FOI responses or research on braking and turning around LTNs and School Streets

[Rockets]

@DulvilleRes oh deary me....I have not ducked any question and I have told you one million times before...I have nothing to do with One Dulwich nor have any affiliation to any lobby group or political party. I do not think they are funded by some shadowy cabal - but you, clearly do, yet other than making mealy-mouthed accusations against others you have presented zero evidence to back this up. Zero.

So maybe it is time that you go and do some "citizen journalism" yourself and come to everyone with something substantive to backup your claims. Because at the moment it looks like nothing more than a poorly thought out, poorly executed desperate distraction technique which you whole-heartedly wish to be true. I remind you that it was you who seemed to take great offence that someone made public (using publically available information and information publicised by the person concerned themselves on their own social channels) that an award winning active travel lobbyist had been appointed to an influential position within the Dulwich Society on transport issues - why was that exactly? 

My personal view is that you just don't like what I post as it doesn't align with your own ideological, political and active travel views so you try to attack me in the vain hope of trying to silence me. Fair enough - that's you're prerogative (and this seems to be the go-to position in the active travel lobby playbook on how to try to deal with dissenting voices) but that probably says far more about you than it does me and, as I have said a million times before I have nothing to hide.

As I have said before you seem to be a Dulwich Village resident so perhaps you can try to contribute to the debate positively by telling us if you believe congestion is better or worse since the LTNs went in on Dulwich Village?

A yes/no answer will suffice,.

 

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

There is still heavy congestion on some of those roads at certain times of day of course, as there always has been. 

Yey...it took a while but almost there.....do you think the heavy congestion is better or worse then pre-LTNs?

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you ever going to produce any evidence at all to back up you claim that the LTN increased traffic, congestion and pollution? I doubt it, because we all no there isn't any.

Only, I suspect, when the council does research that it didn't commission an active travel activist researcher to produce! 😉

The growing issue for councils is that if, in time, people discover they did have information that these interventions were not working and they were selective in the information they decided to share in infographics etc then they could be in big, big trouble both politically and legally.

[Earl Aelfheah]

You have someone insisting that a six-year-old traffic filter is the cause of rush-hour congestion, claiming it has increased traffic, pollution, crime, and road danger. When asked for evidence, they provide none and simply double down.

You present data showing that traffic, crime, pollution, and collisions have not risen and have, in fact, generally decreased. They dismiss it as untrue. You ask again for the evidence behind their claims, and they deflect.

You share peer-reviewed research, and they respond by attacking the academics involved. You ask them to produce research supporting their own position. They offer nothing and change the subject.

In the end, you’re left with someone repeating unevidenced claims and insisting something must be true simply because they believe it is. What’s the point?

Edited Monday at 17:21 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You share peer-reviewed research, and they respond by attacking the academics involved. You ask them to produce research supporting their own position. They offer nothing and change the subject.

@Earl Aelfheah can you show us any research where said activist researchers were not involved......? If one of the famed authors is passionate enough to tear down anti-LTN posters in their local newsagents I think everyone is well within their rights to question the impartiality of their output as an "impartial" author on (vested-interest) funded research into the effectiveness of LTNs....if the boot was on the other foot I very much suspect you would have an issue with it.

3 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In the end, you’re left with someone repeating unevidenced claims and insisting something must be true simply because they believe it is.

That's a bit rich coming from you don't you think...you are more than happy to insist something must be true because the council tells you it is so.....I mean they got you hook, link and sinker with the "majority support" for the Dulwich Village LTNs in their consultation summary documents didn't they....#justsayin 😉

[Penguin68]

18 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You have someone insisting that a six-year-old traffic filter is the cause of rush-hour congestion, claiming it has increased traffic

It hardly matters that it's six years old. If I'd built a wall across a road 20 or a 200 years ago, the road would still be blocked. It only unblocks if the wall or the traffic restriction, is taken away. 

[Rockets]

And the longer this goes on, the more the council's underhand tactics come to light and sheds new light on what was happening when they started these programmes - validating what many of us were saying at the time and one intervention at a time engages more people across the area in the debate - look at the number of people from the Ryedale area posting on here and now from Peckham Rye. This is the beauty of local discussion forums like this - they allow people to communicate who would probably never do so without it!

This is why so many who support the council are so desperate to try and make people move on - they probably realise there are skeletons buried under every LTN in the area (figuratively of course) and are trying to protect their beloved council - as we have been saying for years councillors, councils and politicians of all political persuasion absolutely hate accountability.

Edited Monday at 17:52 by Rockets

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

No, usual gusto and blusto to avoid answering a very simple question - we all know why it is such a difficult question for folks on the active travel lobby side of things to answer.

Congestion is worse post LTNs on Lordship Lane, Croxted and Dulwich Village to name but a few (even TFL and Southwark council engaged in a very ugly public spat on the cause of the Croxted congestion as TFL said it was being caused by the Dulwich LTNs). Everyone knows this - this is why it is so hard for some to admit.

 

 

 

I answered your questions honestly.  No need for all the above.

[springfleur55]

@malumbu It's disappointing that your assumption is that I'm against school streets. In fact I'm concerned that the new proposal for the Belham where the road right opposite the reception playground has been removed from the scheme doesn't go far enough. The scheme is trying to appease the shops on Bellenden and still lower traffic around the school but because of the proximity I think they will please neither. I'm trying to understand whether it is more harmful to set up the zone as proposed and potentially have cars idling, braking and turning within 3m of the reception gate and playground but with lowered overall emissions or risk objecting and not getting the zone at all. Hence the focus on heavy particulates as this is my main concern.

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 16/02/2026 at 17:30, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah can you show us any research where said activist researchers were not involved......? If one of the famed authors is passionate enough to tear down anti-LTN posters in their local newsagents I think everyone is well within their rights to question the impartiality of their output as an "impartial" author on (vested-interest) funded research into the effectiveness of LTNs....if the boot was on the other foot I very much suspect you would have an issue with it.

That's a bit rich coming from you don't you think...you are more than happy to insist something must be true because the council tells you it is so.....I mean they got you hook, link and sinker with the "majority support" for the Dulwich Village LTNs in their consultation summary documents didn't they....#justsayin 😉

And there you have it: every piece of peer‑reviewed academic research is dismissed as “activist.” Independent consultants’ modelling is written off as corrupt. Traffic counters are presumed either faulty by design or deliberately tampered with. Years of air‑quality monitoring don’t count, and most Police data on recorded crime is deemed irrelevant. Even statistics on collisions, injuries, and fatalities are somehow considered unreliable.

According to this view, all available evidence, from multiple sources, is somehow being manipulated by the Council. 🫠

Meanwhile, unverified personal perceptions, repeated often enough, are treated as unquestionable truths.

We've had half a decade of this nonsense. It's one hell of an extended tantrum at not being able to cut up Calton Avenue.

Edited 10 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

28 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And there you have it: every piece of peer‑reviewed academic research is dismissed as “activist.”

@Earl Aelfheah again, and not for the first time, you are misrepresenting what was actually said and trying to put words into people's mouth - you really need to stop it. I refer to them as activist researchers - which is exactly what they are. Their work is funded by organisations keen to mark their own homework and those researchers have a long history of being part of the active travel cycle lobby - one of them was even caught tearing down an anti-LTN poster in her local shop. They are part of the active travel lobby machine and look, they have been caught shelving reports that did not meet the narrative that those funding their work wanted published.

That is the very definition of activist research.

33 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We've had half a decade of this nonsense. It's one hell of an extended tantrum at not being able to cut up Calton Avenue.

Yup half a decade of the council, local authorities and the active travel lobby treating local residents with utter contempt, bending the rules and trying to impose nonsensical interventions to appease a tiny minority.

The big issue for you is this is not going away - that more and more people are realising how underhand the council and local authorities have been - look at what better awareness has done; Streatham Wells LTNs, West Dulwich LTNs, Rydeale LTN and then look at some of the questions the London Assembly have been asking of TFL about impacts on buses.

The worm is turning and it because people refuse to be bullied into silence - that they feel the need to stand up to those in power and challenge their ludicrous plans.

All that is happening is what many on here predict would happen, despite folks like you telling them it wouldn't, whist calling them a load of names.

Power to the People!

[first mate]

39 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

We've had half a decade of this nonsense. It's one hell of an extended tantrum

Goodness, pots and kettles. The clearest example of a 'tantrum' was Dr Anna Goodman tearing down an anti LTN leaflet from inside a local shop 

[DulvilleRes]

…… who would appear to have been dibbed into the Daily Mail by the curtain twitching tendency of the anti LTN lobby. Whilst we don’t know for certain how that story ended up in the Daily Mail, the odds are on a tip off. What we do know that the story had been endlessly amplified by our very own keyboard warriors on the East Dulwich Forum, bravely hiding behind their anonymous handles and unverified claims as to who they are. 

I don’t know Anna Goodman, but I do know a couple of people who in other contexts have been ‘outed’ in the Mail, with no real recourse to adequately respond; the consequences have been life changing, and not in a good way. I have seen no evidence that Anna Godman’s work, which has been peer reviewed, is faulty, so the continued amplification by some is beyond all proportion and just starts to feel like a form of online bullying. 

When the toxicity of the LTN debate on threads on local forums has been picked up by another national newspaper as worthy of mention, and Police have had to be involved in preventing real life harassment of some people who support the LTNs, then elements of the anti LTN lobby are fast becoming an embarrassment to the community. All I can say is I’m very happy I don’t have any of them as an immediate neighbour. 
 

[first mate]

@DulvilleRes,

No idea about Daily Mail article- though your simplistic and facile attempt to paint anyone that objects to some of Labour's road and traffic management interventions as 'must be a right wing-Reform-loving-Daily Mail- reader, is now looking a bit desperate.

Word can also spread locally about questionable actions. Given the shopkeeper had consented for the leaflet to be displayed on their property, I doubt they were too impressed.

[Rockets]

And what's the old saying about "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

Maybe she should have thought of the potential consequences before acting the way she did.

And this is the point why it became such a big story - because it was a "gotcha" - a "man bites dog story" - something that you would not expect from an supposedly impartial academic.

The reason lots of media publications covered it - and it wasn't just the Mail (in fact, not surprisingly, the only publication that didn't seem to cover it was the Guardian) was because of exactly that - it was a good story for clicks.

1 hour ago, DulvilleRes said:

What we do know that the story had been endlessly amplified by our very own keyboard warriors on the East Dulwich Forum, bravely hiding behind their anonymous handles and unverified claims as to who they are. 

Ha ha, and are you honestly telling us if you had some gotcha on One Dulwich you wouldn't be amplifying it.....honestly....I believe you, millions would not...

And I remind you, you took annoyance when I pointed out the awards the Dulwich Society transport committee sub committee chair had won for active travel campaigning.....all in the public domain yet you tried to claim it was an "outing".

What must really grate is that people still talk about these things and you haven't been able to douse the flames....in fact, there are new fires appearing everywhere...that must really hurt.

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 hours ago, Rockets said:

@Earl Aelfheah again, and not for the first time, you are misrepresenting what was actually said and trying to put words into people's mouth - you really need to stop it. I refer to them as activist researchers - which is exactly what they are.

I'm putting words in your mouth by suggesting you dismiss the significant body of peer reviewed academic research into LTNs as 'activist'?... whist you continue to say 'they' are activist researchers? Perhaps you could clarify who 'they' are? Is it just Professor Anna Goodman, or are there others you are claiming to be falsifying research findings, and repeatedly smuggling it past reviewers and academic publishers? What about the many studies she has had no involvement in?

And I assume you can point to other high quality research that backs up your assertions? Or is your position that we should consider your opinion as less biased than published, peer reviewed research, undertaken by multiple academic experts? 

And of course, police data, electronic vehicle counts, air quality monitoring data - that's all been somehow corrupted by council interference? I think you over estimate both their reach and competence. It's tin foil hat stuff.

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I'm putting words in your mouth

Hurrah, at last....please, please, please stop doing it!

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And of course, police data, electronic vehicle counts, air quality monitoring data - that's all been somehow corrupted by council interference? I think you over estimate both their reach and competence. It's tin foil hat stuff.

No, not tin foil hat stuff but it is how it is presented that matters. And you know this better than anyone as you fell for the council "majority support for Dulwich Village LTN" and repeated it here as some sort of proof. That stat was misleading propaganda as the real stat on support (or not in this case) was buried in the report and nowhere near the council infographic or correspondence on it - the use of that stat shows just how biased councils and others are when the desperately want the public to believe something. 

You have to admit if they had put the 80% of people don't support the measures the mood board of their report would have been very, very different.

A bit like activist research, it's often what doesn't make the editors cuts that is most telling.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Perhaps you could clarify who 'they' are?

I dunno, maybe, for instance, anyone who has been doing research on the basis of the £1.5m awarded to University of Westminster, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), Cambridge University or Imperial College London to research LTNs who may have had roles within cycle lobby or other activist groups...

I mean when they got the funding for the "impartial" research Dr Aldred referred to LTN interventions as "innovative" and it's clear what the focus of their conclusions in the reports were going to be before the research had actually started.....

Talking about the funding and new research, Professor Aldred said: “It is exciting to be able to study these innovative but under-researched interventions in much more depth than has previously been possible. For instance, we will extend our previous research by examining not just impacts on overall levels of walking and cycling, but also any changes in who walks and cycles, for instance gender balance. This award also means that we can look in detail at local people’s experiences, and how these experiences may change over time. Another focus will be examining changes over time in congestion levels on boundary roads and in the experiences of residents living on boundary roads, areas where more research is needed.”