Forum Topic

3 in 4 Hounslow Residents support LTNs

Hardly a surprise for Chiswick residents who almost all live in LTNs but good news nonetheless for those still living with the unnecessary blight of rat running on their residential side streets in the Borough. 

Paul Campbell ● 230d139 Comments

Of course not, shame that the sample was 74.7% smaller than that !

N V Brooks ● 225d

No they wouldn’t because 75% being opposed to LTNs would be a reasonable reflection of what people think. I would have thought that 85% would be more accurate though because it it mainly only people who live in LTNs who want them.

Steve Taylor ● 225d

If the outcome of this survey had been that 75% of residents in LTNs were opposed to LTNs would the people on this thread still be saying the sample size wasn’t large enough?I doubt it.

Andrew Jones ● 225d

I don’t read skidmark’s posts because he is obsessed with spouting absolute unadulterated nonsense but I sometimes read respondents remarks and it amuses me Skidmark is up late at night, no doubt trying to defend the indefensible, and again up early in the morning. The poor old fool must have sleepless nights as he is usually the first to post on this forum. Is it a mental problem to be so obsessed?  Sad!

Steve Taylor ● 225d

“Any number of examples of how they are skewed”And the one example you pick as damning evidence to support your conspiracy theory that the Council is skewing surveys on LTNs is one where they didn’t skew a survey on a LTN? Amazing. Maybe you should stay off the beer when panicking online late at night about Ealing drivers losing their favourite rat runs through Hounslow. It might help you write legible sentences too. The Councillors preparing for Tuesday’s cabinet meeting must be loving reading Adrian, Russell and Simon on the topic of market research. Fascinating and completely normal stuff.

Paul Campbell ● 225d

I suspect your drugs might be wearing off now. Every study fromLCC sources eh? Same ones that don’t record vehicles traveling at less than 10kmph? Very reliable.You really are very stupid to think that council surveys aren’t structured to deliver the answers required. Any number of examples of how they are skewed. When Hounslow asked residents in Brentford about the Whitestile Road LTN, 75 percent of residents said they didn’t want it. Has not a borough wude syrvet, moron boy, that’s those who live in the streets affected.

Simon Hayes ● 225d

Every origin and destination study I have seen in London shows that the majority of drivers on residential side streets start and stop their journeys outside of the Borough in question. I am very happy for anybody living in a residential side street to prohibit me driving through it so they can quickly and effectively remove all those rat running drivers and enjoy better lives. And the majority of Hounslow residents and also everybody else surveyed on this topic agrees with me.,But please carry on enjoying your superior grasp of your real world. 👍

Paul Campbell ● 225d

Don’t be a twat for the rest of your life Idiot Campbell. Don’t you think those rat running drivers are people like yourself going about their business in the area in which they live? Not every vehicle is passing through, much as you might wish it. Still plenty of traffic in Grove Park, eh?I bet you drive down a few ‘quiet residential roads’ when you take out your car for those essential journeys’. You really can’t see the irony of what you say and do.Keep digging your hole though. Eventually you’ll find yourself stuck there with just Rancid for company. Lovely.

Simon Hayes ● 225d

Ah yes of course the real world where most people think that residential side streets are much better filled with rat running drivers shaving a few minutes off their journeys between main roads and where market research is a woke ideology spreading fake news and gaslighting everybody as part of a conspiracy against the realists who actually get it 👍

Paul Campbell ● 225d

Idiot Campbell. Digging himself ever deeper into his hole of self delusion. Hex really doesn’t understand anything about the world. Too long stroking Rancid Robinson’s fragile ego.

Simon Hayes ● 225d

The majority of people who think that main roads are for more traffic than residential side streets are shameful and disgusting! It’s so hard to understand why LTN opponents find themselves in such a tiny niche minority really.

Paul Campbell ● 225d

“ There’s a big difference. Wake up at the back wokey head.”Indeed. And nobody with a brain falls for that nonsense especially on subjects like LTNs where it is conclusive that overall the majority of people who support them, live on them. They are the very selfish minority who are selfishly happy to have pollution increased on arterial roads. It’s quite shameful and disgusting.

Steve Taylor ● 225d

They’re a market research company using the same representative sampling methodologies used by the industry for about 100 years. Not everything is a conspiracy Bannon Boy. This thread and the anti-LTN movement is just getting more Trumpian by the day. Fake news, fake stats, fake market research companies. Because it is so hard to believe that most people prefer quieter and safer residential side streets without rat running drivers. Conspiracy theorists and Occam’s Razor.

Paul Campbell ● 225d

The don’t do market research but instead cater for public sector ideology:“We provide insight that enables public sector bodies and charities to improve their service delivery.”There’s a big difference. Wake up at the back wokey head.

Russell Pearson ● 225d

After all these decades finally a small group of men in Chiswick, dismayed at a survey alleging they are a tiny minority of grumps arguing against something that is so obviously good for most people, have uncovered the truth about market research. Go on lads - burn the industry down.

Paul Campbell ● 225d

Nice little money earner pumping out these skewed surveys, especially when you can “push for social value” by promoting the ideology of your pay lords.https://melresearch.co.uk/

Russell Pearson ● 225d

So 6% of c.0.3% object. 0.18% aof anything is hardly a mandate for change. If more people objected the 'silent majority' would be far more vocal surely.

N V Brooks ● 226d

Finally an unlikely hero has emerged to prove that every survey and poll ever conducted is not only baseless but actually gaslighting because the representative sampling methodologies they all use touch only a fraction of the total population in question. Bad news for YouGov and Ipsos and every other market research company in the world but great news for the the 6% of Hounslow residents who object to LTNs. The world deserves to hear about this exciting revelation Adrian. When will you publish your research so that we can finally put an end to the market research industry?

Paul Campbell ● 226d

So, dear reader what have we learnt from this little tête-à-tête?Well firstly, the stupidest person on the forum is me. I'm taking a bow as you read.Secondly, we have identified possibly the second most angry and rude person on the forum. (First place reserved for another clear winner)However most importantly, when someone or some authority tells you that a survey has proved  beyond doubt a point, question it closely. You may find out that the survey was built on sand as is the case in question. ie 0.3 % of the whole.Over and out.COME ON ENGLAND!

Adrian Irving ● 226d

Are the classic Boggy approach. I have few facts, I can't explain the facts that I have some I'll just insult you. What a credit you are to the LCC. Their selection process must have been challenging if you rose to the top of the pile

N V Brooks ● 226d

Let's face it Adrian, you didn't understand the statistics and apparently still don't.I never thought you were particularly smart and it has been instructive me that it is pointless trying to be a maths tutor to you so I'll just ignore you in the future and this will prevent wasted time on my part.

Michael Robinson ● 226d

Michael, why so angry?I can guess why. It's because people like me don't just suck up and accept as fact all the statistics, articles, information pumped out via the media and on line which is unnerving isn't.?The headline of this thread is; 3 in 4 Hounslow Residents support LTNs That's misleading boarding on gas lighting.A more honest headline would be; A survey of just over 1000 people would indicate that 3 out of 4 residents support LTNs.The good news is I have opened some readers minds to dig little deeper to what's the truth behind these sort of reports.

Adrian Irving ● 226d

“ encourage others to stump up £56.00** to join them in their minority transport interest.  **ONLY £84.00 for household membership.”So what’s this about? Has the penny finally dropped that cycling lanes are so radically unused and unwanted that the cycling group is frantically trying to raise money because now they actually have to CAMPAIGN to get people to do what they don’t want to do?  Are there any morons who actually pay this money to be members of such a group? Why?

Steve Taylor ● 226d

Ah, so it needs the same information repeated 3 or 4 times before it penetrates Adrian’s skull and even then he doesn’t fully understand.The principle behind sample sizes and confidence levels obviously is a big stretch for someone of Adrian’s limited intellect. Given he can’t  calculate a percentage, there is very little chance of him understanding this. Like a pigeon trying to play chess, as has been said.But I know there are at least some decision makers on the Hounslow cabinet with a science/maths background who will understand and who aren’t as intellectually challenged as the Adrians of this world.

Michael Robinson ● 226d

"A sample size of ~1000 of a borough population of about 270k is about 0.3%, not 0.0034% as you claim, so you are wrong by a factor of 100."That's right, my error however anyway you massage the numbers 0.3% of the population is quite a stretch to claim it represents the view of 270 or 290k people.Try to respond calmly, not😠😠. Hard but doable.

Adrian Irving ● 226d

Footnote.The figure of 290k was provided by The Office of National Statistics.(2021 census)

Adrian Irving ● 226d

Michael so good of you to spend so much time finally explaining your justification of the flawed survey and your analysis.It took a lot of effort to get there but sadly hardly worth it in the end. To claim three out of four people support LTNs as a result of a superficial survey is  questionable to say the least. Apart from the numbers  and flawed conclusion it's so obviously another case of load the questions to get the answers you want.

Adrian Irving ● 226d

Here speaks the borough representative for the London Cycling Campaign.Doubtless chosen for his ability to engage with people and encourage others to stump up £56.00** to join them in their minority transport interest.  **ONLY £84.00 for household membership.

N V Brooks ● 227d

Taking the mick out of you is funny, Michael. Shame you can't understand that.

Richard Greenhough ● 227d

Yes Adrian, I am saying you are stupid.  Here are the reasons why.1. You are unable to do maths that a primary school child could do.  A sample size of ~1000 of a borough population of about 270k is about 0.3%, not 0.0034% as you claim, so you are wrong by a factor of 100. Did nobody ever teach you that % means 'per cent' which means 'per one hundred' so you multiply by 100?Is this stupidity or just a very poor education, or maybe both?Of course, the % will be more than this as you appear to have assumed that the survey also included children who have just been born as they will be included in the borough population of 270k.2. It is possible to get an accurate estimate of opinion from a sample of a larger population and there is well established maths (which of course will be incomprehensible to you) to actually calculate the level of confidence.  The MRP polls for the recent election surveyed about 20k people from an overall UK electorate of about 46M people.Do you know how to calculate this as a %? You divide 20k by 46M then multiply by 100.3. Weighting the results is different again from sampling and it means that the results are adjusted to reflect any differences in the sample for things like gender compared to the population as a whole.  The published results are the weighted results as I told you repeatedly but it didn't seem to penetrate your thick skull.4. I had no involvement with the survey so repeatedly asking me for a 'breakdown' of detailed source data is more evidence that you aren't exactly the sharpest tool in the box.

Michael Robinson ● 227d

Adrian,  do you not understand English?What other explanation is there for repeatedly asking me the same question when I have already told you the answer.Actually, there is an explanation other than lack of understanding English.  Sheer stupidity. Imagine I am saying this slowly, like speaking to a 5 year old.- the published survey results are the weighted figures- why are you asking me for a 'breakdown' of the survey results when I had nothing to do with the survey?All you have to do is answer the question why you are demanding that I publish figures when I had nothing to do with the survey.  Is it really that difficult to answer the question? Even for a someone as stupid as you are?

Michael Robinson ● 227d

"What I can do, is read documents posted on the Hounslow website and understand them.  Something that appears to be beyond your capabilities.You also clearly have failed to understand that the sample size is sufficient to provide a level of confidence of +/- 2.95% in the results."Hang on there Michael I think the penny has dropped. What you are saying is there are no weighted figures as such as by asking 0.0034 % of the population it can be positively concluded that most of the good folk of Hounslow, give or take 2.9% percent,are in favour of LTNs. Amazing, truly amazing!And I am supposed to be the stupid one.

Adrian Irving ● 227d

Michael I asked you three times to provide the weighted figures but all you can do is get more angry and insulting.My stupidity may take you breath away, sorry about that, but all you have to do is publish the figures here. That's not only for my benefit but for all readers of this thread. Publish the figures, there's a good fellow.

Adrian Irving ● 227d

You are a joke Richard but you aren't funny.

Michael Robinson ● 227d

Clearly among your other character flaws is the lack of a sense of humour.

Richard Greenhough ● 227d

... from the person who moronically and repetitively posts the same childish insults to people he stalks on the forum.Self awareness not his strong point, clearly.

Michael Robinson ● 227d

To quote Vanessa - "What astounds me how some of the people who post here are so infantile and downright rude, if you cannot make your point without insulting people then it really just shows the paucity  of your view. What are these people so afraid of? Can they not have a civilised and coherent debate?"Manners maketh man.

Richard Greenhough ● 227d

I have often not understood these things myself  but fortunately Tom is excellent at explaining, rather than responding angrily.

Janice Evans ● 227d

Adrian, your stupidity is breathtaking.  You deserve every bit of condescension you are getting and then some.Not only are you stupid, you are too stupid to realise just how stupid you are.Why the **** do you persist in asking me for the source data?You can see the slide in the first post of this thread with 'MEL Research' on it.  Do you think I am MEL Research? Why do you refer to the data as 'his evidence'? ('his' being me..)  Do you think I did the survey?  What I can do, is read documents posted on the Hounslow website and understand them.  Something that appears to be beyond your capabilities.You also clearly have failed to understand that the sample size is sufficient to provide a level of confidence of +/- 2.95% in the results.I could provide links to the maths used to calculate confidence levels based upon sample size and overall population but this is pointless in your case given your stupidity.

Michael Robinson ● 227d

Correction.My previous percentage estimate of a just over one thousand people against Hounslow's  population was a little off. According to Alexa it is 0.0034% in round figures, a lot of round figures!

Adrian Irving ● 227d

Michael. Why are you still stubbornly refusing to publish the weighted figures?I am sure you know a lot more about statistics than me and that's why I am asking you to back up your assertion. You're the best person to ask.I said I wouldn't get into an argument  so I will ignore your condescending  tone  and insult but please desist, it does you no credit.In conclusion, dear reader, the OP's original breakdown may or may not be an accurate reflection but without Michael simply being prepared to publish his evidence then the only data we have here is a reflection of just over a thousand people out of a population of about  two hundred and ninety thousand.Fact.

Adrian Irving ● 227d

Why are you asking me for the source data? From your questions you clearly don't have a clue about basic statistics and now you are demanding I provide source data from a survey I had no involvement with.  I just know more about statistics than you do (not difficult) and can read the documents posted on the council website, which you don't appear to have bothered to do.You really are stupid.

Michael Robinson ● 227d

"You really need to read what the document says Adrian.It DOESN'T say that the final data is unweighted, it says it is weighted." Why should I? I politely asked you to post the breakdown. You didn't.It's  like a barrister telling a jury I have evidence that my client is innocent but I not going to present it. It's up to you,the jury, to find it.Please post the breakdown.

Adrian Irving ● 227d

PS you can exclude the last SENTENCE if you wish. It's a given.

Adrian Irving ● 227d

More pigeon chess. I've already covered that one. But I don't expect you will be able to understand it as all you've proven on this thread is that you have failed to attain the average literacy and numeracy levels of an 11 year old child in the year 2024.

Paul Campbell ● 227d

Thinking about it my last post was a little harsh, I apologise.Anyway back to my original point. I knew you couldn't bring yourself to apologise to the poster from Brentford for  calling a liar so I'm here to help.Simply copy and paste  then post the below.(name of the person you called a liar) I apologise for the unfounded accusation of lying. It was stupid.Job done.PS you can exclude the last sent if you wish. It's a given.

Adrian Irving ● 227d

Pretty conclusive that the survey didn’t consider Asian people and pretty conclusive that the vast majority of people do not support LTNs and want them removed.

Steve Taylor ● 227d

There you go - the third stage of pigeon chess. First you knock all the pieces over, then you crap all over the board and then you proudly declare victory. Perfect!

Paul Campbell ● 227d

"Pigeon chess." Indeed Paul,  I don't normally play with a bird brain like yours as they are so easy to check mate. Check mate, matey. 

Adrian Irving ● 227d

“ if councils don't have that sort of information, they are unable to determine if views expressed in a consultation are just representative of one section of the population”It is biased though when these surveys don’t distinguish between Irish and Republic of Ireland citizens!!!

Steve Taylor ● 227d

“Most respondents were in the east of the borough and white."So not representative of the majority of people in the west of the Borough who are Asian?

Steve Taylor ● 227d

“ Whatever you think about our local councillors, they are people who have given up their time to try and serve the community.”Mmmm. A lot of them just do it for the monthly stipend and you never hear from them and they don’t hold surgeries or attend many Council meetings. For many it’s a nice little extra earning for doing relatively little work.

Steve Taylor ● 227d

All right Boggy, how are you today. Still pedalling the crap that the Grove Park Village Idiot post?

N V Brooks ● 227d

of course Nige's academic credentials are a distinction in racist abuse from the Reform Academy, Clacton.

Michael Robinson ● 227d

Classic diversion tactic by buggy, can't wait to see what pearl of wisdom the idiot gnome of Grove Park will add. He's not doing very well today comma citing Aldred as a credible data source.

N V Brooks ● 228d

Julian Pavey ● 228d

No of course I don't. Thank you for erudite and well-considered response to the Council's survey and your contribution to the thread which has maintained the low bar of intellectual engagement from anti-LTNers.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

Did you respond to the 2021 national census? That asked questions about nationality, ethnicity, languages used...The counter argument is that if councils don't have that sort of information, they are unable to determine if views expressed in a consultation are just representative of one section of the population and don't reflect the views of others.  Therefore policies that only took these views into account would in themselves be discriminatory.So a representative survey that is designed to get views across the population has many advantages over a self-selecting consultation, but is more complex and expensive to run.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

“ number of the current set of councillors are hardly the sharpest tools in the boxes”. First honest thing Robinson has said. Hence the total mess with cycle lanes and LTNs approved by moron councillors b

Steve Taylor ● 228d

Not especially recently. However I object to racial profiling on principle and refuse to answer any questions that require it. IMHO collecting data of that sort is reminiscent of apartheid-era South Africa.

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

“Are you calling me a liar? I can assure you I submitted an FOI this morning Ref no. FIR 011496 ”I don’t read Campbell’s posts anymore  because they are such rubbish but I read people’s responses to have a laugh and it seems he calls everyone a liar if they don’t fit into his ridiculous agenda. He was even calling sweet, innocent and harmless Janice a liar last week.

Steve Taylor ● 228d

What a load of rubbish. Don't You ever give up.

James Dow ● 228d

Yes.Have you actually done any consultations or online surveys recently?It is very common to ask questions about the person responding which could include age, gender, ethnicity, nationality, disabilities, medical conditions ...  I believe these questions are usually optional but they do allow the organisation running the survey to understand the profile of respondents.  Such as if it is dominated by old white people living in Chiswick.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

You think and talk about people on this forum, outside the forum? I don't take anyone on it that much to heart.

Keith Iddon ● 228d

Ha,the usual have returned.Funny thing is they dont realise that a quite large proportion of chiswick look at these forums only and must think what idiots we have.One person on here is sometimes mentioned around the table in the pub and they dont even get involved on here.I hope they dont have children that one day will look on here and think what the hell. IDIOTS ! i mean

Julian Pavey ● 228d

"Most respondents were in the east of the borough and white."So you are saying that this consultation included racial profiling ?

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

"...have adult discourse with me."That were impossible.

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

I’m not referring to that individual post. You are invariably abusive in every response to one of my posts.  It’s funny when you occasionally demand to be respected and to have adult discourse with me.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

The survey covered people in all wards of the borough and ensured the people surveyed reflected the age and gender profile of the borough,In contrast, just look at consultation results also reported in the cabinet documentation.  68% of people responding were over 50 while only 28% of borough residents are over 50.  Most respondents were in the east of the borough and white. There is no doubt that the survey using a sample of the borough population is far more representative than consultations dominated by old white people living in Chiswick.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

From that answer, it would seem safe to assume that you have not submitted any FOIs and therefore have no idea how long they normally take to elicit a response. As usual, pontificating on matters of which you have little knowledge or understanding. And by the way, you self-identified as a bellend.

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

Yes the survey is representative. The Council does not see residents as its enemy. It is supporting the vast majority of residents who want safer, cleaner, quieter residential side streets and not people who just want to drive through them. As you will see.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

'This survey will be presented to the cabinet on Tuesday. The cabinet will discuss it and agree that the results are encouraging and show robust and reliable support for their policies including LTNs. Katherine Dunne will be encouraged to continue with the programme to roll out LTNs across the Borough. Give the people what they want: safer, quieter streets and cleaner air,'This 'survey' really is about far more than just LTNs, some of which do work, quite a few which don't, and given Hounslow's overall population is this survey really representative? Hounslow are not good at consultation and need to up their game and try not seeing us, the residents, as their enemy and just for once try working with us. They must be rubbing their hands with glee at this petty display of throwing insults around.

Vanessa Smith ● 228d

I am under no obligation to answer the inane questions of abusive posters on this forum.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

Of courses avoiding the question. The Grove Park village idiot can only ask questions. He has no answers

N V Brooks ● 228d

Avoiding the question, Humpty ?Bellend.

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

I think they are unfair to a lot of the community, but doubt that willever be sorted.

Janice Evans ● 228d

I don't see Onesies on this thread, I'm not interested where LTNs are.

Janice Evans ● 228d

It is so painful explaining basic things to these people. This explains why they were so eager to accept Cllr Biddolph's parking survey and her inclusion of a kitchen purchase on a small sample base in the mean figures for driver spending on the High Road.  That was very funny.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

Full sentence. Cutting the sentence in half is really just helping to reinforce the point for me. Pigeon chess.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

Thanks that Richard.You and some of the other regular posters on this forum make it so, so, easy.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

The anti-safer streets lot do tend to make it very easy for him. With Mark Draper hanging around the house in his underpants there is nobody left to listen to their nonsense and they can anticipate a great deal more mocking and contempt.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

Who are the Onesies, another figment of imagination.

Janice Evans ● 228d

You really need to read what the document says Adrian.It DOESN'T say that the final data is unweighted, it says it is weighted.The sample size of 1101 is unweighted, this is the number of people interviewed.  The weighting is then applied to the responses.The sample size is sufficient to give a confidence of +/- 2.95% with the results.  The maths doesn't care if you think the sample size is tiny or not.It looks like you are struggling with some basic maths principles with statistics and probability.  Maybe you should go back to school and do a GCSE?

Michael Robinson ● 228d

"Vanessa would like you to believe that she submitted a FoI, received the fastest response time in history..."Which appears to be the case. How many FOIs have you submitted, Humpty, to make the comparison on response times?"What happened to literacy in schools in the 50s and 60s?"In general it seems to have been better than in your schooldays, judging by your posts. You should have worn your helmet - it might have protected your pigeon-egg head and prevented your brains being scrambled !

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

Yes, Michael, mocking others is what you are good at.

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

No read the full sentence. It is accurate. The flock is trampling all over the board now. What happened to literacy in schools in the 50s and 60s?So here is what is going to happen in the real world of literate grown-ups:This survey will be presented to the cabinet on Tuesday. The cabinet will discuss it and agree that the results are encouraging and show robust and reliable support for their policies including LTNs. Katherine Dunne will be encouraged to continue with the programme to roll out LTNs across the Borough. Give the people what they want: safer, quieter streets and cleaner air,The gripes of some Onesies in Chiswick who cannot understand or accept survey results that contradict their prejudices and confirm that they are in a tiny minority of opponents of safer residential side streets will not even be registered let alone discussed.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

Will hell freeze over before Paul is big enough to apologise and retract the false allegation against Vanessa?Prove me wrong Paul.

Adrian Irving ● 228d

Pigeon chess.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

Will hell freeze over before Paul is big enough to apologise and retract the false allegation against Vanessa?Prove me wrong Paul.

Adrian Irving ● 228d

Michael, "There results provided ARE the weighted figures." I assume by that you mean the Op's chart if so isn't incredible that the answers given by a tiny percentage of Hounslow folk described  as unweighted exactly match the weighted ones.How lucky can you get.If this is not the case please answer my question by providing a breakdown of the actual weighted numbers.Thank you.

Adrian Irving ● 228d

It's usual to check things out.

Janice Evans ● 228d

Don't be stupid Richard. If you had done what Vanessa did and sent in a FOI asking for information that was visible in the first post of this thread I would be mocking you too.While not all of Vanessa's posts are whines, moans, complaints and whinges, a considerable proportion of them are.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

"The Council has the full data set which it can analyse as it wishes."There results provided ARE the weighted figures.What this means is, say the ratio of male to female in the sample was 50:50 but in the borough population, the actual ratio is 49:51, the responses would be adjusted slightly to reflect this.  If the response to a particular question had no difference between males and females, then the adjustment wouldn't change anything.This would also be done for the other parameters mentioned such as age, ethnicity etc.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

Agree Richard.

Janice Evans ● 228d

"The point of pigeon chess is you cannot argue with stupid and you certainly can’t explain to stupid why they are stupid."So your large egg-head full of scrambled egg is actually an oversized pigeon egg, Humpty ?You should have worn your helmet !

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

Which leads me on to ask are the weighted figures roughly the same as the ones presented by the OP.?Sorry, I realise that was the wrong question. It should be, please provide the weighted figures.

Adrian Irving ● 228d

Ah Michael the misogynist crawls out from under his rock. I rarely agree with Vanessa on political matters but her posts are usually entertaining and she has every right to put her views across - and they are not all whines, moans, complaints and whinges. Just like Michael finding an outlet for his misogyny here as well. Whatever you think about our local councillors, they are people who have given up their time to try and serve the community, and in return they pick up a lot of flack on social media.

Richard Greenhough ● 228d

Thank you Michael.Just goes to show you have to question everything.Which leads me on to ask are the weighted figures roughly the same as the ones presented by the OP.?

Adrian Irving ● 228d

You haven't read the survey report Adrian.It says "The final data has been weighted by ward, age, gender and ethnicity using 2021 Census population data. Confidence level +/-2.95 at the borough level."The survey refers to the unweighted sample size which is the number of people interviewed but then weighting is applied to adjust the responses based upon the differences in the sample interviewed and the borough population as a whole.The confidence level means the results are +/- 2.95%.There is well established maths to calculate the confidence level for a particular sample size from a particular size of population. Clearly a larger sample size will reduce the confidence level to less than +/- 2.95 but that will also add cost and it depends on the level of confidence needed and for this type of survey, plus and minus a few percentage points is fine.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

What astounds me how some of the people who post here are so infantile and downright rude, if you cannot make your point without insulting people then it really just shows the paucity  of your view. What are these people so afraid of? Can they not have a civilised and coherent debate? Some of us care deeply about the borough we live in and we are entitled to hold the elected representatives to account, and at times they really are found wanting. A council that makes it more difficult for people to participate in consultations  has questions to answer, to get a true picture things need to be as open and accessible to as many people as possible, this survey as far as I can see should be treated with a deal of scepticism.

Vanessa Smith ● 228d

What is different between Weighted and unweighted?I wasn't sure so I looked it up."Weighted base sizeTo ensure that the sample used is as closely representative of the full population as possible YouGov "weights" each respondent to make up for a slight discrepancy between our panel and general population. These weights are calculated such that respondents belonging to an under-represented demographic are weighted higher than respondents belonging to an over-represented demographic, and so that the weighted proportions for the demographic variables in the dataset the weighting targets.  Unweighted base sizeThe unweighted base is the number of people who were asked a specific question.The survey under discussion is uweighted. This equates to roughly zero point three percent of the population of Hounslow.I am just stating fact and not interested in entering any argument. As it happens I live in a LTN and generally speaking they are a good idea if used and implemented fairly and intelligently.Maybe another survey should be carried out to ask if this was the case as far as Hounslow were concerned.

Adrian Irving ● 228d

Thanks for being so utterly predictable Boggy.

N V Brooks ● 228d

Ah Nige the racist crawls out from under his rock.“Valued forum contributor” ? Vanessa Smith has got to be one of the most miserable posters on this forum. Nothing but whines, moans, complaints, whinges. They say misery loves company so there musn’t be enough company for Vanessa in Isleworth  that she spreads  her misery to Chiswick.Just like Nige finding an outlet for his racism here as well.A number of the current set of councillors are hardly the sharpest tools in the boxes so no surprise this applies to former councillors as well.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

The Village Idiot and his boy wonder sidekick Boggy insulting a valued forum contributor and former councillor. Love it when they are so woefully out of their depth.Cue posts about 'Ealing, ageism and racists' from the intellectually challenged idiot and the boy blunder.

N V Brooks ● 228d

What was the point submitting a FOI asking how many people took place in the survey when the survey documents on the council website give the number of people that took place in the survey?  The graphic on the first post of this thread gives the number of people.Were you too lazy to read the information the council published or do you just like wasting council staff time with FOIs?You also clearly don't understand how surveys actually work by sampling a representative cross section of the people in the borough in terms of income, location, ethnicity, age and gender.  This was all explained in the survey documentation on the council website,Your "survey open to everyone" approach just means the people responding are a self-selecting group of people who aren't representative of the borough as a whole, mainly old people who like whinging, moaning and complaining,  just like you.

Michael Robinson ● 228d

The numbers are in the publically available report and in my screenshot from the report on the opening post FFS. The MEL research logo is all over it too. You’ve revealed nothing that anybody who can read already knew. Look at the OP again and actually look at the slide. Read all of it. The point of pigeon chess is you cannot argue with stupid and you certainly can’t explain to stupid why they are stupid.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

Are you calling me a liar? I can assure you I submitted an FOI this morning Ref no. FIR 011496 and received the response this afternoon from Carol Clapperton in the council's 'engage' team. Survey carried out by MEL research, the selection process will be reported to the cabinet on July 16. Then you can apologise. It was not an enquiry because of the LTN part - merely because I wanted to know what the actual numbers were rather than percentages which I think are deliberatley misleading.

Vanessa Smith ● 228d

Yes but Vanessa would like you to believe that she submittted a FoI, received the fastest response time in history, and single handedly revealed the hidden facts that are published in the survey and clearly visible in my screenshot. And then they all queue up to voluntarily confess that they do not understand polls or surveys and their sampling techniques. Next they’ll be trying to find out if the company is MRS approved. Perhaps they could submit a FOI to find out instead of reading the survey report …It’s the endgame and the anti-LTN movement is a clown show.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

So it laughs at itself over and over again

Steve Taylor ● 228d

The sample size of 1101 was shown in the original picture that was posted

Andrew Jones ● 228d

No,the responce means give me an hour to think of something

Julian Pavey ● 228d

No people happily display their ignorance on the internet and I watch them and laugh at them. Again. And again.

Paul Campbell ● 228d

People dissect nonsense survey, lets respond with childish names.

Mark Talbot ● 228d

I see that we’ve arrived at the pigeon chess stage already. Welcome to the pigeons and good luck with your game

Paul Campbell ● 228d

That sentiment is so true, and probably applies to many other surveys as well.

Denis Ian Fox ● 228d

"a company was employed to speak to 1,101 residents" In the whole of hounslow 😁✔️

Julian Pavey ● 229d

I submitted an FOI to ask just how many actual people took part in this 'survey' as percentages mean nothing if you don't know where you are starting from. The answer is, a company was employed to speak to 1,101 residents. Well, the population figure for Hounslow as of 2018 was 270,782 and I suspect it has increased since then, rather puts those percentages in a different light. How can you really gauge how people feel or think unless you have a free, easy to access survey open to everyone? This is not worth the paper it was written on.

Vanessa Smith ● 229d

or 3 in 4 Hounslow residents living in LTNs support LTNs

Steve Taylor ● 229d

"You appear to have missed a very important word from your thread title…."SURVEYED?

Adrian Irving ● 229d

Yes it’s pretty conclusive around the country that most people (by far) don’t support LTNs.  The few people who support them, live in them but many who live in them also don’t support them.

Steve Taylor ● 229d

You appear to have missed a very important word from your thread title….

Robert Dawbarn ● 229d

As usual prove Paul wrong so he changes tact, goes off at a tangent and rolls out the same narcissist drivel. Good to see you are reading and listening though Paul otherwise you wouldn’t be responding now would you? "Tend to agree" which accounted for approx half the respondents does not equal "like" but who cares what it actually says when you can interpret it through your rose tinted echo chamber on other blockable platforms.Whatever toads have to do with this I suppose only a child's brain would understand so you've lost me there.Glad you're impressed, very nice to hear. In actual fact once again you're wrong and his outburst totally surprised me given his usual mild and very polite demeanour - you obviously have that effect Paul well done.Of course in your usual echo chamber of pals on other platforms nobody listens because you and your pals block anyone with a differing view and scuttle off to your tunnel vision world.Anyway got to dash, off for a burn up to the Midlands now, #Petrolhead, have a nice day, bye for now.

Mark Talbot ● 229d

Yes the 75% of people surveyed probably only said they liked safer quieter residential side streets and clean air and not having thousands of Mr Toady Talbots driving past their houses every day because they are so scared of me. I’m impressed you have a long standing friend though. Well done. But unsurprised that they lack the vocabulary and the decorum to express their feelings and the intelligence to understand that the counts of traffic on the A316 are made by cameras! The world is going to be so much better with nobody listening to Talbot and friends.

Paul Campbell ● 229d

Nope, wrong again Paul as about the only day I ever need to go out that way is on a Sunday when I can simply drive through your private estate that day as you know, albeit granted not very often. In fact the sports exhaust sounded great on Sunday late afternoon burning through your private estate's deserted roads. Fact is I have a long standing friend who lives on the A316 and when your name was mentioned to him simply responded with a rather crude word 4 letter word to describe you. The difference is many such people don't have the inclination to stand up to a bully boy like you and suffer in silence with all the displaced traffic travelling so slowly there're not counted other than maybe as parked cars.Keep up with your narcissist vitriol as unlike them I'm not one to be bullied.

Mark Talbot ● 229d

You know what that sound is Mark? It’s the sound of nobody believing that somebody like you cares for a second about people living on the A4 or any other A road unless you can use their lives to promote your petty and selfish interest in driving wherever you like from the privilege of your house on a quiet residential street in London’s first garden suburb. Because otherwise you’d actually acknowledge that their lives have also been improved by the reduction in traffic they have experienced on their roads and have to admit what really bothers you. Sitting at the lights at the Hogarth Roundabout where you belong.Anyway now you can see how unrepresentative your are of the people who live in this Borough. Thank goodness for society.

Paul Campbell ● 229d

"I guess it would have been a better survey if Joanna Biddolph had got drivers from Surrey waiting in the queue at Hogarth Roundabout to wind down their windows to ask them if they would favour removing LTNs so they could save a few minutes on their journey through Chiswick."Or ask the people that actually live on the A316, A4 and other peripheral roads along with the 3 schools off them. Good to see the narcissism back in full force.

Mark Talbot ● 229d

“ most people that people would think it a good idea that traffic is redirected away from residential areas,”Especially when those people live in LTNs !!

Steve Taylor ● 229d

Just in case you didn't read it on the massive screenshot I provided, the interviewers gave this context to the people they surveyed:"The schemes often involve installing barriers, bollards, planters and road signs to stop vehicles using certain routes, usually directing them to main roads. This can sometimes increase journey times for some drivers, and drivers can be fined if they ignore the rules".That is a pretty good and honest summary. I guess it would have been a better survey if Joanna Biddolph had got drivers from Surrey waiting in the queue at Hogarth Roundabout to wind down their windows to ask them if they would favour removing LTNs so they could save a few minutes on their journey through Chiswick.

Paul Campbell ● 230d

In the same survey 74% of people thought Hounslow Council was doing a good job. Like many of these exercises, the context of the question is all important. That said, I don't dispute for one second that most people that people would think it a good idea that traffic is redirected away from residential areas, its just that the issue is much more complex than it initially appears.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 230d

§ 1,101 face-to-face interviews at residential addresses werecompleted between 15th January 2024–18th February 2024.§ In each ward, Census Output Areas (COAs) were ranked bythe Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). COAs were thenselected at random as sampling points.§ The number of sampling points selected was proportional tothe interviewing target for each ward. All addresses for eachCOA sampling point were made available to interviewers,with a target of 10 interviews set per sampling point.§ Ward level quotas were set by age and gender to ensurethat the sample reflected the characteristics of theborough’s population.§ The final data has been weighted by ward, age, gender andethnicity using 2021 Census population data.§ Confidence level +/-2.95 at the borough level.

Michael Robinson ● 230d

So only residents who live in LTNs responded to the survey.

Steve Taylor ● 230d

That definition doesn't reflect what the Manual for Streets 'considers' a residential street to be.The following link may be of interest:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e0035ed915d74e6223743/pdfmanforstreets.pdfI've never come across the manual before today but scanning through it I spotted the following paragraph in the preface:For too long the focus has been on themovement function of residential streets. Theresult has often been places that are dominatedby motor vehicles to the extent that they fail tomake a positive contribution to the quality oflife. MfS demonstrates the benefits that flowfrom good design and assigns a higher priority topedestrians and cyclists, setting out an approachto residential streets that recognises their role increating places that work for all members of thecommunity. MfS refocuses on the place functionof residential streets, giving clear guidance onhow to achieve well-designed streets and spacesthat serve the community in a range of ways.  Scanning further through it, it looks as if something like Burlington Lane is more akin to a High Street, rather than a residential street (even though clearly plenty of people reside there).

Andrew Jones ● 230d

There is no helping people who can't understand the difference between an A road and an unclassified residential side street. They are effectively removing themselves from any sensible discussion on how we best use urban space for the benefit of people. The ones who argue that reduced traffic volumes on boundary roads are indicators of a worsening traffic problem are just asking to be ridiculed. The Council will discuss the public's very favourable views on LTNs next week and I expect that will set the scene for more sensible interventions over the next few years to put through traffic back where it belongs.

Paul Campbell ● 230d

Surely the definition of a residential road is a road where people reside?Falling traffic counts do not necessarily mean reduced congestion, in fact they can be an indication of the opposite due to vehicles being redirected to other routes when traffic is moving slowly or stopped which seems to be increasingly common on the A316 between Hogarth Roundabout and Edensor Road. I've just checked the traffic situation now and there are queues northbound back to Edensor Road which shouldn't really be happening mid-morning.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 230d

The automated traffic counters on the A316 don't care what you think Jeremy.2023 average daily counts (31.2k) are less than before the Grove Park LTN and closure of Hammersmith Bridge (2018: 34.8k) and way less than the 00s (2002: 42.4k)If anyone searches back on this forum before 2018, will they find posts from you expressing your concern about the level of traffic along the A316? Somehow I doubt it.

Michael Robinson ● 230d

I can help you with your problem of definition Jeremy.  Burlington Lane is an A road and all of the unclassified roads to the east of it are LTNs as well.

Paul Campbell ● 230d

I'm surprised that 100% of people don't believe that traffic should be diverted away from residential areas but the problem here is one of definition. More people live on the section of Burlington Lane, which is seeing more congestion due to diversions from the Grove Park LTN, than in the grand houses on Staveley Road.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 230d

Chexit will be the only way to keep Chiswick in the 1980s.

Paul Campbell ● 230d

Such a diverse borough, Hounslow. I can see Chiswick trying for Independence under this new government.

Mark Frost ● 230d