Forum Topic

Question Validity of New Poll Showing Supposed Support for LTNs

I would question the validity of this new Redfield & Wilton Poll claiming majority in favour of the LTNs.  Who exactly are the "respondents" quoted?  How were they selected? 

Rae Lewis ● 2201d50 Comments

There is a thread already on this topic in an already saturated line of threads on LTNs started by the usual suspects.

Matthew Swain ● 2200d

This was from a survey conducted on 15 to 17 October by Redfield and Wilton. The details of this survey have just been published:MethodologyFieldwork Date(s): 15 to 17 October 2020Sampling Method: OnlinePopulation Sampled: Eligible Voters in LondonSample Size: 2,000Weighting: Data weighted to the profile of adults (18+) in London. Data weighted by age, gender, education, borough (presented here re-coded into inner/outer London), and 2019 General Election vote in London. Targets for each weighting were derived from the Office of National Statistics latest population estimates, EuroStat (for education), and the results of the 2019 General Election in London.Margin of Error: All results are subject to a margin of error. By consequence, not all differences are statistically significant, especially among subsamples. In this 2,000 sample poll, if 50.0% of respondents gave a particular answer to a question––the worse-case scenario from the perspective of margin of error––it is 95.0% certain that the true value falls within a 2.19% range from the sample result. Subsample results from crosstabs are subject to a higher margin of error due to their lower sample sizes. Conclusions drawn from small subsamples should be treated with caution. We particularly emphasize caution when reporting on any subsample figures where the base is below 50 respondents.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

Some interesting results from a more detailed breakdown of the poll, which is now available online. A very uniform distribution from 2019 GE vote, and it looks like Mamils are a distinct minority of cyclists. More than 50% of 25 to 34 year olds have used a bike to travel round London, while it's less than 25% of 45 to 65 year olds. Cycling is more popular for the oldest age group as well.  

Tom Pike ● 2200d

Do you have any data Tom, on good and bad LTNs and the support for them?

Russell Pearson ● 2200d

Interesting.Tom, please would you kindly provide data relative to 202 and COVID?That's the "reason" for these changes. Supporting data sure would come in handy.By the by, just a question, why would we base long-term changes on the current facts? All these polls/data you present are predicated on a normal way of life with fully operational offices, restaurants, council offices - basically a fully functioning society.We don't have that anymore. In the scheme of things this is an anomaly and always will be. Yet you bet the farm on it. Curious.

David Lesniak ● 2200d

I think you've already seen this as to quantifying their effects: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/ebj89/As for support, here's a review of the low-traffic measures in Waltham Forest:http://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2017-08-23-WV-report-FINAL.pdfThey list both the good and not so good outcomes but it's telling overall that "only 1.7% of residents would scrap the scheme and go back to how it was."There's not a similar review on a bad LTN. Certainly some of this year's temporary schemes have been already been reversed, but I don't think that was ever as a result of a review in comparable detail.If any of the current LTN schemes in Chiswick don't deliver in terms of overall reduced traffic through residential neighbourhoods, not just displacement of traffic from one neighbourhood to another, they should be adapted or scrapped - a scheme that leads to increased traffic is simply not delivering on its name! Given the diversity of schemes and locations, I'm sure some will work better than others and that gives a chance to level up.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

When I was doing my Statistics course the first thing we were taught was  "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".  Your graphs would respectively seem to have 175% and 200% of the cycling population of London covered here!  Let's be generous and say you are referring to the 2000 sample. Were they ALL cyclists?Maybe you should qualify your stats by concentrating on how many cycle around London on a REGULAR basis. To and from work would be a start. Saying 50% of 25 to 34 year olds "have used a bike .... " is a load of boloney and proves absolutely nothing.And this Poll of 2000 people was conducted by a company whole only registered with Companies House in 2020. Lots of experience then.

Derek Hill ● 2200d

Who - not  whole.

Derek Hill ● 2200d

                        A load of shite then

Julian Pavey ● 2200d

Important to read the labels and titles too! The figures refer to the proportion of that category that cycle in London, so for example 51% of those aged between 25 and 34 have cycled to get around London. In fact 43% aged 25 to 34 cycle regularly, that's once a week or more. Here are the same plots including those that cycle at least once week — not so different. As for the company, yes, they're new but they've done polling for the Sunday Telegraph, the Mail, the Mirror and the BBC, are members of the British Polling Council and publish all their fieldwork, which is how I can extract these plots.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

Definitely a rough rider (no saddle)

Bernard Allen ● 2200d

Even got new titles I see.  So now regular cycling is once a week or more? I don't think people would define "regular" as being that. By the way, do you have any stats on how many cyclists "regularly" break the law by cycling through red lights - at least once a week?  I would reckon that would be close to 100%. 

Derek Hill ● 2200d

Four out of our nine councillors use a bike as a primary transport mode, according to Gabriella Giles. That's rather a higher proportion than the 34% of 2019 Conservatives voters who cycle in London according to this poll, but probably representative enough to see if your hypothesis is correct.So why don't you ask them and get back to us with the stats?

Tom Pike ● 2200d

Just for completeness it would be nice to know who commissioned the research..I don't have Tom's skills in digging down though I did  get as far as the British Polling Council where one of their FAQs is "who paid for the poll" so clearly it's something people want to know. Unfortunately the answer gave absolutely no information as to how to find this out!

Bruce Hammal ● 2200d

I've already put in an inquiry to Wilton and Redfield on who commissioned the poll, and will let you know if I get an answer. I suspect the questions on the LTN were done on spec. They certainly succeed in getting publicity for a new company most of us had never heard of! It does look like a reasonably constructed poll in terms of representative sampling. For example, the proportion of car owners in their panel is close to the London average. Apparently a polling panel can take a while to bed in to give the most reliable results, and this is a new panel. However a 51% to 19% majority in favour of LTN's is too large a margin to be dismissed out of hand.What we should be able to agree on its that it's too early for any definitive conclusion to be reached on the success of our local LTN's, whatever this poll's response. There's no grounds at this point for either halting them prematurely or making them permanent. They should be given a fair chance to succeed or fail. That's what both Hounslow and Ealing councils very reasonably voted for last night. But the benefits of a decent LTN are undeniable. As the RAC(sic) put it: "Modelling by King’s College London on the UK’s first LTN which started in 2014, found the scheme has boosted life expectancy and air quality, without pushing up pollution on main roads." If that is translated to reality, then who would object?

Tom Pike ● 2200d

Thanks. I still have serious reservations about polls like this which look for generic answers to what ultimately will end up as local issues, but I think we've all spent enough time on this and the debate has become a bit pointless given the level of entrenchment going on. I accept the trials will go ahead despite what I think is the dubious value of some of them. In many ways it will only be then that the process will be subjected to a proper test as we will have real world responses to consider. At that point the opinions of those most affected will be clear and hopefully numerous enough for there to be no doubt about numbers for and against the measures. This of course is when it will get  really interesting.

Bruce Hammal ● 2200d

Actually I disagree there's entrenchment. Rather I completely agree with you that now "the process will be subjected to a proper test as we will have real world responses to consider." That's certainly what I wanted.And very happy to adjourn the discussion until the relevant data starts coming in.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

Just a final comment on my curiosity about the origins of the Redfield & Wilton poll - this word of caution is from the British Polling Council site - it is making a comparison with polls commissioned by media organisations which it says can broadly be trusted for impartiality."Greater care must be taken with polls conducted by pressure groups. These polls are likely to be conducted solely to ,”prove”, that the view put forward by this particular pressure group is the majority view, and it is in the interest of the pressure group to get a particular result. "To be continued. Maybe.

Bruce Hammal ● 2200d

I got a swift response from Philip van Scheltinga at W and R. The poll was self-funded.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

Cheers for those links. Waltham Forrest keeps coming up as a good project.  I think that’s where I’d question the survey as meaning too much, if you ask most people if they’d prefer lower traffic, they might well say yes. If you asked about an LTN, the same, thought they might not know what was one. But if a survey asked about a specific LTN where people lived it could give a very different and if in W4, a negative answer.Here’s an interesting view from the Greens for example - like the idea, but not if done badly https://greenworld.org.uk/article/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-good-idea-badly-implemented

Russell Pearson ● 2200d

Data will be irrelevant as it will be "generated" during a once in a lifetime pandemic environment.You can almost hear it now with improvement being attributed to these schemes but with a complete refusal to acknowledge loads of people working from home, others having left the city for good, shuttered businesses, Tier 3 lockdowns, etc. All those pesky details will fall by the wayside, guaranteed.One would think a new polling company formed in 2020 would want to know these things.

David Lesniak ● 2200d

Waltham Forest faced some very vociferous opposition when it first installed these schemes, but now very few residents want them removed.  We’ll now see if the current scheme delivers. There’s traffic monitors installed so that shouldn’t leave any doubt as whether the number of cars travelling along these roads has fallen.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

But did they consult at Waltham Forrest? On the monitors, yes, it’s obvious these will be used as a blunt measure for Grove Park. We all wanted to see the “Waze effect” traffic sorting, not many convinced the way they’re doing it is optimal. That’s the issue - it could have been done so much better by properly engaging with people who live here and actually listening and exploring ideas. Top down plans that fail to do that, tend to fail.

Russell Pearson ● 2200d

I'm sorry Tom but I don't know what that means! Are you saying that the poll was commissioned and paid for by the company itself? That would beg the question why?

Bruce Hammal ● 2200d

That was Philip van Scheltinga response, and what I suspected. They are a new polling company, establishing their panel, and so they may we’ll have wanted to have poll them regularly and use the uncomissioned results as publicity by including some topical questions.It’s certainly the case that this poll generated some interest.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

We know the YouGov poll was sponsored by Greenpeace.

Peter Evans ● 2200d

Well that's one possibility, if a bit of a long-shot given the number of polls these folk seem to get through. Who is Philip van Scheltinga?It's quite a distinctive name and the only hits I get relate to a chess-playing Harvard intern. I can't find a connection with Redfield and Wilton - did he really reply to your question at midnight? Still too many questions for me to take this at face value I'm afraid.

Bruce Hammal ● 2200d

Seeing Tom broadly mentions Waltham Forest with nothing to support that claim, I Googles "Waltham Forest LTN Results" and came up with this for a perspective:https://www.abd.org.uk/are-there-any-benefits-from-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-ltns/as well as the comments made here:http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-evidence/As to the self-financed poll, it sounds an awful lot like a PR exercise aimed at getting customers not the objective sampling it ought to be. Then again, that's polling for you.

David Lesniak ● 2200d

Bruce, I emailed the Wilton and Redfield contact on their research article and he responded at 10:40 pm. He may well be in the US. Why don't you email him yourself if you feel that's necessary.Given three different polls have come up with remarkably similar numbers, maybe it's time to think about what it means rather than continue to poke at it.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

I got a follow up email from Philip. He's head of research at Wilton and Redfield, based in London, and I'm sure will answer any questions you have about this poll. You can contact him via their web site.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

Thank you Tom. I may be failing to navigate R&W's website which is a triumph of form over function but I can  find no "people" section and the only email address seems to be for general enquiries. I am therefore most impressed that the head of research is checking the company email at 10.45 pm. The boy will go far!

Bruce Hammal ● 2200d

R&W's poll also indicates that there is a divergence between theory and reality, so while the majority of respondents seem to be in favour of LTNs in principle, they're not convinced about their efficacy in practice."Only 29% say that LTNs are effective, while over a third (35%) don’t know."

Bruce Hammal ● 2200d

Not quite right. A clear majority support their introduction, but as you rightly say a third have not decided if they are delivering. I myself would be in both categories at this time.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

But if behind the headline conclusion, the efficacy of the existing schemes is actually being questioned, then the likely efficacy of any further schemes must be in doubt. So sort out the ones already done before building any more.

Peter Evans ● 2200d

I'm sorry Tom but you're being a bit selective there!I said :"while the majority of respondents seem to be in favour of LTNs in principle, they're not convinced about their efficacy in practice" so I acknowledged your "clear majority". You on the other hand opted to quote back to me the third of respondents who are undecided while completely ignoring the first part of that quotation which was "only 29% say that LTNs are effective".I'm tempted to say that's not fair of you but I know that would just produce another rap on the knuckles for me.

Bruce Hammal ● 2200d

You're missing my point: a clear majority support their "introduction", rather more than an agreement in principle. I'm not questioning that only 29% are convinced they are working at this point. I just wanted to say I'd be in the third of respondents that are currently undecided.

Tom Pike ● 2200d

So those who have no experience of them 'support their introduction' while those who do have some experience of them don't think they're working. Hmm!

Peter Evans ● 2200d

There's absolutely no way of drawing that conclusion from the data, or from what I said. The opposite is no less likely to be true.

Tom Pike ● 2199d

Once again I can't agree with your analysis. You seem determined to ignore any interpretation of the figures that doesn't  fit with your pre-determined position. Supporting the introduction of measures IS an agreement in principle, it can't possibly be anything else since, as you acknowledge, the option to remove them lies at the core of the assurances being offered to residents. Whatever level of support there may be it is conditional. By  the way emphasising the importance of a "clear majority" of support does of course mean that you would accept the result should there be a clear majority in opposition when the trials are evaluated.

Bruce Hammal ● 2199d

Tom.  Just seen your reply to mine.So now 4 out of 9 is supposed to be a true representation of Conservative cyclists in London is it?  What planet do you live on?Also I doubt very much that 34% (not 43% ?) of Conservative voters in London cycle REGULARLY - something you seem to ignore. And this is from a sample of 2000 people?  Try conducting that survey in RBK&C and see what result you get.As I said in an earlier post - "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Derek Hill ● 2199d

From OneChiswick (not sure which publication the Eye is):-As the last Eye reported, Labour Ealing Council lied to residents about whether the London Ambulance Service had been consulted over controversial moves to block off many residential streets with bollards and planters as part of the council's rushed “no traffic neighbourhood scheme.” It's hardly surprising then that many residents are suspicious of the council's decision to award the contract to consult with the public to an online survey tool called Commonplace Digital Ltd, not least because Commonplace’s sales and public affairs manager is one Peter Mason, Ealing Labour councillor and until 29th September cabinet member for planning and housing.  As the Eye went to press more than 9400 people have signed a change.org petition objecting to the scheme  some 800 signed a counter petition in favour

Claire Moran ● 2199d

Support for the introduction of an LTN contains support in principle, but also goes some way beyond it. If there is support for the introduction of a scheme, that's explicit support for giving it a go.I found the podcast here very helpful in understanding how polling works. It's a recent interview with a YouGov pollster. It even mentions R&W. https://www.markpack.org.uk/161382/yougov-chris-curtis/

Tom Pike ● 2199d

Tom.Of course it's support for giving it a go, I can live with that, as long as the process of judging a measure a success or failure is a fair one. What you have to appreciate is that to many people some of these traffic schemes make absolutely no sense from any perspective. If you were to carry out a poll locally I guarantee you would get a very different response to the ones you find so encouraging. Residents have understandable doubts that the evaluation process will give due weight to their opinions.  Supposedly at this week's cabinet meeting Hounslow councillors approved the beginning of an "independent review" of the various schemes. We will need details of how that will work and who will be involved.I have a fear that force majeure may well intervene - particularly in relation to Chiswick High Road which seems guaranteed to produce a major incident before the trial is up. Briefly returning to the R&W poll that was so exercising me; I have been in touch with Dave Hill of On London. He assures me that my concerns are baseless and within its remit the poll is fair, so I am happy to thank you for your help and I will listen with interest to the Chris Curtis interview.

Bruce Hammal ● 2199d

All good, Bruce. Not often a thread on this topic actually converges on a decent level of agreement!

Tom Pike ● 2199d

Agreement is probably a step too far, but, entertaining as it sometimes is,  I would like to see a bit more debate and a bit less goading in these threads.Ultimately we will have to work out this problem- it's just too exhausting going on like this, it's almost as bad as Brexit.

Bruce Hammal ● 2199d

Dave Hill is just one journalist who is not without his own bias, which is fine for him. He is entitled to his own opinions.But he is not the oracle on all things London.

Rae Lewis ● 2199d

I’m impressed you contacted Dave Hill to express your concerns and were then honest enough to come back with the answer. So much better than the simple-minded and much easier route that some people take of concocting elaborate conspiracy theories to find somebody else to blame when they experience cognitive dissonance. Everybody needs to remember that there is consultation. It is live now. John Todd has shown the way by calmly and quietly working with the Council to alter the Cavendish School Street scheme before it was even implemented. That is the example to follow for constructive dialogue that leads to satisfaction for all parties.

Paul Campbell ● 2199d

Indeed Tom - we all want a solution that works, well most of us do. Can’t we all work together to achieve that via proper consultation with the whole community? I really do not understand why that’s such a problem and barrier.

Russell Pearson ● 2199d

Well Paul, I never thought the day would come when I impressed you! Not everybody is an expert; most of us are learning as we go along - and that's true on both sides of what has become an unpleasant divide. Giving your opponents a bit of credit for having genuinely held concerns and not just point-scoring at every opportunity would be a really good place for us all to start. Winning at all costs is not really victory at all.

Bruce Hammal ● 2199d

I had never heard of Dave Hill nor On London and the only thing by him that I've read is  the article about the R&W poll. It seems  to be a straight account of the poll's findings, and I couldn't detect any bias, at least in the piece I read.

Bruce Hammal ● 2199d