West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[raptortruckman69]

We don't need "evidence" from traffic counters. We know the volume is up, because we know LTNs are flawed. Therefore the counters have to be wrong. There is no other possible explanation.

[Rockets]

Earl, you're really flogging a dead horse here. The very purpose of the tubes is to classify vehicles - i.e. one vehicle has driven over the tubes, if it is not accurately classifying vehicles then it is not accurately counting vehicles either.

 

It's very clear: these tubes are designed to be used in free-flowing traffic (that is the guidance given by MetroCount) and are not accurate when used in congested or slow moving traffic conditions. This is why Enfield council had to re-run the monitoring after resetting the tubes for under 10km/h monitoring which resulted in a lot more vehicles than their initial monitoring claimed.

 

MetroCount admits they are not good under congested traffic conditions and says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic

Rachel Aldred admits they are not good under congested traffic conditions

Ex-Dulwicher admits they are not good under congested traffic conditions

Earl thinks everyone else is wrong....and clearly knows better....

 

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So exactly as I suspected. You are talking about vehicle classifications (that is determining the type of motor vehicle):

“Vehicles travelling very slowly might not be classified correctly"

MetroCount have explicitly stated that when it comes to volumes (i.e. the count of the number of motor vehicles) that ATCs are 

"very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions"

They state that for traffic volumes, accuracy exceeds 95%. This is completely at odds with what you have claimed the manufacturer has said. 

Again, your quote about stop start conditions refers to classification. 

You can try and spin things as much as you like but the manufactures are unambiguous about the accuracy of their equipment in recording vehicle volumes under slow and congested traffic conditions. 

[raptortruckman69]

Obviously if it misclassified the vehicle type, say confusing a car with a van or vice versa then it must have got the count wrong. It's not enough to know the number of vehicles, you have to know the type to draw any conclusions about the amount of vehicles.

[Rockets]

Earl,

The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Again, stripped of context. Again, exactly as I suspected when you first tried that ham fisted slight of hand, the quote, like the other one you tried to misrepresent, relates to vehicle classification. It's true that Andrew Ellson has also tried to conflate classifciation and volume accuracy / sow some ambiguity in how he's cut that quote (he is famously anti-ulez and anti-LTN, having posted over 30 articles attacking both just since the one you have cut and pasted). In context however it is still relatively clear:

Quote

 

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.

...MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions because the axles passing are continuously recording. It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy 

 

You can play these games as much as you like, but MetroCount are absolutely clear about the accuracy of their equipment in recording vehicle volumes under slow and congested traffic conditions.

Your attempt to use something they've said in relation to the collection of vehicle classification data and then claim that they've said it in relation to the collection of traffic volume / vehicle count data (when they have addressed the issue of traffic volume accuracy, separately and explicitly) is embarrassingly transparent.

Once more, for the record:

..MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions because the axles passing are continuously recording. It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy 

Edited October 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

We will agree to disagree.

I will just leave the words of Rachel Aldred...I don't often quote her in a positive way but this is a damning as it gets for tube counters...perhaps you think she is wrong too......

There are known issues with data quality. Usually, reports used Automatic Traffic Counters (ATCs) to monitor traffic, in most cases ‘tubes’ across the road. These are imperfect. Parked or very slow-moving motor traffic may affect results; although in most cases, count sites were placed away from junctions where queueing is likely, which should reduce this problem.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

You have repeatedly questioned the credibility of Rachel Aldred! Funny how you quote her as an authoritative source when it suits you. And yes, they are (like all methods of counting vehicle volumes, including manual counting) imperfect. That is not to say that they are not still highly accurate - probably still in excess of 95% accuracy eh? 

And just to remind you, what you claimed wasn't that ATCs were imperfect. You claimed that the manufacturer had 'admitted' that they were inaccurate at counting vehicles travelling under 10mph.  

Edited October 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And just to remind you, what you claimed wasn't that ATCs were imperfect. You claimed that the manufacturer had 'admitted' that they were inaccurate at counting vehicles travelling under 10mph.  

They are inaccurate. They have "admitted" it. That's why they tell people they have different settings on the device.

You're wrong. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Ex-Dulwicher admits they are not good under congested traffic conditions

One pseudonymous poster rehashing some other pseudonymous poster's option is not data or evidence.

13 hours ago, Rockets said:

I very much suspect the 99% accuracy applies to "free flowing" traffic

...and the suspicions of a pseudonymous poster online are not data or evidence either.

Neither has our friend from West Dulwich Action Group popped back to:

a) substantiate their claims about data

b) explain some of their own quirky but supposedly data-support claims (here and on Twitter)

The "data doesn't care about your feelings" crowd do really seem to struggle with the concept of citing data and providing sources. 🤔 

1 hour ago, raptortruckman69 said:

We don't need "evidence" from traffic counters. We know the volume is up, because we know LTNs are flawed. 

QED

Edited October 2 by Dogkennelhillbilly

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

They are inaccurate. They have "admitted" it. That's why they tell people they have different settings on the device.

You're wrong. 

The have different setting so you can measure different things 🤦‍♂️. In the case of LTNs what they're measuring is traffic volumes. 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions. It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy 

You are arguing that they’ve said their devices are inaccurate for counting vehicles which are slow moving, when they have said in writing that they are very accurate. Even you must see how ridiculous that position is.

Edited October 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”.

35 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The have different setting so you can measure different things 🤦‍♂️.

But can they measure both those different things at the same time? By default having a "different setting" suggests it is binary - that the setting is either on or off - you're either setting it to monitor slow moving or free flowing traffic and by having a "different setting" suggests it cannot do both well at the same time - does it not?

 

45 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In the case of LTNs what they're measuring is traffic volumes. 

So based on your previous statement about the setting the accuracy of the results of the measurement will be determined by the location of the tubes combined with which setting has been initiated - correct?

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here’s a link to the manual that explains how MetroCount's software works, how one can change settings and analyse the results - fill your boots. It’s pretty long so no doubt you’ll find a line or two that you can quote out of context to try and calm your cognitive dissonance.

If you want to know what the manufacturer has to say specifically about the accuracy of their product in counting vehicles which are slow moving however, then I’ll help you out:

Quote

MetroCount says that its tube-based counters are still very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions. It says that in most circumstances this would exceed 95 per cent accuracy

 

Edited October 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[raptortruckman69]

But we know they must be wrong because they show that LTNs reduce traffic and we know that's wrong because induced demand is fake and all the decades of science that shows it exists is bogus science produced by biased researchers with an axe to grind.

[Rockets]

Thanks for sharing that - the devil is always in the detail...

Speaking of which do you not think it is interesting that in that manual (page 75) the default setting the device comes with does not monitor anything under 10km/h....one wonders why that might be.....the out of the box setting is 10km/h to 160km/h. Any guesses why that may be the case......?

Oh I found the link to the manual with the reference below, very interesting that they say "as with any axle-based classifier....vehicles should be free-flowing. try to avoid areas with congestion" - almost as if everyone knows/should know that any system is not good with congestion and need free flowing traffic.....

https://tech-metrocount.com/Article.aspx?key=piezo-install

As with any axle-based classifier, also consider the following:

• Vehicles should be travelling at a constant velocity. Try to avoid bends, intersections and steep inclines.
• Vehicles should be free-flowing. Try to avoid areas with congestion.

 

Combine both elements and the "whose narrative is correct" swing-o-meter points far more towards mine than yours. It does also make me wonder whether Southwark bothered to change the default when they moved the tubes from Court Lane to adjacent to Melford Road during their monitoring....?

[malumbu]

Qualitatively if you make it more difficult for people to drive some will look for alternative means of transport or, dare i suggest, share lifts.  Drivers behaviour makes this more challenging often being engrained.  Some are particularly difficult like Raptorman  so you'd probably need to go for a nuclear option like car free days.

Edited October 2 by malumbu

[first mate]

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!

[raptortruckman69]

Absolutely. 95% accuracy of vehicle counts without a type isn't accurate enough to draw any conclusions except for an increase in traffic.

 

Decreases are obviously due to inaccuracies in the count.

[Penguin68]

Please, raptortruckman is clearly a troll, pretending to be the worst sort of petrol head either just to annoy, or possibly to bring anti LTN (and indeed CPZ) posters into disrepute. Either way nothing he or she says is a real contribution to this debate. 

[first mate]

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.

[malumbu]

You've lost me.  Car occupancy has fallen.  More people in a car ie sharing journeys is surely one way of reducing the number of cars/journeys, improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions.  That is why some countries have high occupancy vehicle lanes.  There are a few of you who just say no no no.    I offer a good example and get slated.  I'll let you get on with your naval gazing and car counting.  Rather than encouraging and supporting change.

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So exactly as I suspected. You are talking about vehicle classifications (that is determining the type of motor vehicle):

“Vehicles travelling very slowly might not be classified correctly"

MetroCount have explicitly stated that when it comes to volumes (i.e. the count of the number of motor vehicles) that ATCs are 

"very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions"

They state that for traffic volumes, accuracy exceeds 95%. This is completely at odds with what you have claimed the manufacturer has said. 

Well I am shocked that you did exactly what I said you would with that link. 🙄

Your latest quote "as with any axle-based classifier....vehicles should be free-flowing." confirms exactly the point I made above. If you're using it for vehicle classification then ideally vehicles should be free flowing. 

All you have done, again, is take something that applies to the collection of vehicle classification data and pretended that MetroCount have said it applies to the collection of traffic volume / vehicle count data.

We don't have to wonder about what they think on this, because MetroCount have explicitly stated, that their ATC is: 

"..very accurate for traffic volumes, even under very slow and congested traffic conditions"

Again, you can play these games as much as you like, but MetroCount are absolutely clear about the accuracy of their equipment in recording vehicle volumes under slow and congested traffic conditions. Exceeding 95% accuracy.

It's actually quite sad how determined you are to imply meaning and read between the lines in a lengthly software manual, whilst ignoring what they've said, really, really specifically and clearly on the matter being discussed.

Edited October 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

But Earl, why out of the box does it's default setting not record speeds under 10km/h.....why on earth might that be.......and how on earth can that be reading between the lines - it's printed in the user manual?

Given what you're saying what rational response is there that the default monitoring window is set to 10km/h to 160km/h out of the box?

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Again, you can play these games as much as you like, but MetroCount are absolutely clear about the accuracy of their equipment in recording vehicle volumes under slow and congested traffic conditions. Exceeding 95% accuracy.

But they also said this: The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free-flowing conditions”.

Perhaps you believe everything companies tell you - Purdue Pharma told everyone Oxycontin wasn't addictive....;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

😂

you’ve just done it again. Cut off the context which makes it clear that this is directly in relation to recording vehicle classifications. If you thought about it for just 1 second you’d also realise that it explains the adjustable default (the default they recommend changing depending on what you are looking to record).

This is the most egregious case of confirmation bias, it’s actually embarrassing. You don’t have to ‘read between the lines’, or ‘interpret’ what is in the software manual. Firstly because read in context by anyone who has basic comprehension skills it’s obvious that it refers to recording vehicle class and to recording vehicle frequency, which are separate things. But even more obviously because the manufacturer has responded directly to the specific question that you claimed they’d answered one way, by answering the other.

It doesn’t matter whether I ‘believe everything companies tell me’. You claimed that they had stated one thing (that their products don’t count vehicles travelling under 10mph), and they are absolutely clear that their equipment is very accurate in recording vehicle volumes under slow and congested traffic conditions. Exceeding 95% accuracy in fact.

I can’t work out if you’re being cynical or you genuinely don’t understand it. 

Edited October 2 by Earl Aelfheah

[tiddles]

Totally support the action group - majority of residents did not want, majority of businesses didn’t either - so fair play to them to challenge. That is not unreasonable in my mind. Sorry if that is ‘boring’