LTN accident injuries

[snowy]

Have you emailed the researchers on the link provided above yet? 

[Rockets]

I really dont know why this is proving to be so challenging....it's a really simple question.

[first mate]

10 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is actually ridiculous. Pay for the paper. Read the article. Then comment.

That's how it works. You take in the information, you use your critical faculties to assess it, then form a view, and if you want, share it.

If you don't want to pay for propriety material, then you really only have two options: 1) steal it, or; 2) have others steal it for you. Apparently you're offended by the very suggestion of the former, whilst effectively demanding the latter (asking for it to be illegally distributed via the forum). I don't advocate intellectual property theft to be clear. I suggest that you pay for it, read it and then comment on it.

There is a third option, that someone who has been able to access the research in full, and who seems well-versed in the contents, answers questions about methodology. In fairness, you have shared some information but seem reluctant to share other bits. 

It is also slightly frustrating and counterproductive that the research that apparently underpins and justifies council policy and decisions around LTNs is so very hard to access. If the research was in any way partly funded by tax payer money, then it should be publicly available.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't see why I should respond to an endless array of questions from people who have already decided that the methodology must be flawed, without having read the paper.

Please, Google 'confirmation bias'.

[CPR Dave]

The only fair conclusion is that they have found another 40 old LTNs that bolster the numbers and support keeping the new LTNs.

[first mate]

Unless those with access to the actual research can show that is not the case?

Does anyone know how this research has been funded? If the funding is wholly private then I understand why it is not available for the public to see; if it is partly funded by public money then we should not have to pay to scrutinise it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

9 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

The only fair conclusion is that they have found another 40 old LTNs that bolster the numbers and support keeping the new LTNs.

The only fair conclusion to draw from a piece of peer reviewed academic research, published in one of the worlds' most prestigious journals and that you haven't read, is that it's flawed. Really? Based on what exactly?

Confirmation bias: People's tendency to process information by looking for, or interpreting, information that is consistent with their existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision making is largely unintentional, and it results in a person ignoring information that is inconsistent with their beliefs.

I am loath to spoon feed people who have already made it very clear that they have no interest in objectively assessing the research, seeing as they've already dismissed it on the basis of nothing but prejudice (having unashamedly admitted to not having read it... the fact that they can't see any issue with their blatant confirmation bias, is actually beyond embarrassing).

Here is the dataset on LTNs however: https://blog.westminster.ac.uk/ata/projects/london-ltn-dataset/ ... I look forward to the tin hat explanation about how, remarkably, it somehow proves what you already believed! What a co-incidence!

They included data on 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.

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.

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. 

It's a really thorough, multi-year, London-wide study. It's been peer reviewed (which means it has been assessed by other, independent experts in the same field before being accepted for publication, to ensure the quality, validity and originality of the research). The findings are pretty conclusive: LTNs improve road safety.

Edited Tuesday at 17:25 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Unless those with access to the actual research can show that is not the case?

Does anyone know how this research has been funded? If the funding is wholly private then I understand why it is not available for the public to see; if it is partly funded by public money then we should not have to pay to scrutinise it.

All of that is covered here: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2025/07/17/ip-2024-045571

which is the link in the original article which has been pointed out to you a few times.

Edited Tuesday at 09:39 by snowy
Link

[first mate]

Thank you but now I am really confused as to why Earl was making a huge issue about a requirement to pay for it, or even more strange, suggesting we should steal it from a reference library?

[snowy]

Because probably a period of time has passed and they have released more data / methodology.

That's probably not the full report but a longer abstract.

You could email them and ask? Look forward to hearing what you get back. 

[Rockets]

 

Does anyone know why the researchers chose to do one report in 2021 that looked at LTNs installed in a very specific time frame yet (let's call them the Covid LTNs) yet the new report extends to "LTNs" installed from 2015? 

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

The post-Covid LTN is a very different beast to something installed in 2015. Councils used Covid social distancing and emergency powers given to them to install LTNs because they could not get support for them under OHS.

What does an LTN in 2015 look like compared to one in 2021. 

Is that confirmation bias? Or dataset bias perhaps?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Oh it's absolutely confirmation bias. Have a look at the diagram above if it helps.

Edited Tuesday at 10:43 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

I like this diagram more 

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes. The difference there is that what you've posted is a meme. I'm pointing out a well studied concept in psychology, concerning cognitive bias. Probably the same though - Like someone's opinion on the methodological flaws of an academic paper they haven't read, and those of the independent experts who have taken part in the peer review process, prior to it's publication. The same.

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Does anyone know why the researchers chose to do one report in 2021 that looked at LTNs installed in a very specific time frame yet (let's call them the Covid LTNs) yet the new report extends to "LTNs" installed from 2015? 

To repeat what I said earlier, it depends what you are studying. The 2021 report looked at "Covid LTNs" so it's fairly obvious it's not looking at historic modal filters - a concept which by the way dates back way before 2015 and is still the mainstay of planning in new-build housing developments now in the form of cul-de-sacs.

In fact to return to my plane crash analogy, if you were looking specifically at crashes caused by pilot error, it'd be a different dataset to crashes caused by engine failure, even though they are all "plane crashes" and there would undoubtedly be some overlap. Engine failure followed by pilot error for example. 

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

The 2021 report looked at "Covid LTNs" so it's fairly obvious it's not looking at historic modal filters - a concept which by the way dates back way before 2015 and is still the mainstay of planning in new-build housing developments now in the form of cul-de-sacs.

Exactly my point so now they are counting any modal filter/intervention since 2015 as an LTN? LTNs, and their specfici implementation, are very much a thing of the Covid era but now Goodman et al are measuring other interventions and classing them as LTNs and making conclusions that LTNs are a success?

Do we know what they consider to be a 2015 - 2021 LTN?

To use your plane crash analogy are they not throwing planes in from a bygone era into their dataset and not comparing/analysing a consistent dataset?

[snowy]

Have you tried writing to them and asking? I'm sure they'd be interested in your opinion.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I agree. Rockets should write saying - I haven't read your paper, but I am convinced it is fundamentally flawed. Please could you tell me how I am right? 

[Stalwart]

I wonder how many people in LTN's have seen their houses burn or injuries left  unattended for longer than necessary, due to emergency services having to navigate closed off streets and choked up periphery roads.

Another study perhaps...

Edited Tuesday at 15:57 by Stalwart
missed out word

[Penguin68]

It wouldn't just have to be in an LTN, but anywhere where the natural route for assistance would have gone through an LTN where the road was actually blocked off by planters etc. 

[Stalwart]

On 16/07/2025 at 18:03, teddyboy23 said:

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

Oh wow -https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/dulwich/lambeth-council-begins-refunding-1-million-in-pcns-from-unlawful-west-dulwich-ltn/

 

[Rockets]

Ha ha..the usual suspects attempting the usual deflections.....so predictable.

If in doubt start name-calling and being rude! 😉