Earl Aelfheah

As I said right at the beginning. This bit I don’t doubt. The claim is that the police are stating that a 5 year old traffic filter is responsible for increased crime. Something they have said to Rockets and to no one else remarkably. And there is the rub. No evidence at all that crimes are up around the LTN over and above local crime rates. And of course none has been offered. It’s just entirely made up. As are claims about supposed increases in pollution and reductions in pedestrian safety. You may just as well state that the LTN is making people older and point out that in the last 5 years you have developed more grey hairs as evidence. This is the level of statistical illiteracy being deployed, by people criticising peer reviewed academic research without reading it first. It’s embarrassing. By your logic, the fact that average salaries have risen since a traffic filter was installed, is evidence that LTNs increase earnings. There is lots of academic research and plenty of official pollution and reported crime data available. It all suggest falling pollution, fewer collisions and serious injuries, and lower crime around LTNs. To ignore the conclusions of all the available evidence, and claim the exact opposite to be true, is simply to make things up.

Nope. You immediately dismissed it as ‘propaganda and statistical jiggery pokery’ only to later admit that you hadn’t read it. I think it’s perfectly clear why. I’m pointing out how you have repeatedly made unevidenced and easily disproven claims. Entirely false claims. Here we go, it’s a ‘pro-LTN lobby’ spreading ‘propaganda’, rather than individuals challenging unevidenced claims and pointing to data and research that proves them to be false. Tin foil hat nonsense. 🤣🤣🤣 Yeah, if your idea of data is ‘my hair has got greyer since they put in a road filter 5 years ago. This proves LTNs cause aging.’ You’ve produced no data at all, to back up claims about supposed increases in pollution, reductions in pedestrian safety, or increased crime linked to a road filter. None. Meanwhile you have ignored or dismissed all the data that shows the exact opposite.

It’s estimated to be over 9% in SE London https://www.moneyexpert.com/news/east-london-highest-percentage-uninsured-cars-capital/#:~:text=According to research conducted by,on the roads is alarming.

This is all such obvious nonsense. If Rockets had any evidence that the traffic filter had increased pollution, increased road danger for pedestrians, or that crime had increased as a result of the filter, he would obviously produce it. It’s very clear that these claims are simply made up. It’s really not. You just have to compare crime rates before and after implementation alongside a control area, and take account of background changes in crime rates over the period. It’s the kind of study that has been done across a large number of LTNs (72 of them), and which found that they reduce crime. Rockets of course hasn’t produced any evidence, and hasn’t read the research that has been undertaken. And if he did, even you know that he would conclude it was methodology flawed, regardless of what it says.

Well it wasn’t and I’ve since repeated it 🤷‍♂️

I rephrased it. But to be clear, when you say that the road filter has increased pollution and offer no evidence (data shows that there have been improvements in air quality), that is an example of you just making something up. The same when you say that the roads are now more dangerous for pedestrians. It's not a personal attack to point out that stating such things, without offering any credible evidence and ignoring or dismissing the data that does exist (and which shows the opposite to be true), is just making stuff up. It's no different to me stating that the road filter has resulted in everyone growing 2 inches taller. it is nonsense. You can have your opinion, you cannot have your own 'facts'. What do you call it when someone dismisses peer-reviewed academic research as flawed, without having read it? How is that not an example of confirmation bias?

No one is agitated. Rockets repeatedly makes unevidenced, or objectively false claims. It's not a personal attack to challenge these statements. You can call it lying if you want (I have not). It may be cynical, or it may be pathological (in the sense that he has such a sense of grievance over the 5 year old road layout changes that he is blind to this own biases). I suspect the latter. Either way, many of his claims are nonsense and it is right that it is called out as such. For example, he's said that pollution has increased, that pedestrians are now less safe, and that crime has risen, all as the result of a 5 year old traffic filter. He's offered no evidence for any of this. None. At the same time, he has repeatedly dismissed the wealth of good quality, academic research, and official data which monitors air quality and road collisions and which in every case points to the opposite conclusions to the ones that he promotes on this forum. When someone will dismiss the conclusions of peer reviewed research, without even reading it, they are clearly not debating in an honest / open minded manner. It's also worth noting that Rockets has more than once called me a liar, usually when I have done nothing more than express a difference of opinion. So it's a bit much to complain about personal attacks, when challenged on matters of fact.

I think the study you're referring to (and implying is somehow flawed or 'out of date') actually looked at 72 London LTNs comparing crime rates before and after their implementation alongside a control area. It found crime trends were favourable in LTNs. Yes, it was done a few years ago now, but it's high quality, peer reviewed research. On the other hand you have exactly zero evidence of you claim that LTNs increase crime, and zero evidence of your other claims around air pollution, or pedestrian safety. As usual you demand ever higher standards of methodological rigour from other, whilst you just make completely unevidenced claims, based on nothing more than an ongoing and obsessive sense of grievance. There does not. You've offered zero evidence of this. Meanwhile there is high quality academic research showing exactly the opposite.

How is that a remotely relevant comparison? You don't think it's more relevant to compare the same 5 month period for two years, rather than a 5 month period with a 12 month period? And how does any of this relate to a traffic filter installed 5 years ago? It's just nonsense. The half a decade long grievance / obsession is really, really boring. Your repeated, completely false claims, about a supposed increase in air pollution, reduced pedestrian safety, and road-layout related crime (?) are bordering on pathological.

The data from the Police website show that for the first 5 months of 2025 (up to May - the most recent month we have data for) there were 16 robberies. For the same comparison period - first five months of 2024 - there were 20. There is also zero evidence of any link to the road filter. It's just nonsense.

Nope. I picked the most recent month for which we have data and compared it with the same month last year - because you clamed a recent increase. It shows a drop in reported crime compared to the same month last year (albeit, the numbers are too small for it to be statistically significant). The chart you've shared showing data for 3 years does not show an upward trend. It's weird that you've said it does. 'Analysis' 🤣. Where is your baseline against the London or national average? If you're claiming it's linked to a traffic filter, surely you have looked at a control area? I know you're really meticulous when it comes to critiquing methodology 🤣 [Edited to add] - whilst I'm loath to spend time playing your games, a quick check shows those stats you've quoted above for robbery are highly questionable (I suspect the others are too). If you take the first 5 months of 2025 (up to May - the most recent month we have data for) and compare it to the first five months of 2024, robberies are lower (20 in 2024, 16 in 2025). Obviously these numbers are too small to be statistically significant, but it does not show a recent increase in robberies as you've suggested.

@Rockets Just a very quick look at the crime map and it is immediately clear there is zero correlation between the filter on calton avenue and the most common crime sites in se21. Overall, reported crimes are down compared to May last year (May being the most recent month for which we have stats). Even if we pretend that there had been evidence of a recent surge in crime related to a traffic filter on Calton Avenue - why the 5 year lag? Why has it happened now, half a decade after it was introduced? It's just nonsense. Much like your claim that the filter increased pollution, or reduced pedestrian safety (where in both cases, the evidence points to the exact opposite being true). Not one other person on this forum has heard police making the extremely dubious claim that a long established road filter has led to a recent surge in crime; Only you. What an astounding coincidence. I doubt what you are saying.

Agree with Sephiroth - It's when investors take over and it becomes almost exclusively about maximising margins and having a offer that is easily reproduceable at scale. In other words, when the accountants are in charge rather than the creatives.

Recorded crime in the area has slightly fallen (probably not to a degree that is statistically significant). No one doubts however, that the police are warning people about crime prevention measures. What I personally doubt, is that police are claiming there has been a recent increase in crime caused by a road filter introduced half a decade ago. As usual, there is no evidence whatsoever provided for that claim. It is also notable that the only person to have heard this from a police officer, is the same individual with a well documented history of making wild, unsubstantiated, and often objectively false claims in relation to the negative impacts of the aforementioned road filter.

...all of these linked to a road filter on Calton Avenue introduced 5 years ago? Wow. That's almost unbelievable.

Make some cider?

Some good news posted by ianr on another thread, regarding 'crash for cash' scams. Surprisingly, the police statement makes no mention of 'road closures' (a traffic filter) in Dulwich https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2025/july/ifed-executes-five-warrants-across-east-and-south-london-in-major-crash-for-cash-investigation/

I agree with this. There are lot's of shops selling similar foods. And the two shops aren't positioned that close together - further from each other than say Franco Manca and Yard Sale, or Bruno's and Dynamic Wines, etc.

We don't have thousands of children on the verge of starving to death (many have already died of malnutrition in Gaza).

Well I did say I stand to be corrected! Fair enough, their website only seemed to list three branches. Perhaps it's a franchise model? It's known as 'agglomeration' in economics Rookie error.

I like empanadas. I don't think Chango is a massive chain - it's got a few stores all in London I believe (stand to be corrected if I've got that wrong). I don't see a problem with them opening on the Lane personally. I really like Chacarero, but that doesn't mean that they should be immune from competition - if they're successful and open a couple more stores, are we then meant to stop supporting them for being a 'chain'? That opening post does sound a lot like marketing spiel though. Is the OP perhaps connected to the new business I wonder?

You may want to see if anyone on this site can help: http://www.camberwellboroughcouncil.co.uk/folletts-music-shop/

Dog kennel isn't a great name for a school. I agree that it's ridiculous for the name to put anyone off going there, but don't see any issue with them rebranding if the parents and children prefer a new name. The school is surrounded by historical 'groves' (reflected in the names of Camberwell Grove, Grove park and Grove Vale for example), so it's not a totally random name.

Thanks for posting this. Really interesting. It would be good if you added a star rating, so that it was easier to do comparisons / see what your top recommendations are. Great blog though!

I agree. Rockets should write saying - I haven't read your paper, but I am convinced it is fundamentally flawed. Please could you tell me how I am right?