Earl Aelfheah

Yes.

🥱 Absolutely embarrassing.

I am not the one using weasel words. I pointed out that you can’t live in zone 2 London and expect to be able to drive short journeys and park easily. I asked if you think this is realistic? You responded by mocking an obvious typo and to answer that: That’s pretty slippery. How about answering the question asked instead of a different one? I didn’t ask whether it was realistic to want to drive in zone 2 London. I assume you do see the difference? 🥱 Haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough today Rocks Just because someone has an opinion you don’t agree with, doesn’t mean they’re a ‘lobbyist’. It’s really about time you looked the word up.

Ok, a 1.7 ton princess carriage (weight of an average car). The weight wasn’t actually the point but it’s hilarious that’s the bit you’ve taken issue with. 🤷‍♂️ I can and you seem to forget that anyone can look back and read it. There is a difference between saying you want be able to drive a car in zone 2 and saying that you should be able to “drive short journeys and park easily” in zone 2 London. You deliberately avoided the question because presumably you know it’s not realistic to think everyone can drive short journeys and park where they like, without difficulty.

Oh that’s brilliant. 👏 That wasn’t the question. I’m not the one suggesting it should be possible to make short journeys in a two ton air conditioned princess carriage and park it with ease anywhere I like in zone 2 London. Maybe you just have to accept that the world doesn’t revolve around you and that we all have to share the space available.

I’m not telling people where to live. I’m pointing out tagt you can’t live in zone 2 London and expect to be able to drive shirt journeys and park easily. You think this is realistic?

If you have mobility issues, then there is disabled parking. If not, you can get the bus, walk, cycle, or if coming from further afield, get the train to ED station. If you really need to drive, then parking can be (as it's always been), difficult. You are right that there is not enough space for everyone to park wherever they want. If you're picking up a large item there are plenty of loading bays. If you want to live in an area where you can drive short local journeys and park easily, then truth is you probably do need to move out of zone 2 London. You think people should be driving to a school with the catchment of Charter? If you're visiting a resident, then they can give you a visitors permit I believe.

You’re wrong. Cross reference the stats. Your error is a classic example of confirmation bias. Instead of trying to understand the data, you’re only attending to information that might align with your pre-held belief. Here is a clue. If you click on the street level data and see that the overall crime rate on Calton Avenue near SE21 7DE is 82% lower than crime rate in London and 24% lower than national overall crime level, but the high level summary (which appears on a different page) states that it's a high crime area - you should question that. So the first thing you might do is look at whether they use the same source data. They don't. One is using street level crime data, the other OFS area data. Look at how the OFS analyse it and you see that they're cutting the data at Local Authority level. A quick cross reference against both the available data for Southwark and that for Dulwich Village ward respectively, and it's clear that the 7/10 figure (along with the other summary data) is taken for the whole borough. The relevant, street level data, shows that Calton Avenue is a low crime area. There is no evidence of the filter having made the area less safe.

That 7/10 figure is for Southwark. I’m not going to keep spoon feeding you. Fundamentally, if you’re looking for data to try and prove something you already, wrongly believe, you’re always going to get to an incorrect answer. Dulwich has 75.9 crimes per thousand resident population. This can be rated as 3 out of 10 or low crime level compared to other local areas in England and Wales. Annual total crime rate in Southwark is 129 per thousand population, which can be rated as 7 out of 10 or high crime level compared to other local authority districts in England and Wales. The fact is that crime here is not just low against the national average, but remains so in the context of a high crime Borough.

Those figures are for Southwark, not Dulwich. The figure for Dulwich Village (including Calton Avenue) is 3/10 which is considered a low crime area compared to other areas across England and Wales. Calton Avenue It is not a dangerous area and there is no evidence whatsoever that the road filter has increased crime. As I suspect you know. Please stop trying to scare people.

We're considered a low crime area. Don't believe the stuff Rockets is shovelling. Dulwich has 75.9 crimes per thousand resident population. This can be rated as 3 out of 10 or low crime level compared to other local areas in England and Wales. Annual total crime rate in Southwark is 129 per thousand population, which can be rated as 7 out of 10 or high crime level compared to other local authority districts in England and Wales. It's the 7/10 figure for Southwark that Rockets has quoted above.

Since before the filter was introduced: All crimes have fallen Violent crime is down Robbery has fallen You've cherry picked the one category were crime has risen (basically mobile phone theft) and ignored the background trend. Theft from the person has massively increased everywhere. As the graph shows, it's actually trended up much more slowly here, than across the rest of London. And yet, you've suggested the filter has caused it, ignoring the fact that you could produce a similar graph for almost any area, with or without a road filter. Both average earnings, and life expectancy have increased since 2020. Applying your 'logic' this is ''proof' that the filter is making us all richer and extending our lives. I assume you accept this too? Overall crime rate on Calton Avenue in London near SE21 7DE is 82% lower than crime rate in London and 24% lower than national overall crime level. Violent crime rate is 85% lower than London average and 57% lower than national average. Please stop trying to convince people that Calton Avenue is somehow uniquely dangerous relative to the UK, London, or the local area generally; It clearly is not. You are just going out of your way to paint a false and alarming picture for your own purposes.

This is the description from that website: Your cherry picking, blatant misrepresentation of data, and your attempts to cause fear amongst local residents is actually getting out of hand. Please stop it.

Rockets claimed that he'd cherry picked particular categories of crime because they were the ones people were concerned about. I pointed out that people are generally concerned about violent crime, which is also down (along with robbery and 'all crime'). Perhaps you don't consider violent crime important, but many will do. Anyway this is where we are - apparently you're happy for people to just make stuff up concerning pollution, collisions, injuries and crime, as long as it's in the service of complaining about a traffic filter you didn't approve of.

And? There are fewer collisions and injuries (as I think you've acknowledged). The rationale for the 'Dulwich streetspace' scheme was multifaceted btw, and included reducing cut-through traffic, improving road safety, making walking an cycling an enjoyable, safe and easy way to get around, and improving air quality. It's succeeded in all these aims.

@first mate I haven’t made that point. You seem to think that because I don’t approve of someone spreading misinformation by making numerous unevidenced or nakedly untrue statements, that somehow I must be linked to the council. I’m not. If you have a question for Southwark about something they’ve said, then you’ll have to address it to them. I’ve given you my view based on the evidence I have seen and tried to debunk some of the false claims that have been made. Interesting that you don’t question Rockets, who is a contributor on this thread, about the evidence for his claims, but deflect onto Southwark council who are not.

I haven’t said that. Both robbery and violent crime (as well as ‘all crime’) have fallen since the filter went in. Robbery is rising, as it is across London, although still down on 2018 levels, as I've explained here: So there is a weak correlation between lower crime and the filter. To understand causation however, one would have to do some proper research looking at pre and post implementation crime rates, comparing them to other similar locations and controlling for background changes / trends. This type of research has been done, incorporating data from a number of different schemes, though not the Dulwich scheme itself (as far as I know). The research suggests that LTNs reduce crime. I would conclude that it’s likely to have had no effect, to a small positive effect, based on the available evidence. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it raising crime. Rockets has produced none, but as with his other claims about road accidents and injuries, and pollution, it doesn’t stop him confidently saying that the filter has had a negative impact on these things. He seems happy to make unevidenced and often outright false statements in pursuit of his multi-year grievance. This is something you seem relaxed about, but that I object to on the grounds that it is misleading and often outright dishonest.

No both robbery and violent crime specifically, and ‘all crime’ generally are lower than they were before the filter was introduced. As well as trending behind the London average.

Explain how. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery 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 are lower now than ‘pre-filter’. And of course ‘all crime’ is lower too. By your logic (not mine), this suggests the filter has reduced robbery and violent crime specifically and ‘all crime’ generally. Explain how you think the opposite is true?

An example: https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2024/august/cycle-team-producing-great-results-a-year-on-from-launch/#:~:text=The seized e-bikes are,with 'hotspot' policing initiatives. They’re usually targeting illegal e-bikes as well as red light hoppers. I’ve seen crews on Blackfriars road before.

You quite often see people being stopped and issued FPN on some of the major commuter routes into London. Ex-Dulwichers point re. the ‘Idaho stop’ is spot on. We need more nuanced rules in relation to those on bicycles, better enforcement of road laws in general, and education putting the safety of others first.

Was walking past this earlier and wondering the same thing. Definitely looks like it's being redeveloped.

This is simply untrue. I have addressed the specific categories that you've cherry picked. But if you think that the filter has had an impact on crime, then you cannot ignore categories that don't fit your narrative. It is not logically coherent (shock horror). Really? What about violent crime - down in absolute terms and way down against background trends. Why have you not picked that? Applying your logic, it is evidence the filter has reduced violent crime. Yes, but you've suggested that the filter has caused an increase in crime, which suggests a disproportionate increase in crime. There has been none. Crime, is down against background trends. Robbery has moved in line with the London average since 2019. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery, way above the London average. So how come that isn't relevant to your 'analysis'? 'Theft from the person' has trended down significantly against the London average since 2021. It's an extreme form of confirmation bias when you're cherry picking data, it still doesn't align with your preconceived notion, and yet you convince yourself it's evidence you were right anyway. It's beyond ridiculous.

You think the fact that all crime has trended down against the London average is irrelevant? Why is that? You've literally posted a chart showing that for robbery they absolutely have been. In fact between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery above the London average. For the other two types you've cherry picked, they've seen slight movements towards the background trend before and after the filter. They've trended down against the average since the filter was introduced. I'm glad you like the site. It does have some interesting data. But your interpretation of those charts is truly bizarre. They don't support your claim that the filter has lead to a disproportionate rise in any crime at all - quite the opposite.

@Rockets Not sure what you think that's showing, but I'll help. From 2021 onwards: The numbers for Robbery have moved exactly in line with the London average 'Theft from the person' has trended down significantly against the London average. 'Other theft' trends down against the average up until 2023, after which it stays flat and the London average falls back down; Worth noting that for Dulwich it's fallen again for the first 5 months of 2025 as previously mentioned. What's interesting is that you've ignored all the other types of crimes. Here's the trend for all crime. As you can see, since 2021, The crime rate for the area around the filter has trended down compared to the London average. So by your logic, this is 'proof' that the filter is reducing crime.