LTN accident injuries

[Rockets]

23 minutes ago, snowy said:

Every journalist got the embargoed report on the same day.

So why did the Guardian flag it as an "exclusive" then.....?

Every article Peter Walker has written in relation to Westminster?ALdred/Goodman reports has been flagged as an "exclusive". So are you suggesting that Peter Walker has put Westminster's funding at risk because of that because by doing so he is alerting people to the fact that he got this information before anyone else and you say Westminster's is banned from doing that?

Oooh...the plot thickens....

Apparently Peter Walker occasionally views local forums to see if anyone has perjured him so maybe if he sees this he can confirm....

P.S. It's still flagged as an exclusive...

 

6 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

They looked at recorded injuries and used their location to determine whether they were in or around an LTN. 

Do we know how they determined whether a road was in or around an LTN - for example Dulwich Village (the road) is that in or around an LTN?

7 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you read the whole paper, it is fairly easy to follow, even if you're not an expert in data analysis.

Do you have a copy as it is behind the BMJ paywall.

@Earl Aelfheah when you look at CrashMap does what you see reported by STATS19 tally to the averaged out reduction in injuries - that's what triggered my question because the big claims of numbers of deaths and injuries being reduced did not tally with the data reported by CrashMap on, what I consider to be, a very typical post-Covid LTN implementation.

 

Also, do you think the discrepancy between the 2021 and 2025 total number of LTN's reviewed by Goodman et all  is based on post-Covid LTNs or ones that were installed before Covid?

[Earl Aelfheah]

The paper explains it's methods and findings, if you're saying that it is flawed, it is for you to say how, not ask others to say how it is not. You do this repeatedly. Make vague or unsubstantiated claims, and then ask others to prove you wrong. Not how it works. 

36 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Do we know how they determined whether a road was in or around an LTN - for example Dulwich Village (the road) is that in or around an LTN?

Request the full data set. It's available upon request. The 'just asking questions' tactic is cynical and transparent. If you don't know, then you have no reason to insinuate that it's somehow 'wrong'. This suggests you're looking for ways to find a flaw, rather than having identified one. It shows bad faith. If you want to check, do the work, I'm not doing it for you. I'm sure you're far more qualified than the independent experts who have scrutinised it prior to publication.

36 minutes ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah when you look at CrashMap does what you see reported by STATS19 tally to the averaged out reduction in injuries - that's what triggered my question because the big claims of numbers of deaths and injuries being reduced did not tally with the data reported by CrashMap on, what I consider to be, a very typical post-Covid LTN implementation.

I do not understand your point? You're look across 100+ LTN sites and checking the locations over time against CrashMap? What are you talking about? Perhaps you should submit your analysis to the BMJ 🤣

Edited July 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[snowy]

Oh so you are arguing without evidence that it was a leak. That's quite a serious libelous defamatory accusation and a reckless one at that. 
 

Probably puts this forum at risk too, given that you have no evidence apart from a CMS / subeditor created 'exclusive' tag that is correct in that Walker published first.

As Sue says - you're clutching at straws. I mean learn to admit that you can be wrong sometimes.

NB. Other reports from those academics are immaterial -  you haven't considered who commissioned them or who published them have you? 
 

And as has been said several times - all media outlets got the report at the same time - the details of that are on the bmj site.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The paper explains it's methods and findings, if you're saying that it is flawed, it is for you to say how, not ask others to say how it is not. You do this repeatedly. Make vague or unsubstantiated claims, and then ask others to prove you wrong. Not how it works. 

Request the full data set. It's available upon request. The 'just asking questions' tactic is cynical and transparent. If you don't know, then you have no reason to insinuate that it's somehow 'wrong'. This suggests you're looking for ways to find a flaw, rather than having identified one. It shows bad faith. If you want to check, do the work. I'm sure you're far more qualified than the independent experts who have scrutinised it prior to publication, .

I do not understand your point? You're look across 100+ LTN sites and checking the locations over time against CrashMap? What are you talking about?

No, you don't understand - 5 PhDs between them, commissioned by a world leading health and social care research funder and subsequently peer reviewed by other qualified academics and then published in the world renowned gold standard research periodical just hasn't understood the dynamic brain power of PR and Marketing guru Rockets who has decided Rocket knows better than all of them...

Edited July 9 by snowy

[Rockets]

13 minutes ago, snowy said:

Oh so you are arguing without evidence that it was a leak. That's quite a serious libelous defamatory accusation and a reckless one at that. 

No, you're the only person who has mentioned a leak. I am asking whether it was an "exclusive" as claimed or not. Because it can only be an exclusive if no-one else had it at the time of its release.....and even a Google search presents this when referring to exclusives in the Guardian:

In The Guardian's context, specifically referring to the publication, an "exclusive" refers to a story, article, or piece of information that is published by The Guardian but not by any other major news organisation or publication at the time of its release.

16 minutes ago, snowy said:

I mean learn to admit that you can be wrong sometimes.

But I am not wrong about the definition of an "exclusive". You are.

And then you suggest an "exclusive" would put Westminster's funding at risk....yet it is flagged as exactly that - if you're right that's a mighty big hole you're digging for them.........

[Penguin68]

I'm sorry, so what you are saying is that if you ban traffic from an area there will be fewer traffic accidents in that area - oh, that is ignoring the accidents which are not reported because people tend not to report accidents where it's only bicycles involved, because, inter alia, cyclists are uninsured so there is no chance of any recompense for damage and little chance to sue for injury.

Quel surprise!

 

Edited July 9 by Penguin68

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Who said anything about it being sent to them by the BMJ? The discussion about an exclusive could just have easily come from the authors of the report......

 

4 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

I'm sorry, so what you are saying is that if you ban traffic from an area there will be fewer traffic accidents in that area - oh, that is ignoring the accidents which are not reported because people tend not to report accidents where it's only bicycles involved, because, inter alia, cyclists are uninsured so there is no chance of any recompense for damage and little chance to sue for injury.

Quel surprise!

 

The Spectator comments section has joined us i see. 

But at least penguin will know about poisson.

[Rockets]

@snowy you're getting yourself into a right pickle now and seemingly pulling from the "putting words into people's mouths" playbook used by some of your cohort on here in your attempt to divert from the potential own goal you flagged.

I did not mention leaks - you did. I was talking about the Guardian's claim of an "exclusive".  You then said that Westminster are not able to give "exclusives". Yet the Guardian is claiming one.

Hmmmmm...what is going on here?

I think you may have just opened a can of worms.....

[snowy]

And this is the guardian style guide entry which defines exclusives as "a term used by tabloids to denote a story that is in all of them'?!  
 

Even the Press Gazette disagrees with Rockets - and says that first to publish is an 'exclusive'. 
 

"Published at the time of release' 

Basic stuff. 

[Penguin68]

If I was designing research to determine whether LTNs did reduce accidents involving motor vehicles (because we know other accidents are rarely reported) the null hypothesis I would test is that accident rates in the broad locales of the LTN did not change significantly compared with other comparable areas. ‘Broad locales’ because I would assume that at least some traffic would be displaced from LTNs to adjacent and alternative routes, so I would include those routes which were understood by local people to be alternatives – and helpfully look at routes offered by e.g. Waze as alternatives for those without local knowledge. I would test this against similar urban areas where there were no LTNs to ensure that I was not measuring just a general drop in accident rates (which have been significantly dropping through the second half of the 20^th century into the first quarter of this, discounting the period of Covid Lockdown when all traffic was significantly reduced). And I would follow the same broad design to determine whether significant drops in air pollution (and CO2 is not a pollutant as regards air quality impacting health is concerned) had occurred. In this manner I would not by hamstrung by the lack of proper comparative data from the past, particularly as regards air quality. I would need to ensure that I chose comparable areas so that I was comparing like with like. This latter would of course be open to challenge.

I cannot see from what little I have read that this sort of comparability has been undertaken in the study being quoted (happy to stand corrected). If you just look at LTNs and say reported accidents are down this actually tells you nothing of use until you can contextualise the information, and until you can demonstrate that (taking into account displaced traffic) this is unusual compared with non LTN areas. Similarly for air quality.

I’m not saying this sort of study is easy, or cheap. I am saying it meets reasonable research criteria. I used to handle graduate research proposals (not in this area, but research techniques are transferable) so I know a little of what I speak.

[Insuflo]

46 minutes ago, snowy said:

And this is the guardian style guide entry which defines exclusives as "a term used by tabloids to denote a story that is in all of them'?!  
 

Thank you. Exclusive to all Papers, as they say in Private Eye.
The story has now been covered by the Evening Standard but they also have a story about LU offering the branding of the entire Waterloo & City Line to commercial sponsors; they are running this as “Exclusive”, despite the fact that I read it on a London blog last week. They claim it to be “the latest cash generating initiative” despite it being widely touted when I was working for LU 25 years ago. I choose not to see a hidden conspiracy in this discrepancy.

 

 

Edited July 9 by Insuflo

[Earl Aelfheah]

Looking forward to reading Penguin and Rockets’ paper in the BMJ

“Why I think accidents must have gone up as the result of LTN: a five beer analysis”

Edited July 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

oh, that is ignoring the accidents which are not reported because people tend not to report accidents where it's only bicycles involved, because, inter alia, cyclists are uninsured so there is no chance of any recompense for damage and little chance to sue for injury.

That's not how accident reporting works. If someone goes / is taken to hospital for an injury, they are asked how that injury was sustained. Could be falling off a ladder, hit and run (from a car), hit and run (from a bike), being in a car which crashed into something.... That's recorded. That's where the stats come from.

It's cross-referenced with police reports if they attend a road traffic collision (they don't always, especially if it's just what the Americans term a "fender bender") and a picture is built up of locations, severity of incidents, frequency of incidents and so on. 

You can further correlate that with traffic data to look at delays and locations.

Insurance has nothing to do with it by the way. Also, the public version of CrashMap only has data on it up until 2023. You have to go for the pro version available to councils to get more recent / in-depth than that.

[Rockets]

 

58 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

Thank you. Exclusive to all Papers, as they say in Private Eye.
The story has now been covered by the Evening Standard but they also have a story about LU offering the branding of the entire Waterloo & City Line to commercial sponsors; they are running this as “Exclusive”, despite the fact that I read it on a London blog last week. They claim it to be “the latest cash generating initiative” despite it being widely touted when I was working for LU 25 years ago. I choose not to see a hidden conspiracy in this discrepancy.

Again, you are utterly misunderstanding the concept of an exclusive. An exclusive is you have published it before anyone else - it's the first thing they teach you as a cub-reporter - go find me "exclusives", get me something before anyone else has it. You cannot take a press release or information that has been distributed over the wire or to a host of others at the same time and claim it is an "exclusive". A sub-editor will only ever attach the exclusive tagline to it if you are sure you have it before anyone else.

So back to journalism school for you all....you are all wrong. Very, very wrong.

21 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Also, the public version of CrashMap only has data on it up until 2023. You have to go for the pro version available to councils to get more recent / in-depth than that.

And crash map is only derived from STATS19 data isn't it? No hospital data is included in that. And is this not why hospitals are often the first to talk about a problem with new modes of transport (like e-scooters) because they see the trends before anyone else.

21 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

t's cross-referenced with police reports if they attend a road traffic collision (they don't always, especially if it's just what the Americans term a "fender bender") and a picture is built up of locations, severity of incidents, frequency of incidents and so on. 

And this is also why there are calls for a more granular method to report vehicular accidents as many cycle accidents and cycle accidents that cause injury to others do not result in the police being called so are never "reported". It's why hospitals are worried about the increase in "self-induced" Lime bike lower extremity injuries due to the weight of Lime bikes as they happen and only an ambulance is called.

Edited July 9 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

Embarrassing 

[exdulwicher]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

And this is also why there are calls for a more granular method to report vehicular accidents as many cycle accidents and cycle accidents that cause injury to others do not result in the police being called so are never "reported". 

I think this is where Wikipedia would use the term "citation needed".

You seem to know about a vast swathe of incidents caused by cyclists in spite of them never being reported...

[Earl Aelfheah]

34 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

You seem to know about a vast swathe of incidents caused by cyclists in spite of them never being reported...

He has never offered any evidence for any of his claims re. LTNs - of increased road danger, crime, or pollution. But of course Rockets is highly concerned about the validity of peer reviewed academic research, on grounds unspecified. 🤣

Edited July 9 by Earl Aelfheah

[DulvilleRes]

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

He has never offered any evidence for any of his claims of increased road danger, crime, pollution re. LTNs. But of course Rockets is highly concerned about potential issues with the validity of peer reviewed academic research (on grounds unspecified). 🤣

It’s just a constant stream of misinformation, insinuation, deflection and nonsense.

.... normally ending in an anti council punchline, or coming down on the side of the most dreary culture war tropes. Lately 'vote them out at the next elections' has started to make an appearance. Maybe there is a political purpose and a pattern to all this nonsense?

[Rockets]

@DulvilleRes to be fair it was @Earl Aelfheah should said the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable....

32 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

He has never offered any evidence for any of his claims re. LTNs - of increased road danger, crime, or pollution.

You're just annoyed because PCSOs are telling people that crime is increasing due to the road closures and that there isn't 55% of majority support for the DV LTN.

P.S. I did share with you my thoughts on the Goodman research and you provided nothing in the way of an explanation. 

49 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

You seem to know about a vast swathe of incidents caused by cyclists in spite of them never being reported...

Come on @exdulwicher if you do work in this area you know perfectly well that STATS19 is skewed to the most serious road accidents and that there is no accurate way, currently, of measuring lone cycle or cycle vs pedestrian injuries.

The real issue here is that years after the measures went in people are still talking about them, how they came to be here and their impact. Some of you hate that and really wish people would just forget about it and live with the status quo. 

There is a real nastiness to the tone and behaviour of many of the pro posters on here which is very telling and why so many people want to fight against these measures. So keep going folks you're doing your cause the world of good! 😉

[Earl Aelfheah]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

it was @Earl Aelfheah should said the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable

I didn’t say this. Please stop quoting me as saying things I have not. This is the second dishonest quote you've falsely attributed to me in one day.

Edited July 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[exdulwicher]

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

 

you know perfectly well that STATS19 is skewed to the most serious road accidents and that there is no accurate way, currently, of measuring lone cycle or cycle vs pedestrian injuries.😉

 

Schroedinger's LTN.

Simultaneously a dramatic drop in injuries and incidents because, in the words of One Dulwich's Senior Researcher, "it's bleeding obvious"

Also a dramatic rise in the number of injuries and incidents because "cyclists".

11 hours ago, Rockets said:

There is a real nastiness to the tone and behaviour of many of the pro posters on here which is very telling and why so many people want to fight against these measures. So keep going folks you're doing your cause the world of good! 😉

We're not the ones doing character assassinations of world-renowned researchers, peer-reviewed journals and award winning journalists... 

[Rockets]

28 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

Simultaneously a dramatic drop in injuries and incidents because, in the words of One Dulwich's Senior Researcher, "it's bleeding obvious"

Also a dramatic rise in the number of injuries and incidents because "cyclists".

You haven't answered the question @exdulwicher...nice bridging....have you ever done media training? 😉

 

29 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

We're not the ones doing character assassinations of world-renowned researchers, peer-reviewed journals and award winning journalists... 

For balance and impartiality I think what you meant to say was...

We're not the ones doing character assassinations of world-renowned, supposedly impartial, researchers who have been caught tearing down anti-LTN posters in their local shop, funded peer-reviewed activist research published in journals and award winning cycle-lobbyist journalists who write selectively plucked and focused pieces celebrating the success of LTNs as "exclusives " which, according to some are not allowed to be published as "exclusives".

There go, a balanced assessment.....;-)

[Spartacus]

17 hours ago, snowy said:

No, you don't understand - 5 PhDs between them, commissioned by a world leading health and social care research funder and subsequently peer reviewed by other qualified academics and then published in the world renowned gold standard research periodical

For some reason the following joke popped into my head reading that. 

DON'T TRUST ACADEMICS 

Medical students were attending their 1st biochemistry class. They all gathered around the Lab table with a urine sample. The professor dip his finger in urine & tasted it in his own mouth.  Then he asked the students to do the same. The students hesitated for several minutes, but at last every one dipped their finger in urine sample & tasted it.... When everyone finished, the professor looked at them & said: “The most important quality is 'Observation'.  I dipped my MIDDLE Finger but tasted the INDEX Finger. Today you just learn, how to pay attention.”

[DulvilleRes]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

You haven't answered the question @exdulwicher...nice bridging....have you ever done media training? 😉

 

For balance and impartiality I think what you meant to say was...

We're not the ones doing character assassinations of world-renowned, supposedly impartial, researchers who have been caught tearing down anti-LTN posters in their local shop, funded peer-reviewed activist research published in journals and award winning cycle-lobbyist journalists who write selectively plucked and focused pieces celebrating the success of LTNs as "exclusives " which, according to some are not allowed to be published as "exclusives".

There go, a balanced assessment.....;-)

Just to put some balance into this assessment/ reader added context 

Some elements of the anti LTN lobby have been so unpleasant on occasion with physical harassment of those who oppose their views that the Police have had to be involved. Fold into this the constant naming and hectoring of individuals way beyond proportionality or civilised debate on these threads by the anonymous anti - LTN  posters that I think the net effect is to create a hostile atmosphere for people trying to engage in local issues and local democracy.

This is all in the context of serious unanswered questions remaining about the provenance of One Dulwich, the organisation which purports to 'represent' the community on some of these traffic issues. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 09/07/2025 at 17:36, Rockets said:

@snowy you're getting yourself into a right pickle now and seemingly pulling from the "putting words into people's mouths" playbook

@rockets you've quoted me twice in the last two days as saying thing I have never said. Which I know is a 'playbook' you hate. I'm sure you'll want to correct that.

On 09/07/2025 at 16:30, Rockets said:

Do you have a copy as it is behind the BMJ paywall.

Doesn't one need to read the paper before dismissing it's conclusions?

@Rockets on that - you obviously have an honest interest in ensuring the most rigorous academic standards have been applied before reaching any conclusions. Would you mind sharing the data and analysis that led you (in the spirit of open minded inquiry), to assert and / or insinuate that LTNs increase traffic, pollution, road danger and crime? I would love to see it. I assume it meets at least the same standards of statistical analysis and peer review as the BMJ paper that your questioning the credibility of?

Edited July 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Doesn't one need to read the paper before dismissing it's conclusions?

So you read the full paper then? Did you buy it? This was why I was asking the questions I did because from the two articles Peter Walker I was interested in the differences between the numbers of LTNs surveyed and the fact CrashMap for Dulwich Village (which is typical of modern LTNs) showed numbers that didn't tally with the big numbers shared in the report so I wondered whether the increase in surveyed LTNs was a bit of statistical and methodology jiggery pokery to get a big headline - would something like that come up in a "peer review"?

Seeing as you have the report can you tell us whether they address the large number of LTNs surveyed and whether they were all post-Covid implementations?

I know you are very data led and love nothing more than to hide behind STATS19 (which we know do not show the whole picture) and it is interesting that a few months ago Simon Monk was telling everyone the stats on floating bus stops (no doubt done by an activist research group) showed they were safe. Yet a few months later the government has banned any others being installed. Makes you think doesn't it? I mean what do you think is behind that, surely the government has access to the stats.

I have previously shared data on the increasing crime rate in Dulwich Village as a whole but the PCSO was the one who said crime was increasing due to the road closures. Go speak to them about it but it is clear what they said. They also talked about the types of crime that were being enabled by the closures.

I am sure you know people who live in the LTN area so maybe ask them about the problems I am sure they will validate what the PCSO said about the types of crime that are very visibly, to those who live in the area, increasing. 

P.S. the other menace in the area of speeding bikes down Calton some of the local residents have taken to screaming at cyclists to slow down - people are getting fed up with it.

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

@rockets you've quoted me twice in the last two days as saying thing I have never said. Which I know is a 'playbook' you hate. I'm sure you'll want to correct that.

Tell me what you think you said in relation to both claims I attributed to you.

2 hours ago, DulvilleRes said:

This is all in the context of serious unanswered questions remaining about the provenance of One Dulwich, the organisation which purports to 'represent' the community on some of these traffic issues. 

In fairness plenty of unanswered questions about how the council and elements of the Dulwich Society Travel and Environment subcommittee have behaved too.....;-) You forgot to mention that bit.

Edited July 10 by Rockets