LTNs and 15-minute cities accused of being led by cycling lobbies, official review called a “whitewash”

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:

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...

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 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 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 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:

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.

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.

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:

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?

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 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:

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.

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 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:

To make your analogy work, it would be like putting a militant vegan in charge....

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 strongly held views in an 'independent reviewer' will undermine the perceived independence of the review.

Rich_cb wrote:

To make it clear that strongly held views in an 'independent reviewer' will undermine the perceived independence of the review.

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 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 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.  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 campaigning for LTNs so there's less obvious scope for accusations of bias.

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 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 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:

To make your analogy work, it would be like putting a militant vegan in charge of a report on healthy eating. .

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

I think you need to look up what a conflict of interest is. It is not merely being biased.

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.

It adds nothing to the discussion and is just designed to antagonise.

I'm sure the moderators will be along shortly...

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

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 have just proved my point.

Rich_cb wrote:

The ironic thing is that you have just proved my point.

No, I proved exactly the opposite: do pay attention.