LTN accident injuries

[Earl Aelfheah]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

Tell me what you think you said

I don’t need to tell you what I ‘think I said’. The beauty of the forum is that it’s recorded. And I’m not playing your usual game of ‘shift the burden of proof’. Obviously I can’t show where I haven’t said the things I haven’t said. You show me where I have said the things you’ve falsely claimed I have (even putting them in quotation marks). 

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

So you read the full paper then? Did you buy it?

I have a subscription. The more interesting question is how have you concluded the research is invalid when you haven’t even read it? 

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

I know you are very data led and love nothing more than to hide behind STATS19

Being ‘data led’ is not the slight you think it is. You’ve made some wild claims with zero evidence and are criticising high quality research, questioning the conclusions without even reading it. Aren’t you embarrassed?

Edited July 11 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I have a subscription. The more interesting question is how have you concluded the research is invalid when you haven’t even read it? 

I just explained what my questions were in relation to and I didn't have to have a full copy of it to pose those questions. So if you have the report, do you subscribe to the BMJ then, maybe try to answer the questions, I am kind of surprised you haven't yet, they are quite simple questions (if you have a copy of the report) and you could have saved us a lot of time? Maybe enlighten us or people may think you dont actually have a copy after all....;-)

 

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You show me where I said the things you’ve falsely claimed I have (even putting them in quotation marks). 

You very clearly tried to claim majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN on the strategic intent question in the consultation didn't you? When in the consultation there was overwhelming opposition to the LTN with the majority asking for it to be returned to its original state.

You also told us that accountability for councillors lay at the ballot box - or words to that effect.

Edited July 10 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

So you haven’t read the paper? As usual you’ve an existing belief and are looking for information you can interpret (rightly or wrongly) in ways that align with it. 

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

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?

And I assume this isn’t going to be forthcoming.

Edited July 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

 

4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So you haven’t read the paper?

Where do I ever claim I had? I have been very clear from where my questions came from. You seem to be trying to create an issue where one doesn't exist.

You seem more interested in trying to have a go at me for not reading it than actually sharing details from a paper you caim you have read.

Are we to presume then that you don't actually have a copy of the paper after all?

8 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And I assume this isn’t going to be forthcoming.

I have answered that already and you are clearly using this to deflect....come on, share with us the info from the paper.....

[Earl Aelfheah]

24 minutes ago, Rockets said:

come on, share with us the info from the paper

Does it matter what’s in the paper? You’ve already concluded it lacks credibility without even reading it. I don’t believe anyone thinks you’ll be open to changing your mind after you have.

24 minutes ago, Rockets said:

You seem more interested in trying to have a go at me for not reading it than actually sharing details from a paper

I’m not going to spoon feed you. If you want to read it, pay for it. 

22 hours ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah said the council elections are the only time councillors can be held accountable....

I didn’t say this. This is untrue.

On 09/07/2025 at 19:26, Rockets said:

Ha ha, @Earl Aelfheah unlike your "55% majority support for Dulwich Village LTN" the info I shared is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! 

This is not a quote from me. Again, I did not say this. 

Edited July 10 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Does it matter what’s in the paper?

Of course else you would not have been arguing with me about it for the last 10 posts.

Honestly @Earl Aelfheah so predictable, so transparent....my goodness me. Enjoy reading the paper ;-). 

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Of course else you would not have been arguing with me about it for the last 10 posts.

So it matters what is in the paper. You've been arguing about what's in the paper. But you haven't read the paper? I see.

[Rockets]

Honestly @Earl Aelfheah the hole you are digging is getting deeper and deeper but carry on, it's very enlightening.

[Earl Aelfheah]

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

I have answered that already and you are clearly using this to deflect

You haven't. I asked you to share the data that led you to assert and / or insinuate that LTNs increase traffic, pollution, road danger and crime? Of course you cannot do this, because there is none.

At the same time, you question  the credibility of peer reviewed academic research, without reading it, pretending to care about upholding the highest standards of data analysis and inquiry.

You criticise people you claim have put words in others mouths, but do exactly that yourself. 

You will no doubt have strong evidence to back up the claim that the junction is now more dangerous for pedestrians than previously:

On 13/12/2024 at 18:30, Rockets said:

And yes,  Earl I would argue with you that for pedestrians that junction is now more dangerous than it was when it was open to cars.

...that there has been an increase in crime:

19 hours ago, Rockets said:

PCSOs are telling people that crime is increasing due to the road closures

...and that pollution and congestion is made worse by LTNs:

On 09/03/2024 at 00:22, Rockets said:

LTNs make congestion and pollution worse and will go down in history as one of mankinds most bluntest instrument and stupid idea, dreamt up and propped up by people who put ideology ahead of commonsense, logic and pragmatism (and were invariably linked to the cycle lobby.

 

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah enlightening and quite entertaining now too....

Feel free to share the answers to my questions from the paper you have a copy of whenever you're ready! 😉

In all seriousness I am going to be the grown-up and call time on this particular strand of the discussion as it has all become a little odd and slightly concerning.

Edited July 10 by Rockets

[DulvilleRes]

The strand is actually very helpful in exposing what appears to be elements of the Rockets modus operandi. Put out some half-baked and misleading statement, and hope it sticks. It actually feels quite Trumpian, with elements of troll mixed in. Fair pay to Earl, with his diligent chasing down of the truth, in calling it out as the nonsense that it is. 

[Spartacus]

Let's be frank here, both sides of the discussion play the same game at times. 

But it is a discussion and whilst people are passionate about it, it will continue and truths will be twisted to suit either sides point of view.

Does that make us all Trumpian ? 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

4 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Let's be frank here, both sides of the discussion play the same game at times. 

On one 'side' there is a wealth of data and high quality research. On the other there is someone repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims, many of which are demonstrably untrue.

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

On one 'side' there is a wealth of data and high quality research. On the other there is someone repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims, many of which are demonstrably untrue.

So you're admitting to making unsubstantiated claims then ? 😅

Like I said, both sides are guilty of the same crimes and ultimately no one will agree with each other 

[Rockets]

6 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

On the other there is someone repeatedly making unsubstantiated claims, many of which are demonstrably untrue.

Yes @Earl Aelfheah glad you're finally admitting your "majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN" was demonstrably untrue

Edited July 11 by Rockets

[Earl Aelfheah]

The I know you are but what am I retort. Amazing 

[Insuflo]

8 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yes @Earl Aelfheah glad you're finally admitting your "majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN" was untrue

I am truly loath to engage with your petty  line of argument. Nevertheless, in the 2022 local elections, Dulwich Village ward returned 2 Labour councillors. On a 60.6% turnout, approximately 70% of the votes were cast for pro-LTN candidates (Labour, Lib Dem & Greens).
 

I’m presuming that the Lib Dems were pro-LTNs, I don’t recall but even if we exclude them, the majority of votes in DV ward were taken by Labour and Greens candidates combined. In a respectably high turnout for a council election. In an election that various shouty types touted as a referendum on LTNs. So, fairly bleedingly (sic) obviously, the majority of people in Dulwich Village support LTNs. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

glad you're finally admitting your "majority support for the Dulwich Village LTN" was demonstrably untrue

This is not a quote from me. I did not say that.

This is a quote from you however:

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 used by some of your cohort on here in your attempt to divert from the potential own goal you flagged.

Edited July 11 by Earl Aelfheah

[Spartacus]

1 hour ago, Insuflo said:

I am truly loath to engage with your petty  line of argument. Nevertheless, in the 2022 local elections, Dulwich Village ward returned 2 Labour councillors. On a 60.6% turnout, approximately 70% of the votes were cast for pro-LTN candidates (Labour, Lib Dem & Greens).
 

I’m presuming that the Lib Dems were pro-LTNs, I don’t recall but even if we exclude them, the majority of votes in DV ward were taken by Labour and Greens candidates combined. In a respectably high turnout for a council election. In an election that various shouty types touted as a referendum on LTNs. So, fairly bleedingly (sic) obviously, the majority of people in Dulwich Village support LTNs. 

This has been discussed before around the 2022 local election which were  contested mainly around "get the Tories out of Govervment" rather than LTN specific agendas (go back to check the manifesto) so it actually doesn't show that voting for labour was a vote for a LTN. 

As I pointed out above, both sides are equally  guilty of manipulating the truth.... 

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets So just to recap:

• You've questioned the credibility of a peer reviewed academic paper that you haven't read.

You've claimed, offering no evidence at all, that:

• LTNS increase congestion and pollution
• That the filtered junction with Dulwich Village is now more dangerous for pedestrians than previously,

...and insinuated that crime is up due to 'the road closures'.

And you've railed against 'putting words in people's mouths' whilst repeatedly quoting me as saying things I have not.

It's embarrassing. I don't even think you believe half the stuff you say. 

5 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

As I pointed out above, both sides are equally  guilty of manipulating the truth.... 

No. There are clearly legitimate areas were people may disagree, or may interpret things differently. That is not 'manipulating the truth'. It's an issue of whether someone is engaging in good faith. As Rockets has perfectly demonstrated over and over again, but most recently on this thread, that is not what he is doing. 

[exdulwicher]

21 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

As I pointed out above, both sides are equally  guilty of manipulating the truth.... 

Well the truth is that the two Tory candidates were standing on a specifically anti-LTN platform; it was (allegedly) the issue dividing Dulwich, the main concern for the poor residents. The Labour councillors were going to be sent running for the hills, the majority would speak.

Then the result came in and the anti-LTNers were all left scrambling around for an explanation.

It's like the data though. The data will come in, it'll show gridlock, smog, chaos on the roads... And then the data comes in and you're left scrambling around for an explanation (oh it's fixed, it's rigged, [personal attack on the researchers], it's not showing the true picture...)

16 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

It's embarrassing. I don't even think you believe half the stuff you say. 

I'm not even sure if Rockets knows what arguments he's making or why.
This has got to the point of conspiracy theory levels of argument. Doesn't matter how much data and evidence is presented, people will still argue that the Earth is flat / the moon landings didn't happen. It's like playing chess with a pigeon - you can explain the nuances of the game as much as you want but the pigeon is still going to knock over all the pieces, shit on the board then strut around like it's won.

Edited July 11 by exdulwicher

[Insuflo]

24 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

This has been discussed before around the 2022 local election which were  contested mainly around "get the Tories out of Govervment" rather than LTN specific agendas 

Ah. So, LTNs in Dulwich Village ward were not an issue in the local elections in Dulwich Village ward in 2022? It was all about getting the Tory government out in the General Election, which happened two years later?

If LTNs were not an issue in 2022, it’s perhaps because there was no great opposition to them. Any serious discontent would surely have been reflected in votes for anti-LTN candidates. But the Conservative vote went down by 6% (over the 2018 result) and the Labour/ Greens vote rose by over 7.5%.

Edited July 11 by Insuflo

[Spartacus]

9 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

Ah. So, LTNs in Dulwich Village ward were not an issue in the local elections in Dulwich Village ward in 2022? It was all about getting the Tory government out in the General Election, which happened two years later?

If LTNs were not an issue in 2022, it’s perhaps because there was no great opposition to them. Any serious discontent would surely have been reflected in votes for anti-LTN candidates. But the Conservative vote went down by 6% (over the 2018 result) and the Labour/ Greens vote rose by over 7.5%.

Believe amd spin what you will 

But do yourself a favour and dig up the Local Labour manifesto for 2022 and then show where it was about supporting LTNs 😉 

[DulvilleRes]

There is strong evidence that local Conservatives are still hoping that 'traffic issues' will be the key to success in the May 2026 local elections. Leading local Conservatives regularly surface formally asking questions of Southwark that mirror the latest One Dulwich talking points. These same Conservatives used to head up the anti-LTN campaigning groups that were the foreunners to One Dulwich, and then mysteriously disappeared. There is a real opaqueness here as to how local politics is being conducted.

Things got particularly murky when some of these figures appeared to try and take control of the Dulwich Society, and in a heated AGM, a leading local Conservative ( former mayor of Lambeth) accused her colleagues of 'using underhand tactics' in local issues. I sometimes wonder if this thread is for some of the more vociferous posters just one big campaigning stunt. 

[Insuflo]

33 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Believe amd spin what you will 

But do yourself a favour and dig up the Local Labour manifesto for 2022 and then show where it was about supporting LTNs 😉 

Spin? I stated the actual election results.
 

How on earth would I dig up a 2022 Southwark Labour manifesto, presuming such a thing existed? If it does, I’m certain that few voters in DV ward took the time to read it. They would, however, had read leaflets that were delivered, saw posters, talked to canvassers, read and heard local media. And irrespective of what was or wasn’t in any local Labour manifesto, the Conservatives definitely made opposing LTNs central to their campaign across the borough and London-wide. And lost badly. 

For clarity, I am not a member of any party. And I live in Dulwich Hill ward.