LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> first mate Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I also do not agree with rah's take on what

> Heartblock has said and

> > doubt very many others will either.

>

> I simply corrected two demonstrably false

> statements. Professor Aldred does have over 25

> peer reviewed articles and she isn?t ?employed by

> or paid by people paying for her research?.

>

> I have absolutely no problem with challenging the

> data, or the conclusions of a particular piece of

> research, but that is not what those statement

> do.

>

> What are the matters of fact you disagree with

> exactly?

So Rahx3 - do you at least acknowledge that working for a cycle lobby group, and heading their policy unit, whilst doing paid research (much of which is funded by the organisation the lobby group is lobbying) that is designed to prove the effectiveness of the measures said lobby group is pushing is a conflict of interest?

[Rockets]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> And, to add those who are discrediting Aldred's

> professionalism -- this from Rockets:

>

> "I am glad we have finally established that Rachel

> Alfred's research is neither impartial or unbiased

> nor particularly scientific."

>

> It would be good to stop this sort of thing as

> well as the Alice statement that I will not repeat

> as it is false.

But that's what I think and the more I look into it the more it validates my thoughts and nothing I am seeing from the counter argument is making me rethink my position. I refer you to my previous post above - there is a massive conflict of interest that can lead a lot of people to be able to question the output.

Ok let's turn this on its head....convince me there is no conflict of interest. I am happy to hear what you have to say.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > first mate Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I also do not agree with rah's take on what

> > Heartblock has said and

> > > doubt very many others will either.

> >

> > I simply corrected two demonstrably false

> > statements. Professor Aldred does have over 25

> > peer reviewed articles and she isn?t ?employed

> by

> > or paid by people paying for her research?.

> >

> > I have absolutely no problem with challenging

> the

> > data, or the conclusions of a particular piece

> of

> > research, but that is not what those statement

> > do.

> >

> > What are the matters of fact you disagree with

> > exactly?

>

>

> So Rahx3 - do you at least acknowledge that

> working for a cycle lobby group, and heading their

> policy unit, whilst doing paid research (much of

> which is funded by the organisation the lobby

> group is lobbying) that is designed to prove the

> effectiveness of the measures said lobby group is

> pushing is a conflict of interest?

Honestly, I don?t think there?s much point in having this conversation. I?ve corrected two demonstrably false statements. It?s no good saying someone hasn?t published something they have. It?s no good saying someone is paid by an organisation they are not. If we can?t even accept matters of fact, then there is little point trying to have a sensible conversation about more nuanced issues of interpretation or judgment.

[first mate]

Rahrahrah, you do now seem to be playing with perceptions; This is what Heartblock actually said, below. He did not deny Rachel Aldred's output, he questioned its direct relevance to the subject of LTNs. Okay the point about being paid was slightly off base, but I get the point about her close association with cycling lobby groups. But the stronger point is the first and I think you are misrepresenting the point Heartblock was making. You seemed to be using the fact that RA has 25 peer reviewed papers to suggest that her views and research on LTNs were therefore somehow above scrutiny and beyond question. If that was not your intention then fair enough, but it read that way to me.

Earlier in the thread Heartblock responded to rahrahrah saying:

"...she doesn?t have 25 peer reviewed papers on the subject of LTNs, in the same way I may have a paper about subject A or subject B or C. Therefore if I wanted to talk about A, I would only mention A.

Also if I was paid by a pharmaceutical company to prove that a drug worked, my research would be compromised. Rachel is not neutral and aspects of her research are based on modelling rather than actual data, it does need to be reviewed with that in mind.

I?m not dismissing the research, but as a reviewer I would critically review it on that basis".

[legalalien]

I think Prof Aldred might agree with heartblock.

https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/05e32a098f5ff9a9ab80e6fd51818c891e33f7917940f2911548f7a18332ed35/152181/Aldred%252C%2520R.%25282008%2529%2520Sociology%252042%2520%25285%2529%2520887-903.pdf

"Thanks to critics, medical science publications now take seriously conflicts of interest, although radical scholars argue that disclosure is inadequate and such conflicts must be ended. However, this issue is relatively new for social researchers; as Bell and Bryman (2007: 67) comment, management researchers rarely disclose affiliations and consultancy is seen as an unproblematic benefit. More critical analysis is needed of the commodification of social research: here we may learn from medical scientists? critiques of corporate funding of clinical research. While social researchers lack techniques that kill or injure participants (Dingwall 2006) social research, like medical research, may have damaging effects at a societal level. These effects could relate to what we do as researchers, but also to what we do not do, if we fail to analyse and critique organsiations and elites. Such issues should be the subject of professional and external debate, as with respect to medical research."

[Penguin68]

Without imputing intentional result skewing the concept of research(er) bias is well known and understood.

https://www.tutor2u.net/sociology/reference/sociological-research-objectivity-and-subjectivity

As the Professor is already aligned (as regards her voluntary work) with a particular viewpoint it would not be surprising if researcher bias was contained within her work - cognitive dissonance would tend to cause her not to 'see' results which did not fit her Weltanschauung. That does not imply intentional bias, clearly...

And I have already commented on the value (or possibly lack of it) of peer review in determining any fundamental validity of interpreted results.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Firstmate. Are you saying that these statement (direct quotes) are true?

"No .... she [Professor Rachel Aldred] does not have 25 ?peer reviewed? papers... Also I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel."

[alice]

Rah3 when you search for increasingly smaller details to be ?proved? correct or otherwise you are missing what?s important about the discussion. And that is that the Location of the Dulwich LTNs is faulty. Everything stems from that fact.

[first mate]

Rah, on the first I believe it has already been clarified that Heartblock meant 25 peer reviewed papers on LTNs, the way he phrased it initially was shorthand...that is how it came over to me anyway. On the employment issue he was making a point about impartiality which still holds true given Aldred's position within the cycle lobby. I don't get why you are chasing this down, it doesn't really add to the debate or the strength of your stance, in my view.

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > rahrahrah Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > first mate Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > I also do not agree with rah's take on what

> > > Heartblock has said and

> > > > doubt very many others will either.

> > >

> > > I simply corrected two demonstrably false

> > > statements. Professor Aldred does have over

> 25

> > > peer reviewed articles and she isn?t

> ?employed

> > by

> > > or paid by people paying for her research?.

> > >

> > > I have absolutely no problem with challenging

> > the

> > > data, or the conclusions of a particular

> piece

> > of

> > > research, but that is not what those

> statement

> > > do.

> > >

> > > What are the matters of fact you disagree

> with

> > > exactly?

> >

> >

> > So Rahx3 - do you at least acknowledge that

> > working for a cycle lobby group, and heading

> their

> > policy unit, whilst doing paid research (much

> of

> > which is funded by the organisation the lobby

> > group is lobbying) that is designed to prove

> the

> > effectiveness of the measures said lobby group

> is

> > pushing is a conflict of interest?

>

> Honestly, I don?t think there?s much point in

> having this conversation. I?ve corrected two

> demonstrably false statements. It?s no good saying

> someone hasn?t published something they have. It?s

> no good saying someone is paid by an organisation

> they are not. If we can?t even accept matters of

> fact, then there is little point trying to have a

> sensible conversation about more nuanced issues of

> interpretation or judgment.

So do you think there was any conflict of interest.....?

BTW are you 100% sure she wasn't paid for her role at LCC - she was both a director and a trustee?

[tiddles]

I am so disappointed in our council - they have presided over the most astonishingly decisive policy which has created anger and disbelief- the principal aim is good but the implementation a total f***k up. I am a good weather cyclist working for a lot of different small businesses- this is having a desperate negative impact on small local businesses- if there was some sort of permit based thing which allowed businesses with a proven record of operating in the ?zone? and stopped needless journeys?

[AylwardS]

I?ve seen a few of the triangular signs around East Dulwich about the Dulwich Streetspace Review. Its the final week.

If you?ve not responded the consultation is open until 11 July https://consultations.southwark.gov.uk/environment-leisure/dulwich-review/

[Rockets]

Over the weekend it seems the vandal who has been attacking anti-LTN signs has been on the rampage again.

Good to see Clean Air Dulwich saying that this is not acceptable. Let's hope the person doing it gets the message as this is bordering on intimidation.

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Over the weekend it seems the vandal who has been

> attacking anti-LTN signs has been on the rampage

> again.

>

> Good to see Clean Air Dulwich saying that this is

> not acceptable. Let's hope the person doing it

> gets the message as this is bordering on

> intimidation.

>

> https://twitter.com/CleanAirDulwich/status/1411696

> 690353016841?s=19

I think it is intimidation. If my property was vandalised I'm pretty certain I would take it personally. That's why my poster is inside the window.

[Roky Erickson]

Doesn't look like the long-promised data is going to be forthcoming:

11 years of funding cuts apparently to blame !

[Abe_froeman]

That's shamefully disingenuous. They were given a specific pot of additional money to implement the LTN disaster.

If anything has gone wrong with that it is entirely their won fault, nothing to do with money from 11 years ago.

[Rockets]

It is incredible. Amazing how they can be ruthlessly efficient in throwing in planters, getting cameras put in and then adding a right-turn phase light at the DV/EDG junction yet when it comes to the raw data to show whether their measures are working or not they cite "unwelcome hitches". Honestly, they must think people are stupid.

It's really becoming a comedy of errors and so many people are losing their faith in this council to do anything properly.

We also had a leaflet from Labour drop through our door from Margy and Richard telling us that they had to rush the implementations to get the govt money and that's why they could not consult and that they want people to respond to the review so they can "make changes" as they "know the measures aren't perfect".

It's all so wonderfully open ended - please respond so we can make changes. They should be telling us what changes they are suggesting . Are they then going to suggest a review on the back of the review to review the changes that they claim we will be asking for in the review?

I very much suspect they are sitting on raw data that validates what we have been saying: that the LTNs have been an unmitigated disaster and even their Bureau of Misinformation is struggling to cut the numbers to show any upside. They all know their political futures are hanging in the balance and are probably struggling how to spin their way out of this. Soon the internal finger-pointing will start and may have started already looking at Margy's tweet.

[Angelina]

Has anyone submitted an FOI?

They have two weeks to respond.

[legalalien]

Southwark's Climate Emergency Strategy now posted in advance of cabinet meeting next week, see

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/b50013388/Appendices%20Tuesday%2013-Jul-2021%2011.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=9

There are some issues/ council views on issues around transport as well as other things - haven't read it yet.

[legalalien]

Was googling to see how much Southwark had spent on the external consultant helping to pull the climate strategy together (?60k contract) and came across the online contract register. For those interested in air quality issues, this new contract was added in May:

https://procontract.due-north.com/ContractsRegister/ViewContractDetails?contractId=13a0cc7a-c5b8-eb11-810c-005056b64545&p=2241eb95-058a-e511-80f7-000c29c9ba21

Discovery phase: Mitigating the impact of air pollution on the health of vulnerable groups in Southwark (?airTEXT discovery project?)

Description: Commissioning user-centred discovery phase research to improve the Council?s understanding of the needs of vulnerable residents in relation to mitigating the impact of air pollution on their health. The discovery phase will consist of new primary research with a sample of residents from our key target groups (children and their parents; residents with heart and respiratory conditions; older people). Within these groups, we will focus on understanding residents of BAME background and those living in more deprived areas in Southwark where there is the poorest air quality. This research will assess the capability, opportunity and motivation of these groups to change their behaviour to mitigate the impact of air pollution on their health, identifying opportunities where the Council could intervene to support health seeking behaviours.

It?s within the environment and leisure portfolio (rather than health), ?83.4k.

ETA there?s also a late 2020 contract (?153k) for air quality audits of maintained schools in areas of poor air quality, so looks like some priority being given to air quality issue. Other schools can request an audit at the same price Southwark pays. https://procontract.due-north.com/ContractsRegister/ViewContractDetails?contractId=bbf02071-3e9e-e911-80f8-005056b64545&p=2241eb95-058a-e511-80f7-000c29c9ba21

[4321]

?83k to research whether BAME and poor people are capable of changing their behaviour to improve their air quality? If you live on Court Lane then keep your 2 massive cars and log burner and 8 plus long haul flights a year and we can just close your road to traffic and send it off elsewhere. BUT if you?re poor let?s see if we can move the traffic to you and then make you responsible for your air quality? That?s actually abusive. This is disgusting. This is a Labour Council? Really???

legalalien Wrote:

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

> Was googling to see how much Southwark had spent

> on the external consultant helping to pull the

> climate strategy together (?60k contract) and came

> across the online contract register. Interestingly

> this new contract was added in May:

>

> https://procontract.due-north.com/ContractsRegiste

> r/ViewContractDetails?contractId=13a0cc7a-c5b8-eb1

> 1-810c-005056b64545&p=2241eb95-058a-e511-80f7-000c

> 29c9ba21

>

> Discovery phase: Mitigating the impact of air

> pollution on the health of vulnerable groups in

> Southwark (?airTEXT discovery project?)

> Description: Commissioning user-centred discovery

> phase research to improve the Council?s

> understanding of the needs of vulnerable residents

> in relation to mitigating the impact of air

> pollution on their health. The discovery phase

> will consist of new primary research with a sample

> of residents from our key target groups (children

> and their parents; residents with heart and

> respiratory conditions; older people). Within

> these groups, we will focus on understanding

> residents of BAME background and those living in

> more deprived areas in Southwark where there is

> the poorest air quality. This research will assess

> the capability, opportunity and motivation of

> these groups to change their behaviour to mitigate

> the impact of air pollution on their health,

> identifying opportunities where the Council could

> intervene to support health seeking behaviours.

>

> It?s within the environment and leisure portfolio

> (rather than health), ?83.4k.

[legalalien]

What?s strange is that the company is a software consultancy so it seems as though this is something that?s going to involve an online platform or service...

[Rockets]

I had a quick skim through and it makes a lot of key points about the challenge we all face to reduce emissions - it also, I hasten to add, does the usual "we need more money from central govt to make this happen" narrative.

But a couple of things jumped out.

79% of all emissions in the borough come from buildings

15% come from all transport - it would be interesting to see a breakdown within this as this includes buses and taxis and both of those are the most polluting form of transport on the road. The council calls out the need to reduce private car journeys, and whilst this is important, they really need to able to show how much buses and taxis are contributing to the problem and how quickly they can phase those out too.

I wonder if this suggests we might be facing another 18 months of LTN hell....

Review the 11 existing

LTNs over the next 18

months including impact on

carbon emissions.

Some other things jumped out.

Encourage and collaborate

with transport operators

including Transport for

London to improve

frequency, capacity and

access to public transport.

Work with the Mayor of

London to secure the

national investment needed

to decarbonise bus and rail

network

Explore the feasibility of

emissions-based parking

permits as part of review

into permits on streets and estates

[exdulwicher]

Problem is that a lot of councils are effectively paddling around in circles awaiting the (delayed) Transport Decarbonisation Plan from Government. Boris, he of the massive over-promising and under-delivering, has pledged to cut carbon emissions by 78% by 2035 and so far, the policies to actually deliver on this incredibly ambitious target are limited to a few planters, some drivel about electric cars and some limited e-scooter trials.

So councils are kind of lost - there's some reasonable new guidelines about building proper infrastructure (not bits of random paint long a pavement and calling it a cycle lane") but many councils, stuck with a perfect storm of traditionalist, car-centric councillors, funding cuts, emergence from Covid and a reluctance to change are scared of putting in place anything that is actually radical.

What?s strange is that the company is a software consultancy so it seems as though this is something that?s going to involve an online platform or service...

dxw do a lot with Government, councils plus stuff like housing associations. Specialists in digital public services which councils usually can't do in-house.

[redpost]

exdulwicher - too true, usual libertarian drivel from boris

what is needed is road charging that's broadly revenue neutral (ie. remove fuel duty and recover revenue through road pricing), this government doesn't have the balls though for such a progressive move