Earl Aelfheah

Not misleading at all. I provided details of the date ranges which I was referring to, which spanned 3 years either side of LTN being introduced and linked to all of the data, so that you can take any cut of it you like. I then also provided a summary of a two year period either side of the lockdowns, in response to your suggestion that it was relevant to the pattern described. It wasn't. In either case there is a reduction in the number of collisions when you compare a period pre ltn and one post ltn. So again, how is the transparent use of data, with links to the source of that data in any way misleading? And on your claim that LTNS have increased road danger - where is your data exactly? Embarrassing, as usual.

Misleading how? I've linked you to high quality, multi year data. I've provided some accurate examples of cuts of that data and linked you to the full data set for you to interrogate yourself in any way you wish. You on the other hand have made completely unevidenced claims, not for the first time. So if you're going to accuse me of presenting misleading data, I want you to explain how you believe it's misleading.

That name ('on the Lordship') really makes me cringe.

Just re-read the document. So they're making the east side of Peckham rye buses only? Is that likely to impact lordship lane? I'm in favour of the extended pavements, safer crossings and segregated bike lanes. I imagine that making the east side of the rye a fast bus route will improve journey times too.

Misleading how? I’ve provided a link to detailed multi year data, that anyone can look at. What data are you presenting in support of your claims that LTNs have made roads more dangerous? None. There is none. You’ve just made it up. Is that misleading do you think? Deliberately misleading perhaps?

This is so, so tedious. I have literally spoon fed you the data you claimed wasn't collected (you hadn't even tried to see if it was) and you now want me to analyse it for you? If you take a 2 year period before the lockdown and pre-ltn and another after, it also shows a decrease (march 2017 – 2019 2,217, march 2021 - 2023 2,074 collisions). All of this (and any other cut of the data) you can do yourself. The truth is you have no interest in reviewing data. You rubbish it without examination, because it's clear you're only interested is in proving your prejudice, and making completely unevidenced claims.

It literally says on the first page of the dashboard where the data is from. You haven't even looked at it (and again, I am not your secretary). Are you actually remotely interested in data, because all the evidence is that you're just interested in proving your prejudice (which is fine, but don't pretend to want 'more robust data', when you haven't even briefly looked at the detailed data already available). You've made claims about increased collisions and road danger, with no evidence whatsoever. I don't believe those arguments are made remotely in good faith.

It's not my data. It's tfl data. This constant innuendo is so tedious. The 'I'm just asking questions' rhetorical tactic (often employed by people like Farage) is obviously disingenuous. You could email tfl and they would tell you. The problem of course, is that then you would have the answer. Better to insinuate something that fits your prejudice than to know and risk being proven wrong eh? How can you ask for more robust data to be collected, when you have no interest in how robust the detailed data you already have is? The truth is you're not interested in objective data, except in so far as it might prove something you already believe.

Do the work. I'm not your secretary. Stop making unsubstantiated claims. I've literally linked you to all the data. Why don't you interrogate it yourself.

I've linked to detailed data (the tfl dashboard) which you can interrogate yourself. I've pointed out some specific stats related to the junction around Calton (which show that collisions and causalities have fallen). I did this because you claimed the data didn't exist (whereas I emailed tfl and asked whether it did and they linked me to it). I've also taken a quick look at the general stats pre and post LTN introduction in response to your claim that if collisions have fallen around the LTN, then they must have increased elsewhere. If you want to do some more detailed analysis to back up your unevidenced claims, please do. I'm simply pointing out that: there is data if you are actually interested in it (obviously if you're more interested in proving a prejudice, then it's irrelevant). the data suggests that the changes around calton have not increased collisions, but reduced them there is no data I have seen that suggests that the introductions of LTNs have increased road danger more generally / away from the LTN (in fact if anything it suggests the opposite). If you want to make claims to the contrary, then the burden of proof is with you. It not really for others to ask for info, to review the data, or to disprove unevidenced claims on your behalf. Again, when you claim something to be true, you are meant to provide evidence for that claim. How it doesn't work: You make an unsubstantiated claim and then ask others to disprove it. E.g. dragons are real, and if you you can't prove they're not, I must be right! That is just an illogical, bad faith, rhetorical tactic that allows any of us to make any nonsense claim we like.

100%. Just because he calls himself 'one dulwich' doesn't give him the right to talk on behalf of the wider community. I have no doubt that vast majority would oppose the square being returned to a narrow pavement and a queue of motor vehicles, just so a handful of people can shave a couple of minutes off a short local car journey.

Here is how things work. When you claim something to be true, you provide evidence for that claim. Here's how it doesn't work. You make an unsubstantiated claim and then ask others to disprove it. E.g. dragons are real, and if you don't believe it, you must prove me wrong. That is just a bad faith, rhetorical tactic that any of us can use to make any claim we like, true or otherwise. BTW, I have twice linked to the TfL data. Look back up the thread. For Southwark: Between March 2017 – March 2020 there were 3,338 collisions Between March 2020 – March 2023 there were 2,894 collisions This suggests that road safety has improved since the LTNs were introduced (which would conform with all the research into the impact of LTNs in general). Obviously if you want to make claims about specific roads, then you need to do the work - specify what's changed and where and provide some evidence. Or you can continue claiming there is no data (without requesting it), or asking others to disprove your unsubstantiated / vague claims.

I see. Being able to see what's coming when you turn in / out of a junction is dangerous... oooookay then 🤣 They restricted parking on the grassy Knowle to make the Kennedy assassination possible. 🤷‍♂️ Any evidence at all for the tin foil hat conspiracy stuff?

But the number of collisions involving pedestrians hasn't increased. It has done the opposite. And once more, your inability to comprehend that it is not just speed that effect impact forces and associated risk, but the interaction of speed and weight is slightly ridiculous. I absolutely was not. You said It is monitored and it is not more dangerous

No. I'm really not. I've pointed you to the data that you claimed wasn't collected. It is, and all it took to check was an email to TfL. I've linked you to it. To remind you, you claimed: Well it turns out that it is monitored and that the junction is not more dangerous now than when it was opened to cars. There is no evidence that collisions have increased on 'displacement routes', and of course you provide none. One cannot prove a negative. It is for you to provide evidence of your claim (more of an insinuation).

.

I do think it's a no brainer, yes. But some (yourself included) have tried to suggest that the junction is now more dangerous. It isn't. If you think there has been an increase, why don't you say so. I've linked you to the data already. I get a bit bored with the constant insinuations / innuendo around this topic. Do the work, demonstrate your point. I've seen no evidence at all that the roads are now more dangerous, in fact the exact opposite. It does contain that info yes. And I've linked you to the data and even summarised it for you in this thread (last year in London there were 303 pedestrians injured by pedal bikes, 4,170 injured by motor vehicles.). Again, instead of the 'I'm just asking questions' tactic, why don't you actually say what you mean and provide some evidence to back up your argument?

Rockets (and others I believe) suggested that removing motor vehicles increased the danger, because congestion brings 'order and increases safety' But yes, I agree that removing motor vehicles reduces collisions, and the data confirms this.

Linked to it further up the thread. It's taken from the tfl data Microsoft Power BI I emailed them to ask if they had records of collisions with pedestrians involving bicycles and they linked me to their dashboard, which has loads of really detailed / interesting data on it. Re. Calton avenue, I looked at the three years leading up to the introduction of the filters in March 2020 and the three years afterwards. I think the crashmap data is specifically related to insurance claims, whereas tfl is reported accidents involving casualties (at least I believe that's the case).

Claims that the junction is somehow more dangerous now, are not reflected in the number of recorded collisions / casualties (as anyone sensible might reasonably expect).

I took a look at the road causality and collision data around the Calton Road / village road junction. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the filter / LTN, there were 6 collisions. In the 3 years following it's introduction, there was 1.

Just took a look at the data covering the Calton Road / village road junction. In the 3 years leading up to the introduction of the filter / LTN, there were 6 collisions. In the 3 years following it's introduction, there was 1.

The other worrying thing, is that Southwark had the highest rates of serious injuries and deaths on our roads of any borough except Westminster.

The data on cycle induced injuries is here: Microsoft Power BI (turns out it is being collated, and you just need to email TfL, who will link you straight to it). Last year in London there were 303 pedestrians injured by pedal bikes, 4,170 injured by motor vehicles. Obviously that is only pedestrian casualties. Motor vehicles were also involved in thousands of other collisions with cyclists, motorcyclists, other cars etc. Across London in the last year, there were 26,603 casualties - nearly all the result of collisions that involved a motor vehicle.

For those interested in the data, this dashboard is worth spending some time looking at Microsoft Power BI