Earl Aelfheah

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.

Starting with Brexit, all the way through to drunken lock down parties, and then finishing on Liz Truss' 'mini budget', I would say it was fairly disastrous from start to finish.

Yes that's right; An open, lawful and democratic challenge.

Oh, I see. I think that could also be classed an open, lawful, and democratic challenge.

Was he? I wasn't aware of a plot. Do you have any details?

Don't know about the title of the article, but yes, I suspect it's the same around a number of schools / the area generally. Like I said, it makes sense that increases in term time traffic worsen local air quality.

Sounds like it, yes.

Would make sense that increases in term time traffic worsen local air quality.

I don't know about that. The transport section is pretty awful, but only because some use every conversation as a way to relitigate the changes around Calton Avenue. I'm aware I contribute by responding to those posts, but it is difficult when any discussion, of any transport topic, invariably gets brought back to this five year obsession a handful of people have.

Noticed the bollard (big bell shaped one) has again been torn up. Wonder how many times this has happened over the years and how much it's cost.

"Parents driving children to private schools is associated with a 27% increase in air pollution and congestion in a south London street, according to campaigners who are calling for private schools to make greater use of sustainable transport": https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/jan/14/private-school-run-in-south-london-linked-to-27-per-cent-rise-in-air-pollution#:~:text=Private school run in south London linked to 27% rise in air pollution.&text=The analysis by Solve the School Run,when only local state schools were open. More detail on the campaign group who did the research (I haven't looked at it that closely, so can't comment on how robust it may be): https://www.solvetheschoolrun.org/dulwich-wards#:~:text=We found that there is a 50%,term time compared with the school holidays.&text=Our research for Herne Hill Junction%2C Dulwich%2C,school term time compared to school holidays.

Bullying? I’m not the one calling others names and creating ‘foe lists’. Presumably that is constructive debate, but sharing and discussing objective data is ‘bullying’. 🤔

Aka ‘obsession square’

🙌

Welcome to the 'foe' list @Sue. I'm hoping we get some sort of badge?