So who do you want to be the next Mayor of London?

[Theinjuredcleaner]

It's Count Binface/Lord Buckethead for me. I don't think he could do a worse job than his predecessors.

I've lived in my area my entire life. I know what the traffic was pre the ltn and what it was like after. As do vast majority of people who live in the area and hate it.

Do you have a link to the survey that you conducted that shows that most people who live in the area hate the LTNs?

I would be interesting to read it, because other surveys have suggested that people rather like them and a contrary piece of evidence is always interesting.

You seem utterly obsessed with these surveys.

If a survey says traffic in my area is down...that is actually irrelevant to me. Because I know it's not. My journey times have increased hugely. You can continually tell me they haven't but it's meaningless. They have.

Once again...why do you think the Streatham ltn was removed?

Some people like them..if you ask those people then the survey will say people like them.

Now if everyone liked them they wouldn't be controversial would they?

Khan is brilliant. He and Anne Hidalgo (mayor of Paris) have really risen to the challenge of combating pollution in their cities. Khan all the way!

So even if the evidence said otherwise you would believe LTNs were bad.

May I ask why that is?

Khan, obviously. Susan Hall is batshit. I've lived in the ULEZ zone for years and my 17 year-old car is just fine with it.
We've got some fantastic new bus routes as well, with the Superloop.
plus it winds the Gammons up something fierce. The ammount of people who live nowhere near London who hate him is something to see.
He also deserves massive kudos for getting rid of Cressida Dick. awful woman.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/26/fact-check-has-sadiq-khan-really-overseen-a-surge-in-london

Susan Hall has said that she will scrap free school meals. Horrible woman.

Because if you make my life worse then tell me we have evidence that your life isn't worse, then why would I believe that..it's utterly meaningless. Traffic in my area got worse after the ltn was put in. Do you think me or the other residents are imagining that? Hoards of people were up in arms about it. If traffic had genuinely reduced on the surrounding roads, no one would have objected would they? You can carry out any survey you want and get the answer you want by asking questions in a particular way or asking certain people.

Like I said but you continue to ignore ...the Streatham ltn was removed. Why do you think that was?

The survey evidence shows overall people support LTNs. That doesn't mean every individual supports them, or benefits from them.

But where they go in, they tend to get majority support.

Depends who you ask and how you phrase the question. Finding a totally unbiased survey is actually very difficult.

I think most people can manage to answer a survey, people are not stupid.

Creating totally unbiased surveys is not as easy as you think.

If you ask people in the ltn a leading question such as "are you enjoying less traffic on your street?". Then pretty much everyone would answer yes. I'm not suggesting this question has been asked by the way...I'm showing you an example of how if I wanted I could skew a question to get the answer I want. If I asked anyone "do you think quieter roads are a good thing" again everyone would answer yes.

How you phrase the question is absolutely crucial.

My journey times have increased hugely
I don't think LTNs are intended to make car journeys faster.

LTNs are intended to reduce cars on some roads, to encourage modal shift.

There have been a few in our city, after the consultation period residents opted to keep them.

Wouldn't enjoying less traffic on the street be good?

Who wants more traffic?

Most of the evidence linked to in this thread are not surveys but studies. So they are not asking random people their thoughts on LTNs or ULEZ but are instead monitoring and counting the amount of traffic in a particular area over a set period of time. That means it's unbiased and not reliant on what kinds of questions are asked.

This study is a key example of this methodology - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X23001785

Even though that expansion was forced by the Tories?

Well yes exactly. That's what I mean. How you phrase the question is actually a really tricky thing to get right.

I could also ask "do you think closing road A has caused cars to be diverted to road B?". A lot of people would say yes. Then I could ask, "do you think road B is busier as a result of road A being closed" Most would say yes. Then I could ask "do you think busier roads are worse for pollution and accidents". Everyone would say yes. I could then conclude they hate the ltns.

Do you see. Ask a question a certain way and you can get the answer you're looking for.

It depends though. What roads are they counting on? What time of day?

Which expansion? And where does this “forced by” come from?

So if I could show you evidence that an LTN made a road quieter then you would agree that it was a good thing?

Did you conduct an unbiased survey of all the residents (or a representative sample) of the residents so that you could reach the conclusions you did?

What road...the road where the ltn is? That's a given. Or the roads around it?

Likewise if I showed you an ltn that didn't work, would you accept that? streatham

I think then we are in agreement, quieter roads, particularly where people live are a good thing.