LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[snowy]

Ffs. It says it on the web page of the report.

[heartblock]

Between 2012 and 2018 Prof Aldred was an elected trustee of the London Cycling Campaign and on the research paper they cite their (her) conflict of interest as being funded (i.e. paid by) active travel intervention bodies. She is committed and I have a lot of respect for her, but we all need to be aware of confirmation bias in any research. The same collected raw data has been re-analysed by other authors, which point to the negatives of LTNs on residents living on boundary roads, shown to have a higher density population and are areas that are impacted by inequality.

[heartblock]

From her own research Prof. Aldred also commented. ?there?s variation between boroughs: so, five showed the opposite pattern (LTNs more likely to be in more affluent neighbourhoods)?. I think that this is very much the case of Calton, Court, Melbourne in Dulwich.

By the way, I have noticed language such as ?contemptuous? ?ignorant? and accusing people of ?assassination of character? and ?attacks?, when critiquing a research paper (that?s what peer review is by the way) . I think when giving an opinion on this thread whether for or questioning the ability of Southwark LTNs to reduce pollution/traffic it would be better to keep things a little more polite. If I have been personally insulting or rude to anyone on this thread or any other, here is my apology.

[snowy]

Heartblock - could you share the qualifications, experience, publications & citations and funders of those other authors please?

Their employers should host their work, but if not even a jstor weblink or equivalent would be a good starting point.

[heartblock]

Hi Snowy, if you got to Prof. Aldred?s Twitter account she has given links to her research and you will find her co-authors, affiliates and funding for all her papers. You can also view her Linkdin. Just a matter of some research. @rachelaldred. You can also view on Google Scholar https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=jycgGvsAAAAJ&hl=en but you might not be able to read the full articles unless you have a student, medical or university library account? I have through my Uni.

She has some excellent papers on encouraging cycling, which I really like, I would certainly agree that more infrastructure for safer cycling is vital to reduce car use.

[Otto2]

Hi Heartblock -

I think Snowy was asking for authors, credentials etc to the research that you say comes to different conclusions here:

"The same collected raw data has been re-analysed by other authors, which point to the negatives of LTNs on residents living on boundary roads, shown to have a higher density population and are areas that are impacted by inequality."

[Rockets]

snowy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ffs. It says it on the web page of the report.

Snowy- your first post said it the funding info was on the first page of the report and you then edited it to say it is on the web page of the report.

Who funded it as I could not find the funding info on the report itself but it sounds from your post that it was not on the actual report but the web page the report was hosted on. Do you have the link to the web page where the funding source is quoted?

[Rockets]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Between 2012 and 2018 Prof Aldred was an elected

> trustee of the London Cycling Campaign and on the

> research paper they cite their (her) conflict of

> interest as being funded (i.e. paid by) active

> travel intervention bodies. She is committed and I

> have a lot of respect for her, but we all need to

> be aware of confirmation bias in any research. The

> same collected raw data has been re-analysed by

> other authors, which point to the negatives of

> LTNs on residents living on boundary roads, shown

> to have a higher density population and are areas

> that are impacted by inequality.

Spot on! As an ex-trustee of the LCC that is most definitely a major conflict of interest, yet when quoting Aldred's research the Guardian seems to repeatedly ommit that key point.

As I said before - all part of the cycling propaganda machine and important to view all research from that group in that light.

[Otto2]

There is a bit of confusion here as legalalien linked to a paper by Megan Sharkey (Doctoral Research, University of Westminster) and three other academics that are not at The University of Westminster on Aesop and somehow this digressed into "Aldred et al".

It was then asserted by someone here that raw data from Aldred's published study (different from the above) had been analysed by other experts to different conclusions - but - there have been no links etc offered to date thus far.

If another credentialed expert disputes the research - it would be good to see that analysis rather than be told this is "cycling propaganda machine" etc....

[Rockets]

Otto2 don't you agree that research published by someone who was a trustee of the London Cycling Campaign, supporting a narrative and viewpoint socialized by said LCC, somewhat negates the impartiality of that research? It's more than a conflict of interest and adds real weight to the suggestion that it is part of the cycling/pro-LTN propaganda machine?

Do you have anything to suggest this is not the case?

[nxjen]

To be able to give any consideration to your argument, we need to be able to view the source where it is claimed above data from Prof Aldred?s research has been re-analysed and different conclusions reached. But nothing has been forthcoming.

[Metallic]

I think we should use " " when talking about University of Westminster. Ranked 126/131. I reckon even I could get a Chair there.

[DulwichCentral]

"To be able to give any consideration to your argument, we need to be able to view the source where it is claimed above data from Prof Aldred?s research has been re-analysed and different conclusions reached. But nothing has been forthcoming."

"It was then asserted by someone here that raw data from Aldred's published study (different from the above) had been analysed by other experts to different conclusions - but - there have been no links etc offered to date thus far."

@nxjen & @Otto2 in the absence of a response it looks like Metallica is volunteering for the job :)

Metallic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think we should use " " when talking about

> University of Westminster. Ranked 126/131. I

> reckon even I could get a Chair there.

[Penguin68]

A scientific research question, classically, is the posing of a Null Hypothesis - that is to say that whilst you cannot prove something to be true, you can prove the opposite to be false, which then implies that the thing to which it is an opposite is (likely to be) true. Putting it another way, something must be falsifiable to be determined as true or false.

In the case mentioned here - this is not scientific research under that definition - but the analysis of actual, real world (not experimental) data - you cannot run this (non) experiment twice to see whether you get the same result. And all data collected is open to different analysis and conclusions - nor are relationships (correlations) demonstrably causal.

At best you can infer some levels of probability that an assumed correlation might be causal.

What I am saying is that the conclusions drawn may 'make sense' and yet actually be wrong.

It is almost inevitable where you do not have a repeatable experiment opportunity that researchers will tend to 'call' results which fit their world-view - and to ignore those that don't. This is a researcher bias which is understood and does not necessarily call into question the bona fides of the researcher. [And, additionally, where researchers are influencing the collection of primary data, their bias will influence the questions that they ask, and the constituency of possible data that they collect]. Whilst not necessarily intentionally biased, it does however leave their conclusions open to valid debate and dispute. And sometimes research results which do not fit current prejudices (for instance in favour of cycling) become treated as heresy. Which is where, when and if they do become accepted, that you come across the concept of a Paradigm Shift (c.v. Thomas Kuhn).

[heartblock]

We are waiting for it to be peer reviewed (it isn?t a peer reviewed paper) and currently isn?t published. So those other authors cannot comment in a cited article......as yet.

[Otto2]

?By following nearly 2,000 urban dwellers over time, we found that those who switch just one trip per day from car driving to cycling reduce their carbon footprint by about 0.5 tonnes over a year, representing a substantial share of average per capita CO2 emissions,? says the lead researcher, Oxford?s Dr Christian Brand. ?If just 10% of the population were to change travel behaviour, the emissions savings would be around 4% of lifecycle CO2 emissions from all car travel.?

Here are some further links re: active transport and LTN's etc.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-02-get-your-bike-active-transport-makes-significant-impact-carbon-emissions

https://pastaproject.eu/fileadmin/editor-upload/sitecontent/Publications/documents/2017-PASTA-Project_Handbook_WEB_02.pdf

[Penguin68]

If just 10% of the population were to change travel behaviour, the emissions savings would be around 4% of lifecycle CO2 emissions from all car travel.

Or just 0% in a fully electric or hydrogen powered environment. [Note the citation is for car travel, not manufacture].

And CO2 emissions are irrelevant to issues of air quality. If we are concerned about healthy streets, and the citations in this and related threads of the very sad case of the girl who died of asthma would suggest we are, then this CO2 'factoid' is irrelevant to this debate.

[heartblock]

Active travel included walking and cycling, walking was 30-40% and cycling 1-4% depending on borough, but yes I totally encourage any proven scheme that reduces cars idling and families owning 2 cars or more and cars used for short school runs. More cycle lanes and more effective and efficient PT is great.

As the co-author of the Westminster/Kings paper says ? I support those who complain that sometimes [LTN] schemes provide improvements for leafy areas where rich people live, but divert traffic on to ?traffic roads? where poorer people live, and this is not fair. Reallocation of capacity should be done in a way that supports the most needy.?

[slarti b]

@otto, @snowy, @malumbu[provided you answer the question :-)]

Coming in late to this but can you tell me what peer review means in an academic context since you seem to claim some knowledge in the area.

I work in a consultancy and we peer review our proposals and reports; that means that someone senior, other than the author, checks for false claims, accuracy, mistakes, typos etc and ensures the proposal is reasonable and will address the issue. However, we don't peer review to ensure objectivity. We don't insist on including comments that a competitor has more experience in that sector or that an alternative approach with a different supplier may be better.

In the case of an "academic" report what will the peer reviewers do, are they just checking arithmatic or are they prepared to challenge the underlying logic and assumptions? indeed will the public even know by whom it has been peer reviewed?

I looked at Alldred & Goodman's published "academic" report on the Waltham Forest mini-Holland, a so called longitudinal study, and noticed the following points.

- The results were based on an initial random sample to which the response rate was so low they had to get additional repondents from a self selecting TFL cyclist and Oyster database

- The respondents did not represent the demographical profile of the area they were studying

- Although it was claimed to be a longitudinal study, 50% of the respondents dropped out after 1 year.

- Their questionnaire started with a biased leading question

Would a peer review look at these factors and say these factors undermine the conclusion or would it just check to make sure the statistical calculations are correct?

[legalalien]

Finally found time to watch the YouTube thing and sat down to watch it with an open mind.

My take:

(i) is this a meeting of volunteers or is this a day job thing? Not sure the meeting achieves anything, it feels a bit echo chamber - that?s fine if it?s like minded people sharing their views but I?d hope people aren?t being paid for this stuff - it seems pretty pointless.

(ii) tbh Prof Aldred came across as way less

impressive than I had imagined. So I?d encourage people to watch.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What contemptuous clap trap, do you really have

> the faintest idea about research? I'm stunned

> about the level of ignorance and as a scientist

> (hard scientist, test tubes and later a but of

> modelling, but also a fascination with social

> science) I am insulted.

>

> To put my cards on the table research into nuclear

> waste, funded by government. Not there to say

> hooray "nuclear waste is good for you". But if

> you do this with it, you get this result, and if

> you do that you get that result. And we'd meet

> FoE and Greenpeace, and discuss and argue. But

> respect each other rather than say, oh Government

> funded your research, you must love nuclear power,

> nah nah nah". Ironically many of us were more on

> the Greenpeace side, but that didn't affect our

> results. As we were adults and had integrity.

>

> Rocks - did you check out my link to the recent on

> line discussion/seminar? Here is is again -

> Aldred is one of those on the panel, you may even

> come out with a different view

>

[slarti b]

@DulwichCentral

You said that Negating the of validity of experts (fed up with experts?) when one doesn't like what they're saying is a dangerous thing in the 'post truth' world.

It depends whether the experts are telling the truth. In the OHS world Council officers and Councillors (experts?) assured us that

- traffic through the DV junction had increased by 47% when it fact it had slightly reduced.

- 54 respondents in a consultation area of several thousand showed "strong support" for radical measures

- traffic along Calton Avenue had increased when their data was based on inaccurate counts

They produced presentations implying 50% of traffic evaporating rather than being displaced onto the Dulwich Village bypass roads.

This OHS world definitely sounds post truth to me.

[malumbu]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

If just 10% of the population were to change travel behaviour, the emissions savings would be around 4% of lifecycle CO2 emissions from all car travel.

Or just 0% in a fully electric or hydrogen powered environment.

And CO2 emissions are irrelevant to issues of air quality. If we are concerned about healthy streets, and the citations in this and related threads of the very sad case of the girl who died of asthma would suggest we are, then this CO2 'factoid' is irrelevant to this debate.

-------------------------------

Just some factual stuff today as I have have my rant against entitled motorists today, one a day is enough.

The move to zero emissions road transport is to help meet our climate change targets as set down in domestic law and international targets through the 'COP' process. Improved air quality is of course a benefit - but a street full of zero emission vehicles will be just as congested as a street full of those with the internal combustion engine, and of course the electricity has to come from somewhere.

Reduced car use will benefit both the climate through reduced emissions of CO2 and air quality through reduced emissions of pollutants so is a win win.

We are 15 - 20 years off near 100% zero emission road vehicles, by which time motoring will have changed - autonomous vehicles, ownership models and mobility as a service. Future generations may have no need to learn to drive beyond recreation and sport. They will probably look back at the second decade of the 21st century wondering what all the fuss was about.

I thoroughly recommend a test drive of an electric vehicle just for fun - I've driven most of them in my work, and I may be the only person active on this forum who has driven a hydrogen car. The Leaf was fun, driving at 20mph smiling at every one, the Ford Transit was special, Tessla Model X is just daft, due to all that silly power, not needed in an urban environment, but seeing more and more on the roads so doing something right.

The same week as I first drove a Leaf I also had a go on an electric assisted bike which was also great fun.

[heartblock]

A paper is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, who then send the article out to experts for scrutiny. The current paper was used by Councils, LCC, Guardian writers in it's pre-submission stage. Personally I think the small numbers, the exclusion of boundary roads and the high percentage use of cyclists, Oyster card users compared to residents makes the data interesting, but not conclusive in the way the authors have decided. If asked to give review commentary before publication I would ask for some additional research or some major re-writes.

Unfortunately, sometimes Journals are so keen to publish data that confirms a belief or a bias, that poorly researched, reviewed or analysed articles are published as peer reviewed, The Lancet attracted criticism in May 2020 for publishing the hydroxychloroquine paper - with dodgy data, not the first and not the last.

[Penguin68]

The move to zero emissions road transport is to help meet our climate change targets as set down in domestic law and international targets through the 'COP' process.

This does not form part or any of the justification for the LTN schemes - posited around a response to Covid-19 and issues to do with local air quality. Moving traffic from leafy neighbourhoods to rather less leafy neighbourhoods does nothing for CO2 emissions worldwide. Which is the scale at which climate change operates.

[heartblock]

Also in terms of LTNs Prof Aldred also states ?In particular, we have been asked what our findings mean in relation to ?traffic evaporation? ? i.e. the extent to which measures like LTNs may lead to an overall reduction in motor traffic across an area. We had reported no statistically significant change in car use in our findings?.