first mate

I am interested to know if this really is a council intervention. if it is, then it is a step in the right direction.

Given the significant local support, more likely the first.

JMK, do you have some local statistics to indicate crime has increased on the streets you mention recently? Without that kind of evidence you are unlikely to persuade others of the case you argue. I only say this because you already have a poster jumping in with research from another area and using that as evidence that you must be incorrect in your assertion.

But at least I do try at times to get it back on thread unlike others...

Don't know about anyone else but I think Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell's The Rest is Politics podcasts are quite interesting on this.

Member 3.7k Posted 2 hours ago Rockets said: I think it is you that doesn't understand it i am afraid. In summary, it seems, it is Earl's view is that because we are told Rachel Aldred is an expert we must either accept as gospel absolutely all of her research findings or we must completely reject all of them, it is very black and white, either or. There can be no critical evaluation and no shades of grey.

Earl, do you think the Times journalist was lying when they reported that Metro count as saying their counters did not work well in stop start traffic? Do you think stop start traffic in a 'town centre' is likely to be fast or slow moving? Do you disagree with Aldred's caveat that the siting of counters close to junctions may affect data? You seem to agree with absolutely everything Aldred says so...

Since you have chosen to post the same thing in two different threads see reply in West Dulwich LTN. PS Glad Raptor Man has now revealed himself as pro LTN 😉

Nice try Earl. The point is that even Aldred who is in favour had to acknowledge there can be issues with LTN data and siting of equipment. So the correct conclusion is that LTNs may help to reduce traffic, not that all definitely do. As you know, we do not agree that the Dulwich LTN reduces traffic on boundary roads and that the data suggesting it does is flawed.

Mr Chicken is back!! Perhaps with multiple identities. Okay, to try to get this thread back on track here is an attribution to The Times and Metrocount: So presumably Earl would argue this is about classification but, since axle hits also seem the way the counters measure, that must also apply to volume (that is the "true number of vehicles")? It seems that is at least one other borough incorrect data has been the result of software updates, where, I believe Metrocount has said that a council contractor chose to change/incorrectly apply settings? So this is not just about the equipment but also how it is set up and applied. In addition to this we have Aldred noting that data will be affected if tubes placed too close to junctions. That can be corrected for in her analysis as she is not basing everything on just one LTN. Had she, for instance, based her study on just Enfield, her conclusions might be different...to state the obvious. Finally, even Sadiq Khan, an arch advocate and funder of LTNs has said that not all will necessarily work as hoped. The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free flowing conditions”. It explained: “Vehicles travelling very slowly might not be classified correctly, either the axle hits are too far apart so it splits them and places them into an unknown vehicle class, which doesn’t get included by default, or it attaches those axle hits to a vehicle in front or behind.” This means if there is little or no congestion at the measuring points before the LTN, the number of vehicles counted is likely to be accurate. However, if the LTN creates congestion at the count points, the post-implementation surveys will not record the true number of vehicles.

Entirely predictable response. You focus only on that single element and completely ignore the context and the main focus of the thread. Again, do you think there is a call for cyclists who cycle in areas used by pedestrians to take greater care?

No, Malumbu brought up motorists as a peeved response to the observation that someone else ( the council perhaps) had put new stencils next to the park in Dulwich, asking cyclists to slow down and share the space with pedestrians. I just responded. Have you seen the stencils? Do you think they are a good idea or do you feel cyclists should not be asked to slow down in spaces shared with pedestrians?

Dogkennelhillbilly said: "Please, tell us more about how you're not opposed to LTNs but you have really profound, substantive concerns about how many metres from the junction a pneumatic tube counter was placed one Tuesday in 2020..." The counters produced the data that has been used by the Council and certain fanatical stakeholders, like LCC, to justify a case for the Dulwich LTN. Some of us think that data is flawed and that the council has manipulated the consultation process to ensure that LTN was put in place, despite significant local objection. I cannot comment generally on LTNs around London, in different boroughs, because I do not know enough about the rationale for each of them, the data to support that rationale, and the process by which they have been installed.

Erm, in case you had not noticed, this thread is not about how to stop car drivers speeding it is about cyclists. Do feel free to start a thread on the subject you wish to debate.

Honestly Mal, if stuff like this suddenly crops up, it is of interest. I was not aware. I feel quite encouraged, especially if it is coming from the Council. A move in the right direction in terms of educating an allegedly growing cycling population, no? Why are you so personally offended and why the need and haste to have to post stuff about poor driving as a response? It comes over as a bit hyper sensitive. We all know there is careless driving, but there are penalties and deterrents in place. Not enough perhaps but at least something. There is not much in place for cyclists because really there was no need in recent history, given numbers. With the advent of Lime etc. that is changing and it needs to change.

Bravo Earl (slow handclap) you have managed to shift the whole focus of debate away from local LTNs to a series of nit picking, hair-splitting, gaslighting posts, desperately trying to undermine valid observations made by others. It is a wholly transparent exercise in deflection and frankly it is an MO very similar to that of the lately disbarred Mr Chicken- he just took the whole sentence dissection method, as a way to try to 'win', that bit further. What is truly annoying is I do not believe any of us, other than a recent (likely pro LTN troll) has ever said all LTNs are failures, nothing good can ever come of them. There are serious reservations about data to support local LTNs and how the Council has handled the consultation process etc.. But, you always seem to move debate away from local issues into a more general arenas. The issue here is not whether overall LTNs have had a positive effect (whatever that means exactly) but whether local LTNs are good for the majority. It seems that in West Dulwich and in Dulwich Village, a significant number of people do not think they are. It would be great if we could refocus debate back onto local issues, including LTNs in West Dulwich. Also, if some of you think these concerns and issues are not worth posting about (to paraphrase some of you: old, old news, there are more important things to put energy into, it is a done deal, you find it boring) then post on other threads. The longer you keep posting here the weaker it makes your protestations look.

If the irrelevant old news you suggest, I doubt you and a few others would consistently pay such close attention, as well as put such effort into closing the subject down. Earl and chums want to talk about LTNs in general, they do not want to address the issue of flawed data for local Dulwich LTNs.

Earl, again you have moved the debate into the general, which is clearly where you feel most comfortable. These threads are ED specific. Can you say, categorically, that Aldred's research proves that data for ED LTNs was not in any way flawed?

Yes, thanks. There is a clear statement saying there are known issues with ATM data. Slow moving traffic is mentioned in this context. Aldred later explains how she 'believes' these data flaws can be mitigated and should not affect the overall results ... They did not access or use the raw data. Aldred also touches on siting of counters. Was siting an issue with ATMs in the Dulwich area?

I have just read page 7 of the Aldred report, provided in a link by Rockets. The meaning is pretty clear. It clearly states that there can be issue with data collected by ATCs where there is slow-moving traffic or parked cars, especially near junctions, but adds this is often mitigated by placing the monitor away from junctions. It would help if that one para could be cut and pasted, so all can see. I have tried but could not do it. No doubt Earl will argue that it does not mean what we think it means and is an example of our confirmation bias (a fave phrase of theirs). Earlier I posted a study on Pneumatic counters from Montana (not London, I know) it too concludes that data accuracy is not as great as manufacturers claim.

Malumbu, over the years you have taken many pretty low swipes and used all kinds of deflection methods, to the extent you were warned about it I don't think anyone needs lessons in posting from you. You do seem incredibly miffed that your 'expertise' has not been recognised.

🤣🤣🤣 Not my area, and I defer to others who know more but: Accuracy of pneumatic road tube counters Author(s) McGowen, P.; Sanderson, M. Year 2011 Abstract (EN) Pneumatic road tube counters are a tool that is commonly used to conduct traffic counts on streets and roads. Many professionals have high confidence in the accuracy of road tube counts, and vendors of pneumatic road tubes often claim accuracy rates in the neighborhood of 99 percent. Several studies have been conducted in Montana intended to test the accuracy of road tube count data. These studies have compared road tube data to hand counts and other traffic-counting technologies, and compared results among multiple road tubes set up in series at a single location. The studies found that though the average error in a daily traffic count might be near zero, the absolute error of a typical 15-minute count averaged closer to ten percent. These results suggest that the level of inaccuracy is being masked by the positive and negative counting errors canceling each other out. Errors in speed and classification were much greater. These results raise questions about the reliability of pneumatic road tube counters in accurately measuring traffic volumes. This report compiles the results of these studies and provides a framework for measuring and reporting error.

P68 - I think very much the latter. That seems to be the aim, to undermine. Perhaps a pro troll will turn up. In terms of the counters, Rockets remembered Ex-Dulwicher commenting that they were not good in congested/ slow moving traffic. I got the impression Ex knew a lot about this area and had worked in it.

Another great example of prime deflection above. It is so obvious...Rockets has pretty much trounced Earl on a fairly long debate about the accuracy of traffic counters, re LTNs and Malumbu quickly tries to change the subject with a bland and oh so patronising statement about sharing cars. It's not working!

malambu said: "I'm not compelled to post on social media". 🤣🤣🤣 And yet, here you are, again...