West Dulwich LTN Action Group - needs your support

[Earl Aelfheah]

The difference an hour makes:

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

It's very clear that MetroCount devices are not great at monitoring under 10kmp/h...

Of course we have to acknowledge that the company themselves (and you) claim this is not the case

...and back to:

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

The manufacturer [MetroCount] admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) 

So close.

26 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Ha ha acknowledging what a company has said hardly constitutes a "mealy mouthed climb down"

Unless you've spent pages claiming that they've said something else, briefly acknowledge that they haven't, and then still seem to act like you've never misrepresented their position.

Edited October 4 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl, I am clearly living rent free in your head....

You're tying yourself in knots and not actually reading (or deliberately ignoring) what I have been writing.

 

23 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

It is very easy to check for and compensate for inaccuracies by cross-referencing with other sources of data.

Ex- I have asked this twice so will try one more time:

• Was Metrocount right to say: the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic?
• Do pneumatic tubes work well in road conditions under 10km/h and in congested traffic?
• Would moving tubes from Lordship Lane at the junction of Court Lane to Lordship Lane to the junction of Melford Road (which is often under heavy congestion) increase or decrease accuracy of the monitoring provided by the tubes?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I must admit, I have massively enjoyed your conversion to taking the "word of the likes of Rachel Aldred and people who actually know what they are talking about", in light of your numerous posts casting doubt on her credibility. Plus your quoting from a paper that you've previously rejected the conclusions of and rubbished as biased.

But in case that doesn't break the irony meter, you have also previously criticised one of Rachel Aldred's team for using visual / manual counting to produce cycling data in relation to the Dulwich LTN. Saying that the 'counting methodology and timings' have been criticised.

It's weird, don't you think, how you'll cite the manufacturers, and Rachel Aldred and her work, and the data they've collected, only where you think it aligns to something you already believe? And denounce them, as unreliable and lacking credibility in all other circumstances? Did you figure out what confirmation bias means in the end? I know you were struggling with it earlier.

Edited October 4 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

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.

[malumbu]

Returning to discussing local LTNs, as requested, I'm in favour.  They encourage active transport, improve the built environment and in time will hopefully encourage some to change to a different mode of transport. Timed street closures around the school run are particularly appropriate as there will be a significant percentage on the school run who could make alternate arrangements.  Despite faults, and you can criticise virtually anything, the policy is right.  I look forward to the time this these are just normal.  For example like pedestrianising most of Trafalgar Square.  Do you remember the outrage when this was first proposed.  No doubt some went into great detail on the monitoring.  

[Hen123]

8 hours ago, raptortruckman69 said:

I agree with rockets. The counter company is big pharma level of deceptive.

Ok that say it all really. We are getting into 15 min city conspiracy land here. You realise vaccines actually work right? 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

 shift the whole focus of debate away from local LTNs to a series of nit picking, hair-splitting, gaslighting posts...There are serious reservations about data to support local LTNs and how the Council has handled the consultation process etc..

lol! 🤣🤣

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...

[Rockets]

DKHB...maybe, just maybe, those who oppose the measures aren't rabid diesel drinking petrolheads but people who just think that the measures the council is putting in might be actually making the very problem they are trying to solve worse and that their manipulation of data to "prove" the measures are working is unforgiveable given the stakes are so high.

3 hours ago, first mate said:

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.

Earl is the new Mr Chicken who was the new LTNBooHoo who was the new LTNmanatee! I do wonder sometimes if there are just a couple of fanatics setting up numerous accounts...clearly RaptorTruck is a new approach someone is taking. Perhaps admin can do some research to see if there are any data trends - a lot of the pro-LTN brigade managed to get themselves barred in the past and I wonder if One or two have come back under a new guise!

 

it just shows the lengths some of the fanatics will go to try to make a point and start a fight with anyone who dares suggest a viewpoint that differs from their own bizarre outlook on the world. It’s all very cult like.

Edited October 4 by Rockets

[raptortruckman69]

Yes I agree with rockets again! The data has all been manipulated and faked. LTNs don't work, and the data would prove it if the council ever gave is the real un manipulated data. You tell them.

 

I'm sure they will fake the vivacity days too so when that mysteriously shows LTNs work, we will know why.

[first mate]

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.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I haven’t deflected from the debate. Rockets claimed that the manufacturer of the ATCs had said something they haven’t. I just pointed out that what he said wasn’t true. It was Rockets who insisted on long, repeated exercises in deflecting, dissembling and distracting, rather than simply admit his mistake. I didn’t feel like letting the lie sit unchallenged. The manufacturer has explicitly said that their counters are very accurate at counting traffic volumes even under slow moving or congested conditions. Whether or not one should place weight on the word of the manufacturer is an entirely different matter. But it was Rockets, not me, who was citing them as someone who’s view was relevant / important. 

Edited October 5 by Earl Aelfheah

[raptortruckman69]

The data was flawed!

 

I think you have a gift for understatement there first mate. I'm sure you agree with me that Rockets is right about the tube counter company being like those big pharma ones. Can't trust them an inch why will none of the rest of you see that obvious truth??

And if we are being honest we can't trust anything at all the council says either, so we have to go with our own eyes not the flawed evidence.

Edited October 5 by raptortruckman69

[Rockets]

22 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whether or not one should place weight on the word of the manufacturer is an entirely different matter.

Ha ha……oh my….

22 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I didn’t feel like letting the lie sit unchallenged.

Whilst in the process lying about what I said….my the hypocrisy gene is particularly strong in this one! 😉

Edited October 5 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

And there you go. You cited the manufacturer.

You quoted the manufacturer as having said their equipment was inaccurate at counting slow moving vehicles (implying that their view was highly relevant).

When confronted with the fact that they had not said what you claimed, in fact the exact opposite, you then suggest that the manufacturers view shouldn't be taken seriously. 

You must see how ridiculous this is? Are you really so incapable of just admitting an error. It's incredibly sad.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Whether or not one should place weight on the word of the manufacturer is an entirely different matter.

Ha ha……oh my….

It's an entirely different matter to whether or not they said what you claimed they said. Something you perfectly well understand. I’m happy to discuss this point separately, but you’d then (with no sense of irony, having invited it) accuse me of deflection.

Edited October 5 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Ha ha Earl you lied (more than once) about what I said, twisting my words to suit your agenda. So I won't be taking any advice from you.

I still stand by my original claim and nothing you have said has moved me on that and the other evidence i have presented suggests there is industry acknowledgement of the fact.

The fact that you are now u-turning on your own defence during the whole argument is absolutely laughable, but not at all surprising given your track record. We have seen this all before and will no doubt see it again and again from the usual suspects and just exposes why so many people have issues with the attitude of many of the fanatical cheerleaders on the pro-side.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Where have I u-turned exactly? 
And where have I lied about what you have said? Are you quite OK?

On 30/09/2024 at 18:04, Rockets said:

Let's look....

• The manufacturer admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) 

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 5 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

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.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

5 hours ago, first mate said:

However, if the LTN creates congestion at the count points, the post-implementation surveys will not record the true number of vehicles.

It literally does not mean this. You've cut off the bit where is says:

6 hours 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

They literally state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles. 

5 hours ago, first mate said:

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

So you also now accept her analysis (having previously rejected it, and her, as biased and unreliable)? This is great news. So both you and Rocks now accept the conclusions she reached, that LTNs help to reduce traffic?

Edited October 5 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

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.

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They literally state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles. 

Of course THEY (MetroCount) do because THEY are trying to sell their product at a time when more accurate tools are coming into the market. It doesn't mean it is true - it is a claim. A claim the likes of Aldred even challenge. 

 

[raptortruckman69]

Yeah that's exactly what I said. It's about the money. And you can be sure their errors just happen to go in the direction their biggest customers want rather than over counting.

 

Edited October 5 by raptortruckman69

[Earl Aelfheah]

40 minutes ago, Rockets said:

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They literally state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles. 

Of course THEY (MetroCount) do because THEY are trying to sell their product at a time when more accurate tools are coming into the market. It doesn't mean it is true - it is a claim. A claim the likes of Aldred even challenge. 

 

But you claimed that:

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

• The manufacturer [MetroCount] admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph) 

You do see this presumably? So you finally accept that the manufacturer does state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of (even slow moving) vehicles? Because you have been denying it over many, many posts.
 

Edited October 5 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

And they did admit that. They have both admitted they are not designed to work in stop start traffic and should be used in free flowing conditions but also claim accuracy (in most circumstances but they do not qualify what those circumstances are - maybe it is within free-flowong traffic under 10kmp/h we just dont know).

Aldred, and others in the industry, seem to agree with their "not designed to work in stop start conditions". And I am with them on this one. 

You are not and that is fine too. That's your decision. You have assesed the presented evidence and made your decision.

Just because a manufacturer makes a claim doesn't mean it is true - always look out for caveats like "in most circumstances".

[Earl Aelfheah]

So I'm confused. The manufacturer has 'of course' said that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles, even in slow moving traffic. Or they have very specifically 'admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph)'?

Edited October 5 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Yup - you're confused and I am trying to help you understand but it is clearly a struggle. Maybe someone else can help you understand it as i cannot make it any clearer.