Indeed. And yet, for you, online, it has meant that you've actually tried to respond to what I've said rather than repeating stuff which I've already responded to.
Re: the imperial college study. This is not the same one. The one I posted is from November 2022. If you read the article you posted it says:
(my emphasis)
Paul Lomax's criticisms of the report I posted have been responded to by others on twitter, and we'll see what the journal's and/or author's responses are. The great thing about peer reviewed journals is that they get to go through this kind of critical process unlike newspaper reports. We can see all their methodology and get to criticise it. Meanwhile you post newspaper reports which make claims with no methodology behind them and assume they have no flaws at all because you agree with what they are saying.
I have literally no idea at all what on earth the screenshot you posted has to do with anything at all. Seems like you broke planning laws by placing something that looks like a road sign somewhere it could be confused for being a legal road sign? Is this the kind of law abiding behaviour you were thinking about in our earlier conversation about taxing EV electricity?
Lambeth one yes as I accepted it's based on traffic counts which are undercounting - now my question to you is given that we need to compare to pre-ltn installation, what is the best way to do that? How much was the traffic undercounted before, given that they were using the same methodology both before and after? Because the truth is that there is no methodology that is without flaws, and it's a strength, not a weakness, to acknowledge those flaws, and be able to account for them. So please let us know how you think we should make comparisons.
Newham, no, go and read the report and like I said it's from a pollution monitor on a shared boundary road, it's got nothing to do with traffic counts and your whole claim is nonsense - whether the traffic counts are flawed or not, no council claims what you are saying and the reports I've seen from most places say that traffic has risen on most boundary roads which is exactly the opposite of what you are saying councils are claiming.
Now I challenge you to find me one peer-reviewed study - not a newspaper report of one but the actual study - which goes against what the academics you dislike are saying. Because I'm not interested in continuing a conversation with you when it's clear you are going to discount any academic study in favour of your own pre-set beliefs.
