Earl Aelfheah

There is nothing in the tweet that you have shared that seems misleading, or alarmist. It's pointing out that there are road closures in place after a distressing crash. I'm not sure why we have a thread on it (beyond your obsession with minimising the regular destruction caused by people behaving dangerously when travelling by motor vehicle). It's also interesting that you've posted comments blaming (ridiculously) this horrific crash on an LTN, without judgement. Yet you've admonished the individual simply pointing out that a crash has happened and that someone has been taken to hospital. It's clear to me that you're just using a tragic crash in which someone has been injured to 'score points'. Please stop trying to recreate your Twitter 'war on motorist' echo chamber on to this forum.

Fair enough. It's the title of the thread and you seemed to be broadly supporting the premise, but perhaps you didn't agree with that part of it.

And yet you rely on your personal experience to claim that the paths are being ‘taken over’ by ‘cyclists’. I invite anyone in East Dulwich to step outside, walk up and down their street and see how many experience someone flying past them on the pavement, on a bicycle. I would be willing to bet that the number that would experience such a thing would be close to zero. I would also be surprised if you Alice, would challenge this as the likely outcome of such an experiment (?). In light of this fact, I am suggesting that the claim that the pavements are being 'taken over' by 'cyclists' seems hyperbolic. That is not to say that you have not seen someone cycling on the pavement, which would be an entirely different claim of course.

...well perhaps. Except that if the pavements were literally being taken over by 'cyclists' then it would be an issue impossible to avoid for those who walk a lot. It would also be something one could observe objectively in the data. The fact that neither of these things are true makes me conclude that it's there is either a great deal of hyperbole, and / or some issues of perception / perspective at play.

What I find so weird about threads like this is that I walk almost everywhere. I spend a lot of time travelling the pavements of East Dulwich and surrounding areas. I can't recall a single instance when I've had someone cycle past me on the pavement. I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's certainly not something that has happened recently, or regularly, or that I felt sufficiently threatened or alarmed about to notice or recall. I have never had anyone travelling by bike knock me over, or come close to it. All available evidence is that it's extremely rare for people to be injured by those travelling by bicycle. In terms of the risks posed to pedestrians safety (and over 400 are killed every year in the UK), push bikes are nowhere near the top of the list. So how can it be that some people genuinely believe that this is an endemic issue? That the pavements are literally being 'taken over' by 'cyclists' and that it represents a significant threat to pedestrian safety?

Thames Water have dug up / resurfaced that section several times now. the issues always seems to come back. In terms of rivers - I think the Effra river basin covers some of Lordship Lane, so could be some long covered / redirected tributaries? The culverted Effra itself runs further to the west though https://turneyandburbage.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/ever-wondered-about-the-route-of-the-river-effra/ [edited to add] Found this 'interesting' (all relative of course) map on some of London's covered waterways. If you zoom in, you can see where they run, overlaid with modern street layout: https://www.hiddenhydrology.org/london-barton-the-lost-rivers-of-london/

Surely this is a parody post

...your favourite tagline when attempting some ham-fisted misdirection. No one has claimed that there was a fatality. The definition of 'tragic' isn't what you think it is: Ironically, used as an informal noun ('a boring or socially inept person, typically having an obsessive and solitary interest'), it could suitably describe someone on this forum.

The issue is that there are some mature trees and very narrow pavements. If you want to improve the experience for pedestrians, then we should be talking about widening the pavements, otherwise it's just going to be temporary patch ups.

Dulwich Roads hasn't 'spread misinformation'. They're highlighting dangerous road behaviour. It's absolutely ridiculous, although sadly not surprising that @Rockets would take exception to this.

They got into a flying cargo bike and everyone watched as they ascended into the sky and receded over the horizon.

Does anyone know whether there will be any section 106 money raised?

I don't know about demand personally, but imagine the developer will have done some assessment of this. It's not in their interests to build student accommodation that then remains unoccupied. There are several universities relatively close by, including a massive teaching hospital in Camberwell, the Camberwell College of Arts, the IoPPN / KCL's Denmark Hill campus, plus Goldsmiths not too far away. I also worry about the trains being pretty overcrowded and unreliable, but think that's probably a more general issue that needs addressing. If it's targeted mainly at students from Camberwell, the train isn't really that relevant (at least for getting to / from university).

Why ask? Do you really care what the data says? On one hand you quote it (where you think you can spin it to support your prejudice) and on the other you rubbish it as unreliable (exactly as OneDulwich does repeatedly). You do the same with all research on LTNs, on the impact of the ULEZ, with cycling data from Tfl etc... You've openly admitted that you only consider information relevant where it conforms to your predetermined view. But, so as not to be accused of avoiding the question: One claim that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows. Yes, there has been different impacts across different streets, including some displacement, but the data shows an overall reduction in traffic. To say that it hasn't reduced traffic (at least based on the data they're quoting) is untrue.

The data is there for all to see, if they’re genuinely in it. I don’t believe you are remotely interested in anything but misrepresenting it, and / or undermining it, to try and make a case that confirms a position you took before the changes were even implemented. …much like OneDulwich

Irony is dead.

I gave a specific example. They claim in that 'news' article that the data collected by Southwark Council shows that "...the Dulwich LTNs have not reduced traffic but simply displaced it." This is not what the data shows. They also say in another post of the same data, that it is unreliable. It's all the same inconsistent, incoherent, or down right untrue nonsense, that's regurgitated across the multiple 'anti-LTN' threads on this forum. Little point in going down this rabbit hole though frankly, as you've already repeated every talking point One Dulwich has ever published on their website ad nauseum. And it is very clear (from your own admittance) that you will only ever give credence to information you believe aligns to the view you already hold.

Good photo. Has fallen victim to the pup-arazzi. Pawful behaviour..... etc.

I can't be bothered going down that rabbit hole / don't have time right now. But for example, the headline 'Data confirms failure of Dulwich LTNs' and all that follows in it, is absolutely false. There are numerous other examples. It's very tedious and of course, they're completely unaccountable.

My biggest problem with One Dulwich is that they are consistently spreading pretty outrageous misinformation on their website with zero accountability. Much of it is then amplified by a handful of monomaniacs via this forum. The fact is more than four years on, the scheme has broadly proved itself successful (reducing traffic, increasing active travel and creating a well used, low traffic route connecting ED to the Village and a number of schools).

I think it covers the postcode and a 0.25 mile radius surrounding it (it's a little unclear). The LTN has been in for four years and there is no evidence of a rise in crime (possibly the data is more suggestive of a fall). As far as detailed research into the impact of LTNs on crime more generally (not Dulwich specific), that concludes they tend to reduce crime. In conclusion, we can't say anything definitively, but the available evidence does not support the claim of "increasing crime from Southwark’s LTN". If anything it suggests the opposite.

For Court Lane (Centred on SE21 7DR) crime rates are as follows: 2019: 91.7 2020: 71.6 2021: 55.5 2022: 98.7 2023: 89.9 Again, small numbers, so not sure it's really significant one way or the other. Quite a big drop in 2021 (lockdown?), but overall, the rates seem pretty stable / unchanged. In summary, available data on reported crime provides no evidence of the LTN having increased crime. If anything (caveated as above) it shows a drop in Calton Avenue and no real change in Court Lane.

Yes I agree with that. As I've said, the smaller the area you focus on, the smaller the sample, the less reliable the conclusions. But in so far as we have any objective data, it suggests crime has fallen in the LTN, not risen as stated rather definitively in the thread's title (with zero supporting evidence).

There's no evidence that Crime is getting higher inside the LTN. The specific reported crime stats for Calton Avenue and environs (although it's an incredibly small sample area) show crime falling. Centred on postcode SE21 7DG crime rates are as follows: 2020: 100 2021: 75.9 2022: 66.9 2023: 50.8 (source: 'crystal roof' website, which analyses police reported crime data by postcode). ...as I say, I'm slightly wary of quoting crime stats for such a small area, and understand that there is a difference between crime and reported crime. But in so far as we have any objective data, it suggests crime has fallen, not risen.

The title of the OP is really, really misleading / unevidenced.