| Topic: | Re:CPZ meeting 26/01/11 | |
| Posted by: | Jonathan Watkiss | |
| Date/Time: | 01/02/11 22:38:00 |
| Re space-counting: I fear this exercise is little better than anecdotal, for the following reasons: 1.A few observations a day in a road which is ever-changing is not statistically valid. If we were to (generously) allow 5 minutes per observation (to walk a street, ignoring for a moment that observations are continuous along the street and therefore of lower time duration) and there were 2 per day, then this would be less than 1.5% observation time as a proportion of a 12 hour window. Factoring this up by the number of days available to do the study is also problematic given the fluctuating day to day, week to week and even seasonal characteristics. All of this makes it difficult to conclude anything truly meaningful (other than our dogs are getting fitter) without a more comprehensive, statistically valid and objective survey (which I would be in favour of). 2.Judgements made by the observer who, with the best will in the world, will have a degree of bias. (For example, someone who is pro-CPZ will probably be less optimistic in what is considered a 1-space or 2-space gap, than the person who is against the CPZ). Another area of bias is during observation, whether to count an emerging space (someone in the process of leaving) or not, and vice versa. Also, the propensity to post unfavourable (to one’s argument or position) counts. Furthermore, whilst I appreciate there are passionate views being felt against CPZ (some of which I have sympathy with), I do not think that the debate is advanced by personal comments about Councillors (too many to give examples), or those directed at residents of pro-CPZ roads (e.g. inability to park properly, apparently a greater need to park nearer own homes than any other Grove Park resident, bigger and more cars, general selfishness, suggestions of fibbing in counts). The statistics from the last consultation survey (reported in Newsletter March 2010) are another area where facts have been somewhat distorted in some of the debate. As a percentage of respondents, Elmwood Road (88%) was a large majority in favour of a CPZ. Also in the Eastern cluster are Chesterfield Road (67%) and Park Road (61%) of respondents in favour of CPZ. The other 3 roads in the cluster were either at or just below 50%, which I agree falls short. Similarly, in the Western cluster, 4 roads were at 88%, 72%, 63% and 65%, and 3 roads just below 50%. I am all for a measured debate, lobbying and trying to find alternative ways to address parking issues e.g. Harvard Road for the Eastern Cluster, but I do not find misrepresentation of facts, or personal slights towards my neighbours or our elected Councillors particularly helpful. |