Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[chowce5382]

We aggregated the point locations of all injuries into three mutually-exclusive groups:

1. Injuries inside the LTN, defined as injuries at least 25m inside the LTN boundary.
2. Injuries on LTN boundary roads, defined being located less than 25m from an LTN boundary road.
3. All other injuries elsewhere in London (our comparison group).

Is your complaint that you think they’ve somehow missed one or two specific boundary roads snd that the injury stats on those are so dire they’re going to change the London wide aggregates? That sounds…unlikely.

Well, we won’t know will we until it is done will we. You say unlikely, I say do the research. The two academics who focus on this generally always focus on what happens inside an LTN.

 

[chowce5382]

What's the question? Why didn't the research do everything you need it to be convinced? I'd say it's because they're not funded with infinite money and blessed with infinite time to produce the all-encompassing uber-research it would take for you to go "hmm, maybe".

No. Why does the research generally always miss out what happens outside an LTN. It’s a fair question but you’ll contest that. Just say you don’t care. It’s ok to admit it

 

[editor]

No, just always surprised that they miss boundary roads from the data set.

Come on. The data in that study makes it clear that LTNs reduce deaths and injuries.

 

[teuchter]

No. Why does the research generally always miss out what happens outside an LTN. It’s a fair question but you’ll contest that. Just say you don’t care. It’s ok to admit it

I've been trying to continue treating you as someone arguing in good faith but maybe it's a waste of time.

 

[chowce5382]

Come on. The data in that study makes it clear that LTNs reduce deaths and injuries.

Inside LTNs. Agreed.

 

[thebackrow]

Inside LTNs. Agreed.

And no worse outside

"We looked into these new fangled NO ANKLE-HEIGHT SPINNING BLADE ZONES and it turned out more people have their feet attached in these areas than outside, so we're campaigning for their removal. Everyone should have an equal chance of having their feet ripped off by spinning blades, no exceptions."

So more ltns and expanded safer areas or fewer ltns and bring back the road danger..,,

 

[editor]

Inside LTNs. Agreed.

Are you about to argue that the death and injury rates increase by a corresponding outside the LTNs then?

In which case: please produce your data.

 

[chowce5382]

I've been trying to continue treating you as someone arguing in good faith but maybe it's a waste of time.

The feeling is probably mutual. I ask a question as to why research generally only focuses on what happens inside LTNs. You say that it’s not a genuine observation. It’s like talking to my councillors. They always say how their life has improved due to being inside a LTN. I ask about people outside LTNs, I get told I’m being disingenuous and don’t get an answer to my question.

 

[chowce5382]

Are you about to argue that the death and injury rates increase by a corresponding outside the LTNs then?

In which case: please produce your data.

No, I’m saying that we don’t have any data as the data set used always focuses on what happens inside. I’m asking why the focus is always on what happens inside given that the LTNs displace traffic by their very definition. On that basis why is the research not focused on the displaced traffic and boundary roads. It’s just a question. I’ll drop it you don’t think it’s valid but it would be helpful to know why

 

[teuchter]

The feeling is probably mutual. I ask a question as to why research generally only focuses on what happens inside LTNs. You say that it’s not a genuine observation. It’s like talking to my councillors. They always say how their life has improved due to being inside a LTN. I ask about people outside LTNs, I get told I’m being disingenuous and don’t get an answer to my question.

The answer to you is that research does look at what happens outside of LTNs. You can argue against that sure, and try and provide examples to support what you're saying, but instead you move to an accusation that someone simply doesn't care what happens outside of them.

 

[editor]

No, I’m saying that we don’t have any data as the data set used always focuses on what happens inside. I’m asking why the focus is always on what happens inside given that the LTNs displace traffic by their very definition. On that basis why is the research not focused on the displaced traffic and boundary roads. It’s just a question. I’ll drop it you don’t think it’s valid but it would be helpful to know why

So seeing as you have zero evidence that there was any corresponding rise in injuries and deaths outside LTNs, how can you possibly oppose them if they are saving the lives of people in your community?

 

[chowce5382]

The answer to you is that research does look at what happens outside of LTNs. You can argue against that sure, and try and provide examples to support what you're saying, but instead you move to an accusation that someone simply doesn't care what happens outside of them.

I ask why you wanted to dismiss the question, I assumed you don’t care. You obviously do care but I’m still not getting an answer

 

[liquidindian]

Chaos theory, man. A butterfly flaps its wings, a hurricane destroys a town. You filter a road in Brixton, a car goes flying off a cliff in Aberdour.

 

[chowce5382]

So seeing as you have zero evidence that there was any corresponding rise in injuries and deaths outside LTNs, how can you possibly oppose them if they are saving the lives of people in your community?

Re-read what I said. I am not questioning the data of what happens inside LTNs. There is data to back that up. I’m comfortable with that data. I’m asking why the data set generally used doesn’t focus on what happens outside. Do you know why?

 

[chowce5382]

Chaos theory, man. A butterfly flaps its wings, a hurricane destroys a town. You filter a road in Brixton, a car goes flying off a cliff in Aberdour.

So still no answer.

 

[liquidindian]

Ah, hang on, this is one of your clever wind ups, like the art thing. Good work.

 

[chowce5382]

Ah, hang on, this is one of your clever wind ups, like the art thing. Good work.

Again, can’t/won’t answer the question. Good obfuscation

 

[editor]

Re-read what I said. I am not questioning the data of what happens inside LTNs. There is data to back that up. I’m comfortable with that data. I’m asking why the data set generally used doesn’t focus on what happens outside. Do you know why?

Because they already know what happens outside LTNs as they have decades of road accident statistics. Those statistics will still be recorded but as LTNs are new it makes sense to see how they alter the safety of the community.
But now you know that LTNs are saving the lives of people in your community, on what grounds can you oppose them?

 

[liquidindian]

Again, can’t/won’t answer the question. Good obfuscation

Your question is "what about outside LTNs" and the answer is "the research does look at what's happening outside LTNs". The problem is not answering your question but how many times it needs to be answered.

 

[chowce5382]

Because they already know what happens outside LTNs as they have decades of road accident statistics. Those statistics will still be recorded but as LTNs are new it makes sense to see how they alter the safety of the community.
But now you know that LTNs are saving the lives of people in your community, on what grounds can you oppose them?

I agree that it is sensible to see how they alter the safety of the community inside them. The road data you’re referring to is historical and pre-dates the implementation of LTNs. I’m asking why, when the current research on LTNs is being done, why that research doesn’t extend to outside the LTNs. That is my question and I don’t understand why no one will answer it.

 

[liquidindian]

That is my question and I don’t understand why no one will answer it.

This really is performance art now. I can't say I like it, but I admire the commitment.

 

[chowce5382]

This really is performance art now. I can't say I like it, but I admire the commitment.

Yup, your inability to answer a simple question is quite impressive.

 

[thebackrow]

Re-read what I said. I am not questioning the data of what happens inside LTNs. There is data to back that up. I’m comfortable with that data. I’m asking why the data set generally used doesn’t focus on what happens outside. Do you know why?

We aggregated the point locations of all injuries into three mutually-exclusive groups:

1. Injuries inside the LTN, defined as injuries at least 25m inside the LTN boundary.
2. Injuries on LTN boundary roads, defined being located less than 25m from an LTN boundary road.
3. All other injuries elsewhere in London (our comparison group).

Is your complaint that you think they’ve somehow missed one or two specific boundary roads snd that the injury stats on those are so dire they’re going to change the London wide aggregates? That sounds…unlikely.

 

[Not a Vet]

The one Lambeth justice Twitter feed has had a bit of a makeover and now no longer mentions Sofia specifically

 

[chowce5382]

The one Lambeth justice Twitter feed has had a bit of a makeover and now no longer mentions Sofia specifically

Yup, she has been getting grief/targeted.

 

[snowy_again]

He’ll troll until he gets the reaction he wants, gets a ban and then can run back to his friends saying he’s been censored and cancelled which he’ll use to vindicate his position.

 

[cuppa tee]

I've tried to parse this a few times. I don't really get it because I use one LTN for a cycle route and another as a walking route, as do lots of others. But even when I was school age I couldn't exactly turn up for class at Dollar Academy because it existed and had been paid for. You don't have to live in an LTN to benefit from one.

Apologies if my post wasn’t clear. i was saying that in my experience the yummy mummy’s and dapper dads I encountered when my kid was at school had high principles on the surface but were quick to put the drawbridge up if there was any danger of their offspring having to mix with ‘ the wrong type’ going to private schools was one option buying a little buy to let if it got them a place in a nice school another.

 

[chowce5382]

He’ll troll until he gets the reaction he wants, gets a ban and then can run back to his friends saying he’s been censored and cancelled which he’ll use to vindicate his position.

So you get banned for asking questions on here? Still, no on answering it. Backrow points back to a bit of research to which I’ve already printed out that 75% of boundary roads in a number of areas weren’t monitored. Still, no one answering the question

 

[editor]

I agree that it is sensible to see how they alter the safety of the community inside them. The road data you’re referring to is historical and pre-dates the implementation of LTNs. I’m asking why, when the current research on LTNs is being done, why that research doesn’t extend to outside the LTNs. That is my question and I don’t understand why no one will answer it.

I have answered it. They already have decades of data of what happened before LTNs were introduced and those statistics will still be compiled now as all accidents are recorded.

But with absolutely zero evidence of any rise in accidents and deaths outside LTNs - but clear evidence of a huge drop inside LTNs - I'm curious as to what grounds you can now possibly 1. oppose LTNs and 2. oppose the wider roll out of LTNs.

 

[editor]

So you get banned for asking questions on here? Still, no on answering it. Backrow points back to a bit of research to which I’ve already printed out that 75% of boundary roads in a number of areas weren’t monitored. Still, no one answering the question

No you don't. And I've answered your question twice now, so perhaps you can now answer mine: if all the evidence points to LTNs creating a dramatic reduction in injuries and deaths, and no evidence that those accidents are displaced elsewhere, surely you must fully support LTNs?

Or do you think that the right to drive wherever you want comes first, and the health and safety of the community comes second?