| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:LTNs and the definition of a residential road | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 28/12/22 19:24:00 |
| Simon, it's the analysis you've highlighted that is fatally flawed, not the paper they criticise. In "Part Three:- The Goodman Study is inherently flawed, and here's your proof" the authors claim to have uncovered that in fact injuries outside of LTNs have fallen by a much larger absolute amount than inside LTNs. At that point they rest their case. In fact they have uncovered nothing, but rather have ignored the fact that injuries fell significantly across London in the compared periods and furthermore that the boroughs without LTNs had 30 times more injuries in the first place than the LTN areas so would be expected to show much larger absolute drops. The authors completely fail to understand that it's necessary to use relative casualty rates which reflect the risk rather than the absolute number of casualties which in this case simply reflect the much larger areas of boroughs outside of LTNs. Either the authors are incompetent in their use of basic statistics or understand what they are doing are nevertheless deliberately seeking to mislead. Furthermore anyone who claims this amounts to a proof that the Goodman Study is flawed falls into one of these two categories. As for the Telegraph article, that also shows bad faith in its criticisms. LTNs were introduced before the DfT revised its counts on minor roads upwards in September 2020 and it is therefore simply impossible that revisions made after the Ealing LTNs were introduced in July 2020 were used to justify the LTNs! You are also either acting in ignorance or in bad faith to make such a claim. Which is it? |