Earl Aelfheah

The paper explains it's methods and findings, if you're saying that it is flawed, it is for you to say how, not ask others to say how it is not. You do this repeatedly. Make vague or unsubstantiated claims, and then ask others to prove you wrong. Not how it works. Request the full data set. It's available upon request. The 'just asking questions' tactic is cynical and transparent. If you don't know, then you have no reason to insinuate that it's somehow 'wrong'. This suggests you're looking for ways to find a flaw, rather than having identified one. It shows bad faith. If you want to check, do the work, I'm not doing it for you. I'm sure you're far more qualified than the independent experts who have scrutinised it prior to publication. I do not understand your point? You're look across 100+ LTN sites and checking the locations over time against CrashMap? What are you talking about? Perhaps you should submit your analysis to the BMJ 🤣

They looked at recorded injuries and used their location to determine whether they were in or around an LTN. They then used a statistical model to analyse count data and determine whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in the number of injury rates. There was a significant fall in the number of injuries. If you read the whole paper, it is fairly easy to follow, even if you're not an expert in data analysis. It's also been peer reviewed, which means it has been evaluated by other, independent experts in the same field to assess the quality and validity of the research prior to being accepted for publication.

This bit I don’t doubt.

Yes. It’s incoherent. Your objection to the data analysis as far as I can tell, is that it doesn’t sound right to you, and that you don’t understand how they’ve combined collision and injury data with ordinance survey data to study the areas in and around LTNs. What it seems to boil down to is ‘I don’t understand the paper, but I don’t like it’s conclusions’

I don't find it 'shocking' I just hadn't picked up on the fact that you lived 'in the LTN' (not sure what that actually means, as it's not really an LTN, just a traffic filter at one junction). Do you have to drive round now by any chance? That must be a mild inconvenience - the kind of thing that could obsess a man for half a decade I would have thought 😉 Wrath and fury? Are you ok? I'm just trying to verify that the police are telling people that there has been an increase in crime as the result of a traffic filter. As I said, it does not sound like something the police would be telling people, and isn't what the published data on recorded crime shows. SNT Dulwich Village aren't on the forum as far as I'm aware, so tagged their colleagues.

I'm so not interested in this gossip. When you can't engage with the evidence / research, but instead resort to character assassination you've really stopped having anything relevant to say.

You’re still obfuscating. You have suggested before that whilst recorded injuries involving motor vehicles may have reduced as a result of the Dulwich LTN for example, that the area has become more dangerous than it was previously as the result of ‘speeding bikes’, and suggested that the data on injuries involving bicycles isn’t collected (this of course isn’t true). So even in the way you’ve formulated that response, you’re dancing around / being slippery. Do you accept that LTNs have improved safety and reduced injuries as the research concludes? Or do you dispute it? So no interest in the substance of the research? Completely dismissing the independence of the peer review process? The fact that two respected academics have expressed views that you don’t agree with, proves that the research is invalid in and of itself? You must see the problem with that?

So you accept that LTNs have led to a reduction in injuries or you do not? Or you just aren’t willing to say? Yeh, no cynical obfuscation there.

So you live in the LTN? @SNT - Dulwich Hill please can you explain why the police are (allegedly) telling people that the traffic filter on Carton Avenue has led to an increase in crime, and point to your evidence for this please?

So nothing? You have nothing but innuendo? If you want to say something, have the courage to say it, and back it up with some evidence. The truth is, you are well aware that traffic filters reduce injuries. As you said before it’s ’bleeding obvious’. There is nothing in that paper that you can challenge on the substance, so you play the person. It’s so transparently cynical.

@Rockets please no more innuendo, character assassinations, or obfuscation; Is it your assertion that the reduction in recorded injuries is insignificant, or untrue? And what evidence do you offer?

Not really. I imagine if you’re an expert and spend a lot of time studying the impact of LTNs, know the data back to front and see the kind of nonsense / misinformation some anti-LTN campaigners regularly propagate - suggesting they increase pollution, crime, and accidents (all things you’ve either claimed or insinuated with zero evidence), I can entirely imagine why she might get frustrated. It’s not remotely relevant to whether or not the research (which she was one contributor to and which has been rigorously peer reviewed), stands up to scrutiny. They’re all in on it. 🤣

Again, not interested in character assassination. Explain how you believe the peer review process has been corrupted and why the data analysis is flawed. And perhaps clarify what your actual point is. The constant innuendo does feel incredibly cynical.

A PCSO told you this?

Any clarification? Not an impartial voice in a debate where she is voicing a personal opinion. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about an objective analysis of the data, peer reviewed and published in a respected academic journal. If you believe that the data or the analysis is incorrect then say so. Character assassination is not remotely relevant.

Does not sound like something the police would be telling people. Where did you hear this? No evidence of rising crime from the official stats on the METs crime map. @SNT - Dulwich Hill please could you confirm whether police are telling people that the traffic filter on Carton Avenue introduced 5 years ago has led to an increase in crime, and if so provide some details please? Thanks.

Not this again. STATS19 records all serious road accidents and all modes of transport involved: pedestrians, those on bicycle, or travelling by motor vehicle. The study concluded, that creating the LTNs prevented more than 600 road injuries that would have otherwise taken place, including 100 involving death or serious injury. With regards your personal attacks on individual academics, I think that robust academic research, which has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in the BMJ is highly credible, yes. That an individual may have a personal opinion outside of their professional capacity is irrelevant. It would be strange if they did not. So, usual obfuscation aside, can you be clear what you’re actually saying? Is it your belief that the reduction in recorded accidents is insignificant or untrue? Are you claiming that LTNs have not made roads safer, and if so, based on what?

A bleeding obvious conclusion, but also one you seem to be insinuating has been manipulated, or is unreliable for some reason? It's a peer reviewed, academic paper in the BMJ. Are you suggesting that safety hasn't improved? Why? I'm confused. Here is the link to the research https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2025/07/06/ip-2024-045571

Fred Flintstone style cars even better.

Self propelled wheeled vehicles. e.g. scooters, skateboards, bicycles, tricycles etc. I guess. Anything were people get about under their own power.

He's reporting on comments by Chris Whitty. I'm not sure anyone could accuse Chris Whitty of stoking culture wars; As he says, the data is indisputable - we need to get people moving more, improve safety and clean up the environment.

Thanks. I totally agree with Whitty on this. On the 'maths' that Whitty references, the IPPR highlight some interesting stats, for example, for every £1 spent on active travel infrastructure, there is an average return on investment of £5.62. Just 2 per cent of total transport budget is spent on infrastructure to support active travel. https://www.ippr.org/media-office/years-of-under-investment-in-englands-streets-has-left-people-walk-wary-and-cycle-cautious-says-new-report

Try taking off the blinkers. Whilst 'try taking off the blinkers' is a really insightful comment, could you expand a little? What do you disagree with - the £2.925 trillion, the role of the bond markets, or the demands for investment in public services?

Really like this place. Good food, reasonable price and super friendly

100%. Many of the problems that Labour have (after 1 year in office) are down to that 14 year legacy. They have very little room for manoeuvre. UK debt is around £2.925 trillion and the costs of borrowing are rising. The government is at the mercy of the bond markets. Meanwhile many services are on their knees and people are demanding investment.