The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[first mate]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

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.

Yes, I think people walking or cycling at night may benefit from street lights.

But let's stay on topic. This thread is about a specific LTN in Dulwich Village- although confusingly, the council ( and Earl) say it is not really an LTN. 

The Melbourne Grove South LTN is proving a smashing little speed rat run for local delivery e-bike riders (sorry 'motorbikes' which, along with cars, are meant to be blocked).

Have not visited Vanity Square for a few weeks. What's the bike/ red light situation like? Are more beginning to heed light changes?

[exdulwicher]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Do you have the actual links rather than the headlines?

I love how you constantly request the data from others yet you get a free pass.

You denigrated a report without even reading it. You cherry pick data to suit your needs. You've now alleged - with no proof whatsoever, I'm guessing mostly because it's almost impossible to prove or disprove it either way - that the police are walking round knocking on doors saying "watch out, there's been a spike in crime because a junction was closed to cars 5 years ago"

And yet as soon as anyone else dares post anything positive or rebuts your increasingly obvious nonsense, you're straight onto them questioning the source, the data, the authors, the validity, the process...

 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Have not visited Vanity Square for a few weeks. What's the bike/ red light situation like?

It's like a little slice of Gotham City down there, honestly, pal. I was robbed twice at knifepoint and once at gunpoint, three happy slappers happy slapped me, and at one stage there were four street urchins trying to steal my pocket watch. And all because of the LTN!

[first mate]

52 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

watch out, there's been a spike in crime because a junction was closed to cars 5 years ago"

 

 Nothing like a spot of exaggeration to plump up a rebuttal.

What is much more likely is the police went round urging residents to take care, noting that there seems to have been a rise in certain types of crime in the area and- in the course of a doorstep chat the LTN as a potential factor may also have been mentioned. I see nothing unusual or far-fetched about that?

As you say, proving the LTN is a contributing factor (or the obverse) is well nigh impossible, but would not stop people making a potential link, whether residents or police.

12 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

It's like a little slice of Gotham City down there, honestly, pal. I was robbed twice at knifepoint and once at gunpoint, three happy slappers happy slapped me, and at one stage there were four street urchins trying to steal my pocket watch. And all because of the LTN!

Just stop drinking Tango in Vanity Square then!

[ianr]

45 minutes ago, first mate said:

 Nothing like a spot of exaggeration to plump up a rebuttal.What is much more likely is the police went round urging residents to take care,

Urging!?

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

As you say, proving the LTN is a contributing factor (or the obverse) is well nigh impossible

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.

Edited 22 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

You denigrated a report without even reading it. You cherry pick data to suit your needs. You've now alleged - with no proof whatsoever, I'm guessing mostly because it's almost impossible to prove or disprove it either way - that the police are walking round knocking on doors saying "watch out, there's been a spike in crime because a junction was closed to cars 5 years ago"

@exdulwicher in the words of MC Hammer...back up. 

In the words of Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast: No!...No! No! No! No! No! No!

And in the words of Public Enemy: Don't Believe the Hype

Let me clear up some less than accurate nonsense someone has been trying to pin on me.

I did not denigrate a report without actually reading it. I read the Peter Walker media articles from 2025 and 2021, read the abstract of the 2025 report and then posed some perfectly reasonable questions (that no-one was, funnily enoigh capable or prepared to answer). Now, would those answers have allowed me to denegrate the report? Probably. And I very much suspect that's why no-one answered it. But to suggest what you have is utter nonsense and deliberate spin from a cohort of yours.

Also I told people what a PCSO had told me when they knocked on my door, not that they were knocking on the doors saying that there was a spike in crime because a junctiom was closed 5 years ago.

Please, try to get your facts right. There are those on here who go out of their way to deliberately skew what people like me say and it looks like folks like you are falling for it. Come on, surely some of you are better than that, just look at the childish nonsense some of us have to put up with? 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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.

As I was saying..why on earth is Earl bringing up pollution now? A clear attempt to distract. Honestly the attempts to bully people into submission is getting ridiculous. Its funny that @dulvileres lambasts those of us who have dared present an alternative view to the pro-LTN lobby propaganda. I think of the likes of @heartblock and @legalalien who used to also try to fight the nonsense but we're seemingly bludgeoned out of the debate.

What I love is that some of you get so irate and agitated when someone challenges the nonsense. There is such a pattern: someone challenges your position, you denegrate them,  call them names, a lot of others from the pro-LTN lobby pile on and then you try to change the subject when your position is shown to be wrong. Some of you have been doing it for 5 years! 😉

4 hours ago, exdulwicher said:

I love how you constantly request the data from others yet you get a free pass.

Hang on a minute I have a very good track record of backing my points up with data. In fact I have often used data to prove the nonsense some of your cohort are spouting.  I shared robust data (with links) on crime levels in Dulwich and then people retort that there is this report and that report from 72 London LTNs and yet when I ask for links they dont reply.

Maybe it is not me who is making things up...or maybe all of these reports are behind a paywall and people subscribe and dont want to share them because they are terrified of IP infringement.......

[Earl Aelfheah]

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I did not denigrate a report without actually reading it. I read the Peter Walker media articles from 2025 and 2021, read the abstract of the 2025 report and then posed some perfectly reasonable questions

Nope. You immediately dismissed it as ‘propaganda and statistical jiggery pokery’ only to later admit that you hadn’t read it.

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

why on earth is Earl bringing up pollution now?

I think it’s perfectly clear why. I’m pointing out how you have repeatedly made unevidenced and easily disproven claims. Entirely false claims.

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@dulvileres lambasts those of us who have dared present an alternative view to the pro-LTN lobby propaganda.

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.

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Hang on a minute I have a very good track record of backing my points up with data.

🤣🤣🤣 

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. 

Edited 21 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

I also noticed that Earl had suddenly slipped in pollution.

At least now he seems to accept that the police were knocking on doors and warning or advising about crime in the Dulwich Village area. Presumably they would not do this if crime in the area was reducing? Limited resources and all that.

A key rationale given by the council to install this LTN was to make the area 'safer' (how was not specified; it was vague). Would the police really make the effort to go round knocking on doors just for the fun of it? If certain types of crime are up in that area is it fair to assert streets in the LTN are safer?

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I’m pointing out how you have repeatedly made unevidenced and easily disproven claims. Entirely false claims.

Yup, right....and you claimed there was majority support for the DV LTN in the consultation...honestly, talk about laughable. What do they say about people in glass houses...

14 minutes ago, first mate said:

I also noticed that Earl had suddenly slipped in pollution.

Because that's what they do. Get to be proven to be wrong and then throw something in that has nothing to do with the discussion to try and take it down another track.

15 minutes ago, first mate said:

At least now he seems to accept that the police were knocking on doors and warning or advising about crime in the Dulwich Village area.

Which was what started this all off. Clearly @Earl Aelfheah didn't believe it, look at the angrily agitated way they tried to demand answers from the Dulwich Safer Streets Team.

It seems that if you mention something some on the pro-LTN lobby dont agree with they all go a bit purple Minion and start screaming. It's like a shark feeding frenzy with all the usual suspects desperate to have a bite.

The irony is of course they all say why can't we forget and move on as it has been 5 years but it is their over-excited and aggressive pavolvian responses as they try to manipulate the narrative that continues the debate.

The facts are clear. In the Dulwich Village area there is a growing problem with certain types of crime. The police (via PCSO door knocking and leaflet drops) are clearly trying to do something about it. So are the people who live on the streets being impacted whilst interested on-lookers try to tell them it is not happening because it might upset their personal agenda and ideology when it comes to LTNs.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

At least now he seems to accept that the police were knocking on doors and warning or advising about crime in the Dulwich Village area.

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.

2 hours ago, first mate said:

If certain types of crime are up in that area is it fair to assert streets in the LTN are safer?

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.

Edited 10 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Apologies I keep referring to Earl as 'he', I see that others do not.

I got the impression that Earl was casting doubt on the assertion that police had visited homes in Dulwich Village, advising on a rise in some types of crime in the area and that a potential link with LTN's was mooted.

Since Earl has cast doubt on any of this, I wonder if they have checked it out with the local SNT?

The pollution aspect is, within this thread, a red herring, as you well know.

The interest here is not in stats for LTNs generally but this specific LTN- if it even is one, and you have cast doubt on that.

You and Rockets will continue to disagree on how the stats are interpreted but I am more interested in the fact that police have felt it necessary to visit households on streets in and around the locale and, it is said, considered the possibility that quieter streets post 'LTN' may have facilitated an increase in certain types of crime in this specific area.

I guess we could add that if, as is suggested by your last comment on crime in the area compared to other areas locally, there is no evidence crime rates are down either what do we make of the rationale that this LTN would make for a 'safer' environment?

 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by first mate

[heartblock]

Ha ha …no I don’t get into any debate now, I stopped when Southwark Council stopped measuring pollutant levels on my road - so I don’t know what the current levels are on East Dulwich Grove?

I imagine when the new nursery, new JAGs building and the Harris School alternative entrance on EDG open then traffic will increase.

I also became fed up of being characterised as some sort of pro-car, Reform voting, vaccination denier - instead of the Green Party member, senior academic in health and someone who has actively campaigned for cleaner air for the past 40 years. So yes I’m out of this convo.

[jazzer]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

@exdulwicher in the words of MC Hammer...back up. 

In the words of Ben Kingsley in Sexy Beast: No!...No! No! No! No! No! No!

And in the words of Public Enemy: Don't Believe the Hype

Let me clear up some less than accurate nonsense someone has been trying to pin on me.

I did not denigrate a report without actually reading it. I read the Peter Walker media articles from 2025 and 2021, read the abstract of the 2025 report and then posed some perfectly reasonable questions (that no-one was, funnily enoigh capable or prepared to answer). Now, would those answers have allowed me to denegrate the report? Probably. And I very much suspect that's why no-one answered it. But to suggest what you have is utter nonsense and deliberate spin from a cohort of yours.

Also I told people what a PCSO had told me when they knocked on my door, not that they were knocking on the doors saying that there was a spike in crime because a junctiom was closed 5 years ago.

Please, try to get your facts right. There are those on here who go out of their way to deliberately skew what people like me say and it looks like folks like you are falling for it. Come on, surely some of you are better than that, just look at the childish nonsense some of us have to put up with? 

As I was saying..why on earth is Earl bringing up pollution now? A clear attempt to distract. Honestly the attempts to bully people into submission is getting ridiculous. Its funny that @dulvileres lambasts those of us who have dared present an alternative view to the pro-LTN lobby propaganda. I think of the likes of @heartblock and @legalalien who used to also try to fight the nonsense but we're seemingly bludgeoned out of the debate.

What I love is that some of you get so irate and agitated when someone challenges the nonsense. There is such a pattern: someone challenges your position, you denegrate them,  call them names, a lot of others from the pro-LTN lobby pile on and then you try to change the subject when your position is shown to be wrong. Some of you have been doing it for 5 years! 😉

Hang on a minute I have a very good track record of backing my points up with data. In fact I have often used data to prove the nonsense some of your cohort are spouting.  I shared robust data (with links) on crime levels in Dulwich and then people retort that there is this report and that report from 72 London LTNs and yet when I ask for links they dont reply.

Maybe it is not me who is making things up...or maybe all of these reports are behind a paywall and people subscribe and dont want to share them because they are terrified of IP infringement.......

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by jazzer