FOI responses or research on braking and turning around LTNs and School Streets

[Rockets]

You mean when Aldred referred to them as innovative when she was awarded the funding to research them....impartially? See the announcement below and her quote.

 

https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/university-of-westminster-to-lead-major-ps15m-new-study-on-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london

[Rockets]

13 hours ago, ianr said:

I don't think posting it again has any value.

But you can clearly see which poster is being removed so did that answer your question? And it is all very premeditated as she stops on the first attempt because someone comes in the shop and disturbs her. Not the actions of someone who can claim any impartiality after that and she tarnished every piece of work her name is associated with on LTNs as a result.

[malumbu]

@Rockets You really are scraping the barrel if you think there is a smoking gun here:

"It is exciting to be able to study these innovative but under-researched interventions in much more depth than has previously been possible. For instance, we will extend our previous research by examining not just impacts on overall levels of walking and cycling, but also any changes in who walks and cycles, for instance gender balance. This award also means that we can look in detail at local people’s experiences, and how these experiences may change over time. Another focus will be examining changes over time in congestion levels on boundary roads and in the experiences of residents living on boundary roads, areas where more research is needed.”

As someone with so much lived experience of LTNs you would be much better off engaging with Westminster University rather than posting the same things again and again here.

Let's put it to others, a like if you would like Rockets to engage with the academics and sad face if you don't agree and confused emoji if you want an end to this thread (see next post, 3-0 to ending the thread) .  If we get more than a couple bothering to read these posts I'd be surprised.

Edited yesterday at 15:35 by malumbu
Edited to take into account Richard Tudor's sensible post

[richard tudor]

how about thumbs up to closing this post down. getting very boring listening to the say peoples view over and over again.

[Penguin68]

On 19/02/2026 at 12:00, malumbu said:

This smearing the academics because you don't like the results is tiresome and desperate.

I write as someone who has both taught and assessed academic research. One of the 'bias' problems with research, and it particularly reflects social research, is what is called 'confirmation bias'  - 'A cognitive bias where researchers consciously or unconsciously focus on data that supports their hypothesis while ignoring contradictory evidence.'. Ms Aldred is a committed activist and it would be incredibly difficult to avoid such bias in any work she designed and undertook, even unconsciously, which makes her as a primary source of research evidence a very poor choice. This does not mean that her findings could not additionally be presented to help decision making, but it would be understood to come from a particular viewpoint. It is, in my view, inappropriate for her to be chosen as the primary research vehicle for an issue which sits directly with an area where she is an activist.

If you wanted to undertake an assessment of the impact of the current Labour Government, you wouldn't turn to Starmer as your key source, or to Boris as your source for the impact of the Tory Government on the Covid pandemic. And if you want to look at the impact of LTNs or similar traffic measures, looking for an active travel enthusiast as your key researcher is equally concerning, however 'good' her research skills might otherwise be. The failure actually doesn't lie with Aldred (she is who she is) but on those who commissioned her, who I suspect knew exactly what sort of result they would get. For them, again I suspect, confirmation bias wasn't an issue.

Edited yesterday at 16:48 by Penguin68

[malumbu]

@Penguin68What you are suggesting by inference is that the organisation funding the research wants a certain result so goes to a friendly party in order to get that result.

Research doesn't work that way.  Organisations submit proposals which will then go through an appraisal process,  The contract will be monitored internally and externally.  You know all of this.  Sunak wanted the research his government funded to come out with a views that LTNs were bad.  But instead it was very much a mixed bag and he tried to supress this.

Would you not agree with me that those who feel most strongly about this with their own personal experience would be better off corresponding with the academics rather than going on, on this site, which is unlikely to change a thing?

And would you not agree with me that the part of the study "Another focus will be examining changes over time in congestion levels on boundary roads and in the experiences of residents living on boundary roads, areas where more research is needed" is most welcome.

I've worked in research, managed research and even commissioned some social research in the past.  Bit rusty now but I will still defend the independence of academics, rather than sling mud, as one or two do here.

This is not the 1950s and the suppression of research on smoking and lung cancer, or the 60s onwards when the fossil fuel industry successfully lobbied against research showing the impact of rising carbon dioxide levels on climate, even getting their tame researchers to come up with alternative conclusions.  Although drill baby drill over the pond, and Nige on this side, seem to be moving us back to the dark ages in terms of knowledge.

[Penguin68]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Research doesn't work that way. 

How naive. And, by the way, organisations don't initially submit proposals, in this type of instance, they respond to a brief proposed by the commissioning organisation. You are confusing this with academic research where academics submit proposals looking for funding. In this instance funding was already available for a proposal which met the brief. And the commissioners you can be pretty clear, knew the answer they were looking for. 

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, malumbu said:

Penguin68What you are suggesting by inference is that the organisation funding the research wants a certain result so goes to a friendly party in order to get that result.

Hallelujah! The penny finally drops! 

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

You are confusing this with academic research where academics submit proposals looking for funding. In this instance funding was already available for a proposal which met the brief.

And this very much part of the game...get a Dr. of something to do it and the masses will believe it is impartial.

The drugs and FMCG industries had a big problem with this in the 2000s....many of them commissioned research from "rent a result" Dr's from Russia who would tell you what you wanted to hear for the right price.