first mate

Plenty of lovely places around Dulwich Village to see people congregating, no need for another and a very poor excuse for this huge waste of money. In response to Rockets: if another poster (March) has access to the plans it would be great if they could share them on here.

In response to Earl: Yes but we are not speaking generally and some of us are not using general trends to justify our view on the specific. It seems there are conflicting narratives about an alleged upturn in crime on the roads under discussion. It would be useful to get more specific information about reported crimes on these specific roads. I am assuming a spate of vehicle thefts would at least be reported for insurance purposes.

Earl, this started with crime and a loose/ possible relationship with an LTN. Other aspects have cropped up, but I cannot help but note that Malumbu asked for the thread to be moved into the traffic section, I then try to get the thread back on track with a genuine query asking about conflicting views on crime in the area. Then you appear, ignore the crime aspect and take us back into pollution etc.., I can only conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to get the thread removed from the main section?

I am interested to understand the seemingly two conflicting ideas about crime in the Dulwich Village area, especially on the streets in question. A number of people who live in the area seem to think crime has increased (vehicle theft), another person thinks that road closure should mean crime is reduced and they support this idea with general research on the effects of closure, but they do not state whether they think crime has increased, reduced or stayed the same. Presumably they are not denying the spate of vehicle thefts, as reported by another poster, have happened?

Can't argue with your overall sentiment Springtime.

Has there been reduction in crime on your roads?

Not sure Mr Hitchins would approve your hijacking of his 'razor'. This person was not expressing a religious belief, they were making a value judgement about someone's behaviour (not unreasonable, and something we all do all of the time; see Kahneman) It is your choice, as well as an assumption, to dismiss the OPs perception of increased crime as unevidenced- I do not believe you know if that is the case or not?

Springtime, speaking of taxes, you must be fuming about the millions spent on new paving in Dulwich.

I'm sure you will. But you do a lot of thread 'policing' because you seem constantly to be trying to shutdown any questioning or discussion around the value of our local LTNs. This despite not even living here! Although you don't live here you also seem to be on some sort of mission to tell us we should all move on and spend our time on more worthy things, as defined by you. Remember, LCC encourages its members to get involved in street closures all over London, so not living in the area is, in their eyes, no bar to participation in consultations, lobbying activities, social media activism etc...

Maybe you should just check to see if the Council has turned the lighting up in the streets around your area. But that is not what they said, the first statement was given some context and we do not yet know what evidence might be available to support the second statement. You have assumed there is no evidence and your point is based on that assumption. You may of course be right that there is no evidence; equally you may be able to evidence that there has not been a rise in crime in that area?

Interesting. Another poster suggested that crime may have gone up on those streets because Southwark Council might have turned the street lights up. Could that be an alternative explanation? Mind you, why would Southwark turn the street lights up just as the road is closed off to traffic if they are aware of really good research that suggests doing this correlates with an increase in crime? Anyway, you must have good evidence to disprove the perception that crime has increased in that area, which is a relief.

Mal, surely you have much, much more important things to do than 'police' yet another thread. I thought you had advised that others should spend their energy on, according to you, more worthy pursuits, yet you keep popping up. Do you agree that the quality of the paving in and around 'Vanity Square', and also extending around the new and very expensive/exclusive residential development, is of a completely different quality to anything in East Dulwich nearby?

You seem equally, if not more, unsure.

It is amazing though that certain people in here immediately require gold standard evidence to back up any observation that does not meet with their own views and biases but are also intensely relaxed about using 'evidence' from the other end of London to 'prove' there is nothing wrong.

The paving looks extremely expensive, it is in stark contrast to ED paving. Still, it'll be a nice place for carol singers to hang out on Christmas Day and for a few young people to eat sandwiches on cold evenings. 😂

I am interested to know if this really is a council intervention. if it is, then it is a step in the right direction.

Given the significant local support, more likely the first.

JMK, do you have some local statistics to indicate crime has increased on the streets you mention recently? Without that kind of evidence you are unlikely to persuade others of the case you argue. I only say this because you already have a poster jumping in with research from another area and using that as evidence that you must be incorrect in your assertion.

But at least I do try at times to get it back on thread unlike others...

Don't know about anyone else but I think Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell's The Rest is Politics podcasts are quite interesting on this.

Member 3.7k Posted 2 hours ago Rockets said: I think it is you that doesn't understand it i am afraid. In summary, it seems, it is Earl's view is that because we are told Rachel Aldred is an expert we must either accept as gospel absolutely all of her research findings or we must completely reject all of them, it is very black and white, either or. There can be no critical evaluation and no shades of grey.

Earl, do you think the Times journalist was lying when they reported that Metro count as saying their counters did not work well in stop start traffic? Do you think stop start traffic in a 'town centre' is likely to be fast or slow moving? Do you disagree with Aldred's caveat that the siting of counters close to junctions may affect data? You seem to agree with absolutely everything Aldred says so...

Since you have chosen to post the same thing in two different threads see reply in West Dulwich LTN. PS Glad Raptor Man has now revealed himself as pro LTN 😉

Nice try Earl. The point is that even Aldred who is in favour had to acknowledge there can be issues with LTN data and siting of equipment. So the correct conclusion is that LTNs may help to reduce traffic, not that all definitely do. As you know, we do not agree that the Dulwich LTN reduces traffic on boundary roads and that the data suggesting it does is flawed.

Mr Chicken is back!! Perhaps with multiple identities. Okay, to try to get this thread back on track here is an attribution to The Times and Metrocount: So presumably Earl would argue this is about classification but, since axle hits also seem the way the counters measure, that must also apply to volume (that is the "true number of vehicles")? It seems that is at least one other borough incorrect data has been the result of software updates, where, I believe Metrocount has said that a council contractor chose to change/incorrectly apply settings? So this is not just about the equipment but also how it is set up and applied. In addition to this we have Aldred noting that data will be affected if tubes placed too close to junctions. That can be corrected for in her analysis as she is not basing everything on just one LTN. Had she, for instance, based her study on just Enfield, her conclusions might be different...to state the obvious. Finally, even Sadiq Khan, an arch advocate and funder of LTNs has said that not all will necessarily work as hoped. The company says the counters are “not designed to work” in stop-start traffic and are recommended to be used in “free flowing conditions”. It explained: “Vehicles travelling very slowly might not be classified correctly, either the axle hits are too far apart so it splits them and places them into an unknown vehicle class, which doesn’t get included by default, or it attaches those axle hits to a vehicle in front or behind.” This means if there is little or no congestion at the measuring points before the LTN, the number of vehicles counted is likely to be accurate. However, if the LTN creates congestion at the count points, the post-implementation surveys will not record the true number of vehicles.