Rockets

And they did admit that. They have both admitted they are not designed to work in stop start traffic and should be used in free flowing conditions but also claim accuracy (in most circumstances but they do not qualify what those circumstances are - maybe it is within free-flowong traffic under 10kmp/h we just dont know). Aldred, and others in the industry, seem to agree with their "not designed to work in stop start conditions". And I am with them on this one. You are not and that is fine too. That's your decision. You have assesed the presented evidence and made your decision. Just because a manufacturer makes a claim doesn't mean it is true - always look out for caveats like "in most circumstances".

Of course THEY (MetroCount) do because THEY are trying to sell their product at a time when more accurate tools are coming into the market. It doesn't mean it is true - it is a claim. A claim the likes of Aldred even challenge.

<removed> I have merely validated her claim that tube counters do not count well in slow moving congested traffic. For even you to claim any of us have validated her overall research (if you want yo have a discussion on that bring it on as I have already posted some of my comments on that when it was first released) is a work of pure fantasy. This is confirmation bias by you on a massive scale and utterly laughable. You must be really desperate.

Ha ha Earl you lied (more than once) about what I said, twisting my words to suit your agenda. So I won't be taking any advice from you. I still stand by my original claim and nothing you have said has moved me on that and the other evidence i have presented suggests there is industry acknowledgement of the fact. The fact that you are now u-turning on your own defence during the whole argument is absolutely laughable, but not at all surprising given your track record. We have seen this all before and will no doubt see it again and again from the usual suspects and just exposes why so many people have issues with the attitude of many of the fanatical cheerleaders on the pro-side.

Unlikely because, a bit like bad cycling, they are invisible to cycle cultists.... ..BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS....;-)

Ha ha……oh my…. Whilst in the process lying about what I said….my the hypocrisy gene is particularly strong in this one! 😉

DKHB...maybe, just maybe, those who oppose the measures aren't rabid diesel drinking petrolheads but people who just think that the measures the council is putting in might be actually making the very problem they are trying to solve worse and that their manipulation of data to "prove" the measures are working is unforgiveable given the stakes are so high. Earl is the new Mr Chicken who was the new LTNBooHoo who was the new LTNmanatee! I do wonder sometimes if there are just a couple of fanatics setting up numerous accounts...clearly RaptorTruck is a new approach someone is taking. Perhaps admin can do some research to see if there are any data trends - a lot of the pro-LTN brigade managed to get themselves barred in the past and I wonder if One or two have come back under a new guise! it just shows the lengths some of the fanatics will go to try to make a point and start a fight with anyone who dares suggest a viewpoint that differs from their own bizarre outlook on the world. It’s all very cult like.

FirstMate - to earn your stripes as a fully fledged member of the cycling cult you have to scream BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS anytime anyone points out anything other than exemplary behaviour by cyclists. It's first page of the rule book. The fact that the council deems it necessary to do this shows there might be a problem....BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS...... The fact they are reminding people that pedestrians have priority...BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS.... The fact that cyclists are posing a danger to pedestrians and the council is having to do this...BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS... The fact there are no cars allowed in the parks making cycles the most likely to cause problems...BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS Honestly the predictable responses are pitiful and again show how some just need to pull their head out of the sand look at the road ahead of them as if they pretend this is not a problem before they know it bikes will be banned from a lot of spaces (as they are in the centre of many European cities). To which the cultists will reply BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS! It's not like they had enough warning to behave their behaviour..BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS Finding dirt on cyclists...I was walking through the park and the new stencils appeared in front of me and I thought...well why is that necessary...why do you think those stencils might be necesswry Malumbu...?! What message are they trying to convey? Of course not..BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS! 😉

These have appeared in Dulwich Park (there are a couple of them near the Dulwich Village entrance). Is this the council doing this?

Earl, I am clearly living rent free in your head.... You're tying yourself in knots and not actually reading (or deliberately ignoring) what I have been writing. Ex- I have asked this twice so will try one more time: Was Metrocount right to say: the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic? Do pneumatic tubes work well in road conditions under 10km/h and in congested traffic? Would moving tubes from Lordship Lane at the junction of Court Lane to Lordship Lane to the junction of Melford Road (which is often under heavy congestion) increase or decrease accuracy of the monitoring provided by the tubes?

You might think it is nonsense but others do not and the weight of evidence suggests our position is a more reflection of reality than yours. Let's look.... The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) Southwark council stated they were phasing them out and replacing them with more accurate counters Even our dear friend Ex-Dulwicher (who works in this sort of stuff) admitted that they are not accurate when used in heavy traffic conditions. So combine all of the above with the fact that Southwark actively moved monitoring strips closer to choke points (to use their weaknesses to their advantage) then my statement is anything but nonsense. I don't know where Lambeth have put the monitoring strips in West Dulwich but if they are in areas of slow moving traffic then the pneumatic strips will not be providing an accurate reflection of traffic levels - that is not nonsense, that is a fact. Ha ha acknowledging what a company has said hardly constitutes a "mealy mouthed climb down" but you referring to it as such is probably a reflection on what your modus operandi is at the moment. Let's just remind ourselves where this all started and the statements I actually made (before you started to apply your own unique interpretation/lying to try and land a point). The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) Southwark council stated they were phasing them out and replacing them with more accurate counters Even our dear friend Ex-Dulwicher (who works in this sort of stuff) admitted that they are not accurate when used in heavy traffic conditions. Nothing in those three original statements is inaccurate.

A bit rich coming from someone who has, repeatedly, lied about what I said and tried to change what I have said to suit their particular agenda. But, you know, hypocrisy is an overpowering trait demonstrated by many who claim to be on the pro-side of the debate! It is very clear the point I was trying to make - you are the pedant who has then spent days arguing the yeah, but, did you mean classifying or counting and trying to take the conversation down a rat hole. It's very clear that MetroCount devices are not great at monitoring under 10kmp/h and that is validated by a lot of different sources including the company themselves, Rachel Aldred and other documents posted by others on here. Of course we have to acknowledge that the company themselves (and you) claim this is not the case but, on the weight of presented evidence, only a fool would take their word for it! Again a bit rich and hypocritical coming from you given your track record of, repeated, mistakes (about what I have said) on this thread alone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5y0w6xg43o The SEND pupil issue at private schools is a big issue often overlooked by those who support this action as the impact on many families is going to be awful.

You keep misquoting me - is this deliberate or are you just not very good at detail? I remind you Earl, Purdue Pharma claimed that Oxycontin wasn't addictive... You're clearly a MetroCount fanboi as, despite overwhelming counter evidence from a host of sources, you keeping drinking their Kool-Aid! Do you work in their PR department per chance? P.S. Also some sound advice: treat with some suspicion when companies say things like "in most circumstances".....

But I used that to illustrate how my position was correct after you went at me saying I was wrong. It’s called providing evidence to back up your claim. Your evidence? A PR line from the company who makes the product. Wrong again. I said under 10kmp/h. Another deliberate mistake? You should really pay more attention to detail. I have nothing to correct. I think I have more than made, and validated, my point. I discussed my thoughts on Aldred’s paper when it was released, feel free to take a look or start a new thread and I would be happy to discuss but you can’t use that to try to deflect away from this thread - that’s a tactic played by some of your erstwhile friends when a subject gets too hot for them! Oh come on Earl, are you playing deliberately stupid? I said that’s not what we’re discussing when you tried to deflect the conversation onto the strengths cited in Aldred’s report.

But I didn't. Earl, give up...honestly it's not worth it - you're really not helping your cause - you're looking incredibly irrational. Just let everyone make their own minds up. I have said what I said (not what you said I said I hasten to add) and presented (what I believe to be) more than compelling evidence to back it up from numerous sources. You don't agree and the evidence will not sway you - that's fine - we will just have to agree to disagree.

That's not what we are talking about and is a desperate attempt by you to change the subject (I wonder why) - we are talking about the part of the ALdred report that deals with the "mere imperfections" of the tubes for monitoring very slow-moving traffic. If you want to start another thread feel free. But she states this.....Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results; although in most cases, count sites were placed away from junctions where queueing is likely, which should reduce this problem. Honestly.....how difficult is this to get your head round....

Err, hardly. The only switching of track is the way you tried to put words into my mouth that I did not actually say. I think everyone can read the section of that paper for themselves and come to their own conclusion - it's pretty damn clear what she is saying - confirmation bias or not. Only those who are beyond blinkered would/could read it any other way or try to spin any other conclusion. Unfortunately for you this (from Aldred not Ex- I hasten to add) massively undermines your position - I am sure you have convinced itself it doesn't but it does and it was exactly what I saying from the outset - and that was the original message I posted before you tried to change it to what you hoped I had said. "merely imperfect" - ha ha....the mere imperfectness of the system may affect results in very slow-moving traffic.

Thanks Ex- - it's so good to have you back! Whilst you say they are "fine" and good when used with other monitoring sources of data do you have any thoughts on my questions below: Was Metrocount right to say: the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic? Do pneumatic tubes work well in road conditions under 10km/h and in congested traffic? Do you have to reset them/use them differently to specifically count vehicles under 10km/h and, if so, does that impact overall accuracy or do you have to do two separate sets of monitoring? Why do you think the MetroCount default setting is only over 10km/h out of the box? Would moving tubes from Lordship Lane at the junction of Court Lane to Lordship Lane to the junction of Melford Road (which is often under heavy congestion) increase or decrease accuracy of the monitoring provided by the tubes? It seems that tubes do have flaws and the sooner everyone moves to Vivacity monitors the better - at least we will have more definitive data that cannot be accused of being used to manipulate the outcome - this is why so many people have had problems with the way councils have conducted themselves over monitoring - they have appeared to try everything in their power to prove their LTNs have been a success and when they make such a hash of the monitoring element it creates suspicion. I still laugh heartily when I think the lengths Southwark went to monitor the streets inside the Dulwich LTN and then had to be forced to monitor outside! This really depends on whether they monitor well under 10km/h or not. Certainly when the monitoring started the tubes were positioned in different places to where they ended up for the majority of the monitoring programme. I think Ex- has said previously that moving them is often deliberate but I know for a fact that the one that was on Lordship Lane at the junction of Court Lane was moved to adjacent to Melford Road (so under slow moving congested traffic for much of the day) and the siting of many of them was close to junctions. The ones in Dulwich Village were very close to the traffic lights and junctions. If they capture everything under 10km/h then clearly no problem but if they lose accuracy under 10km/h then you have to suggest the placement and movement of them was suspicious to say the least.

This one FM? There are known issues with data quality. Usually, reports used Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) to monitor traffic, in most cases ‘tubes’ across the road. These are imperfect. Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results; although in most cases, count sites were placed away from junctions where queueing is likely, which should reduce this problem. Data problems due to parking may be more an issue on internal residential roads than on boundary roads. Adjusting for expected changes should help control for such bias as that data too is largely based on ATCs. We have not accessed raw data directly from counters, as this would not be feasible for so many count points, schemes, and boroughs (and data may be held by contractors). It is possible that authorities or contractors have made errors6 (in one report a clearly wrong count was given for one site, for instance). We believe that a small number of undetected errors should not bias the overall results; and sensitivity analyses assess if any borough’s exclusion substantially changes the results.

But, again, we are not discussing the strengths - we are discussing the limitations of monitoring tubes. And Aldred clearly validates my position and undermines yours. Earl now you're making things up and trying to put words into my mouth - what started this all was me saying: The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) Please try to be accurate.

We're not arguing about the strengths. Stripped of what context....do please enlighten me....they look pretty definitive to me. In what context do you think they can be interpreted in any other way? No. You seem to be upset that I am recognising Ex-'s credentials to talk with knowledge about this subject but not giving you the same credit. Ex- talks from a far more rational and educated position on these matters. In my defence all I remember is you talking about is teaching kids to cycle, not much else to suggest you are a transport expert delivering sustainable programmes. Sorry if I missed something, perhaps start a new thread so you can enlighten everyone and we can all pay homage to your expertise.... You're just upset that Aldred validates my position not yours and you're struggling to find an out. Or are you suggesting she means classify rather than monitor traffic....?

No, those are words in a report she put her name to. A report on LTNs and monitoring of LTNs. Which definitely does not make it confirmation bias because there is no bias or interpretation applied to her words by me. It's confirmation denial on your part....what do you think Rachel Aldred meant by the below then....it's pretty definitive isn't it? It's on page 7 in this report under Strengths and Limitations: https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/74b26baccb2dbc0d26f1ca1773b3cdcd08402ef0e79fae1908f79d77c2cb7653/6168872/1-s2.0-S2213624X23001785-main.pdf There are known issues with data quality. Usually, reports used Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) to monitor traffic, in most cases ‘tubes’ across the road. These are imperfect. Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results; although in most cases, count sites were placed away from junctions where queueing is likely, which should reduce this problem.

I do value her opinion on the fact that Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results (in relation to monitoring tubes) Sorry to break it to you Malumbu but this is not about you....

Ex- welcome back - oh how I have missed debating/arguing with someone who comes from a position of knowledge!!! 😉 So, to shut either Earl or I up once and for all and to give one of us eternal bragging rights and everyone else a rest from our bickering 😉 can you answer this: Was Metrocount right to say: the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic? Do pneumatic tubes work well in road conditions under 10km/h and in congested traffic? Do you have to reset them/use them differently to specifically count vehicles under 10km/h and, if so, does that impact overall accuracy or do you have to do two separate sets of monitoring? Why do you think the MetroCount default setting is only over 10km/h out of the box? Would moving tubes from Lordship Lane at the junction of Court Lane to Lordship Lane to the junction of Melford Road (which is often under heavy congestion) increase or decrease accuracy of the monitoring provided by the tubes? Yes and by the same measure the pro folks will point to data put out by those rolling out these measures and say..."look, proof it is working the council have said everything is awesome and so it must be" without every bothering to check the detail....Unfortunately this is the world we live in, everything is very binary...you're either in or out....no-one can take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and occupy the (pragmatic) centre ground - if the headline suits your agenda you'll amplify it - everyone does it!