Over 14,000 people have signed a petition calling for an “independent” review of LTNs, which will now be led by Active Travel Academy’s Professor Rachel Aldred, leading to claims that it will declare them successful in a ‘whitewash report’, while another petition has asked for a national referendum for implementing 15-minute cities amidst reports of Oxford Council ‘covering up’ risky data.
Prof Aldred of University of Westminster, who has more than 15 years of experience researching active travel, has been appointed by the Department of Transport (DfT) to “undertake an independent evaluation of active travel schemes funded in 2020/21, including low-traffic neighbourhoods”.
However, people have complained to the petitions committee that Prof Aldred has a track record of supporting the creation of cycling infrastructure and LTNs and so the review will not be independent, The Telegraph reports.
The newspaper, which was recently condemned for using divisive rhetoric such as ‘death traps’ without any evidence, said that it has seen letters that highlight how Prof Aldred was a director and elected trustee of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) for six years, and that she had proclaimed her “work has helped shift perceptions among policymakers”.
Prof Aldred has been previously involved in authoring several peer-reviewed and published researches, as well as reports and studies for organisations and the government that claim that that LTNs help “overall traffic evaporation” both inside and outside the LTNs.
A spokesman for the Department for Transport, which has allocated £171,916 for the review, said: “All independent research is commissioned through a competitive process, in line with strict Government guidance. Once research has been conducted, policy decisions will ultimately be for ministers to take.”
The Telegraph reported that one of the letters sent to the petitions committee and Mark Harper, the Transport Secretary, accuses Prof Aldred of “clearly setting out to present LTNs as a success, even though the evidence on the ground suggests otherwise,” adding that “this will be seen as a whitewash and [be] widely repudiated.”
Another letter claimed that pretending Prof Aldred’s unit was conducting an independent review of the Government LTN policy was “one of the worst cases of being allowed to mark one’s own homework.”
The hilarious petition doing the rounds asking for an independent review of LTNs is backfiring spectacularly! Not only has the Government appointed independent University of Westminster to do the review but areas with longstanding or the most LTNs are remarkably resistant. pic.twitter.com/xmNEixgFK9
— DerekDidIt (@DerekDidIt) March 8, 2023
Similar concerns of pro-cycling policies being led by cycling lobbies were raised this year in January, when The Telegraph reported that cycling charity Sustrans was paid £200,000 for consulting on two controversial LTNs in Haringey, north London.
During the consultation, Sustrans allegedly did not speak to businesses on the High Street. Cllr Mike Hakata, the deputy leader of Haringey Council, said: “We are launching a business survey soon, and I’d strongly encourage the Myddleton Road traders to take the opportunity to have their say again.”
However, residents soon spoke about the benefits of the LTN. One mother wrote on a local news website: “Walking with the kids, we can hear birdsong and leaves rustling in the trees. The air smells fresh, and it’s so calm and peaceful. It’s like being in the countryside, except we’re in London. In the park I meet a woman who tells me she’s delighted not to have lorries thundering past her home, and she’ll finally get another cat – her last two were killed by drivers outside her house.
“But it’s seeing my five-year-old daughter be able to ride her bike on the road that really brings it home,” she added. “‘I’ve been waiting for this for so long,’ she tells me. She happily rides to the park on the road, singing away.”
I appreciate new LTN’s can cause all sorts of upheaval at the beginning, but as someone who does a cycling commute through Haringey, it’s been so nice to discover an alternative route to lots of Green Lanes.
Lovely quiet streets that feel safe, with lots to see. I rode … 1/3 pic.twitter.com/x8krIPgSom
— Carla Francome (@carlafrancome) November 17, 2022
Accusations of pro-cycling policymakers don’t end here though. The Telegraph recently reported that “left-wing” council officials in Oxford “covered-up” data that could potentially put the 15-minute city plan in jeopardy.
The council provided a summary report during the official survey, which said modelling estimates show the scheme “will reduce traffic flows by around around 20 per cent within the city inside the ring road, and around 35 per cent in the city centre” but “increase total traffic flows by around three per cent on the ring road”.
However, The Telegraph claims that it has obtained the full results now which shows that traffic will increase in eight of 19 locations modelled, and its speed will stay the same or decrease in all but one of these areas – some of which are already controversial low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs).
A petition, which already has 13,000 signatures, has been launched by a Lewisham resident (who regularly tweets “LTNs don’t work”) calling for a “legally binding national referendum on whether any local authority should be able to implement a 15-minute city policy”.
The petition reads: “People need to be given the choice about whether or not they want these policies to be implemented in their areas. We believe it’s far too important for the people not to be allowed to vote on these policies before they are implemented!”
However, a 2022 survey found that majority of people in different parts of Oxfordshire wanted “remarkably similar” amenities within their neighbourhood, such as GPs, cafes, pubs, banks, gyms, parks and so on, serving as a foundation for the 15-minute city policy that aims to provide these within walking distance to the residents.
> Tory MP attacks 15-minute city concept with known conspiracy theory
However, despite the council repeatedly clearing that there would be no physical barriers, nor would residents be confined to their local areas or need permission to travel across the city, several groups like Not Our Future and the Together Declaration have come forward to protest these developments.
The Oxfordshire Council, in response, has said that an internal review this month found the information provided was “sufficient and appropriate” and complied with the Gunning Principles of how local councils should engage residents.
86 thoughts on “LTNs and 15-minute cities accused of being led by cycling lobbies, official review called a “whitewash””
When do we get the
When do we get the independent assessment of misinformation lobby groups?
I demand a legally binding
I demand a legally binding national referendum on whether there should be a mental proficiency test before people are allowed on the internet.
For some time now, we’ve had
For some time now, we’ve had anti-vaxxers out most Sundays protesting at the cross roads in our (urban) village. Their range of protests has grown, and no encompassing opposing ULEZ, 15-minute cities, the cashless society etc.
The challenge in addressing
The challenge in addressing the concerns of Anti-LTNers is that in a lot of cases their concerns are do many and so bdtshit crazy, you simply can’t cover any issue before they have ricocheted off into a new direction.
Undoubtedly there are some genuine concerns which would benefit from being addressed but the nutters are drowning out all opportunity fir logic.
Media like the telegraph then like to amplify the rhetoric without any sense check because it’s good for business.
Maybe the reason that Dr
Maybe the reason that Dr Aldred tends towards a certain outcome is that LTNs and 15-minute schemes are generally successful. There’s plenty of examples of them being successful in other cities and over long time periods, so it’s reasonable to think that they should be successful here if they’re implemented correctly (that “if” is doing a lot of lifting).
If the Torygraph has evidence that Dr Aldred has been hiding data or willfully misinterpreting outcomes, then they should present that data rather than just trying to label her as being impartial and biased. It’s a classic tactic of attacking the person rather than the data.
If she has previously been
If she has previously been involved in campaigning for LTNs then it’s not unreasonable to question her objectivity.
Compare and contrast to the scepticism that you expressed towards Shell having a board seat at Active Travel England.
The Oxford modelling story is also a bit more complex than road.cc are making out. An excerpt is attached.
The modelling showed a very large increase in traffic (>50%) on some roads but the councillors made an active decision not to release it until after the consultation closed.
Again, it’s not unreasonable to question their motives for doing so.
Rich_cb wrote:
I do agree to some extent, but I think the Torygraph is not acting in good faith with questioning her objectivity.
A lot of people working with active travel are not going to be strictly objective, but that doesn’t mean that they are twisting results – mainly because they really don’t need to as the results tend to be clear and certainly leaving things as they are is causing significant health problems for the population.
I’m not convinced that comparing her to a Shell Chairman (Chairperson?) is valid as Shell have a history of knowingly acting against the population’s interests for many decades in the pursuit of profit. I don’t think the same level of suspicion is justified for Dr Aldred as I doubt that she’s making huge amounts of money for pushing an agenda and there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that she has been skewing the statistics to support her position.
Meanwhile, there does seem to be evidence that the Torygraph is deliberately pushing an anti-cycling, anti-active-transport agenda that does go against the evidence (i.e. cycling and active transport are a net positive to society).
If the evidence is clear cut
If the evidence is clear cut then an objective analysis would reveal that.
By appointing someone with a clear conflict of interest they are undermining the results before they are even published.
Bearing in mind that Sustrans was apparently paid £200,000 for consulting on 2 LTNs there is likely be significant remuneration for this study.
Why give the conspiracy theorists ammunition unnecessarily?
Rich_cb wrote:
I don’t believe that she has a clear conflict of interest. What payments does she receive for publishing an outcome one way or another? Does she hold shares in shoe companies or cycle companies? Does her employer depend on transforming streets for its profit?
Meanwhile, here’s a simple search on FullFact.org for various untruths that the Torygraph has published:
https://fullfact.org/search/?q=telegraph#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=telegraph&gsc.page=1
I’ll also add that anyone that enjoys breathing clean air could be said to not be objective about LTNs. I don’t think that absolute, strict objectivity is needed when there’s people dying from poor air quality and extremely wealthy companies are pushing to have it continue.
She’s previously campaigned
She’s previously campaigned for more LTNs and is now supposed to provide an independent assessment of the very schemes she is known to vociferously support.
By appointing Aldred they have missed an opportunity to further the debate. Any findings will automatically be dismissed as biased by opponents of the schemes.
Those claims of bias will not be unreasonable so even if the work is entirely objective it will not have the impact it should.
The Telegraph publishes a lot of nonsense, as do most media outlets, it’s right to treat all of them with a healthy degree of scepticism but on this issue I can’t see that they’re being unduly misleading. The facts speak for themselves.
Rich_cb wrote:
One could propose the reason she (vociferously) supports LTN’s could be due to the extensive research she has been involved in around them and what those findings show? That would seem an eminently possible explanation alternatively she’s just a member of the all powerful cycling Stasi! (Thanks JC).
I’m sure that is the reason
I’m sure that is the reason that she supports LTNs.
The fact that she does support them is the problem.
You can’t reasonably claim that a review is independent when the lead reviewer has made their support for one side patently clear.
I get where you’re coming
I get where you’re coming from, but doesn’t that end up preventing anyone doing research in any area over a sustained period? You can pretty much discount any climate science research on that basis (which would, of course, please many anti-LTN campaigners).
And, more to the point, isn’t that would peer review is there for?
Not all experts are also
Not all experts are also campaigners.
I don’t doubt Prof. Aldred’s expertise on this matter but unfortunately her active campaigning on this issue undermines her neutrality and therefore undermines the credibility of the entire report.
Without that credibility the report will simply fuel the divisions and antagonism we are currently witnessing.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s perfectly reasonable to claim that an academic researcher with excellent credentials will produce an accurate review of the evidence when there has been zero evidence that she has ever produced misleading reports. It seems you’re doubting her credentials without any evidence whatsoever.
Presumably, an independent report would have to be from someone that has never ridden in a car, cycled or walked anywhere or had to deal with crossing a busy road.
No.
No.
Just from someone without a well publicised preference for a particular outcome.
If you wanted an independent review into “x Vs y” would it be better led by a vocal supporter of “y” or a neutral candidate?
Rich_cb wrote:
I would want an academic with exellent credentials that has experience in that particular field. Trying to find someone that is truly objective is a fool’s mission and is merely another tactic used to push back against facts and experts.
It would be hard to find
It would be hard to find someone who is sufficiently qualified and less objective that Aldred.
If you want to produce a review that does absolutely nothing to further the debate then go ahead and select an “independent reviewer” with obvious bias.
If you actually want to further the debate then you need to at least try and get an objective reviewer.
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s like complaining that a report on healthy eating was produced by someone that champions fresh fruit and veg and the only way for it to be objective would be to include people from the bacon, crisps and sausage roll industries.
The Torygraph is being misleading as they don’t apply the same objectivity requirements elsewhere. It’s also reframing the debate away from facts and towards political opinions instead which is a simple divisive tactic. They aren’t looking at how to improve things at all, but merely trying to stop or delay any attempt by people to push back against always putting cars first.
To make your analogy work, it
To make your analogy work, it would be like putting a militant vegan in charge of a report on healthy eating.
Any, potentially perfectly sensible, recommendations about reducing meat or dairy products would be undermined as the objectivity of the reviewer would be immediately questioned.
Your focus on the Telegraph is simply deflection, an “independent review” should be headed by somebody who does not have a pre-existing publicly declared position on the matter under investigation.
That’s hardly a controversial position.
Rich_cb wrote:
Not really, as no one is trying to ban cars from LTNs, they are LOW traffic neighbourhoods, not NO traffic neighborhoods.
And this is the problem any debate on the issue is clouded by paranoid voices decrying not being able to get a taxi or ambulance to reach their house, and people being restricted to their ghetto.
Anyone not on board with this description is immediately called biased in favour of LTNs.
Like saying any climate scientist that has voiced the conclusion that global warming is problematic and man amde cannpt be considered objective on the issue.
Essentially, where an issue has such obvious conclusions you are demanding the review be carried out by someone with no knowledge of the subject matter.
Not at all.
Not at all.
If you look at what I’ve written I’m asking for somebody who doesn’t have a publicly declared strong position on the matter.
Rich_cb wrote:
Why did you put in “militant” vegan, why use that specific word in this context? Are you trying to suggest Dr Alfred is a militant LTN’er as opposed to a well respected transport researcher, if so, why? I have an idea why you would send the word but maybe you could explain.
To make it clear that
To make it clear that strongly held views in an ‘independent reviewer’ will undermine the perceived independence of the review.
Rich_cb wrote:
Strongly held views are now Militant are they? You could have said strongly held views but you chose Militant, it’s a nice emotive word isn’t it. How very Torygraph.
tbf I think people are
tbf I think people are tripping over the “independent” aspect of this review, the anti LTNs obviously for their own reasons, but shes considered independent, because shes not employed by the DfT as either a civil servant or some goverenment political appointee just to rubber stamp DfT policy, thats all.
the Active Travel Academy, who Rachel is director of, independence is simply theyre not directly part of the government machine, theyre independent, theyre outside the political bubble so wouldnt be unduly influenced by trying to please their political masters, and obviously research like this is given to those academics most knowledgeable about the subjects.
you wouldnt expect a deep dive into a policy of say IT security of government phones with Tik Tok apps, on to someone who knew nothing about IT security, because theyre likely to give you the best data and analysis about your policy.
the Active Travel Academy also has many contributors, so it may not be necessarily Prof Rachel alone who does the research, though she’d review it obviously.
but fwiw no-one has ever claimed let alone produce any evidence that any of her prior research, even into the subject of LTNs, has been anything other than totally fair, balanced and backed up with alot of data thats accurate, noones ever claimed that her analysis is flawed or that its inherently biased to be pro cycling.
Alot of her research then gets bigged up by cycling campaigners, which is the angle the Telegraph are using, but if you read her reports,I find theyre always very balanced.
I’ve read a few of her papers
I’ve read a few of her papers and I agree with you that they seem to be very good but unfortunately her previously declared position on this subject renders her unsuitable to oversee this project.
There are alternative organisations like the Transport Research Laboratory, who AFAIK, have not publicly campaigned for LTNs and who are well known for their thorough analysis.
Whether we like it or not LTNs are now political and as a consequence you have to consider the optics.
A review by the TRL or a similar non-aligned organisation would be significantly more impactful as the ‘bias’ argument would be removed.
I fear that with Aldred leading the review the actual findings will be permanently lost in the noise.
TRL might be a good call.
TRL might be a good call. They’ve some recent experience too as they did the Manchester side-road zebras and some “Dutch infra” testing for TfL.
Whether they’d be accepted as “independent” I could not guess.
I’m not aware of them
I’m not aware of them campaigning for LTNs so there’s less obvious scope for accusations of bias.
The cycle routes around
The cycle routes around Crowthorne came in very early, but have never really been improved and have some obvious deficiencies.
Presumably they’re ones that
Presumably they’re ones that escaped from earlier experiments?
TRL don’t seem to be particularly active-travel focussed. As you’d expect given their history / what they’ve been tasked to do and the lack of cycling in UK. I think that’s the point of rich_cb noting them. It seems almost anything else might run the risk of looking like activism.
The other reason for that kind of organisation is they have expertise in “testing and evaluating” all kinds of infra. I think the point is to have them “reviewing” here not designing or recommending implementations. Which I’m happy about because “experts” here in the UK have a great record of taking a good simple design and somehow making an unhelpful mess of it. To be fair to them if – as seems likely – they’ve been told to work out some active travel thing without losing any convenience for drivers that pretty much makes the task impossible.
TBH I’m nearly certain this is irrelevant. The the wells have already been poisoned for those antis. All the other folks who aren’t hugely interested either way will either be scared off by “change!” and those loud voices, or – hopefully – will just note the appearance of some quiet streets, adapt and get on with their lives. If that happens the current generation of antis may become irrelevant over time as the sky doesn’t fall.
Do we know if TRL were even
Do we know if TRL were even in the hat? Or should the commissioning process be bypassed in contentious issues?
“..All independent research is commissioned through a competitive process, in line with strict Government guidance. Once research has been conducted, policy decisions will ultimately be for ministers to take..”
And I agree that the well has been poisoned already. So even if TRL were involved it’s highly doubtful that would make any difference to the questioning of the review outcomes.
Rich_cb wrote:
If a militant vegan produces a series of reports on healthy eating over a period of time and they’re peer reviewed and found to be accurate and not misleading, then I would consider them an ideal candidate. If they continuously pushed for vegan diets and falsified reports to make the case, then I would expect people to pick holes in those reports based on the facts of the matter (or statistical failings etc) and not just bang on about the report writer being a keen vegan.
I focus on the Torygraph because they are the ones whipping up the divisive rhetoric that appears to be information free. If they highlighted failings in the report, then I could take them more seriously, but that’s not their modus operandi.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think you need to look up what a conflict of interest is. It is not merely being biased.
You’re arguing with a
You’re arguing with a rightwinger. They’ll always accuse you of what is actually exactly their own way of thinking/acting.
Nice piece of baiting there.
Nice piece of baiting there.
It adds nothing to the discussion and is just designed to antagonise.
I’m sure the moderators will be along shortly…
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s odd: no-one ever questions the validity of the Cochrane Review of cycle helmets conducted by the most vociferous, blatantly biased researchers on the planet, which has seriously devalued the reputation of Cochrane Reviews. So clearly your observation only applies in certain circumstances, but what those are, I couldn’t possibly comment.
But they were experts in their field, of bad science.
The ironic thing is that you
The ironic thing is that you have just proved my point.
Rich_cb wrote:
No, I proved exactly the opposite: do pay attention.
I’m literally using your
I’m literally using your quote as an example.
Thanks for that.
its another Steve Bird
its another Steve Bird Telegraph article, objectivity towards cyclists goes out of the window, just trawl the archives for examples https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/s/sp-st/steve-bird/
Rich_cb wrote:
Why? We have bias at all levels of government
We’ve had MPs who campaigned for Brexit in charge of delivering Brexit. We have Lords with vast property portfolios commenting on and amending legislation concerning property ownership. 1 in 4 Tory MPs are private landlords and tenancy reform has been kicked into the long grass again and again and again.
Give me one good reason why this campaigner’s objectivity should be questioned when we refuse to question the objectivity of UK government.
Landlord reform is just one example by the way. Another would concern gambling and sports industry and the reforms that should be in place to protect addicts.
Is that bias in government a
Is that bias in government a good thing?
Is bias in research a good thing?
If it’s not a good thing then perhaps we should aim to reduce the impact of bias in our society?
My main point is that this review will achieve nothing if headed by Aldred as her, obvious, bias will undermine the findings and we will have missed an opportunity to move the debate forward.
I disagree that her “bias”
I disagree that her “bias” will in itself undermine the findings. There is such a thing as academic integrity and, as I said, peer review.
I do, however, agree that there is a risk that those who want to, will use her previous activities to try and undermine it. So I am not entirely in disagreement with you.
The latter is my main concern
The latter is my main concern.
Whatever her findings, no matter how rigorous and objective her analysis, her bias will sompletely undermine the credibility of the report in the eyes of LTN opponents.
Let’s not give them any more ammunition.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’d much rather that we stuck to the facts and not fall into the trap of believing that it’s a matter of personality.
Active Travel is a topic that is close to many people’s hearts and it is risible to demand that reviews are conducted by experts that have never campaigned for improvements. If you exclude everyone who has an interest in the topic, then you’re left with people who are only interested in the money and we know which side has the most money.
Does rich_cb have a
Does rich_cb have a proposition for someone who’s suitably qualified but actually seems neutral though? Perhaps there is a suitably knowledgeable foreign academic? But then – presumably much of the data will still be coming from the University of Westminster’s work… won’t that “taint” this for some regardless?
Mixed on this. First – the very definition of “success” or indeed “value for money” appears to be contested here. Evidence of traffic evaporation or lower speeds might be welcomed by some AND seen as the problem by others. What would “value for money” be if that’s debated?
Plus some of those wanting the review just want these reversed full-stop.
So it’s difficult to see how changing who’s doing the review will reassure folks – unless it’s someone clearly “on the right side” (are Right Said Fred or the Association of British Drivers available?)
On the other hand it doesn’t really look good to have someone who’s been an activist checking these.
Still not sure what a “review” will actually do. And a “referendum”? Does the government (or indeed any major party?) have central control over this, with firm plans backing LTNs? Certainly councillors and individual MPs would appear to have a wide range of views. Certainly some very enthusiastically anti folks on all sides – Rupa Huq, Jacob Rees-Mogg…
Rich_cb wrote:
What’s your solution then? To grab people off the street with no interest whatsoever and get their completely uninformed opinions on the matter?
It probably would be a step up from the government we have now, and have had recently, to be fair.
My solution is to appoint an
My solution is to appoint an expert in the subject who hasn’t been actively involved in campaigning for one side or the other.
Given that there has been so
Given that there has been so much disquiet over political appointments in recent years, I would have thought the issues of apparent bias were well understood. For example, Sharp might be operating the BBC perfectly neutrally but nobody believes it.
So, regardless of the credentials, Rich_cb rightly points out that someone who has a history in campaigning for an outcome is not going to overcome the apparent bias test that should be taken into account.
I’d say campaigning is different from having a known personal opinion, because you’ve shown not only do you have a set of beliefs, but you want to make others share them. Was it wrong for Harmon to be Chair on the Johnson committee? Well, it’s unlikely that there is anyone in the HoC without some preconceptions, and announcing them doesn’t really make a lot of difference to those beliefs being held, but the test is whether they can manage a process fairly and openly. Given that the Committee are not the final determinators of the decision, there is a safety net against any biases in the committee (and of course, you have the likes of JRM and Mad Nad throwing rocks at the committee, trying to undermine it as it operates, so you don’t have to be part of a process to damage it).
Rich_cb wrote:
Is there any evidence that her report has bias or are you just assuming that she is bad at her job and allows her personal views to distort the facts?
Focus on the facts and not the person unless there’s reason to think that the facts are misrepresented.
You are entirely missing my
You are entirely missing my point.
It does not matter how objective her review is.
It could be the most objective piece of work ever conducted by an academic.
That is irrelevant.
The good Professor clearly has a personal bias. The existence of that personal bias is public knowledge.
This will be used by opponents of LTNs to undermine the validity of the results and will ultimately harm the LTN movement.
Rich_cb wrote:
I get your point, but you’re focussing on exactly what the LTN opponents want. We need to call out their ignorance of the facts and refuse to play their game of personality.
All this talk of bias is just yet another excuse to kick the can down the road and not actually do anything.
You can refuse to play but
You can refuse to play but the game will just go on without you.
We know there are people who are, literally, violently opposed to LTNs etc.
If a pro LTN report is published they will scrutinise it for any flaw, no matter how minor, and try to undermine the report.
If the lead researcher is a well known advocate of LTNs they will just dismiss the report entirely as a ‘whitewash’ and many will believe them.
Why give them an open goal?
If the evidence is clear cut there is literally nothing to lose by appointing an objective lead and everything to gain.
I don’t think those who are
I don’t think those who are “literally violently opposed to LTNs” will scrutinise the report. They will use it to set the open goal (and the planters) on fire.
I’m still not quite sure who would be the target audience for this. I mean, I’d be vaguely interested to see more evidence – though I’m fairly confident it won’t tell me much new. Presumably there are some people who are undecided, or have an opinion but are willing to look again?
I agree that in an argument having evidence available to all is a sound principle. Ideally obtained while being careful not to bias the data or simply seek that which could only bolster a theory. But this is now “politics” and as HP and brooksby point out some people don’t want an argument. They want a fight – or rather to beat some other group. For some the LTN idea is merely a symptom of some deeper issue with distrust of certain authorities or worries about “freedom”.
Anway, I still can’t think of a suitable neutral reviewer… any ideas?
I disagree, if you look at
I disagree, if you look at opposition to mundane things like wind farms or even, as Burt so beautifully demonstrated, bicycle helmets you see a common thread.
People are keen to give their incredibly subjective opinions the veneer of objectivity.
Somebody in the movement scrutinises a piece of evidence and then makes a statement denouncing it, you will see the same statements repeated over and over almost verbatim.
Take Burt’s post and substitute in Aldred and LTNs.
That’s what we’ll be seeing, ad nauseam, if she leads the review.
Rich_cb wrote:
Can’t disagree there but I wouldn’t say that’s new under the sun. If there is a large pool of folks who are both interested and aren’t already in “motivated reasoning” mode – on either side – then of course I’d be more inclined to support the idea that an independent referee would calm the mood.
It isn’t clear that to me that there *is* anything other than “this was all a terrible mistake and we’ll reverse all of this and put things back how they were” would satisfy.
Maybe it’s just the passage of time that solves the “argument”. Looking at history the Dutch didn’t have an easy ride (aha). And when they started changing things they still had far more people riding bikes AND existing cycle infra than we do. Apparently there were still riots and criminal damage both by those for change and against it.
Don’t know TrevtheTaxi myself but if Rachel Aldred is “the most vociferous, blatantly biased researcher on the planet” I suspect he wouldn’t be moved if they got Jeremy Clarkson or Laurence Fox to do it. Even if they came back and said “guess what – there are lots of positives!” (whatever Trev thinks is positive) or reassurance that whatever Trev fears just isn’t a biggie.
And saying that I’ve recalled that several folks who predicted the end of the world still had careers after it failed to happen – so it’s probably all good for the naysayers…
I think LTNs are still at the
I think LTNs are still at the point where most people are interested in the actual facts, most haven’t reached Trev levels yet.
An objectively independent review would add to the debate, a review with significant questions about bias would muddy the waters by allowing the Trevs to shout any discussion down.
If the evidence is clear cut
If the evidence is clear cut then it doesn’t matter who has produced it surely? Unless right wing press are allowed to spout their usual fact free rubbish to the fact free loving anti LTN’ers. And the small flaw is she’s a Militant right, as opposed to an expert in her field? The right wing press would find any issue with said positive report because they don’t want LTN’s! If it wasn’t about her it would be something else. Play the game my arse.
Rich_cb wrote:
So, your recommendation is to ignore the facts and the report and instead maybe plan on getting together a comittee to appoint focus groups on selecting someone impartial to produce a report that will then be ignored for some other fatuous reason.
The problem is that ignoring the facts and focussing on personalities will end up in a slanging match (“well you used to ride a bike”, “you drove here and have a speeding ticket”) and nothing will be done.
So, assuming that you’re not just attempting to kick the can down the road, who is the objective lead that you’ve got in mind?
You’re misrepresenting what I
You’re misrepresenting what I’ve said, again.
I’ve not said we should ignore the facts, I’ve said that if we want people to actually focus on the findings of the report we’ve got to remove any easy excuses they would have to ignore said findings.
If Aldred leads the report then anti-LTNers will react exactly as Burt did. The argument will focus entirely on the personalities involved and not the actual report.
I don’t have a candidate in mind but I struggle to believe that in the world of transport research there isn’t a single, suitably qualified, person who hasn’t actively campaigned for LTNs.
“Dr Aldred of University of
“Dr Aldred of University of Westminster, who has more than 15 years of experience researching active travel…
….However, people have complained to the petitions committee that Prof Aldred has a track record of supporting the creation of cycling infrastructure and LTNs and so the review will not be independent.”
Just because someone who actually studies urban transportation recommends the adoption of LTNs and active cycle infrastructure does not mean that they are biased, it means that might actually know what they are talking about.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Which is exactly what they are worried about.
Still waiting on the
Still waiting on the referendum about putting more & more vehicles on the roads every year (roads that the car industry doesn’t seem to have to cough up towards) and using hitherto residential streets as part of the mainstream urban transport network. Guess that’ll have been the cycling lobby at work again as per….
Clem Fandango wrote:
still waiting for the referendum on turning over public space on the roads into private storage space for vehicles.
I would ban all overnight parking on the roads, stopping on the road to visit is OK, but cars left on the highway at all times should stop. If every car has off road parking avaialble for overnight, it would spend most of the time there.
Also waiting for some action on the consultation on the annexing of pavements by drivers for the storage of their property. Since the consultation clearly came down strongly against tolerating pavement parking, but the government is too scared of the motor lobby to action it.
Totally agree. My two
Totally agree. My two neighbours opposite have three cars each. First thing they both did when moving in was to convert their garages into utility/ storage rooms, so now we mostly have six cars parked on a very narrow road all the time. This is on a newly built estate.
Thats how it works in Japan –
Thats how it works in Japan – no overnight on street parking – you will get towed and heavily fined if you do. If you live in a city you have to prove you have a parking space before you are allowed to buy a car. This limits car ownership in the more densly populated areas where there is excellent public transport and allows for car ownership in the rural areas where public transport is not so prevalent.
That sounds like a good idea
That sounds like a good idea to me. I think it should be a thing on new estates to not allow on road parking overnight.
one of my ex neighbours had
one of my ex neighbours had their house up for sale and the Estate Agent put large amount of off road parking available as part of the selling details. To which my reaction was shame they never flipping bothered to use any of it then.
I know – I think most people
I know – I think most people seem to think the road in front of their house belongs to them. I don’t understand it.
And reports produced by the
And reports produced by the AA, Association of British Drivers, Road Haulage Association and the like aren’t biased in the other direction??
Capt Sisko wrote:
I’m not sure its entirely fair lumping the AA in with the other loons. Arent they pretty reasonable for a motor-centric organisation. Or am I thinking of the RAC?
Certainly Edmund King, AA
Certainly Edmund King, AA president, makes some very encouraging noises about increasing cycle provision and the need to cut out short journeys by car. They are generally anti-LTN though.
It’s almost as though in the
It’s almost as though in the grand scheme of things there are large number of “road users” who drive and cycle, or even use public transport, depending on which is the most suitable. Who’d a thunk it!
Maybe get someone from Shell
Maybe get someone from Shell for balance? Although, they must now be seen as biased with one of them on the board of Active Travel England.
Minor thing – but Dr Aldred
Minor thing – but Dr Aldred was ‘upgraded’ a few years ago to Prof. Aldred. The article flits between the two. Maybe she has more authority as a Prof? In which case, I look forwards to her opponents calling her Miss Aldred.
Those big, bad, evil cycling
Those big, bad, evil cycling lobbies are at it again, are they? We need an investigation into how many MPs have £10,000-per-day second jobs with Sustrans or the CTC. Perhaps Piers Corbyn, Billy Piper’s ex, and that mad one who used to do programmes about coastlines could set up a sting operation. But then that’d take them away from their current grifts.
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
I have to admit I did not parse this correctly on my first reading.
My fault for using the Oxford
My fault for using the Oxford comma. I’d apologize to Billy Piper, but I think there’s very little in it between the two as to whom would be more embarrassing to have as a former spouse.
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
You could have written that without the comma and it would still be grammatically correct.
It’s amazing the lengths some people will go to in an attempt to stop something like nicer streets for people because they just have to drive absolutely everywhere, whenever they want (and anyone else has to live with the consequences).
I’d suggest that an appropriate response to the burning of LTN planters etc is to install more permanent structures with bollards and high kerbs. Plus CCTV and rewards offered for evidence that identifies the vandals.
Or perhaps a kind of quid pro quo – people living in an LTN whose infrastructure is damaged are then allowed to smash the windows and slash the tyres of every vehicle blocking a footway.
Chris Evans? Didn’t know he
Chris Evans? Didn’t know he was a right wing twat.
Guy’s gotta have a hobby for
Guy’s gotta have a hobby for when he’s not running around in spandex saving the world.
“We want an independent
“We want an independent review. And we want its result to be <this>.”
“The independent reviewers
“The independent reviewers keep finding out that I am wrong. It can’t possibly be because I am wrong, it must be that the independent reviewers aren’t independent.”
This is, unfortunately, how consipracy theories survive. People who refuse to change their opinions in the face of contradictory evidence come up with wild explanations for that evidence’s existence.
So what we need is someone
So what we need is someone who’s an acknowledged expert in their subject, having devoted their career to spending many decades researching it, but who hasn’t yet managed to form an opinion about it one way or the other. Well they should be two a penny.
And if you do find one, they
And if you do find one, they immediately become biased once they have completed the impartial study and come to an educated conclusion that isn’t the one that an anti road safety in residential areas believer wants ie LTNs are always bad.
Almost every modern estate follows the principles of how an LTN works by incorporating cul-de-sacs and non-straight roads to keep speeds appropriate to a residential area