Earl Aelfheah

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.

He's started another thread because he's a monomaniac.

The 'crystal roof' website I quoted from uses the same data (metropolitan police statistics). The quoted trends are for the postcode. I just caveated it a little because I'm not sure that you can say too much about such a small area (as overall numbers are so small that a couple of crimes can skew things). But all in all, there is nothing in any of the available data or research (imperfect as that will always be) to back up the claim (completely unevidenced) that the Local LTN has increased crime. I'm not talking about 'narratives'. I'm talking about available data. Some general, some more specific.

I agree. But the research that has been done, suggests that LTNs generally reduce crime. Of course that doesn't mean that it's necessarily true universally of specifically, but in the absence of any recorded increase in crime (in fact most police stats at least suggesting crime is falling) and the aforementioned evidence from other areas where similar interventions have been studied, I'm not sure why one would assume crime has gotten worse as the result of the local LTN. I'm suspicious of anecdote, leading to speculation on an effect, followed by an assertion of causation.

The crime rate has dropped every year since 2020 according to the 'crystal roof' website (which analyses crime stats by postcode). Centred on postcode SE21 7DG it shows crime rates as follows: 2020: 100 2021: 75.9 2022: 66.9 2023: 50.8 It doesn't include stats for 2024 yet. Not sure how accurate this is for a small area in reality. But suggests that the wider area is seeing a fall in crime.

This is uncontroversial (except for those who are ideologically opposed to any measures they consider 'anti-car'). No one wants LTNs for the sake of it. Certainly not where there is evidence that they might make thing worse. The data that was collected and published on the Dulwich LTN specifically however, did show a reduction in traffic and an increase in active travel. There isn't any reliable data on emissions, and I suspect the shifts are too small to have any significant impact on emissions one way or the other. Together with other policies however (for example the ULEZ and wider measures to encourage more active travel), there is evidence that air quality is improving in London.

So I'm confused. The manufacturer has 'of course' said that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles, even in slow moving traffic. Or they have very specifically 'admitted they are not accurate under slow moving traffic (10kmph)'?

You still don't understand what confirmation bias is do you? Over on the other thread, just to remind you, you said: I don't believe I have ever claimed that you had 'validated' her research. I don't believe for one second that you have such expertise. I believe I said that you had conceded that she is indeed an expert (or at least 'someone who knows what they are talking about), even citing her work personally. I think you'll find that this is true, but feel free to point out where I am lying. So to clarify, you do think she knows what she's talking about, but you disagree with the conclusions of all (?) of her published research?

Of course THEY (MetroCount) do because THEY are trying to sell their product at a time when more accurate tools are coming into the market. It doesn't mean it is true - it is a claim. A claim the likes of Aldred even challenge. But you claimed that: You do see this presumably? So you finally accept that the manufacturer does state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of (even slow moving) vehicles? Because you have been denying it over many, many posts.

So some great news. After 114 pages, we have reached something of a consensus concerning the work of Professor Rachel Aldred and her team. Previously Rockets and First Mate have rubbished her research, but have recently conceded over on the West Dulwich LTN Action Group thread, that she is indeed an expert, even citing her work personally. Below is a summary of some of the conclusions her work has reached across a series of studies, some London wide and others based on in-depth London borough research. We can now all agree that LTNs lead to: Their roads that are safer Their streets that are less dominated by traffic They have lower crime levels They benefit deprived areas and under-represented groups They have no adverse impact on fire service response times They are supported by the public They enable more active travel They lead to reduced car use They enable young people to be active# Links to all the studies here: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-impacts-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-feb-2024-acc.pdf

It literally does not mean this. You've cut off the bit where is says: They literally state that their equipment is very accurate at recording the number of vehicles. So you also now accept her analysis (having previously rejected it, and her, as biased and unreliable)? This is great news. So both you and Rocks now accept the conclusions she reached, that LTNs help to reduce traffic?

Where have I u-turned exactly? And where have I lied about what you have said? Are you quite OK?

And there you go. You cited the manufacturer. You quoted the manufacturer as having said their equipment was inaccurate at counting slow moving vehicles (implying that their view was highly relevant). When confronted with the fact that they had not said what you claimed, in fact the exact opposite, you then suggest that the manufacturers view shouldn't be taken seriously. You must see how ridiculous this is? Are you really so incapable of just admitting an error. It's incredibly sad. Ha ha……oh my…. It's an entirely different matter to whether or not they said what you claimed they said. Something you perfectly well understand. I’m happy to discuss this point separately, but you’d then (with no sense of irony, having invited it) accuse me of deflection.

I haven’t deflected from the debate. Rockets claimed that the manufacturer of the ATCs had said something they haven’t. I just pointed out that what he said wasn’t true. It was Rockets who insisted on long, repeated exercises in deflecting, dissembling and distracting, rather than simply admit his mistake. I didn’t feel like letting the lie sit unchallenged. The manufacturer has explicitly said that their counters are very accurate at counting traffic volumes even under slow moving or congested conditions. Whether or not one should place weight on the word of the manufacturer is an entirely different matter. But it was Rockets, not me, who was citing them as someone who’s view was relevant / important.

I must admit, I have massively enjoyed your conversion to taking the "word of the likes of Rachel Aldred and people who actually know what they are talking about", in light of your numerous posts casting doubt on her credibility. Plus your quoting from a paper that you've previously rejected the conclusions of and rubbished as biased. But in case that doesn't break the irony meter, you have also previously criticised one of Rachel Aldred's team for using visual / manual counting to produce cycling data in relation to the Dulwich LTN. Saying that the 'counting methodology and timings' have been criticised. It's weird, don't you think, how you'll cite the manufacturers, and Rachel Aldred and her work, and the data they've collected, only where you think it aligns to something you already believe? And denounce them, as unreliable and lacking credibility in all other circumstances? Did you figure out what confirmation bias means in the end? I know you were struggling with it earlier.

The difference an hour makes: ...and back to: So close. Unless you've spent pages claiming that they've said something else, briefly acknowledge that they haven't, and then still seem to act like you've never misrepresented their position.

You were the one who suggested we should take their word for it, when you (falsely) claimed that they had stated the equipment didn't work at counting slow moving traffic. But at last you finally accept that the company have indeed said otherwise. It only took several pages of deflection for you to finally sneak that mealy mouthed climb down in.

Don't be silly. You're the one that started citing the manufacturer, claiming that they'd 'admitted' their products were inaccurate at counting slow moving vehicles. I'm just pointing out that they haven't said the things you claimed. It's funny how, as with Rachel Aldred, you’re happy to cite someone as a reliable and credible source only in so far as you think they may confirm something you already believe, or would like to believe, whilst rubbishing them the rest of the time. But whether a particular source (that you original quoted) is reliable or not, is of course, irrelevant. It really is just a case of you stating someone had said one thing, when they in fact they have said something else, and choosing to deflect and obfuscate rather than simply admit a mistake.