Earl Aelfheah

A nice YouTube vid on the pleasure of cycling in London

.

Ah, the 'I know you are but what am I' retort. Brilliant. Is this an example of your "Experience, common sense and logic"

There are just some wild claims being made on this thread, by people desperate to paint the square as a disaster for business, for air quality, road safety and as the cause of rampant crime. But of course there is no evidence for any of these things. The apocalyptic fantasies are so far removed from any reality it just comes across as slightly ridiculous. Pretending that the village has turned into some sort of hellscape, or worse, convincing yourself that it has, is not going to ease your sense of grievance at being slightly inconvenienced by a road layout change made half a decade ago, which you didn't approve of. We're talking about a 200 foot (ish) stretch of road being used to create more space for pedestrians and shoppers. It feels like a little perspective would be good.

You keep saying this. But where is your evidence of reduced footfall? Chains are typically very adept at researching footfall before opening new stores, and I have never heard of them targeting areas with low footfall. I don't believe anyone would accept that Gail's is using it's size to 'weather low footfall' in the Village.

Yes footfall is a factor. I have little doubt there is more footfall now that there is a large pedestrian area outside the shops; It certainly feels as though there are a lot more people milling about now, than when it was just a narrow pavement. But It's not for me to prove that footfall hasn't fallen - you're the one saying it has - where is your evidence? There is very little evidence that lot's of car traffic improves the viability of a local shopping area. In fact most research shows the exact opposite - that an easily walkable, pleasant pedestrian area increase footfall and spending in local shops. Dulwich Village is not (ad never has been) a destination shopping street - it caters primally for local and nearby residents. The cheese shop was a new business which opened after the square was introduced. You seem to dismiss the idea that the square contributed to the creation of that new business, but then make a causal connection between the square and it's closure. Explain that logic. It appears to be just bad = square, good= not square. Other nearby businesses that have opened since it's introduction (from top of my head) - Gails, Megans, Redemption... apparently a new organic veg shop is on the way too.

There are loads of new businesses in Dulwich. What evidence is there of falling footfall? There is clearly more pedestrian activity around the square than when the space was taken up by a queue of traffic. When a new business opens up, it's not because of the square. But when it closes, it is? Explain that logic.

When in doubt, blame the filter. We don't need evidence it's true (and any evidence to the contrary can be ignored and labelled propaganda). That's the rule right?

The LTN is having a big effect on pork markets.

Urgh. All we need now is for them to call it 'Ollie's on the Lordship' and satire is officially dead.

Urgh, people can be awful. Really out of order.

hmmm... According to the Rockets Data Unit, average earnings across Dulwich are going to fall.

Post truth nonsense here.

Putting aside what a PCSO may or may not have said to Rockets, he himself has made several claims around pollution, safety and crime which he has provided no evidence for and / or are demonstrably false. There is no evidence that the filter increased crime. Around the square crime has been broadly flat since 2018, and trended down against the London average There is no evidence of increased road danger. Data shows a reduction in collisions and serious injuries. There is no evidence of increased pollution. Local air quality monitoring demonstrates there to have been significant falls in NO2. I don't think it's reasonable to just make stuff up. If you do, repeatedly, then it is right for people to treat what you say with scepticism.

This is absolute nonsense. I have supplied a link to crime data for the area in question and a comparison to the London average. Around the square crime has been broadly flat since around 2018, and trending down against to the London average. This also aligns with high quality research which suggests that in general LTNs reduce crime. Rockets has not provided any evidence at all, that there has been a disproportionate rise in any type of crime as a result of the filter. He has provided partial data on a few hand picked crime types, for the whole of Dulwich, with no context or reference to background trends. He has provided no evidence of his other claims either, concerning pollution or pedestrian injuries. Absolutely zero. I have provided links to official data that show the exact opposite to what he has claimed. If I say that average earnings have increased as a result of a cheese shop opening, and then provide some patchy pay data for the whole of Dulwich Village, with no comparator data linking it to background trends across London or anything linking it to the cheese shop in any way, that is not evidence of my claim. It is an irrelevance. It's just making stuff up and kicking up dust in the hope that people take the use of some random numbers as 'statistic-y' / don't notice. It is not a case of 'interpretation of statistics'. Rockets has offered no relevant data to back up his claims.

There is no evidence that the filter increased crime. Around 'the square' it has been broadly flat since around 2018, and trending down against to the London average. Research suggests that in general LTNs reduce crime. There is no evidence of increased road danger. There is data showing a reduction in collisions and serious injuries. There is no evidence of increased pollution. Local air quality monitoring shows that there have been significant drops in NO2. When you make unevidenced claims, or claims which run counter to all available evidence, that is a case of just making stuff up. It is no different to me claiming that the traffic filter has made everyone taller and then failing to produce any evidence to back it up when questioned. It is nonsense.

And here we go. Rockets has achieved exactly what he set out to. To be clear: There is no evidence of increased crime. Data suggests that it is flat across the wider area, and that there has been no spike around the filter. Data for the first 5 months of this year actually suggest it’s falling. Research suggests that in general LTNs reduce crime. There is no evidence of increased road danger. There is data showing a reduction in collisions and serious injuries. There is no evidence of increased pollution. Local air quality monitoring shows that there have been significant drops in NO2. So what we have is an individual making stuff up. And yet when they say that a policemen told them (and only them) that crime has increased as a direct result of a road filter, apparently it's unconscionable that one should be sceptical. Rockets repeatedly makes things up in order to exercise his half a decade old grievance, knowing that people will start discussing these things as if they had any basis in fact. It’s a tactic of throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks.

So far you've made up several claims, offering no evidence for any of them - concerning a road filter increasing pollution, crime and pedestrian road danger. I am sceptical that the police have told rockets (and no one else) that a 5 year old traffic filter is responsible for increased crime. There is no evidence that this is true (plenty that it's unlikely). It does seem like an incredible co-incidence that someone with a history of making unsubstantiated claims about the (supposed) negative impacts of a road filter, happens to be the only one that they've said this to.

If people feel fearful, probably best not to post alarmist stuff on a local forum about pollution, collisions and crime.

You appear to be cherry picking - looking at only three crime categories from a list of many. You then compare partial data for 2021, with whole years' data from subsequent years. You also fail to account for background changes in London crime rates (across the whole set, but it's particularly relevant for 2021 - covid lockdowns remember) You ignore the fact that 'other theft' actually falls according to your own numbers - one of the categories you claim to have risen. You use partial data for 2025 (apparently the year in which you've been told there has been a recent spike in crime) and compare it to whole, previous years. You ignore the comparisons which are available for the same period in those previous years and which show falling crime in the first 5 months of 2025. You've also shared a graph which show trends over a 3 year period to be broadly flat. Of course it's all irrelevant to the claim that there is "a link between closed streets and an increase in crime". There isn't, and as usual you don't actually offer any evidence. I really don't know what you think you're proving. It appears to be the usual tactic of throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

I mean I didn't really want to spend any time checking your clearly cynical misapplication of Dulwich wide data to try and draw a link between the filter on Calton avenue and crime (a link there is no evidence for). But I took a quick look. Across your three categories, no; For the first five months of this year (the most recent data that is available), compared to the same period over the previous two (so 2023, 2024, and 2025), 'other theft' and 'robbery' have fallen. The only one that is up is 'theft from person' (which seems mainly to be centred towards Herne Hill / Brockwell Park. The numbers are all low (Dulwich Village has a low crime rate compared to London or even the national average) and so are unlikely to be statistically significant for any of these categories. There is no evidence of a significant upward trend. As the graph you posted shows, the crime rate appears to be broadly flat. I do not believe that crime has: I don't see any evidence of this in recorded crime data. But even if it had, it would not tell you anything about a traffic filter on Calton avenue. There have been increases in average earnings over the last few years. That does not mean the filter is making people richer either. I also do not believe that: There is nothing to suggest that this is true, and it seems incredible that the only person who reports being told this happens to be the same person with a 5 year grievance and a history of making false claims about the negative impacts of a Dulwich traffic filter on pollution and road safety. Again, research looking at crime rates before and after implementation of LTNs and which control for background changes, show that they do not increase crime. You have offered no counter data to suggest they do, generally, or specifically (in relation to the Dulwich filter).

So three categories of crime have risen generally since 2001. That wasn't your original claim was it? Which is why it's posted in this thread and not one on crime generally. You've suggested crime is rising because of a traffic filter introduced 5 years ago. You have offered exactly zero evidence for this. Anyone who is remotely statistically literate understands the difference. As I pointed out, using the same logic, I could state that a road filter in Calton avenue, has raised average earnings. You've been pointed to several studies in this thread, across different time periods, looking at the impact of LTNs on crime. They all come to the same conclusions and they all compare data with background trends in crime so as to control for general rises and falls (so covid is a complete red herring). I note you've quoted 2021 data for Dulwich yourself, but have not controlled for background changes. Neither have you looked at areas which are inside or outside of an LTN. You do not hold yourself to basic statistical standards, even though you do seem to understand them. That seems massively cynical. To anyone worried about a supposed spike in crime around Dulwich Square, I would reassure you that there is no evidence of this, and direct you to the online crime map where you can see for yourself how little crime is recorded there compared to other parts of Dulwich.

Longer term crime trends across a wide area don't tell you anything about a traffic filter on Calton avenue. There have also been increases in average earnings since 2021, does that mean the traffic filter is making people richer? It's just nonsense. Research looking at crime rates before and after implementation of LTNs and which control for background changes, show that they do not increase crime, and you've offered no counter data to suggest they do. So like your other baseless claims around pollution and collions, you're just throwing stuff against the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

My mistake, I meant robberies (which is the category you referred to). Robberies down for the first 5 months of this year (the months for which we have data), compared to the same period in 2024. Originally you were claiming a recent spike, which there hasn't been. You now seem to have pivoted to describing longer term, general crime trends across the whole of Dulwich, which is irrelevant.

To be clear, for the first 5 months of this year burglaries across Dulwich Village are down (on the same period last year). This was one of the specific crimes Rocks claimed had recently spiked. I can’t really be bothered going through all the stats on this, but the first one I did look at showed his claims were (not surprisingly) quite wrong. A very quick glance at the crime map, and it’s obvious that there is no spike around the road filter, most of the local ‘hotspots’ (such as they are) are focussed on other areas. The evidence of a link between a recent (supposed) ‘spike’ in crime and the filter (established 5 years ago), is exactly zero. Rocks has offered none. It’s the usual tactic of making something up and throwing out random / irrelevant numbers and / or deflecting as much as possible when questioned. There is strong evidence that the filter in Dulwich has reduced collisions and serious injuries (Rocks has again claimed the opposite offering zero evidence) and that local air quality has improved. Whilst on this second point it is likely the result of numerous factors, pollution has clearly not risen as claimed. All in all, the pattern is one of making completely unevidenced or simply false claims, whilst dismissing all the available research.