The data was before LTNs were introduced? Yes? So, once they have been introduced then it is fair to see what the data says both inside and outside the relevant area after implementation. I’m asking why the data set doesn’t look at what happens outside.
You’ve just pointed to data which doesn’t include what happens outside. Of course I support a lowering in crime, I welcome it and am delighted that we have data to show it is lowered inside LTNs. I am asking why the data set doesn’t extend to outside LTNs after their implementation
You can go online and search the data yourself FFS. It's not some big mystery.
And then selfishly drive their offspring to school every day. Seems about right.
Does it cover all crime and just screening shotting something isn’t research is it. By you logic, because LTNs reduce crime, we should make every road, every area into one. I’m asking why extant contemporaneous research doesn’t extend to areas outside LTNsYou can go online and search the data yourself FFS. It's not some big mystery.
View attachment 280293
And now answer my question please.
Instead of firing endless caveats, questions and excuses my way, could you please extend me the courtesy of answering my question:
Yes, inside LTNs. My question was where is the contemporary research as to what happens outside? You do t have any and can’t explain why research doesn’t cover that data set. Of course I support reduction in crime, I’m pretty sure everyone does. I also think that they have had a detrimental impact of disabled people which is why is asking for thorough research on the impacts both inside and outside.
No evidence because the research h hasn’t been done. That’s my point. I’m asking why it doesn’t extend to outside LTNs. We aren’t going to agree on this are we. I’m just asking why this research isn’t/hasn’t been conducted
And now explicitly states it’s not the other OL - which feels a bit like they were forced to make that distinction.
Well let's just say - for the sake of argument - that there is zero evidence that the drastic reduction in of injuries and deaths in LTNs has not led to an increase elsewhere.
you’ve got it. But you’re claiming, without providing evidence, that it’s invalid because, while looking at 72 LTNs and boundary roads it’s supposedly missed a couple (conspiracy!).
Of course, as long as their implementation is in line with the obligations of the council under the Equalities Act.
That's great. So as soon as you've done your research using the link I provided for you, you will switch your support to LTNs if you find no evidence of road injuries doubling outside the LTNs (which I think we both know is highly unlikely).
I don't know what you're on about - I haven't dismissed the question. If you are talking about the recent report on change in casualties etc, I posted that report some pages ago, and the report looks at figures inside LTNs as well as on LTN boundary roads and London in general. And it looks at pre and post data for each of those categories.
Read the bit about legislation I mentioned
Yes you got that caveat in. And assuming that the council adhere to the Equalities Act you will switch your full support to LTNs, yes?
Over 50% of boundary roads weren’t included. 75% in some areas. I was just asking at the beginning why this is a common feature of the research into LTNs in general.
If they are implemented in line with legislation then that’s fine. That’s what I’ve been asking for since the beginning and it’s all I care about. I’m not going to be massively pro but then I also won’t be anti.
Well that's strange because the focus on the one disabled woman only happened long after the campaign had started.
And it coincided with the time I joined…
Woah there. So this claim has now expanded again. Can you show what you mean - still seen no evidence that this report misses 50-75% of boundary roads. (Which of course would be in the non LTN areas where casualties haven’t increased anyway)
So what happens if it turns out she unfortunately has to be inconvenienced*, but this means that a large number of people escape injury and death? Because that seems to be the way you're presenting your argument here.
This is the whole balancing act that is required under the law. It’s the basis of a court case at the moment.
And what's your opinion?
It's normal in any kind of study like this to take a sample of data rather than to try and record everything. Usually because the latter is impossible. Obviously you have to try and make sure the sample is representative. Are you saying they cherry-picked the locations?
