The newly landscaped Dulwich Square

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

8 hours ago, Rockets said:

The proof is in the numbers @Earl Aelfheah shared that in the 5 years since the LTNs went in certain crimes have been increasing. You cannot deny that

In the 5 years since the LTNs went in, Nigel Farage was elected as an MP, my husband left me for a bicycle-riding geologist, Crystal Palace won the FA Cup, and you have posted thousands of times online complaining about LTNs. You cannot deny that.

Clearly LTNs cause populist politicians to win public office, duplicitous lying bastard earth scientists to run off with your spouse, South London football teams to improve, and online derangement.

[first mate]

This intervention cost millions, it was extremely expensive. A major part of the rationale was to make the streets 'safer'.

Those in favour now seem to be arguing that although this LTN may be less safe in regard to certain, specific types of crime,  overall it is no worse than most London streets. Given the amount spent on all this, that is a rather astounding conclusion. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

No both robbery and violent crime specifically, and ‘all crime’ generally are lower than they were before the filter was introduced. As well as trending behind the London average.

Edited Saturday at 07:37 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

So what you seem to be saying is the filter (love how you are now calling it a filter and not an LTN) has no correlation with crime and safety either way? Other than, of course, the incredible conclusion that removing cars probably reduces collision stats.

What then do we make of Southwark's assertion that LTN's make for 'safer' streets?

[Earl Aelfheah]

I haven’t said that. Both robbery and violent crime (as well as ‘all crime’) have fallen since the filter went in. Robbery is rising, as it is across London, although still down on 2018 levels, as I've explained here:

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Explain how. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery way above current levels and the London average. Since the filter was introduced it has fallen back in line with background trends. The data on violent crime is even more stark - falling in absolute terms and massively against background trends. Both are lower now than ‘pre-filter’. And of course ‘all crime’ is lower too.

By your logic (not mine), this suggests the filter has reduced robbery and violent crime specifically and ‘all crime’ generally. Explain how you think the opposite is true?

So there is a weak correlation between lower crime and the filter. To understand causation however, one would have to do some proper research looking at pre and post implementation crime rates, comparing them to other similar locations and controlling for background changes / trends. This type of research has been done, incorporating data from a number of different schemes, though not the Dulwich scheme itself (as far as I know). The research suggests that LTNs reduce crime.

I would conclude that it’s likely to have had no effect, to a small positive effect, based on the available evidence.

I have seen absolutely no evidence of it raising crime. Rockets has produced none, but as with his other claims about road accidents and injuries, and pollution, it doesn’t stop him confidently saying that the filter has had a negative impact on these things. He seems happy to make unevidenced and often outright false statements in pursuit of his multi-year grievance. This is something you seem relaxed about, but that I object to on the grounds that it is misleading and often outright dishonest.

 

Edited Saturday at 08:00 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

You have not really addressed my point.

"weak" correlation is more or less insignificant. Therefore, when Southwark claim 'causation'- 'this LTN will make your street safer', how has that been demonstrated, aside from the notion that removing cars reduces vehicle collision stats?

Safer more pleasant streets is a primary driver for LTNs.

[DulvilleRes]

Depressingly familiar pattern of posting here by the anti-LTN lobby - make an alarmist and totally unsubstantiated claim, argue endlessly against all the overwhelming evidence that shows the claim to be false, and hope that some of it sticks. Is there some kind of agenda we're not being told about? Local elections coming up? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@first mate I haven’t made that point. You seem to think that because I don’t approve of someone spreading misinformation by making numerous unevidenced or nakedly untrue statements, that somehow I must be linked to the council. I’m not. If you have a question for Southwark about something they’ve said, then you’ll have to address it to them. I’ve given you my view based on the evidence I have seen and tried to debunk some of the false claims that have been made.

Interesting that you don’t question Rockets, who is a contributor on this thread, about the evidence for his claims, but deflect onto Southwark council who are not.

Edited Saturday at 10:14 by Earl Aelfheah

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

59 minutes ago, first mate said:

when Southwark claim 'causation'- 'this LTN will make your street safer', how has that been demonstrated, aside from the notion that removing cars reduces vehicle collision stats?

1) Start with the exact claim about the LTN. Who said this and when exactly?

2) Test the claim against statistically significant data. Isolate factors other than the LTN.

3) Present your findings.

PS "apart from the fact there have been fewer vehicle collisions, how has the LTN made things safer?" 🤔 

[Glemham]

On dark nights LTN roads are often too quiet and some people both young and old don’t feel safe walking home alone. Not helped by large trees obscuring the street lighting on some roads.

Is it my elderly imagination or is the new environmentally friendly lighting not as helpful to elderly declining sight as the previous lighting?

But then the needs of the elderly don’t seem to count for much in LTN and closed roads planning. 

 

[malumbu]

Many roads outside the LTN are quiet at night.  I've found roads like Court Lane no better or worse than other streets in the area.  There are roads in some parts of London that I feel less comfortable on, familiarity being a big factor.  I lived many years ago near Brixton, and got to know the area quite well, but did not feel comfortable in Peckham.  Very much the other way round nowadays.

Whatever your view about crime in the area,  this thread is pretty repetitive.  I'm far more interested in why people commit crime (and why people buy stolen goods), and what can be done by society to reduce this (beyond locking people away).  You could gate the whole area, but then crime would simply be displaced and move to another.

And when one field proves less lucrative, crims move to another.  Many are clever multitaskers.  

[Rockets]

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No both robbery and violent crime specifically, and ‘all crime’ generally are lower than they were before the filter was introduced.

Why have you thrown violent crime in there? Who was talking about that? Are you trying to distract and divert again?

8 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No both robbery and violent crime specifically, and ‘all crime’ generally are lower than they were before the filter was introduced.

Why have you thrown violent crime in there? Who was talking about that? Are you trying to distract and divert again?

5 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

Local elections coming up? 

@DulvilleRes is your concern here that we should not talk about things that might shine the council in a less than negative light? Is this why you object so much that it might mean people start holding the council to account for their actions - after all some on here claim the ballot box is the only time you are allowed to ask for accountability from our councillors. Whether people support the LTNs are not they are all united by their concerns over the crime in the area - probably best the councillors try to address it.

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

I'm far more interested in why people commit crime (and why people buy stolen goods), and what can be done by society to reduce this (beyond locking people away).  You could gate the whole area, but then crime would simply be displaced and move to another.

And when one field proves less lucrative, crims move to another.  Many are clever multitaskers.  

But @malumbu for those living in the area and on the affected streets they are very concerned about the rising crime rates and, in particular, the nasty nature of a lot of the offences that have real, lasting, impact on the victims. Police have advised residents to call 999 the moment they see anyone wearing a balaclava. Perhaps, as you point out, Dulwich Village is proving to be a lucrative area and the criminals are targeting it.

Bottom-line remains that residents are concerned (it seems a lot of residents outside the immediate area aren't concerned). When you look at streets beyond the immediate area of the LTN it is clear similar levels of increasing types of crime is not being seen (despite the wider London increases in said crime). So what is so unique about the streets around the LTN? Maybe it is purely co-incidental but, given those crimes stats (and the comparison of London crime over all the years) you can clearly see that something different is happening post Covid. Given PCSOs have been door-knocking and distributing leaflets and saying there does seem to be a link to the quieter streets I would suggest something is happening - whether you want to admit it or not.

 

Look at what the 3 Priorities for the Met Engage team for Dulwich Village have currently:

 

Dealing with crimes related to motor vehicles - including theft of motor vehicle, theft from a motor vehicle and vehicle interference.

Issued 01 April 2025

 

Robbery and Theft - Dealing with robberies and theft snatch throughout the ward, predominantly aimed at school students.

Issued 01 April 2025

Our latest community survey highlighted an increased concern regarding Violence against Women and Girls within Dulwich Village, including areas within the ward which are particularly dark and leave members of the community feeling vulnerable.

Edited Saturday at 15:50 by Rockets

[Insuflo]

36 minutes ago, Rockets said:

 Given PCSOs have been door-knocking and distributing leaflets and saying there does seem to be a link to the quieter streets 

This is not a given, the only evidence for this is your unsubstantiated claims. I will ask again: can we see a copy of this leaflet? 

[Rockets]

I no longer have a copy of said leaflet. It is a given because it did happen - you're going to have to change a habit of a lifetime and take my word for it.

[malumbu]

Crime around my way, not that far from yours, appears to be mainly breaking into builders vans, car thefts and burglaries.  The first two are no doubt due to a lot of building work going on, and more up market vehicles.  In part due to changing demographics (as perhaps the third) - ie a more affluent neighbourhood.  I'm not campaigning for house prices to be controlled, or less affluent people moving in.  Nor am I going on about the ULEZ, older vehicles were often upgraded to much more expensive models a few years ago.  

We update each other through the neighbourhood Whats App, Safer Neighbourhood Team, talking in the street and the like.  I'd like a world where there wasn't crime, but I also want less people to die through poor air quality, better physical and mental health, and less carbon emissions.  I do not have a binary view on the big issues.

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Crime around my way, not that far from yours, appears to be mainly breaking into builders vans, car thefts and burglaries. 

So limited robbery, theft from person and other theft then in your area? So you are not seeing the increased theft from person that we are close to the LTN?

 

 

[Insuflo]

23 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I no longer have a copy of said leaflet. It is a given because it did happen - you're going to have to change a habit of a lifetime and take my word for it.

What exactly did this leaflet say?

[Rockets]

Crime prevention advice for residents. They knocked on the door, spoke to the resident and left a leaflet. Do you not believe that either? I didn't realise some of you were such doubting Thomas's - if I had I would have kept it!

Edited Saturday at 16:54 by Rockets

[Insuflo]

13 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Crime prevention advice for residents. They knocked on the door, spoke to the resident and left a leaflet. 

So, it was a general crime prevention type leaflet? Not specific to Dulwich Village, not referring to rising crime and certainly not referring to LTNs or road layout changes?

[Rockets]

No it did not refer to LTNs or road layouts....goodness me....it was a crime prevention leaflet - if I remember rightly it offered advice like fitting crook locks to cars etc. It was a blue A5 postcard sized flyer.

[Rockets]

20 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

There has been a significant increase in some types of crime in London over the last year - particularly theft, which went up 28%.

And you know theft from person went up by over 100% in Calton Avenue....so are you saying Calton's theft rate is increasing at a significantly faster rate than the London average?

[first mate]

20 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

@first mate I haven’t made that point. You seem to think that because I don’t approve of someone spreading misinformation by making numerous unevidenced or nakedly untrue statements, that somehow I must be linked to the council. I’m not. If you have a question for Southwark about something they’ve said, then you’ll have to address it to them. I’ve given you my view based on the evidence I have seen and tried to debunk some of the false claims that have been made.

Interesting that you don’t question Rockets, who is a contributor on this thread, about the evidence for his claims, but deflect onto Southwark council who are not.

 

Southwark Council, not Rockets,  is responsible for the local filter or LTN, whatever you are calling it now.
 

Southwark Council insisted on a hugely expensive change to local Road and pavement layout in Dulwich Village. The rationale was to make streets safer, greener and have somewhere people can socialise. I would observe that in leafy, Dulwich Village, with its parks, restaurants and wine bars, the last two points were redundant before the changes were even mooted. That just leaves safety...

 

Southwark Council, not Rockets,  is responsible for the local filter or LTN, whatever you are calling it now. 
 

Southwark Council insisted on a hugely expensive change to local Road and pavement layout in Dulwich Village. The rationale was to make streets safer, greener and have somewhere people can socialise. I would observe that in leafy, Dulwich Village, with its parks, restaurants and wine bars, the last two points were redundant before the changes were even mooted. That just leaves safety...

Edited Sunday at 06:22 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 10/08/2025 at 07:18, first mate said:

That just leaves safety...

And? There are fewer collisions and injuries (as I think you've acknowledged).

The rationale for the 'Dulwich streetspace' scheme was multifaceted btw, and included reducing cut-through traffic, improving road safety, making walking an cycling an enjoyable, safe and easy way to get around, and improving air quality. It's succeeded in all these aims.

Edited Monday at 11:57 by Earl Aelfheah

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 09/08/2025 at 16:34, Rockets said:

Why have you thrown violent crime in there? Who was talking about that? Are you trying to distract and divert again?

Rockets claimed that he'd cherry picked particular categories of crime because they were the ones people were concerned about. I pointed out that people are generally concerned about violent crime, which is also down (along with robbery and 'all crime'). Perhaps you don't consider violent crime important, but many will do.

On 10/08/2025 at 07:18, first mate said:

Southwark Council, not Rockets,  is responsible for the local filter or LTN, whatever you are calling it now. 

Anyway this is where we are - apparently you're happy for people to just make stuff up concerning pollution, collisions, injuries and crime, as long as it's in the service of complaining about a traffic filter you didn't approve of. 

Edited Monday at 11:55 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rockets claimed that he'd cherry picked particular categories of crime because they were the ones people were concerned about. I pointed out that people are generally concerned about violent crime, which is also down (along with robbery and 'all crime'). Perhaps you don't consider violent crime important, but many will do.

Of course violent crime is important but (given the police definitions) but, and I have explained this so many times before, the categories I selected we done so carefully on the basis of police definitions around street robberies etc. I am afraid it is you who are doing some selective plucking....again...

4 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Anyway this is where we are - apparently you're happy for people to just make stuff up concerning pollution, collisions, injuries and crime, as long as it's in the service of complaining about a traffic filter you didn't approve of. 

Ha ha, I was trying to work out where you think I made stuff up about pollution and suspect you are referring to my comments on the original changes to the road layout at the junction of DV and Calton/Court Lane long before the closures of that junction. The council's own report on the measures showed pollution had increased.

You only ever seem to default to accusing people of making stuff up when people have shown you to be wrong. You're quoting making stuff up a lot at the moment - how should we intepret that....;-)

 

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And? There are fewer collisions and injuries (as I think you've acknowledged) and crime is trending down against the London average.

But trending up massively (in some categories) against the Calton average..... for example a 100% year on year increase in theft from person to the highest levels ever recorded. Some of us are concerned about what is ACTUALLY happening locally so please stop trying to hide behind London averages etc - it's a pure deflection tactic.

@snowy good to see that you find increases in crime funny....not a good look but each to their own I suppose!

Edited Monday at 16:05 by Rockets