Earl Aelfheah

I think that when it comes to privacy and surveillance, the ship has already sailed. Most of us carry a mobile phone everywhere, pay for things digitally, buy things and access services online, are tracked by CCTV and APNR etc.

TfL set up cameras to monitor people going through red lights whilst travelling by bike. They found around 16% breaking the rules. That's similar to the figure of 1 in 6 given in that article who said they regularly ignore the lights. A 2023 gov.uk report showed that in 2022, 45% of cars on motorways and 50% on 30mph roads were exceeding the speed limit. There are issues around people travelling by bicycle not stopping at lights, seriously endangering (primarily) themselves, and a significant problem of people in motor vehicles breaking speed limits, and seriously injuring and killing others (around 30,000 in the UK annually). Both need to be tackled in ways that are proportionate and increase safety for everyone.

Terrible. I hope the victim is OK.

This is not the case. It's not unusual for cars to pull out straight into the path of cyclists either. And I'm sure we've all experienced pedestrians stepping out into the road without looking / on their phones. There are some pretty irresponsible road users unfortunately, regardless of the mode of transport they are using. We need to encourage better behaviours all round; The 'cars vs bicycles' narrative isn't particularly helpful. There are particular issues around people travelling by bicycle not stopping at lights, seriously endangering (primarily) themselves, and also people in motor vehicles regularly breaking speed limits, and seriously injuring and killing others (around 30,000 in the UK annually). We need to point resources at addressing both in ways that are proportionate and increase safety for everyone.

I'm not sure deliberately driving a car into someone (no matter how poorly they're behaving) is advisable Ted.

There are some obvious differences between traditional bicycles, pedal assist e-bikes, and illegal electric motor powered bikes that are throttle operated.

This is quite old now, but it's an interesting analysis and I thought the final line is quite surprising "A key finding from this use of NTS showed that young males are up to five times safer when they cycle than when they drive – and the rest of us are also safer if they cycle and don’t drive!" https://blog.ukdataservice.ac.uk/nts-road-deaths/#:~:text=Death rates were very similar,other than the car driver.

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?