LTN accident injuries

[Spartacus]

10 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 an opportunity to return to their monomaniacal obsession over a 5 year old road filter. 

Thats a bit random, its like saying its done, get over it. Hope you also.say the same to people who rant against brexit which was also 5 years ago. They say time is a great healer but to some both events represent an injustice 

Edited Tuesday at 20:23 by Spartacus

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, Spartacus said:

Thats a bit random, its like saying its done, get over it. Hope you also.say the same to people who rant against brexit which was also 5 years ago. They say time is a great healer but to some both events represent an injustice 

No it’s not. It’s about one individual repeatedly diverting any discussion about roads or transport, regardless of what it is, back to a road filter introduced in Dulwich 5 years ago. By all means discuss it, but let the rest of us discuss other things, without constantly being forced to relitigate a half a decade old grievance that's not changing. We've already heard all the talking points, many of which are simply untrue (for example baseless claims about increased danger and air pollution, conspiracies around shadowy lobbies etc). 

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

I posed questions about the methodology linked to the report and resulting exlcusive media coverage provided in the Guardian

You literally responded to a post pointing out some interesting research with:

On 07/07/2025 at 21:38, Rockets said:

Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman authored

File accordingly...

And followed it up with a claim that it was:

On 07/07/2025 at 22:47, Rockets said:

LTN propaganda derived from statistical jiggery pokery

...without even reading it. So don't claim you are just asking honest questions.

And of course, when this irrational and unhelpful 'contribution' was questioned, you immediately tried to deflect, falsely quoting me more than once whilst also accusing others of 

On 09/07/2025 at 17:36, Rockets said:

seemingly pulling from the "putting words into people's mouths" playbook used by some of your cohort on here in your attempt to divert from the potential own goal you flagged.

It's the usual bad faith contribution, sprinkled with deflection and dishonesty. The thread was about some interesting and very credible research and you've just diverted yet another thread so that you can rail against shadowy lobbies and bore on about a road filter introduced in Dulwich 5 years ago.

Edited Wednesday at 12:42 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

The claims made in this report, or at least reported by those who seem to have full access to it, the report by people who are known to be supporters of a particular mind-set do not, so far as the reporting I have seen of it goes,  lay out contextualised and comparable figures for areas with and without LTNs. Put very simply it may very well be that accident figures have improved in LTNs (now virtually without traffic for much or all of the time) - but I want to know the following:-

1. How does this compare with changes in accident figures in other parts of the country (and London) which are comparable in terms of urban profile and traffic levels with the LTNs?. That is, have accidents levels in general in comparable urban areas changed over the same time period. How have these changed? Are these changes statistically significant?

2. How have accident figures in roads known to be necessary alternatives to LTNs altered over time? What are the joint (LTN and adjacent figures) combined. and how do these compare with comparable non LTN areas?

Just for context, over the time period which I believe is being measured we have had a considerable roll-out of reduced speed limits, at least across London, from 30 to 20mph (and of course we have had lock-down for part of this). We have also had the exclusion from the roads of older cars and vans (because of emissions issues) which have removed what may be less road-worthy vehicles from the equation.

At the moment we seem just to have found that where you reduce traffic levels, reported accidents reduce. The alternative would be surprising. No doubt if you were to remove all motorised vehicles from all streets the incidence of accidents caused by motor vehicles would plummet.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You don't like the conclusions and so are attempting to critique the methodology without having read it?

I'm loath to engage with criticism based on nothing but prejudice, but if it helps (it definitely won't):

...they included all road links (sections of road between two junctions) in London. Across the years 2012–2024, some road links became inside an LTN or became part of an LTN boundary road, while others did not and remained in a control group. The analysis estimated the before-versus-after change in injury numbers after the implementation of each LTN, using the control group to adjust for background changes in injury numbers over time.

They observed significant decreases in injuries within the LTNS and no commensurate increase outside of them.

They also looked at roads which had been part of an LTN, but where it had been removed. In total, 331 injuries, including 44 'killed or seriously injured' events, were observed on roads in a former LTN that had been removed. They estimate that 116 fewer injuries, including 16 fewer KSIs, would have been expected to occur if the removed LTNs had instead been retained. 

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.

It's a really thorough, multi-year, London-wide study. The findings are pretty conclusive: LTNs improve road safety.

Edited Wednesday at 12:58 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But does the report answer the questions I initially posed - 

 

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?).

[jazzer]

Last

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 20:25 by jazzer

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets If you want to critique the paper seriously, you’re going to have to read it.

If you just want to say it’s wrong and then ask me to help you try and prove your prejudice, I’m not interested.

Edited Wednesday at 16:25 by Earl Aelfheah

[teddyboy23]

All motorist issued with pncs concerning the westdulwich ltn scheme. Will now receive refunds.after it was ruled illegal

[Insuflo]

3 hours ago, jazzer said:

Last and final Round 12. 

 

Grow up and learn to spell.

Edited Wednesday at 19:39 by Insuflo

[Earl Aelfheah]

Jazzer trying to pretend like his compadre’s ‘contributions’ aren’t transparently, objectively, 🐎 💩 

Dismissing a peer reviewed academic paper as ‘propaganda’ and ‘statistical jiggery pokery’ without having read it.  🤣

Caught making up quotes (posting the evidence himself 🙄) in a desperate attempt to change the subject after being called out.

…and then *back to earnest face* hey, I’m just asking questions, I really have an open mind …but I still haven’t read the paper so someone who has is going to have to help me try and find how it might be flawed. 😬🤣

Give us a break.

Edited Wednesday at 22:27 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah other opinions may differ from yours....and, do you know what, you may not be right all of the time....;-)

I still think given Anna Goodman's challenges with objectivity when faced with an anti-LTN poster in a local shop you can call her objectivity into doubt when co-authoring papers on LTNs...surely we can agree on that much at least....;-)

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

 If you want to critique the paper seriously, you’re going to have to read it.

Can you PM me a copy perhaps....;-)

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you just want to say it’s wrong and then ask me to help you try and prove your prejudice, I’m not interested.

Of course you're not. And I didn't say it is wrong I asked a question about the methodology...but we all know you know that...why do I think you know there has been some jiggery pockery at play....if not surely you could just help answer the question? Are you avoiding providing the answer perhaps?

Edited Wednesday at 23:38 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

And I didn't say it is wrong I asked a question about the methodology

After already dismissing it as ‘propaganda and statistical jiggery pokery’ and suggesting it should be ‘filed accordingly’. A bit late to pretend you care about an objective assessment of the methodology. You’re fooling absolutely nobody.

[first mate]

The simplest thing would be to post it up or send a copy over by PM. It undermines your position to withhold that information. 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Right. It 'undermines my position' to have read the paper before commenting. But it doesn't undermine ones position to critique it without having read it? Are you OK?

It's a paid for article / not mine to share for free. I've already responded in detail to Penguins baseless speculation about the methodology (again, he clearly hasn't read it). I'm sure Admin would quickly remove it if I did illegally distribute propriety content on the forum.

If you want it for free, go and steal a copy from your local research library. I'm not helping you.

Edited Thursday at 08:48 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

7 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You’re fooling absolutely nobody.

And you're still refusing to help me answer the questions....that's not very helpful is it? Oh well...

[first mate]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

you want it for free, go and steal a copy from your local research library. I'm not helping you.

Not sure why you would imply I am the type to "steal"? It is low level attack along the lines of your earlier comments implying that I lied about cycling behaviour I had witnessed. Are you ok?

So we have established that you have read the paper in its entirety but are unable to share the information because it is paid for, but that does not stop you outlining the methodology? No harm in doing that, surely?

 

Edited Thursday at 13:28 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

21 hours ago, first mate said:

Not sure why you would imply I am the type to "steal"?

Both you and Rockets keep demanding that I illegally distribute propriety material for free on this forum. It's a paid for article as has been stated repeatedly.

21 hours ago, first mate said:

but that does not stop you outlining the methodology

👇

On 16/07/2025 at 13:37, Earl Aelfheah said:

...they included all road links (sections of road between two junctions) in London. Across the years 2012–2024, some road links became inside an LTN or became part of an LTN boundary road, while others did not and remained in a control group. The analysis estimated the before-versus-after change in injury numbers after the implementation of each LTN, using the control group to adjust for background changes in injury numbers over time.

They observed significant decreases in injuries within the LTNS and no commensurate increase outside of them.

They also looked at roads which had been part of an LTN, but where it had been removed. In total, 331 injuries, including 44 'killed or seriously injured' events, were observed on roads in a former LTN that had been removed. They estimate that 116 fewer injuries, including 16 fewer KSIs, would have been expected to occur if the removed LTNs had instead been retained. 

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.

It's a really thorough, multi-year, London-wide study. The findings are pretty conclusive: LTNs improve road safety.

I'm not giving you any more help. Do the work, formulate your thoughts, and then share your view.

Edited Friday at 11:13 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Thanks Earl, how is London defined? How many boroughs included, how many -if at all- not included?  Within those boroughs included how many roads in total and out of that figure how roads included and how many not?

On 18/07/2025 at 11:58, Earl Aelfheah said:

Both you and Rockets keep demanding that I illegally distribute propriety material for free on this forum. It's a paid for article as has been stated repeatedly.

No, you suggested that I could go to a reference library and then "steal" a copy. I would never do such a thing and find it offensive that you suggest I might. Similarly, I would not rip down materials posted on private property because I did not agree with or wanted to block the content. 
 

 

 

[snowy]

The answers to that methodology question are helpfully included in the original research link if you can be bothered to look. Or;

"Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All data are available upon request to the authors."

Edited 6 hours ago by snowy

[Rockets]

Any answers anywhere to the questions I posed (pasted below to remind you):

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?).

[first mate]

If we are referring to the same study, the conclusion is:

"LTNs in London reduced road traffic injuries among all road users inside the LTN areas, with no evidence of overall impact (and for cyclists and motorcyclists a benefit) on boundary roads.

Is this the study and conclusion you refer to?

Edited 3 hours ago by first mate

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Any answers anywhere to the questions I posed (pasted below to remind you):

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?).

If you read the methodology (I know, right?!) of the various studies, you'll see that it depends on exactly what they're studying and exactly when the LTN was put in. 

There was one about car ownership inside LTNs as well (slight decrease in general) which looked at a different number again because of how the data was collected and validated and cross referenced with census data.

If you're doing a study in 2021 for example and it requires before and after data of a year then it stands to reason that you can ONLY look at LTNs installed at least a year ago (and even then, depending on exactly what data you're examining, not all LTNs will be suitable). If you then do a different study in 2024, requiring before and after data, you'll have a different set of LTNs to be looking at.

It's like looking at aviation crashes in 2010 then again in 2020. You'll have a lot more data both in terms of the number of crashes but also the detail available to you since black box data now is way more advanced than it was in 2010. It's effectively a different subset of data.

But all these studies require you to actually read what the study is looking at, what dataset is being used and how it was validated. I know you're trying desperately to find some kind of hook to latch your conspiracy theory onto but actually it's completely the opposite - the mark of excellent research.