down to is ‘I don’t understand the paper, but I don’t like it’s conclusions’

Edited July 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

We want research. Oh no, not that research... etc.

 

 

[first mate]

Perhaps those of you who know better can break the research down for us. After all, if the aim is to persuade it is in your intetests to explain.

6 minutes ago, first mate said:

 

We matched police-recorded injuries from STATS19 data to Ordnance Survey road links that were spatially intersected with LTNs/boundary roads. Conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression models used the number of injuries per road link per quarter of each year (January 2012 to June 2024) to test whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in injury rates.

 

Meaning this, as above.

Edited July 9 by first mate

[Sue]

13 minutes ago, first mate said:

Perhaps those of you who know better can break the research down for us. After all, if the aim is to persuade it is in your intetests to explain.

We matched police-recorded injuries from STATS19 data to Ordnance Survey road links that were spatially intersected with LTNs/boundary roads. Conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression models used the number of injuries per road link per quarter of each year (January 2012 to June 2024) to test whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in injury rates.

 

Meaning this, as above.

It's just describing the method of statistical analysis used, isn't it?

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, snowy said:

BMJ states that they don't do exclusives - it's all Cision managed press releases, so unless you have proof that's not the case it's likely to be my earlier interpretation - he added to the story with interviews.

Who said anything about it being sent to them by the BMJ? The discussion about an exclusive could just have easily come from the authors of the report......

You may claim to know a thing or two about the BMJ but you clearly don't know much about the inner workings of the media, publicity and amplification business.....

Did you look up the definition of a "media exclusive"....what did it say.......?

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Yes. It’s incoherent.

Well come on then - explain what the methodology means to make it coherent for me......I am all ears....

3 minutes ago, Sue said:

It's just describing the method of statistical analysis used, isn't it?

But what does it mean - can you work it what it means in terms of how they constructed the model they used to come up with the numbers that made the headlines?

[first mate]

@ Sue It is, but some of us may not understand the methodology enough to know if it has been applied well or not. 

Edited July 9 by first mate

[Sue]

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

 

But what does it mean - can you work it what it means in terms of how they constructed the model they used to come up with the numbers that made the headlines?

No, because I've had no reason to use any kind of statistical analysis for about fifty years, and I've forgotten most of what I ever knew about it.

But are you suggesting that they have somehow used the wrong methodology (if that's the right word)?

That would have been picked up by someone with the relevant knowledge when the findings were published, surely.

I think straws are being clutched at now.

Edited July 9 by Sue

[snowy]

A Poisson distribution smooths out numbers - as you can't have 0.75 of an accident-  you either have an accident or you don't. It's better than simple division.

24 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Who said anything about it being sent to them by the BMJ? The discussion about an exclusive could just have easily come from the authors of the report......

You may claim to know a thing or two about the BMJ but you clearly don't know much about the inner workings of the media, publicity and amplification business.....

Did you look up the definition of a "media exclusive"....what did it say.......?

Well come on then - explain what the methodology means to make it coherent for me......I am all ears....

But what does it mean - can you work it what it means in terms of how they constructed the model they used to come up with the numbers that made the headlines?

This gets even better! What a little fantasy land you have dug yourself into.
 

You are now accusing the University of Westminster of breaking its own rules and breaking the funding contract of the NIHR and the publication rules of The BMJ by leaking a research paper? 

That would get Peter Walker banned from the BMJ press list and removed from Cision. 

That would hamper the entire university from accessing one of the largest governmental research funders.

For a low level piece in the guardian?
 

Every journalist got the embargoed report on the same day. One added to it and published 1.5 hours after what i guess was the noon embargo time. Only 5 other publications picked it up but the subeditor presumably guessed the guardian got there first.

And from that you are into conspiracy theories...

It's not a rabbit hole you are in, its an entire warren. 
 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

We matched police-recorded injuries from STATS19 data to Ordnance Survey road links that were spatially intersected with LTNs/boundary roads. Conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression models used the number of injuries per road link per quarter of each year (January 2012 to June 2024) to test whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in injury rates.

They looked at recorded injuries and used their location to determine whether they were in or around an LTN. 

They then used a statistical model to analyse count data and determine whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in the number of injury rates. 

There was a significant fall in the number of injuries.

If you read the whole paper, it is fairly easy to follow, even if you're not an expert in data analysis. It's also been peer reviewed, which means it has been evaluated by other, independent experts in the same field to assess the quality and validity of the research prior to being accepted for publication.

Edited July 9 by Earl Aelfheah