Earl Aelfheah

My kids saw the aftermath of another car crash on the South circular this morning. Can’t even find a report of it online. These incidents are so commonplace.

I associate limos with hen parties more than I do celebrities

Between Herne Hill and North Dulwich gives you good options for transport. You have the line into London Bridge, trains to Victoria and the Thameslink into City Thameslink. Plus it's not too far from Brixton tube.

They have a number plate under the qr code, so you can report any badly parked bikes.

This. Personally, I've always felt safe in London. Probably famous last words and I'll get mugged later.

And this one seems to pour scorn on one of the key strategic objectives of LTNs does it not? And there you go. You're discounting a huge body of high quality research, in order to give greater weight to a single, incomplete study. Wood, trees. You've previously described Professor Aldred as lacking any credibility (apparently that view is flexible depending on the conclusions of her research?). You do see the confirmation bias here right?

Yes, of course. It was incomplete, unpublished research, that hasn't been peer reviewed. It's lead author is someone who those pointing to the article have repeatedly rubbished in the past (unfairly in my opinion, but anyone want to be consistent?). The Times have published huge numbers of exclusively anti-LTN articles such as this, as they know they get click through. But this is a weak article. There is a large body of high quality research evidence regarding LTNs. It's a bit of a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

A study that was curtailed due to funding being withdrawn two years before it was finished (according to TfL). It was directed by Rockets’ favourite researcher, professor Rachel Aldred. I’m sure this incomplete, non published research, which hasn’t been peer reviewed and only reported as showing ‘no reduction in car use’ by the Times (Google ‘the times LTN’ if you want to understand their editorial stance) will be trumpeted as decisive, by those who have previously disparaged aldred. But there you go.

This is ridiculous. Average earnings have risen since 2010. If I say that it's linked to the filter, can we then get into a longwinded debate about earnings data in the transport section? Rockets has made wild and unevidenced claims. He's cherry picked data and still managed to misrepresent it. He's being massively dishonest. If he wants to talk about crime in general, then do it on a crime thread. This one is about the square.

You have provided no evidence of your claim that the filter on Calton avenue increased crime, road danger, or pollution. It’s not true. Like everyone I have concerns about crime. Unlike you, however, I'm not trying to stoke fears, or spread clearly false information, to service an obsessive grievance about a 5 year old road layout change. It's dishonest and it's shameful.

This isn't true. You repeatedly forget that there is a record of everything you've said. You originally made general claims about a filter causing crime, with no basis at all. Just as you did concerning pollution and pedestrian injuries. Only after being pointed to the data showing that crime has actually reduced since 2021, did you trawl through that data, ignoring the vast majority of it, trying to find any category you might use to try and justify your original, baseless claims. You're now trying to post rationalise why you've cherry picked just three categories, talking about a link with 'quiet streets'... but its nonsense. And you didn't reach your conclusions from the data, your conclusions proceeded you even looking at any data. Even with these transparently dishonest and desperate tactics, you're still just highlighting data that proves your wrong. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery in Dulwich, way above current levels and the London average. Since the filter was introduced it has fallen back in line with background trends. But as usual, you just ignore the facts and just double down on your misrepresentations.

@ianr - Rockets made general and entirely baseless claims about a filter causing crime, originally with no data. Since being challenged, and pointed to the data showing that crime has actually reduced since 2021, he has trawled through it, looking for anything he might cherry pick, to try and justify the baseless claims he'd already made. He's discarded 90% of the data, and mis-interpreted, or deliberately misrepresented the other 10%. There is little point in trying to understand how he has reached his conclusions from the data, because the conclusions proceeded him even looking at any data. You're just ignoring the vast majority of recorded crime categories? Why are you not claiming that 'all crime' has fallen as a result of the filter, but that rising 'theft from the person' has? What about burglary (one of your cherry picked categories), which has significantly fallen? Even if you just talk about correlation for 'theft from the person', how can you possibly discount the background trend (the red line below): The obvious correlation is not between a filter in Dulwich and more theft from the person, it's between rising crime in this category across London (the top line) and a (much slower) rise locally (the bottom line). It's so nakedly dishonest.

Whether or not there have been rises in crime in the last few months is not remotely relevant to your claim about a road filter introduced 5 years ago, causing more crime. There is not even a correlation between crime rates and the introduction of the filter, let alone any evidence of causation (as far as there might be said to be a correlation, across all crime the association is mainly positive). It's objectively dishonest.

I have addressed those categories you've cherry picked. Robbery has fallen dramatically, other theft has risen slightly, and theft against the person has risen, but way slower than the London average. Nearly all other crime categories and the 'all crime' category (which is an average across everything) have fallen. You've gone through the data (data you didn't actually have before making your initial, false claim), looking for anything that might be said to have risen, in an attempt to justify your made up nonsense. Apparently back ground trends are irrelevant. Falling crime across the vast majority of categories including 'all crime' is irrelevant, and correlation equals causation (but only in so far as it's convenient to making a spurious argument)? It's unbelievably, nakedly dishonest. I think it's perfectly clear that he's being dishonest. I don't make that claim lightly. But he's make a false claim with no data, and then when presented with the data, disregarded 90% of it, cherry picking three categories to try and prove something he's already stated as true. That is not remotely honest. Objectively. Even with those truly desperate tactics, he's still got it wrong. Robbery has fallen significantly from the years leading up to the filter being introduced. ...also see false claims about pollution and pedestrian injuries. He's deliberately trying to mislead in pursuit of a pathological, obsessive sense of grievance over a road layout change and some landscaping. It's very sad. I'm bored of having to correct this stuff, but it does potentially cause harm, spreading a false sense of fear and the perception that Dulwich and the square specifically as a dangerous area to be avoided.

'all crime' is a category (an average of all categories). And yes, it fell. If you actually had entered into some analysis of the stats in anything like good faith, you'd know this. Those graphs you've posted - the first shows robbery between 2015 and 2018 rising against (and above) the London average. From 2019 onward it dropped back dramatically, falling in line with background trends. This does not show robbery increasing after the implementation of the filter. It shows the opposite. You either don't understand what you're sharing, or you're deliberately trying to mislead. Other theft has barely moved, apart from a one off spike in 2022. And theft from the person has increased a little, but at a much slower rate than the London average. None of these show what you claim. There is no evidence of even a correlation, let alone any causation, and as stated already, you've completely cherry picked from the data provided (you had none yourself before making sweeping claims about general crime), to try and prove something you wanted it to show. It's completely dishonest.

Between 2020 and 2024 (for SE21 7DE), all crime fell Antisocial behaviour fell Burglary fell Criminal damage and arson fell Vehicle crime fell Violence and sexual offences fell Bicycle theft fell Drugs crime fell Of course, none of this can be said to be the result of the filter; It’s correlation not causation. But explain why: You’ve ignored all crime as well as most individual crime categories, and cherry picked the one (basically mobile phone theft) that has increased? Why you dismiss the steep changes in mobile phone theft across the whole of London taking place over the same period You've inferred that the cause of mobile phone theft in Dulwich Village (and presumably Dulwich village alone) is caused by a road filter on Calton Avenue... How do you explain the rises in mobile phone theft outside of Dulwich, if the cause is a road filter? The truth is, that you originally made generalised claims about rising crime, not even attempting to look at any crime data. You picked out that one crime category of (effectively) mobile phone theft having been directed to the data and having searched it for anything that might show an increase in any form of crime, whilst ignoring all others. It's your classic and repeated pattern of confirmation bias. It’s very clear that you are not interested in what's actually going on, just in tyring to ‘prove’ that the filter has caused a problem, where there is no evidence of it at all. Those graphs don't remotely back up your claims as you well know. Of course, you don’t care whether it’s true, or whether it causes distress, or anxiety to people living locally. You are just looking to justify your obsessive grievance over a 5 year old change to a road layout and some landscaping of a pedestrian area.

How on earth do you think those charts show the filter on Calton Avenue has increased crime? Are you actually serious? Absolutely embarrassing You’re disputing the local air quality monitoring data?

From what I can tell, he hasn't even written to them. How is he holding them to account exactly? I mean 'well done' on posting how you're unhappy on an internet forum, but not sure that's achieving quite as much as you think.

Rockets has made several false and misleading claims concerning the road filter on Calton Avenue. On crime: Since the filter was introduced ‘all crime’ has fallen. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery in Dulwich, way above current levels and the London average. Since the filter was introduced it has fallen back in line with background trends. The data on violent crime is even more stark - falling in absolute terms and massively against background trends. Both robbery and violent crime are lower now than ‘pre-filter’. 'Theft from the person' has trended down significantly against the London average since 2021. In short, whatever crimes may be currently seeing an uptick across Dulwich and London generally, there is no evidence at all of even a correlation between them and the introduction of the filter (let alone the laughable leap Rockets is making to some sort of causation). On pedestrian safety and road danger: Crash data shows that collisions and injuries are down around the junction. Not at all surprising as heavy, fast moving vehicles have been removed. On pollution: Road side pollution monitoring across the Dulwich area has shown massive and sustained decreases in pollution (specifically NO2). There is no evidence showing that the filter has had any of the negative consequences Rockets claims. What's worse is that I don't suppose he actually believes that the filter has made crime worse, or increased road danger, or increased pollution.

I don't understand that first Mate. You can do both. I can only assume you're not actually looking for an answer.

He has every right to complain. Perhaps his question is purely rhetorical. If he actually wants an answer however, asking the question to the councillor directly is probably going to be more fruitful. You can of course do both.

LTN and CPZ are not the same things. Roads and transport is not a football match, with 'sides'. I have no view on the CPZ, and if what you've said is correct, then it sounds like the council may not have acted properly. Suggesting that you raising your concerns with your local councillor however, is not saying 'nothing to see', it's simply suggesting the most practical course of action. It depends if you want to actually resolve something, or just complain about something I guess.

@first mate I can't actually believe you're defending someone driving a car on, or over the pavement, considering your multiple posts raging against this where it applies to people on push bikes. You think it's OK to hit objects on the pavement in a car, but not on a bicycle? What are you talking about?

I have a question for a local councillor. Anyone got any thoughts on how I get an answer? Please don't suggest asking them. 🫠

You've thrown so much unsubstantiated nonsense at the wall, you can't even keep track of it yourself