Earl Aelfheah

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.

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.