Earl Aelfheah

You’re not kidding 🤣

This is a matter of fact. 55 per cent of those surveyed did say they supported the aims set out in Southwark’s ‘Streets for People’ initiative. I assume you’re not claiming otherwise? It’s also not what you quoted me as saying. You do understand that right? ‘Doh!’ Indeed. I love that you’ve scoured the forum looking for a quote that you’ve misremembered and repeatedly misquoted, and then in desperation posted it anyway hoping no one notices. 🤣 Yeh ‘just asking honest questions’. You’re obviously open minded about research you described as “LTN propaganda derived from statistical jiggery pokery” without having read it. And of course, it isn’t just people calling out your bad faith nonsense, it has to be a shadowy ‘active travel lobby’. This is just conspiracy nonsense as usual. …and still no attempt to provide any evidence for your claims regarding congestion, pollution or road safety. Just the usual deflection.

@Rockets So just to recap: You've questioned the credibility of a peer reviewed academic paper that you haven't read. You've claimed, offering no evidence at all, that: LTNS increase congestion and pollution That the filtered junction with Dulwich Village is now more dangerous for pedestrians than previously, ...and insinuated that crime is up due to 'the road closures'. And you've railed against 'putting words in people's mouths' whilst repeatedly quoting me as saying things I have not. It's embarrassing. I don't even think you believe half the stuff you say. No. There are clearly legitimate areas were people may disagree, or may interpret things differently. That is not 'manipulating the truth'. It's an issue of whether someone is engaging in good faith. As Rockets has perfectly demonstrated over and over again, but most recently on this thread, that is not what he is doing.

This is not a quote from me. I did not say that. This is a quote from you however:

The I know you are but what am I retort. Amazing

On one 'side' there is a wealth of data and high quality research. On the other there is someone repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims, many of which are demonstrably untrue.

You haven't. I asked you to share the data that led you to assert and / or insinuate that LTNs increase traffic, pollution, road danger and crime? Of course you cannot do this, because there is none. At the same time, you question the credibility of peer reviewed academic research, without reading it, pretending to care about upholding the highest standards of data analysis and inquiry. You criticise people you claim have put words in others mouths, but do exactly that yourself. You will no doubt have strong evidence to back up the claim that the junction is now more dangerous for pedestrians than previously: ...that there has been an increase in crime: ...and that pollution and congestion is made worse by LTNs:

So it matters what is in the paper. You've been arguing about what's in the paper. But you haven't read the paper? I see.

Does it matter what’s in the paper? You’ve already concluded it lacks credibility without even reading it. I don’t believe anyone thinks you’ll be open to changing your mind after you have. I’m not going to spoon feed you. If you want to read it, pay for it. I didn’t say this. This is untrue. This is not a quote from me. Again, I did not say this.

So you haven’t read the paper? As usual you’ve an existing belief and are looking for information you can interpret (rightly or wrongly) in ways that align with it. And I assume this isn’t going to be forthcoming.

I don’t need to tell you what I ‘think I said’. The beauty of the forum is that it’s recorded. And I’m not playing your usual game of ‘shift the burden of proof’. Obviously I can’t show where I haven’t said the things I haven’t said. You show me where I have said the things you’ve falsely claimed I have (even putting them in quotation marks). I have a subscription. The more interesting question is how have you concluded the research is invalid when you haven’t even read it? Being ‘data led’ is not the slight you think it is. You’ve made some wild claims with zero evidence and are criticising high quality research, questioning the conclusions without even reading it. Aren’t you embarrassed?

@rockets you've quoted me twice in the last two days as saying thing I have never said. Which I know is a 'playbook' you hate. I'm sure you'll want to correct that. Doesn't one need to read the paper before dismissing it's conclusions? @Rockets on that - you obviously have an honest interest in ensuring the most rigorous academic standards have been applied before reaching any conclusions. Would you mind sharing the data and analysis that led you (in the spirit of open minded inquiry), to assert and / or insinuate that LTNs increase traffic, pollution, road danger and crime? I would love to see it. I assume it meets at least the same standards of statistical analysis and peer review as the BMJ paper that your questioning the credibility of?

This is so eminently sensible. You can already hear the Daily Mail headlines if this were ever floated in the UK however.

I didn’t say this. Please stop quoting me as saying things I have not. This is the second dishonest quote you've falsely attributed to me in one day.

He has never offered any evidence for any of his claims re. LTNs - of increased road danger, crime, or pollution. But of course Rockets is highly concerned about the validity of peer reviewed academic research, on grounds unspecified. 🤣

Embarrassing

That is not a quote from me, so don’t put it in quotation marks as if it were. It’s a deliberate misrepresentation. Your constant nonsense is getting very tedious.

Looking forward to reading Penguin and Rockets’ paper in the BMJ “Why I think accidents must have gone up as the result of LTN: a five beer analysis”

The paper explains it's methods and findings, if you're saying that it is flawed, it is for you to say how, not ask others to say how it is not. You do this repeatedly. Make vague or unsubstantiated claims, and then ask others to prove you wrong. Not how it works. Request the full data set. It's available upon request. The 'just asking questions' tactic is cynical and transparent. If you don't know, then you have no reason to insinuate that it's somehow 'wrong'. This suggests you're looking for ways to find a flaw, rather than having identified one. It shows bad faith. If you want to check, do the work, I'm not doing it for you. I'm sure you're far more qualified than the independent experts who have scrutinised it prior to publication. I do not understand your point? You're look across 100+ LTN sites and checking the locations over time against CrashMap? What are you talking about? Perhaps you should submit your analysis to the BMJ 🤣

They looked at recorded injuries and used their location to determine whether they were in or around an LTN. They then used a statistical model to analyse count data and determine whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in the number of injury rates. There was a significant fall in the number of injuries. If you read the whole paper, it is fairly easy to follow, even if you're not an expert in data analysis. It's also been peer reviewed, which means it has been evaluated by other, independent experts in the same field to assess the quality and validity of the research prior to being accepted for publication.

This bit I don’t doubt.

Yes. It’s incoherent. Your objection to the data analysis as far as I can tell, is that it doesn’t sound right to you, and that you don’t understand how they’ve combined collision and injury data with ordinance survey data to study the areas in and around LTNs. What it seems to boil down to is ‘I don’t understand the paper, but I don’t like it’s conclusions’

I don't find it 'shocking' I just hadn't picked up on the fact that you lived 'in the LTN' (not sure what that actually means, as it's not really an LTN, just a traffic filter at one junction). Do you have to drive round now by any chance? That must be a mild inconvenience - the kind of thing that could obsess a man for half a decade I would have thought 😉 Wrath and fury? Are you ok? I'm just trying to verify that the police are telling people that there has been an increase in crime as the result of a traffic filter. As I said, it does not sound like something the police would be telling people, and isn't what the published data on recorded crime shows. SNT Dulwich Village aren't on the forum as far as I'm aware, so tagged their colleagues.

I'm so not interested in this gossip. When you can't engage with the evidence / research, but instead resort to character assassination you've really stopped having anything relevant to say.

You’re still obfuscating. You have suggested before that whilst recorded injuries involving motor vehicles may have reduced as a result of the Dulwich LTN for example, that the area has become more dangerous than it was previously as the result of ‘speeding bikes’, and suggested that the data on injuries involving bicycles isn’t collected (this of course isn’t true). So even in the way you’ve formulated that response, you’re dancing around / being slippery. Do you accept that LTNs have improved safety and reduced injuries as the research concludes? Or do you dispute it? So no interest in the substance of the research? Completely dismissing the independence of the peer review process? The fact that two respected academics have expressed views that you don’t agree with, proves that the research is invalid in and of itself? You must see the problem with that?