LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[slarti b]

@DulvilleRes

Badly planned and implemented LTN's, as here in Dulwich, which displace traffic, result in longer journeys and create extra congestion, are not going to solve the climate crisis, indeed may even make it worse.

Improving public transport, extension of ULEZ, measures to encourage EV use will help.

[heartblock]

LCC guidance to councils - i.e. Southwark on LTNs - 'the point at which residents could influence a scheme is reduced',....'ultimately, their voices are reduced to a simple tally'.

[heartblock]

[legalalien]

It is interesting reading some of the LCC/ University of Westminster stuff and realising quite how much of this is driven by an orchestrated campaign by an LCC led coalition that talks about having to ?overcome? reluctant boroughs and TfL. Without any acknowledgement that TfL and the boroughs have statutory duties to comply with and the councillors have democratic accountability- that?s where the weaknesses in the plan lie, I suspect - if the councillors wake up to the fact. It sounds as though there are pockets of resistance in TfL from the second document :)

https://www.adfc.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Expertenbereich/Politik_und_Verwaltung/Download/MeganSharkey_Londons_Mini-Hollands_optimiert.pdf (note the specific advice

to try and push things through quickly and ?overcoming? local powers like TfL and boroughs, plus building coalitions with local groups to look like you care)

https://www.london.gov.uk/about-us/londonassembly/meetings/documents/s67940/Minutes%20-%20Appendix%201%20-%20Transcript.pdf

And then this: http://journals.aesop-planning.eu/download/volume-8/article-42.pdf. It nearly made my head explode, but it seems the Aldred et al crowd are ?activist-researchers?, which to old lady me reads ?not at all impartial? but is apparently a thing. And this paper is an activist researcher reflecting on herself and her colleagues as activist-researchers. From an activist-research perspective.

[Otto2]

Hi -

Just to clarify your "Aldred et al" statement in reference to the linked article. The paper you linked to examines the role of "activist researchers" - academics that research activism and its impact on various initiatives. In other words, Megan Sharkey is an academic who has researched the impact of activism.

From the study:

"Megan Sharkey focuses on the bottom-up community-led grassroots movement?s role in socio-technical transitions and its accompanying institutional change. The thesis aim is to understand barriers to grassroots movements in London creating or driving urban infrastructure changes to attain resilient and sustainable cities."

[alice]

When your mother lives in the road that will benefit and local volunteers are used for the count. What do we think will happen?

[Otto2]

I think the study is interesting. You can contribute to studies with "Aldred et al" if you would like by applying for this position here:

https://vacancies.westminster.ac.uk/hrvacancies/default.aspx?id=50060206

[legalalien]

Both, I think, this paper is research into ?activist researchers?, and the author sees herself as an ?activist researcher? herself. Hence:

?The complexity of urban problems and climate change challenges facing humanity discourages making space for hope. These realities have spurred many young researchers like ourselves to be more proactive in our research changing the way we think, operate, and act in the world. Our researcher position lends itself to being active in negotiating and participating in these realities across the theoretical divide into everyday practicalities. These experiences and opportunities for deep self-reflection and exploring led us to wonder, are we activists and researchers??

So it?s about researchers who are activist, not just research about activists. I think.

And obviously it?s fine for researchers to be activist, but it inevitably casts doubt on the impartiality / independence of their work products given that data is often open to being presented in different ways.

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> Hi -

>

> Just to clarify your "Aldred et al" statement in

> reference to the linked article. The paper you

> linked to examines the role of "activist

> researchers" - academics that research activism

> and its impact on various initiatives. In other

> words, Megan Sharkey is an academic who has

> researched the impact of activism.

>

> From the study:

>

> "Megan Sharkey focuses on the bottom-up

> community-led grassroots movement?s role in

> socio-technical transitions and its accompanying

> institutional change. The thesis aim is to

> understand barriers to grassroots movements in

> London creating or driving urban infrastructure

> changes to attain resilient and sustainable

> cities."

[Otto2]

Academic researchers feel very passionate about the fields they research. It should not be a discredit to them to try to raise awareness of their research. I am now thinking of some of the researchers who are great communicators to the public during this pandemic - who are busy sequencing variants but take the time to communicate to the press and public -- for instance, Dr. Emma Hodcroft on twitter. She is amazing and it would be wrong to discredit her important work just because she takes on an "activist" role in sharing her knowledge.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Spartacus Wrote:

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

> Correct dkhb, but removing the cars and not

> providing alternatives is what the council are

> proposing

>

> It's got to be joined up thinking, not just doing

> it on a wing and a prayer without massive

> investment in public transport.

This is the epitome of concern trolling - "gosh, I'm just so passionate about investment in public transport that I don't think car drivers should be inconvenienced".

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Spartacus Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > heartblock Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > Good public transport is key to reducing

> car

> > > > use...absolutely agree...

> > > However this doesn't mean penalising cars to

> > make

> > > it run faster

> >

> > It is dreamland to imagine that bua transport

> can

> > improve without inconveniencing car drivers.

> Buses

> > need more dedicated street space, priority over

> > cars, and fewer cars in the way.

>

> Thought they had this already with bus lanes and

> red routes?

Think of the P4 bus route. Think of how much of it has bus lanes and red routes. 🙄

[Spartacus]

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote:

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

> Spartacus Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Correct dkhb, but removing the cars and not

> > providing alternatives is what the council are

> > proposing

> >

> > It's got to be joined up thinking, not just

> doing

> > it on a wing and a prayer without massive

> > investment in public transport.

>

> This is the epitome of concern trolling - "gosh,

> I'm just so passionate about investment in public

> transport that I don't think car drivers should be

> inconvenienced".

Welcome back dkhb , we've missed you (not)

[DulwichCentral]

alice Wrote:

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

> When your mother lives in the road that will

> benefit and local volunteers are used for the

> count. What do we think will happen?

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. How can 'post-truth' even be accepted as a thing?? As if anyone can say whatever they want on Twitter and they're just as much of an 'expert' as someone who has a PhD in the subject?

If academic research has been done following the correct process and parameters and the results have been peer-reviewed anyone is free to challenge it - *using equally thorough process and parameters* and also getting the counter argument peer-reviewed.

If a medical scientist is pro-vaccines and their work proves vaccines are effective would you trash their research because you're an anti-vaxxer?

If Rachel Aldred and colleagues were confronted with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that their work on LTNs is incorrect then I'm sure they would accept it not as a matter of *opinion* - but as a matter of fact. Aldred's career and academic reputation would depend on it.

[Rockets]

Has the piece of work that Aldred et al grabbed recent headlines in The Guardian had the peer review completed yet?

It's pretty clear to me that Aldred et al have a very cosy relationship with the pro-closure lobby groups and other vested-interest groups like LCC- the materials legal uncovered are pretty compelling in that regard.

[DulwichCentral]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> Has the piece of work that Aldred et al grabbed

> recent headlines in The Guardian had the peer

> review completed yet?

>

> It's pretty clear to me that Aldred et al have a

> very cosy relationship with the pro-closure lobby

> groups and other vested-interest groups like LCC-

> the materials legal uncovered are pretty

> compelling in that regard.

I'm not sure if they've been peer reviewed yet Rockets - but surely you'd agree the research they have done is a little more reliable than Alice's *opinion*?

I've not had time to look at what legal has 'uncovered' yet but as Otto says there is nothing corrupt about activists, or proponents of a theory, researching that particular theory so long as they follow the correct research parameters. Or would you say only the research from the 'Anti LTN lobby group' is valid when it comes to research on LTN's?

[legalalien]

I'm not suggesting corruption at all, and as I've said before I'm happy for researchers to be activists. I just think that everyone needs to understand that when someone is an activist/ strong advocate of a particular position, then their work output needs to be read and understood with that clearly in mind, and that it can't be held up as if it is some incontravertible truth.

This is obviously the case in many disciplines with word-based output e.g. if I'm researching and writing about feminist legal theory, people almost automatically understand that I'm putting forward views with the aim of improving the structural position of women, such research is treated more as an argument rather than a fact

In disciplines when the work product is a combination of data and conclusions, I think the potential for subjectivity/ presenting data to actively promote a particular agenda is generally less well understood. Deciding what to measure and how to measure things, selecting which data to present, and drawing conclusions from the data is a subjective process.

People talk about "peer review" as if that means that someone has double checked the work and validated the conclusions - which just isn't the case (as I'm sure many of you will know, the effectiveness of peer review is itself highly controversial - see e.g. this article https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ which I found an interesting read - it's quite old now, but not sure a lot has changed - here's a recent blog by the same chap https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/02/01/richard-smith-peer-reviewers-time-for-mass-rebellion/).

Just musing really.

[Otto2]

Why don't you cite research of other credentialed academics that disputes the research on transport, active mobility, etc that you disagree with rather than posting what really does look like an attack on character?

[Rockets]

No but I take activist research with a large pinch of salt and that's what Aldred is - an activist researcher.

And it gets presented by other activists like Peter Walker at the Guardian as some sort of impartial research. It is clearly anything but: far more subjective rather than objective.

The fact the last round of research published in the Guardian was not caveated that it had yet to be peer+reviewed speaks volumes. Also no one from the Guardian ever feels compelled to either ask or publish who paid for the research.....probably because the name of that group or organisation would be of so familiar and part of the cycling propaganda machine.

I would read what legal discovered...it's all very revealing on the tactics being employed by the likes of LCC to meet their objectives.

[Otto2]

It is wrong to tear down a person this way. I read it all. There is nothing in there that I find alarming, troubling, a distortion, or deserving the character assassination or doubt sowing you have served here.

[Rockets]

It's hardly an attack on character but an attack on activist research being presented as balanced and impartial. Aldred,Monk, Walker, Boardman are all part of the cycle propaganda machine - there is nothing wrong with that but their output should be treated and viewed as such.

[Otto2]

As propaganda? You are reducing Aldred's research to propaganda?

[legalalien]

Given Professor Aldred has a sociology background and has written about ethical and political issues in research relationships I imagine she might agree that raising the issue is a valid thing to do.

(Note the professor reference. Spent ten minutes contemplating whether there was such a thing as an uncredentialled academic and came across an interesting article about a tendency in the US to mention men's credentials but not women's credentials).

[Rockets]

Otto2 - no I said her research is being used as part of the pro-LTN propaganda machine.

Just out of interest, who do you think funds her group's research?

The first thing anyone should do when presented with research is try to ascertain who funded it.

[malumbu]

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

[Rockets]

Malumbu - I do know how paid research works - it appears you do not.

And I always find the most sanguine approach is to determine who funded said research before reading as it gives you a very good idea on the likely conclusions the report will arrive at.

Which brings us back to my opening gambit - does anyone know who funded the Aldred research?