Petition to request parliament review LTNs

[BigTom]

Is this a piece of peer reviewed work, whose methodology we can examine for flaws? Are you so ashamed of where you have posted this from that you won't include a source for it, and in particular the crayon additions to it?

Did you read the last sentence, where it says that there has been a reduction in traffic volumes? Do you think this supports your idea that traffic volumes have increased?

 

[ianarmstrong]

Oh stop whining you twat, it's just a bit of banter. When in Rome etc.

Nope it's not banter to repeated describe someone using the F word and the C word or any derogatory word such as the new one you just unearthed from your extensive vocabulary of offensive words

 

[ianarmstrong]

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.

That's for parliament to determine

 

[equationgirl]

That's for parliament to determine

That's an incredibly dismissive answer.

 

[equationgirl]

DP

 

[BigTom]

That's for parliament to determine

So if Parliament determine that Rachel Aldred is the best person to carry out such an assessment, you will be happy with that correct?

 

[liquidindian]

So if Parliament determine that Rachel Aldred is the best person to carry out such an assessment, you will be happy with that correct?

There needs to be a process where it can be determined if someone's arse has ever been anywhere near a bike saddle, if so they're immediately ruled out.

 

[ianarmstrong]

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?

Who knows but the vast majority who have signed it are more than likely people who are suffering as a result of issues LTNs have caused so they have a right to express their desire to have LTNs reviewed

 

[krtek a houby]

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

Are you frightened of posting something different?

You've made your point here.

Try something new.

 

[ianarmstrong]

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.

I’d rather see the truth and not compare flawed data with other flawed data - if they want to do it right then they could remove the LTNs and get some accurate data then do it again but there is also data from traffic light counters they could use too.

I commented on the studies you posted and I will generally reject studies if they cherry pick data or use data provided by LTN councils as that data is flawed and cherry picked

I can see the affect LTNs are having across Lambeth so I don’t need an academic who cherry picks data or a council who are using a rigged monitoring process to gaslight me about what I see and hear on a daily basis

 

[xenon]

Nope it's not banter to repeated describe someone using the F word and the C word or any derogatory word such as the new one you just unearthed from your extensive vocabulary of offensive words

Here it kinda is. Regular posters do it to each other all the time. Argue on one thread then sometimes agree with each other on another. House style, if you like.

Anyway I reckon I might stick this thread on ignore as it is still so unbelievably dull. Have you tried forums like Piston Heads, Mum's Net to get your next 80K signatures?


Do you actually enjoy this, arguing the toss over traffic management schemes?

 

[ianarmstrong]

Is this a piece of peer reviewed work, whose methodology we can examine for flaws? Are you so ashamed of where you have posted this from that you won't include a source for it, and in particular the crayon additions to it?

Did you read the last sentence, where it says that there has been a reduction in traffic volumes? Do you think this supports your idea that traffic volumes have increased?

It’s from the London Assembly transport committee as you can see on the footer of the page above. It highlights the increase in delivery and Uber vehicles and indicates that congestion is caused by reducing road capacity which is something LTN supporters won’t often accept as they say traffic causes congestion not LTNs

 

[ianarmstrong]

That's an incredibly dismissive answer.

I’ve got no influence on how they go about things

 

[ianarmstrong]

So if Parliament determine that Rachel Aldred is the best person to carry out such an assessment, you will be happy with that correct?

You know the answer to that question - no I won’t which is pretty obvious from what I’ve said to date on here

 

[ianarmstrong]

Are you frightened of posting something different?

You've made your point here.

Try something new.

Nope I’ll give that a miss thanks

 

[BigTom]

I’d rather see the truth and not compare flawed data with other flawed data - if they want to do it right then they could remove the LTNs and get some accurate data then do it again but there is also data from traffic light counters they could use too.

I commented on the studies you posted and I will generally reject studies if they cherry pick data or use data provided by LTN councils as that data is flawed and cherry picked

I can see the affect LTNs are having across Lambeth so I don’t need an academic who cherry picks data or a council who are using a rigged monitoring process to gaslight me about what I see and hear on a daily basis

Yeah, so you don't understand one of the most basic principles of statistical investigation then. Perhaps you should take a step back and accept that your knowledge is not good enough in this area to make these kinds of judgements.

Your own perceptions are not accurate or reliable, nobody's is. That's why we do things like counting traffic instead of just going "oh yeah I think there's more traffic today than there was five years ago". But you refuse to accept the evidence and you never will, as you have already decided what is going on and nothing will budge you from that position.

It’s from the London Assembly transport committee as you can see on the footer of the page above. It highlights the increase in delivery and Uber vehicles and indicates that congestion is caused by reducing road capacity which is something LTN supporters won’t often accept as they say traffic causes congestion not LTNs

but you won't link to it, and I can't find it with a quick google search, so there's no way of criticising it or the conclusions that are drawn, especially those that have been added onto the document by lord knows who.
This is the sign of a dishonest, bad faith actor. You don't want to face the fact that anything that supports your view has just as many flaws as those that don't, so you hide away.

 

[ianarmstrong]

Here it kinda is. Regular posters do it to each other all the time. Argue on one thread then sometimes agree with each other on another. House style, if you like.

Anyway I reckon I might stick this thread on ignore as it is still so unbelievably dull. Have you tried forums like Piston Heads, Mum's Net to get your next 80K signatures?


Do you actually enjoy this, arguing the toss over traffic management schemes?

Well I won’t be getting involved in any other discussions once this one has concluded

 

[BigTom]

You know the answer to that question - no I won’t which is pretty obvious from what I’ve said to date on here

then why say it's up to parliament to decide? Clearly you don't think it is.
And again tell us who you would be happy with doing this?

 

[klang]

Well I won’t be getting involved in any other discussions once this one has concluded

we're all looking forward to that day....

 

[maomao]

Well I won’t be getting involved in any other discussions once this one has concluded

The other ones been going for six or seven years by the way.

 

[Leafster]

but you won't link to it, and I can't find it with a quick google search, so there's no way of criticising it or the conclusions that are drawn, especially those that have been added onto the document by lord knows who.
This is the sign of a dishonest, bad faith actor. You don't want to face the fact that anything that supports your view has just as many flaws as those that don't, so you hide away.

It's from a 2017 report called 'London Stalling'. Here's the link to the main page but it no longer appears to be available from there: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-publications/london-stalling-reducing-traffic-congestion#:~:text=The London Assembly Transport Committee,at the times congestion occurs. Perhaps it's been withdrawn.

You can read the document from this link which isn't broken: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/def...g_-_reducing_traffic_congestion_in_london.pdf

I've only dipped into it. One of the experts consulted was Rachel Aldred so using Ian's criteria, the results aren't to be trusted.

Also, the UKIP committee member blames it on immigrants. Who'd have thought it!

 

[ianarmstrong]

Yeah, so you don't understand one of the most basic principles of statistical investigation then. Perhaps you should take a step back and accept that your knowledge is not good enough in this area to make these kinds of judgements.

Your own perceptions are not accurate or reliable, nobody's is. That's why we do things like counting traffic instead of just going "oh yeah I think there's more traffic today than there was five years ago". But you refuse to accept the evidence and you never will, as you have already decided what is going on and nothing will budge you from that position.




but you won't link to it, and I can't find it with a quick google search, so there's no way of criticising it or the conclusions that are drawn, especially those that have been added onto the document by lord knows who.
This is the sign of a dishonest, bad faith actor. You don't want to face the fact that anything that supports your view has just as many flaws as those that don't, so you hide away.

I don’t need to be a stato to want more from our council when they impose such draconian restrictions that have significant impacts on peoples health and well-being and livelihoods. Most reasonable people would not expect the council to deliberately harm them or damage businesses but that is what they have done so it’s not too much to expect the truth when it comes to traffic counts and congestion and pollution caused by such changes and this for me all adds to the reasons why these things need to be reviewed.

 

[ianarmstrong]

we're all looking forward to that day....

Stop posting on this one then I’ll have no reason to respond

 

[liquidindian]

Stop posting on this one then I’ll have no reason to respond

This is IAN'S THREAD will everyone else GET OFF

 

[BigTom]

I don’t need to be a stato to want more from our council when they impose such draconian restrictions that have significant impacts on peoples health and well-being and livelihoods. Most reasonable people would not expect the council to deliberately harm them or damage businesses but that is what they have done so it’s not too much to expect the truth when it comes to traffic counts and congestion and pollution caused by such changes and this for me all adds to the reasons why these things need to be reviewed.

yeah. you are a bad faith actor. cya later.

 

[BigTom]

It's from a 2017 report called 'London Stalling'. Here's the link to the main page but it no longer appears to be available from there: https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-publications/london-stalling-reducing-traffic-congestion#:~:text=The London Assembly Transport Committee,at the times congestion occurs. Perhaps it's been withdrawn.

You can read the document from this link which isn't broken: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/def...g_-_reducing_traffic_congestion_in_london.pdf

I've only dipped into it. One of the experts consulted was Rachel Aldred so using Ian's criteria, the results aren't to be trusted.

Also, the UKIP committee member blames it on immigrants. Who'd have thought it!

ahahah that is awesome. I like how a pre-LTN report can be a damning indictment of LTNs as well as all the rest of it. Thanks for looking, I shan't bother in that case, it just proves how ianarmstrong is more interested in grabbing anything they think supports their case than in actual assessments of the effects of LTNs.

 

[ianarmstrong]

yeah. you are a bad faith actor. cya later.

We are never going to agree but at least I can have discourse without needing make derogatory comments about you personally

 

[gentlegreen]

,

 

[ianarmstrong]

ahahah that is awesome. I like how a pre-LTN report can be a damning indictment of LTNs as well as all the rest of it. Thanks for looking, I shan't bother in that case, it just proves how ianarmstrong is more interested in grabbing anything they think supports their case than in actual assessments of the effects of LTNs.

I see and hear about the actual affects of the Lambeth 24/7 LTNs on people and businesses on a daily basis and have been since 2020 so no academic assessment or Lambeth council monitoring report claiming how great they are is going to persuade me

 

[Winot]

I can see the affect LTNs are having across Lambeth so I don’t need an academic who cherry picks data or a council who are using a rigged monitoring process to gaslight me about what I see and hear on a daily basis

Ah the “I reckon” methodology. Who needs experts eh?

Have you ever asked yourself why these things are going ahead despite your views? And no, it’s not because of giant conspiracy against cabbies.