The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

My husband just left me. I blame the junction outside the hairdressers that was closed 5 years ago. Before the closure, I was happily married. Now I'm on a blue tarmacked cycle path to Splitsville. Damn you, LTNs!

[Rockets]

Hey @Earl Aelfheah what if you selectively plucked the theft from person stats and looked at that instead....how is that doing? 34 theft from persons for the first 5 months of this year compared to 61 in total for the whole of 2024......and that figure of 61 had almost doubled from the figures in 2023...

...but, you know, you keep telling yourself that it is not actually happening.....you may be able to fool yourself but the people who live in the area know what is going on. And so, seemingly, are the police and thankfully, instead of pretending nothing is happening and everything is awesome, they are trying to do something about it.

Edited Thursday at 16:47 by Rockets

[ianr]

“In London in 2024, unfortunately about 80,000 smart phones were reported as stolen. That compares to 2023 when it was 64,000. So we have a growing and very serious problem.” https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/rise-london-mobile-phone-thefts-met-police-b1231196.html

"Figures show Oxford Street, Europe’s busiest shopping precinct, topped the list with 6,539 reports last year – nearly 18 a day."  [+ figures for next 29 WE streets]  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-west-end-london-phone-theft-hotspot-streets-b1236011.html

Edited yesterday at 00:19 by ianr

[Earl Aelfheah]

17 hours ago, Rockets said:

34 theft from persons for the first 5 months of this year compared to 61 in total for the whole of 2024

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.

Edited yesterday at 09:42 by Earl Aelfheah

[DulvilleRes]

Half baked conspiracy theories about a cabal of lycra clad cyclists thwarting the Great British Motorist's right to drive, an often fact free and unrelenting attack on anything the lefty council does, and now stoking up fears of an imagined crime wave - anyone would think it is Reform posting on these threads.

[Rockets]

32 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

How is that a remotely relevant comparison?

Err, because it shows that the trend for rising theft from person may well continue to rise year-on-year in 2025 as well - like it has done every year since 2021....which shows that type of crime is increasing despite your desperate claims.

The problem here @Earl Aelfheah is that you aggressively react to anything you see that you don't want to agree with or hear about - it happens every single time - you are so blinkered that you cannot look at anything with any sense of pragmatism - it's always a knee-jerk "this is a lie/5 years ago/there's no proof" claptrap. As I said before you can deny all you want but for those of us who actually live in the area concerned it is clear what is happening and crime is increasing. So you can cut the stats all you want looking at 5 month periods but, as the police data confirms, certain types of crime are increasing year on year and the police and local residents are working to try and counter it.

Of course, how anyone proves it has anything to do with the LTNs is another matter but there does seem to be a correlation between closure of the roads and increases in crimes that are easier to perpetrate on quieter roads. And, of course, PCSOs validated exactly that by confirming they believe there is a correlation as they handed out leaflets on crime prevention. Of course they could be wrong but the fact they were saying that suggests there might be a problem. 

I believe there could be a link, you believe there cannot be a link - that's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion but please do not try to tell people who are experiencing an increase crime that it is not happening. It is and the head in the sand/denial approach helps no-one.

 

7 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

now stoking up fears of an imagined crime wave

Imagined by the police data?

@DulvilleRes your name suggests you might live within the area or possibly on one of the streets within the LTN - did you get a visit from the PCSOs or any leaflets put through your door?

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

34 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Of course, how anyone proves it has anything to do with the LTNs is another matter

You should try.

 

[Rockets]

25 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

You should try.

@Dogkennelhillbilly ha ha don't tempt me as during my most recent search (triggered by @Earl Aelfheah argumentative manner) I found a layer of information that would indeed help clarify whether areas within the LTN were experiencing more increases in crime than others. I do wonder what creative counter arguments would be put forward if the data did indeed show that was the case.....maybe I will find the time to do it.

BTW have Aldred and Co looked at that recently - I think those who claim there is no proof that LTNs led to an increase in crime cite Aldred's last report which was published in 2021 but looked at police data between 2012 and 2019 in one LTN in Waltham Forest - so very much a (very) pre-Covid implementation of the LTN's we know today. Have they done any further studies on it?

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

but there does seem to be a correlation between closure of the roads and increases in crimes

There does not. You've offered zero evidence of this. Meanwhile there is high quality academic research showing exactly the opposite.

Edited yesterday at 13:16 by Earl Aelfheah

[newresidentindulwich]

23 hours ago, Rockets said:

You appear to be selectively plucking a month vs month comparison - what is important is the trend and that shows a upward trend in reported crimes in Dulwich Village (see below) over the last 3 years (see below)

 

 

 

 

This shows crime is essentially flat lining for the last three years, not increasing 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 13:46 by newresidentindulwich

[snowy]

54 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

Plus the independent evaluation of the Bounds Green and Islington (Canonbury technically) LTNs that also reported no effect or decreased rates of street crime (published 2024 and 2025 respectively)

And the Lewisham & Lee Green Ltn final assessment too reported the same no change or reduction in street crime.

Even the IPSOS / DfT LTN Research Report says the same. 
 

Its almost like rockets is throwing things, anything against a wall to see what sticks with repeated failures. 

 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

No the Aldred one I am referring to is this one: https://findingspress.org/article/19414-the-impact-of-introducing-a-low-traffic-neighbourhood-on-street-crime-in-waltham-forest-london

Can you link to the one to which you refer which compared crime rates before and after in the 72 London LTNs? 

25 minutes ago, newresidentindulwich said:

This shows crime is essential flat lining for the last three years, not increasing 

Or a slight increase in overall crime. What is very clear though is certain crime types like robbery, theft from person and other theft have been increasing significantly since 2021.  In the Dulwich Village ward theft from person rates alone more than doubled from 2023 to 2024 and are on course to be higher again in 2025.

5 minutes ago, snowy said:

Its almost like rockets is throwing things, anything against a wall to see what sticks with repeated failures. 

Ha ha...and it's almost like you are desperately throwing things to try to convince people that the increases in crime in the area isn't happening....ho hum....how predictable....and always the usual suspects...again, how predictable.

It is telling how agitated some get when they hear something (what the PCSO said) that doesn't tally with their own ideology.....amazing. As I said it seems this is also how our local councillors reacted when TFL dared to say their beloved LTNs were causing congestion on Croxted...and they are alleged to have made TFL staff cry...so much so Will Norman had to intervene......why do people get so upset by this stuff and are so cultishly protective of it?

Edited yesterday at 13:59 by Rockets

[first mate]

Yes, agitated and angry and some resorting to personal attacks, accusing others of exhibiting 'pathological' behaviour and implying they are lying. With emotions running so high you might almost think some were/are closely involved in the research in question;)

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

Edited yesterday at 14:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

54 minutes ago, Rockets said:

No the Aldred one I am referring to is this one: https://findingspress.org/article/19414-the-impact-of-introducing-a-low-traffic-neighbourhood-on-street-crime-in-waltham-forest-london

Can you link to the one to which you refer which compared crime rates before and after in the 72 London LTNs? 

Or a slight increase in overall crime. What is very clear though is certain crime types like robbery, theft from person and other theft have been increasing significantly since 2021.  In the Dulwich Village ward theft from person rates alone more than doubled from 2023 to 2024 and are on course to be higher again in 2025.

Ha ha...and it's almost like you are desperately throwing things to try to convince people that the increases in crime in the area isn't happening....ho hum....how predictable....and always the usual suspects...again, how predictable.

It is telling how agitated some get when they hear something (what the PCSO said) that doesn't tally with their own ideology.....amazing. As I said it seems this is also how our local councillors reacted when TFL dared to say their beloved LTNs were causing congestion on Croxted...and they are alleged to have made TFL staff cry...so much so Will Norman had to intervene......why do people get so upset by this stuff and are so cultishly protective of it?

You said there was evidence of street crime increasing in LTNs. 

I shared 3 independent reports over long time periods that use police data that disproves that. They particularly focused on street crime.

i also shared a department for transport independently commissioned report by IPSOS that suggests the same.

It's how discussion boards work. In this instance though it's less of a discussion and more perpetual correction of your incorrect statements.

[first mate]

13 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You can call it lying if you want (I have not).

I didn't though; but you implied it. As for your confirmation bias 'slur' what's that saying about casting out the mote from your own eye.

[Rockets]

29 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rockets repeatedly makes stuff up. 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 may be blind to the levels of self deception / confirmation bias that he subject to). I suspect the latter. Either way, it is nonsense and it is right that it is called out as such.

Ha ha...perfect timing @Earl Aelfheah. Thanks! @first mate was spot on.

Some people just can't help reverting to type.....

@Earl Aelfheah just what are you accusing me of making up this time...be careful as this is all starting to look like a personal attack?

I now see you have edited you post to remove the makes stuff up part which I appreciate as it is a personal attack you were waging and you are sailing very close to the line on forum rules.

 

29 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

He's offered no evidence for any of this. None.

Ha ha, except that certain types of crime have been rising since 2021...which you said was not correct but the data sides with me on that one not you. And I am the one being accused of making stuff up...it's hilarious.

13 minutes ago, snowy said:

You said there was evidence of street crime increasing in LTNs. 

Where do I say that exactly.....I showed there is evidence of certain types of street crime increasing significantly in the Dulwich Village ward.

And you have not shared anything you have suggested reports that show crime has not risen in LTNs - which to be fair is what I linked to.

@Earl Aelfheah do you have the 72 London LTN report to which you refer?

Edited yesterday at 15:06 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I now see you have edited you post to remove the makes stuff up part which I appreciate as it is a personal attack

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'.

14 minutes ago, first mate said:

As for your confirmation bias 'slur'

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?

Edited yesterday at 15:10 by Earl Aelfheah

[DulvilleRes]

The fact checking of Rockets and fellow travellers in recent months has been a delight to behold. Once they ran rampant on these threads, as if it were their very own public ( dis) information channel laden with the kind of fact free assertions and personal jibes we've all come to expect in this era of degraded politics. Now they are held accountable. Fair play to Earl and others. 

[Rockets]

Just now, Earl Aelfheah said:

I rephrased it.

I am glad you did as your first post (which you published) was a personal attack which you are not allowed to engage in on this forum.

To be fair @Earl Aelfheah when I do offer credible evidence you're just as aggressive and dismissive and then, hilariously, you remove the direct accusation and then end-up still suggesting I make things up. Doh!

 

[snowy]

Can we see that credible evidence?

For the LTN street crime update:

Bounds Green LTN, Haringey: “No indication that crime patterns have been impacted by the LTN.”

Canonbury West People-Friendly Streets, Islington: “Negligible change in crime and anti-social-behaviour patterns.”

Lewisham & Lee Green LTN, Lewisham: “Street-crime fell inside the LTN while staying flat borough-wide.”

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, DulvilleRes said:

The fact checking of Rockets and fellow travellers in recent months has been a delight to behold. Once they ran rampant on these threads, as if it were their very own public ( dis) information channel laden with the kind of fact free assertions and personal jibes we've all come to expect in this era of degraded politics. Now they are held accountable. Fair play to Earl and others. 

Travellers? What are you suggesting?

I think the ones we are trying to hold to account are the council and their band of pro-LTN lobbyists!

Fact checking...ha ha...I think you'll find I have been fact checking and correcting more of some posters erroneous claims than anyone has of mine! But I suppose it's all about how blinkered some people want to be!

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, snowy said:

Can we see that credible evidence?

Do pay attention @snowy. I posted the data for Dulwich Village from the police website only this week. The data is all there for you to see. What does it show?

2021 (data from Jan 21 missing due to 3 year cut-off):

Robbery: 17

Theft from person: 4

Other theft: 45

 

2022

Robbery: 28

Theft from person:  23

Other theft: 96

 

2023

Robbery: 49

Theft from person: 35

Other theft: 77

 

2024

Robbery: 62

Theft from person: 61

Other theft: 78

 

2025 up to and including May

 

Robbery: 16

Theft from person: 34

Other theft: 18

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I am glad you did as your first post (which you published) was a personal attack which you are not allowed to engage in on this forum.

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

[Rockets]

5 minutes ago, snowy said:

Bounds Green LTN, Haringey: “No indication that crime patterns have been impacted by the LTN.”

Canonbury West People-Friendly Streets, Islington: “Negligible change in crime and anti-social-behaviour patterns.”

Lewisham & Lee Green LTN, Lewisham: “Street-crime fell inside the LTN while staying flat borough-wide.”

Do you have the actual links rather than the headlines?

[malumbu]

I'm not getting into debate on crime in LTNs.  Life is too short.  Just to say that I'm for the bigger picture and agree with measures that encourage active travel and reduce driving.  And I definitely like Dulwich Square which I use fairly frequently.

But my take is that a number of you are after anything that discredits LTNs and the authorities that have introduced them.

I'll be posting elsewhere about cycle safety. The sad reported crimes against cyclists on some of the newish cycle routes, aka Quietways, does not mean that they should not be introduced or worse still got rid of.  The bigger picture is that overall they have great benefits. Parallels with the LTNs whether you believe crime is marginally worse or not.

Interestingly one way of discouraging burglary is to turn off street lights.  But most would see the wider benefits of lighting urban streets at nighttime.