Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Petition to request parliament review LTNs

teuchter said:
ianarmstrong hasn't blundered in without manners, it's just that they haven't got any new arguments and are talking rubbish.

It's true that some of the responses have been a bit more aggressive than is really called for.
Click to expand...
Am sure he's heard it all before.

Anyway, he's decided not to engage elsewhere here, so, in terms of new arguments, we're left with the mystery of what could have been ...
 
sleaterkinney said:
Probably not. You’re not engaging in any discussion, just putting up massive cut and paste posts.
Click to expand...
Not really - I did attempt to have discussions with numerous people on here but it seems this is a very PRO LTN crowd and it just resulted in way too many insults, offensive remarks, falls assumptions about me being made and sarcastic comments which makes it hard to continue a discussion when the other party reverts to derogatory messages
 
krtek a houby said:
Pm's of support?

This is one of the most receptive sites there is. But is also known for not putting up with rude dudes blundering in without so much as an "excuse me" "hello" or getting to know the community.


You had 18 months to get a reasonable idea of the site.

Simple manners, you know?
Click to expand...
Nope it's not at all receptive - if it was then there would not have been insults and offensive words, sarcasm employed by so many people who posted on this thread

Seems like there are so many unwritten rules not in the Ts & Cs
 
ianarmstrong said:
Lambeth should accept that their monitoring of traffic and pollution is not sufficient to declare their LTNs a success due to the various flaws in the equipment and methodology employed and they should seek to address the issues that have been reported to them and look to mitigate them by relaxing the LTN restrictions in one way or another or remove the LTNs and seek alternate measures to address what they claim they are attempting to do which is to reduce traffic and pollution - If they insist in their want to reduce traffic and address climate change then they need to implement a much wider monitoring strategy that covers much more of the area around an LTN and better still the whole of the borough and I would like to see them install actual air monitoring equipment at all the main traffic junctions, pinch points and roads where the LTN traffic is being displaced or where traffic is heavy or there are issues with traffic numbers or congestion.

Lambeth council are claiming that when they assess the LTN and it's boundary roads excluding any other roads where traffic may have been displaced to the traffic has reduced and by virtue of their modelling methods they also claim pollution reduced - they exclude any displacement routes so there is no way of knowing if the traffic did actually go down as a result of the LTN but they do concede that boundary roads often see more traffic

I'm not going to accept studies by active travel supporting academics who are clearly LTN supporters when flaws in their studies are pointed out no matter how many people have peer reviewed them as they have failed to respond to the criticisms levied against their studies which I am sure they are aware of and they are receiving significant amounts of money to continue to study LTNs so maybe they don't want to admit their failings and put at risk that funding

My position is based on seeing how manipulative the whole LTN imposition process has been and when issues are reported to councils and academics they are ignored or brushed under the carpet or side-stepped one way or another

I am asking for more monitoring, democracy, transparency and honesty from all concerned and a desire to address issues instead of brushing them aside and manipulation of the truth and gaslighting people reporting issues.
Click to expand...

I'm all for improved monitoring methods, especially direct air pollution monitoring, to use for future comparisons. But you refuse to even acknowledge the question I'm going to ask for the last time: We need to make a comparison to pre-installation traffic levels. Is it better to use the same, flawed, methodology to make that comparison or to use a different methodology pre and post installation?

Since you have failed to produce a single peer reviewed study to support your view I'm now certain that you will reject all academic studies that are broadly positive as being from biased "active travel academics" so there's really no point in continuing to discuss with you. No matter what monitoring is done, if it doesn't match your perception of things, you will call it false and gaslighting, so we are done here.

ianarmstrong said:
Peer reviews are reviews done prior to publication and the flaws in these studies are being identified post publication so you would hope that if they reviewer/s were aware of the flaws that they would question the conclusions of the study and it would be withdrawn or re-assessed and adjusted accordingly. Even so once someone has alerted the institution or the academics in question to issues with their published studies you would hope that their integrity would warrant a review of the study or a rebuttal of the issues raised or a withdrawal until such a review had been conducted as currently people are continuing to promote the studies and use them to advocate claims that may subsequently have to be withdrawn
Click to expand...

Peer reviewed journals withdraw articles after publication when they are shown to be wrong, most famously I guess being Wakefield's fraudulent MMR-autism bullshit. istr you posted an article which said a 2021 study by imperial college was withdrawn so that should give you confidence that the full process works, and that articles which aren't withdrawn still provide honest and useful information despite the flaws. Much better than newspaper articles which can't be criticised because they don't tell you anything about what they have done to come to the conclusions they have.
 
teuchter said:
ianarmstrong hasn't blundered in without manners, it's just that they haven't got any new arguments and are talking rubbish.

It's true that some of the responses have been a bit more aggressive than is really called for.
Click to expand...

BigTom said:
I'm all for improved monitoring methods, especially direct air pollution monitoring, to use for future comparisons. But you refuse to even acknowledge the question I'm going to ask for the last time: We need to make a comparison to pre-installation traffic levels. Is it better to use the same, flawed, methodology to make that comparison or to use a different methodology pre and post installation?

Since you have failed to produce a single peer reviewed study to support your view I'm now certain that you will reject all academic studies that are broadly positive as being from biased "active travel academics" so there's really no point in continuing to discuss with you. No matter what monitoring is done, if it doesn't match your perception of things, you will call it false and gaslighting, so we are done here.



Peer reviewed journals withdraw articles after publication when they are shown to be wrong, most famously I guess being Wakefield's fraudulent MMR-autism bullshit. istr you posted an article which said a 2021 study by imperial college was withdrawn so that should give you confidence that the full process works, and that articles which aren't withdrawn still provide honest and useful information despite the flaws. Much better than newspaper articles which can't be criticised because they don't tell you anything about what they have done to come to the conclusions they have.
Click to expand...
I'd rather see the monitoring expanded to cover more areas outside the LTN where the traffic is being displaced to and more assessments done on what modal shift if any have happened and how many miles are being driven by locals to see if that has reduced or increased but I can't see why you would want to use a flawed method as you want to know the true extent of displacement and congestion but I suspect that is all deliberate as that is how LTN advocates are able to claim evaporation of traffic has happened as the monitoring did not look at all the places where the traffic was displaced to. I think this is all by design as there never was any intention to remove the LTNs if they had been deemed to have failed so the monitoring was designed to claim success.
I would hope the studies that have been reported as flawed will be withdrawn in due course but they have done their job as they have been published and shared far and wide and LTN supporters post them on social media and when the flaws are flagged up they ignore them and talk about them being peer reviewed so they must be true. As I said I don't trust any study about LTNs conducted by someone who was a trustee of LCC and during that time was advocating for LTNs - anything that comes out of her academy has to be viewed with some suspicion.

I am fine with ceasing the conversation here as you are never going to convince me and I'm never going to convince you - I created this post simple to share the petition to reach people who are not LTN supporters not to have an in depth discussion with LTN supporters
 
331792490_227923679796924_5237239886163893940_n.jpg
 
I'm amazed this specimen hasn't revealed any interest in any of the other obsessions of the manosphere - not that I've read much of his copious text...but I think I tried a few bingo search terms.

Maybe he's been forced here through embarrassment at continually finding himself rubbing shoulders with the usual suspects..
 
Last edited:
klang said:
that's exactly what discussion boards are for!
Click to expand...
And yet it's called a bulletin board which suggests the kind of place you can just pin up some weird petition and walk away. U75's preference for live chat is slightly unusual in bulletin board terms (though at least partly responsible for its longevity).
 
maomao said:
And yet it's called a bulletin board which suggests the kind of place you can just pin up some weird petition and walk away. U75's preference for live chat is slightly unusual in bulletin board terms (though at least partly responsible for its longevity).
Click to expand...
It's only a weird petition in your eyes as you support LTNs - the 12k+ people who have signed it are not weird people - as you've seen I have no problem chatting on here but the insults and offensive words are not required
 
ianarmstrong said:
It's only a weird petition in your eyes as you support LTNs - the 12k+ people who have signed it are not weird people - as you've seen I have no problem chatting on here but the insults and offensive words are not required
Click to expand...
Oh stop whining you twat, it's just a bit of banter. When in Rome etc.
 
ianarmstrong said:
Not from what I've seen - they cherry pick data to suit their desired outcome and ignore reports of the data they have used containing errors - this is why it would be good for parliament to review all of the data and the outcomes both pro and con of LTNs to see if there are any mitigations needed to address any negative outcomes
Click to expand...
And who exactly in parliament do you believe to be qualified to review the data? If the academics are producing papers that have gone through the peer review process (operated by most reputable journals) what can someone not an expert in the subject bring to the debate?

By all means disregard the data if it hasn't been peer reviewed, is vanity published or a ranty blog post.
 
ianarmstrong said:
the 12k+ people who have signed it are not weird people
Click to expand...
The 12K+ people do not include those who have been protesting in Oxford & Trafalgar Square? They don't include the guys with placards at Crystal Palace Triangle of a Saturday, protesting about 15-minute cities and the cashless society? They don't include people from the mad "Save London", "Action Against Unfair ULEZ CAZ & LTN" or the hundred other Facebook groups? Those weirdos who go on and on and on and on about on Twitter, replying to Sadiq Khan with ever-more tiresome puns on his name? You've stopped them all from signing, have you?
 
ianarmstrong said:
I'd rather see the monitoring expanded to cover more areas outside the LTN where the traffic is being displaced to and more assessments done on what modal shift if any have happened and how many miles are being driven by locals to see if that has reduced or increased but I can't see why you would want to use a flawed method as you want to know the true extent of displacement and congestion but I suspect that is all deliberate as that is how LTN advocates are able to claim evaporation of traffic has happened as the monitoring did not look at all the places where the traffic was displaced to. I think this is all by design as there never was any intention to remove the LTNs if they had been deemed to have failed so the monitoring was designed to claim success.
I would hope the studies that have been reported as flawed will be withdrawn in due course but they have done their job as they have been published and shared far and wide and LTN supporters post them on social media and when the flaws are flagged up they ignore them and talk about them being peer reviewed so they must be true. As I said I don't trust any study about LTNs conducted by someone who was a trustee of LCC and during that time was advocating for LTNs - anything that comes out of her academy has to be viewed with some suspicion.

I am fine with ceasing the conversation here as you are never going to convince me and I'm never going to convince you - I created this post simple to share the petition to reach people who are not LTN supporters not to have an in depth discussion with LTN supporters
Click to expand...

If we use the same flawed method before and after then the undercounting is the same isn't it, this makes for a good comparison. If you switch to a different methodology then you can't make any kind of honest comparison. The fact that you won't answer or engage with my question means that you either don't understand one of the most basic principles of statistical analysis, or you are simply choosing not to understand it because it doesn't support your pre-set belief of the effect LTNs have. Tell me what method would be better for an honest pre and post comparison?

What evidence would you accept that would not be, in your view, "by design", to show success? Remember you have to use the historic data that is available to you. You keep focussing on Rachel Aldred but none of the studies I posted come from her or iirc Westminster University where she works. This is why I say you will reject any academic work as coming from what you say are biased sources, but at the same time you cannot produce anything at all that supports your case. At some point do you not start thinking that might be because whenever anyone studies this stuff, they come to the same kind of findings and that it's you that is wrong?

You can convince me if you can provide better evidence, but you can't.

You don't have to stick around if you don't want to discuss, this is a discussion board by its very nature. You should have put this up on craigslist or something like that if you didn't want a discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mikespenser
Petition to Parliament now active to exempt Blue Badge drivers and other disabled from LTN's
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
4K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Parliament passes a 6 counties amnesty law
Replies
8
Views
776
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
platinumsage
The Khan review on smoking
2 3 4
Replies
106
Views
4K
campanula
C
editor
Sign the petition to end factory-farmed meat & dairy
Replies
0
Views
300
editor
editor
Wilf
Misogyny in Parliament and UK politics
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
196
Views
10K
Silas Loom
Silas Loom
Back
Top Bottom