raptortruckman69

It's pretty simple really. When Aldred thinks the Dulwich LTN works well it's obvious we disagree with her opinions and find she lacks all credibility. When she notes a flaw in the data used to support her position, we agree and she clearly is an expert who knows what she is taking about in that particular narrow case. We will take her expertise when she displays it. Not otherwise.

Yeah that's exactly what I said. It's about the money. And you can be sure their errors just happen to go in the direction their biggest customers want rather than over counting.

The data was flawed! I think you have a gift for understatement there first mate. I'm sure you agree with me that Rockets is right about the tube counter company being like those big pharma ones. Can't trust them an inch why will none of the rest of you see that obvious truth?? And if we are being honest we can't trust anything at all the council says either, so we have to go with our own eyes not the flawed evidence.

Yes I agree with rockets again! The data has all been manipulated and faked. LTNs don't work, and the data would prove it if the council ever gave is the real un manipulated data. You tell them. I'm sure they will fake the vivacity days too so when that mysteriously shows LTNs work, we will know why.

Ok I'm confused now. Is the company lying about accuracy or saying they can't accurately count cars. I thought it was the first one because it looks like they say they are accurate

I agree with rockets. The counter company is big pharma level of deceptive. All the "evidence" that shows LTNs are a success is manipulated. We KNOW the LTNs are a failure. All the mounds of "evidence" to the contrary must be fake.

Well Aldred is wrong about most stuff but if she is right about something then why would we criticise that? Being right makes someone much more credible than being wrong so she is definitely credible when she says those tubes didn't work properly. Why do you find that INcredible hahaha! Anyway who actually believes the manufacturers claim that they are 95% accurate? Of course they would say that. They are hardly going to say we heavily undercount cars. The councils want LTNs so they can collect fines and the councils are the customer of the company. The company is going to give the council what it wants. They are not being paid for the truth. Come on think. If we are honest we can all see LTNs don't work so any data that says they might must be dodgy.

Also were they right to say that traffic counts are 95% accurate even with congestion? But we all know the answer because the sensors showed a decrease, and that's obviously rubbish.

Obviously Metro count are being dishonest or deluded about the accuracy of their machines for slow vehicles, that's why the numbers are lower. When the numbers go up we will start believing Metro counts figures.

Absolutely. 95% accuracy of vehicle counts without a type isn't accurate enough to draw any conclusions except for an increase in traffic. Decreases are obviously due to inaccuracies in the count.

But we know they must be wrong because they show that LTNs reduce traffic and we know that's wrong because induced demand is fake and all the decades of science that shows it exists is bogus science produced by biased researchers with an axe to grind.

Obviously if it misclassified the vehicle type, say confusing a car with a van or vice versa then it must have got the count wrong. It's not enough to know the number of vehicles, you have to know the type to draw any conclusions about the amount of vehicles.

We don't need "evidence" from traffic counters. We know the volume is up, because we know LTNs are flawed. Therefore the counters have to be wrong. There is no other possible explanation.

We know traffic has increased. If the counts go up it's because of the increase. If they go down the counts must be wrong because they are obviously not reflecting reality. Everyone knows pneumatic counters can't be trusted and the manufacturers claims of accuracy are wrong.

Ha well what's the betting these new sensors will also just mysteriously show a drop in traffic which just so happens to line up with the councils narrative on how marvelous LTNs are? We need to get ahead and start figuring out how it's manipulated before they publish their bogus figures.

Not counting slow cars is typical of the incompetence I'd expect from traffic engineers hired by the council. They have no idea how to use pneumatic counters at all. I'm deeply glad they there are so many upstanding lay citizens who have done their research and posted the results on Twitter and YouTube etc for us to follow. It's good that now anyone is able to correct the so-called professionals. I shall bring this up next time I meet one of the councilors.

This is true, cyclists are more or less responsible for this culture war. The press have been vilifying motorist for decades and as I said positively fawning over cyclists. As a result politicians have been enacting a decades long campaign against cars in favor of the Lycra clad louts who believe they are all above the law. If they had just stayed in their painted cycle lane as it were, none of these problems would have happened. Finally, law-abiding, tax paying drivers are standing up and pointing out the hypocrisy.

Nonetheless I agree wholeheartedly with @first mate, cyclists should stay well out of politics and leave the city and the rest of us alone. They have no right to turn up on mass to consultations and so on.

Like I said utterly disgusting. Cyclists shouldn't be allowed to influence politics at all, they should stick to getting from A to B in lycra while not breaking the law continuously. They should be like motorists and quietly go about their day in a law abiding manger minding their own business and keep out of politics. I can't believe these people want to have such an affect on the city they live in and to try and change it so it benefits them. The question @first mate is how to we stop them, because as far as I can tell this is all legal. They will keep going until nothing remains by cycle paths.

It's also that for the last thirty years, the media has been fawning over cyclists and demonising motorists. There's a reason that motorists can get defensive, and expect cyclists to have some awareness of the situation especially given how dangerous bikes are now proving to be.

I'm confused who supports what now. Who other then myself actually wants the Dulwich LTN torn up to the enable the larger volumes of necessary, lower polluting and largely smoothly flowing traffic we had before (especially Calton)? And who is here to complain (rightfully) about the council but would rather not have any more changes? And obviously the lycra mafia who largely want to crow

Is that really true? It's disgusting that cyclists feel that they should be able to influence politics. Motoring organizations consist of road tax paying motorist and corporation tax paying car companies. Typical of cyclists that they want to freeload off the democratic process. I deeply suspect there is a deeper influence behind some of the cycling groups, and ones like "solve the school run" are clearly using children as a shield to hide their true goals. That's even worse.

I don't care what the studies say. It's obviously true that cyclists are routine law breakers. The studies are just manipulated data created by activists. There is no evidence that will convince me that what is intuitively true and what I can see work my own eyes is wrong. But I love the cyclists here claiming to be in the tiny percentage of good ones who didn't break the law. I expect you are Lycra louts the lot of you.

Oh that's a good idea! Keep a few "cyclists" 😉 on side for having the LTN ripped up, while the rest of us discredit cyclists as the lycra louts that they are and the LCC cabal to boot. I am assuming that by reservation you do want it removed entirely because despite the mounds of so-called evidence (all manufactured by activist academics and radical councilors), it does in fact increase pollution and traffic. You are not actually broadly in favor with a few tweaks are you?

That's such a cyclist attitude: you were breaking the law then harassed the guy until he let you off. Then try and paint yourself as the good guy. If anyone needed anymore evidence that cyclists are scofflaws with double standards, then here it is.