Low Traffic “…but just not like this”. Why Councils are choosing LTNs and how to tell real evidence from misinformation

We recently wrote a blogpost addressing those who oppose low traffic neighbourhoods from the perspective of wanting to ‘open our roads’ to prioritise the convenience and freedom to drive.  But another group of opponents are more likely to say they support lower traffic in principle ‘...but just not like this’.  Evidence should matter to this group, because if you genuinely believe in reducing traffic harms, then presumably you support means that work over those that don’t.

Of course there is a reason Councils are putting in LTNs to reduce traffic and pollution, rather than opening up roads:  The evidence of significant benefits is now clear and getting clearer with every passing year.  So why does this topic still seem so contentious? 

​
Accepting evidence is tied to beliefs and values

One reason is people struggle to feel normal behaviour (like driving to get around) is a problem, and it is difficult to accept any evidence that contradicts our values and preconceptions. 

It is understandable to want lower traffic in theory without downsides in practice, and if you believe LTNs are unfair, cause more pollution, or just move traffic around, then you are much less likely to accept evidence which shows these claims are untrue, no matter how much effort and expertise has gone into producing it.

Image: Jono Hey https://sketchplanations.com

​Denial and misinformation 

Another problem is the industry of active denial and misinformation that has developed around different anti-LTN movements.  
​
This commonly includes:

• Cherry picking data out of context 
• Using limitations to attack legitimacy (the idea that every positive study is ‘flawed’) 
• Saying evidence is 'discredited' simply because of who produced it (called ‘Ad hominem attacks’)
• Misleading claims (such as misrepresenting studies or outcomes or presenting opinions and concerns as facts)

Keep an eye out for anti-LTN individuals, journalists and groups using these tactics, and you will soon start to see them everywhere.

​
What is weak evidence?

So how can you tell what is valid from what isn’t? It helps to start by thinking about what evidence is, and how to judge its worth. Not all evidence is equal!

At the lowest end of value are anecdotes, or people’s stories as to how they have been affected by a change.  

Anecdotal evidence can be very useful to understand possible effects, or how some people feel, but the fact some people may be really angry or happy about something is not an indicator of the strength of an argument.  

Sometimes politicians call anecdocal evidence 'lived experience'.  It is common to hear that decision makers only need listen better to people's lived experience, and act accordingly, and better decisions would be made.  But this ignores complex realities.

Whose lived experience? Are these experiences representative? Do selected perceptions match reality?  Unfortunately this anecdotal evidence, no matter how strongly expressed, tells us very little about true vs perceived impacts, how extensive a problem or benefit is, how to balance competing priorities, or how a policy impacts at a population level.

This is not about disbelieving people, everyone's experience and perception has validity, but about finding ways of objectively weighing up competing and often contradictory perceptions, views and stories. 

Related weak evidence sources are articles in the press and self-published campaigns and websites (…yes even ours! Don’t just take our word for it, always read the original sources). 

Press articles and campaign groups often like to tell an engaging story, or quote opinions as facts with little regard for scientific accuracy. 


How the press monetises misinformation and anger
​
The unspoken aim of many commercial press stories is to act as ‘rage-bait’ which intentionally sows division and enrages both sides of a debate to increase clicks, social media shares, engagement and advertising revenues. 

Press ‘rage-bait’ and opinion pieces can use anecdotal quotes or fears falsely presented as facts, outrageous claims based on dodgy speculative data, or make inaccurate or inflammatory statements with little or no scientific basis.

​Anecdotes and press articles can be highly persuasive, and can seem very convincing, but these are not valid sources of evidence!
 

Real evidence

Above these in the hierarchy of value are data and evaluation reports from institutions like Councils or Transport Authorities. Their data will have been collected and compiled by people with expertise and is more likely to accurately represent impacts. However, it may be snapshots in time, limited in scope or analysis, and is not ‘peer-reviewed’ by other experts.
​
To weigh up population level impacts to decide whether a policy is a good one, ideally you need more rigorous analysis and scientific studies which look at a lot of data across wider areas to be able to judge impacts. This type of evidence is the top of the hierarchy of value and helps to support policy decisions. 

It is increasingly strong evidence from these types of scientific studies that have encouraged Councils to install LTNs.  

It isn't a conspiracy; they don't hate drivers, they see and take impacts seriously. They're acting rationally to reduce real harms and inequalities.

​What about critiques of the published evidence that say it is all ‘flawed’?

It is relatively easy to criticise and find fault with any real-world study as they are, by nature, imperfect.  The real world is complicated, and traffic is influenced by many factors.

​Studies are usually open about uncertainties and limitations.  Some journalists and campaigners have made a name for themselves presenting every limitation or uncertainty as a ‘gotcha’ moment that disproves the whole study.

Uncertainties or limitations must be considered but they don’t in themselves disprove conclusions. It is also important to look at the weight of evidence and not just one source. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

There are dozens of detailed scientific studies that support myriad benefits of LTNs and few if any that come to opposing conclusions.  It is just not credible that these are all so ‘flawed’ or ‘biased’ as to be discounted whilst unqualified journalists with an axe to grind somehow know better.

Groups which attack every positive study as ‘flawed’ are not open to accepting findings which challenge their values and beliefs.
 
​
Changing minds

So, if you’re confronted by people arguing the facts of LTNs, or groups putting out ‘factsheets’ without convincing references, ask them for their receipts!  What is the real evidence behind their views?

If the answer is only a context-free screenshot of some traffic data, a link to a press article, a campaign video, or individual stories, then things are unlikely to be as they claim.

Decisions around managing traffic are politically difficult and have complicated benefits and impacts.  At Low Traffic Hackney we want politicians and decision makers to be guided by the best available evidence, so they make decisions with the best possible results. 
​
But maybe advocates for lower traffic and safer streets also need to learn from the tactics of opponents and get better at telling stories too, because history suggests hard evidence is not always enough to change minds.