All Activity

Having enjoyed a day with Sayce HolmesLewis, I understand what you’re saying. I appreciate your courage responding on here.

What on earth? Why are you trying to pin this on Brazilians? I think you should remove that, unless you have definitive proof that every incident of this is being done by Brazilians. I am pretty sure you shouldn't be making those type of prejudiced stereotyping statements. The rest of your note seems like pretty sound advice.

Nope. You immediately dismissed it as ‘propaganda and statistical jiggery pokery’ only to later admit that you hadn’t read it. I think it’s perfectly clear why. I’m pointing out how you have repeatedly made unevidenced and easily disproven claims. Entirely false claims. Here we go, it’s a ‘pro-LTN lobby’ spreading ‘propaganda’, rather than individuals challenging unevidenced claims and pointing to data and research that proves them to be false. Tin foil hat nonsense. 🤣🤣🤣 Yeah, if your idea of data is ‘my hair has got greyer since they put in a road filter 5 years ago. This proves LTNs cause aging.’ You’ve produced no data at all, to back up claims about supposed increases in pollution, reductions in pedestrian safety, or increased crime linked to a road filter. None. Meanwhile you have ignored or dismissed all the data that shows the exact opposite.

It’s estimated to be over 9% in SE London https://www.moneyexpert.com/news/east-london-highest-percentage-uninsured-cars-capital/#:~:text=According to research conducted by,on the roads is alarming.

@exdulwicher in the words of MC Hammer...back up. In the words of Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast: No!...No! No! No! No! No! No! And in the words of Public Enemy: Don't Believe the Hype Let me clear up some less than accurate nonsense someone has been trying to pin on me. I did not denigrate a report without actually reading it. I read the Peter Walker media articles from 2025 and 2021, read the abstract of the 2025 report and then posed some perfectly reasonable questions (that no-one was, funnily enoigh capable or prepared to answer). Now, would those answers have allowed me to denegrate the report? Probably. And I very much suspect that's why no-one answered it. But to suggest what you have is utter nonsense and deliberate spin from a cohort of yours. Also I told people what a PCSO had told me when they knocked on my door, not that they were knocking on the doors saying that there was a spike in crime because a junctiom was closed 5 years ago. Please, try to get your facts right. There are those on here who go out of their way to deliberately skew what people like me say and it looks like folks like you are falling for it. Come on, surely some of you are better than that, just look at the childish nonsense some of us have to put up with? As I was saying..why on earth is Earl bringing up pollution now? A clear attempt to distract. Honestly the attempts to bully people into submission is getting ridiculous. Its funny that @dulvileres lambasts those of us who have dared present an alternative view to the pro-LTN lobby propaganda. I think of the likes of @heartblock and @legalalien who used to also try to fight the nonsense but we're seemingly bludgeoned out of the debate. What I love is that some of you get so irate and agitated when someone challenges the nonsense. There is such a pattern: someone challenges your position, you denegrate them, call them names, a lot of others from the pro-LTN lobby pile on and then you try to change the subject when your position is shown to be wrong. Some of you have been doing it for 5 years! 😉 Hang on a minute I have a very good track record of backing my points up with data. In fact I have often used data to prove the nonsense some of your cohort are spouting. I shared robust data (with links) on crime levels in Dulwich and then people retort that there is this report and that report from 72 London LTNs and yet when I ask for links they dont reply. Maybe it is not me who is making things up...or maybe all of these reports are behind a paywall and people subscribe and dont want to share them because they are terrified of IP infringement.......

Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.

I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen, or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?

This is all such obvious nonsense. If Rockets had any evidence that the traffic filter had increased pollution, increased road danger for pedestrians, or that crime had increased as a result of the filter, he would obviously produce it. It’s very clear that these claims are simply made up. It’s really not. You just have to compare crime rates before and after implementation alongside a control area, and take account of background changes in crime rates over the period. It’s the kind of study that has been done across a large number of LTNs (72 of them), and which found that they reduce crime. Rockets of course hasn’t produced any evidence, and hasn’t read the research that has been undertaken. And if he did, even you know that he would conclude it was methodology flawed, regardless of what it says.

Unless you're 5 years old or have been living in a cave for several decades you can't be for real. I don't believe that you're genuinely confused by this, no one who has access to newspapers, the tv news, the internet would ask this. Either you're an infant, or have recently woken up from a coma after decades, or you're a supercilious tw*t

I no longer feel safe walking in ED on two feet with health issues….sad really but that is the reality - safer riding a bike around- doubt it - might be faster but at the end of the day, be it walking or cycling, if one shouted as in need, say 11 ish - how many people would open their door and help? We are talking 2025…..

So it wasn't recent then....................................

Urging!?

Nothing like a spot of exaggeration to plump up a rebuttal. What is much more likely is the police went round urging residents to take care, noting that there seems to have been a rise in certain types of crime in the area and- in the course of a doorstep chat the LTN as a potential factor may also have been mentioned. I see nothing unusual or far-fetched about that? As you say, proving the LTN is a contributing factor (or the obverse) is well nigh impossible, but would not stop people making a potential link, whether residents or police. Just stop drinking Tango in Vanity Square then!

It's like a little slice of Gotham City down there, honestly, pal. I was robbed twice at knifepoint and once at gunpoint, three happy slappers happy slapped me, and at one stage there were four street urchins trying to steal my pocket watch. And all because of the LTN!

A pretty awful incident. Thankfully from my time in London fairly rare. There was a time, particularly in North London in the 00s when moped gangs would come up behind cyclists and grab their bags. There were also scare stories about riders being pushed off at the top of the hill and the bike grabbed, or cyclists being pushed into a canal such as the Grand Union. I think these were very exaggerated. In recent times, cyclists, in particularly women, have been mugged, on cycle routes when other riders are not around, such as Deptford/Millwall https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm27x5klxxlo But I expect that crimes involving threats/violence by criminals against cyclists are less likely than in other areas of life. Mobile phone theft being one of the obvious examples. I was told many years ago following a burglary that criminals would rather not have any contact with their victims, and bike theft would sound to be less risky to them by stealing locked up bikes (far too common) rather than attacking the rider. The spate of thefts from builders vans in broad daylight knocks this a little on the head, as the criminals are often confronted. @Rockets as a regular cyclist in the past did you experience threats etc? My worse experiences were being knocked off by dangerous drivers, once being left for dead in a hit and run, and road rage where drivers chased me or threatened me after they had passed to close, turned across me etc. You learn from this and do your best to avoid such conflict.

A repeat of my views from earlier discussions, based on four people I know/know of who have had it happen to them - all women, but not all with young children which is often the MO. This has also happened in Lewisham - I've tried to get Safer Neighbourhood Teams to coordinate (thanks to others on this Forum) The insurance details and the name of the rider will be false. It sounds like the same or similar people, most likely Brazillian due to the false names adopted. May be one, or a gang. Newish bikes, little obvious damage following the crash, snood covering face, mobile in hand recording. If challenged, particularly if you have a witness, then the other party will say words to the effect that they don't speak English. Please try to 999 straight away - report that someone has crashed into you on purpose, and you feel threatened (even more so if you have young kids with you). If there are any bystanders, even if they are not witnesses, you may wish to ask them for support - noting that the scammers pick on quiet roads, quiet times of the day and the like Also report as dangerous riding - the 999 call should be to report the scam and then on-line dangerous riding. By law you only have to give your name, address and registration to the other party. But I expect giving your number is less intimidating. Do not give a copy of your license or your insurance. By law you can actually report your details to the police rather than the other party https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/if-youre-in-an-accident "You must report the accident to the police within 24 hours if you do not give your details at the time of the accident." If/when you get the calls coming in, and this could be fairly soon after, I'd not answer and but check the number. You will find that it is one or more of those 'no win no fee' ambulance chasers with many reporting that they are supporting the scammer. You will not hear from the insurers as they are using false details. If and when you do pick up a call from one an ambulance chasers tell them you are only dealing with the other party's insurers, don't call again and you will block their number. You may not wish to inform your insurer straight away. Government advice (above) is that you "You must also report the accident to your insurance company, even if you’re not planning to make a claim." But there is no timing on this. Some insurers roll over and pay up which is what the scammer wants (or you to pay them off with cash yourself as you don't want to risk your NCB); some insurers seem to be more aware that this is a scam and will dig in. I am not a police officer, judge, solicitor, CPS, insurer, etc, this is just from knowledge where one or more of the scammers quickly gave up. You should eventually get a letter from the police saying that the other party is untraceable/uninsured. They probably wont take it any further. Hopefully by this point you will hear no more from the other party, and there is therefore no basis for any personal injury claim against you. I understand that this is a difficult and intimidating matter, it helps of course if you have witnesses and a friend or partner to handle the follow up hassle.

Whilst I am not sure if this is appropriate to this case, I know that often people from minority groups don't feel safe with the police and there have been many incidents where people from minority groups have been mistreated, beaten etc, just for being.

Sorry, I really don't mean to be insensitive, but why would someone run from police?