Rockets

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. 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. 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.

But @Shaggy do you see anything that is the catalyst for people to opine on cyclists? As a cyclist I do. Every day. At every junction and every red light and what I see is reflected in the Lime research that there is an epidemic of a problem with cyclists ignoring the rules of the road.

@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.....

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. 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.........

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... 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? 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?

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...... You may claim to know a thing or two about the BMJ but you clearly don't know much about the inner workings of the media, publicity and amplification business..... Did you look up the definition of a "media exclusive"....what did it say.......? Well come on then - explain what the methodology means to make it coherent for me......I am all ears.... But what does it mean - can you work it what it means in terms of how they constructed the model they used to come up with the numbers that made the headlines?

Politics is a nasty business and very vindictive at times - especially when internal party politics are concerned. Perhaps this is revenge for the leadership challenge and was being served cold. I do hope Cllr McAsh has understanding employers and can get his job back if that part of the story is true.

But I did. An hour ago. Any thoughts on that? I remind you it was not me who took um-bridge over me calling out the fact that these stories are always given, as an exclusive, to a cause-friendly journalist in Peter Walker. It was not me who was trying to convince people that the industry standard to "exclusives" was not being applied in this instance despite the Guardian flagging it as such. I can't help notice how the protagonists in that particular part of this debate have gone a bit quiet....one wonders if that actually did some research and realised they were spouting nonsense! 😉

It came across as if you were angrily demanding an explanation! Well, the PCSO said exactly that so clearly something is going on - and they were knocking on every house door to alert people to the crimes that are happening in the area and seemingly trying to pro-actively mitigate some of the issues.

Be careful else @Earl Aelfheah may accuse you of obfuscation....funny isn't it - folks holler for the reasons why you question the report then when you do they see...move on, nothing to see here.....it's all so predictable. But only one exclusive was given to Peter Walker! 😉

@Earl Aelfheah there is plenty to question about whether the report uses statistical jiggery pockery to get their headline big number of 600 injuries and 100 fatalities have been reduced. Just start doing the math, look at the areas where LTNs have been deployed (I did also notice that the first Peter Walker/ Goodman research article in 2021 did analysis of 72 LTNs - installed during Covid - and the most recent looked at 113 LTNs so are we presuming that since 2021 another 40+ LTNs were put in or have the researchers expanded to LTNs installed before Covid and, as such what do they define as an LTN?). My suspicions were raised because the number seemed to be very high if you consider LTNs, in their current guise, have been installed in areas like Dulwich Village and when you look at your beloved CrashMap you can see that there have been no fatal and minimal serious incidents reported within the Dulwich Village LTN area since CrashMap started posting STATS19 data and I very much suspect that the situation is similar in many other Covid LTNs as most were installed in residential side-road areas. Look, after your 55% of people support the Dulwich Village LTNs erroneous claim I am now very sceptical of any headline stats thrown around by the active travel lobby because when I looked for the data to back up your claim it was clear you were wrong and misinforming people. So I now check the supporting data. So I was looking for a very simple explanation of how the Walker/Goodman headline was derived and all I could find was the below and I cannot even start to decipher it - @Earl Aelfheah perhaps you can explain it to us in layman's terms as you have bought into the headline and I am sure you have looked beneath the surface to sanity check the methodology this time? We matched police-recorded injuries from STATS19 data to Ordnance Survey road links that were spatially intersected with LTNs/boundary roads. Conditional fixed-effects Poisson regression models used the number of injuries per road link per quarter of each year (January 2012 to June 2024) to test whether LTN implementation was associated with changes in injury rates.

Oh I see, so it was someone else's fault that she got caught doing it....ha ha...that's beyond typical!!! That has put a smile on my face for the rest of the day! Brilliant - thank you so much - your timing was perfect - I may have to get this post framed!

@Earl Aelfheah yup I do and I have been very clear about that on here. Do you find it shocking that someone benefitting from an LTN can have concerns about them, especially the negative impact they have on others not within their boundaries? You seem to be directing your wrath and fury at @SNT - Dulwich Hill but should you not be trying to scream at SNT Dulwich Village instead?

No I am not. You are. Your games are very tiresome....and oh so predictable. I made my point and like your claims of 55% support for the DV closures I take anything Aldred and Goodman publish with a huge pinch of salt and file accordingly...especially if Peter Walker publishes it as an "exclusive".

Well I stated at the beginning that closing roads to traffic will reduce injuries caused by said traffic...that's bleedingly obvious...not sure why, other than deflection tactics, you are fixated on that point. It's your usual deflection and distraction tactics and here is a reminder of what I said and I stand by it all...it's impartial propaganda, a bit like your 55% in support of the DV closures claim, amplified by an activist journalist in the guise of an "exclusive ". You're all at it! Peter Walker "exclusive" Bleedingly obvious conclusion Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman authored File accordingly... P.S. is anyone else kind of surprised to still see Anna Goodman being quoted as a co-author of these, ahem, impartial, reports 😉

I just did. Its just not what you wanted me to say as you tried desperately to divert the conversation onto what you want to talk about...

Ha ha, she might get frustrated....frustrated enough to tear down a poster and run off with it like a petulant child.... I mean for any grown adult to do that is humiliating enough but for someone who is supposed to be the impartial voice on LTNs it's a bit of an own goal and one of the best "gotcha" moments. But when folks on here defend actions like this is there wonder there is no accountability. No wonder a growing number of people are sceptical of anything that group turns out now...hey but it keeps Peter Walker in "exclusives" so it keeps him happy at least...;-) "Get frustrated" I am still laughing at that.....thank goodness that camera was there to catch her in the act.... @snowy you clearly have zero clue how the media works and anyone with a modicum of knowledge or experience working in the media or PR industry will know I am right. But, unfortunately for you, I am absolutely correct. That's how exclusives work....deary, deary, deary me....may I suggest you type "media exclusive" into Google and read the results if you dont believe me....

Yes, they were knocking on everyone's door - two of them working the streets around the Square handing out a crime advice leaflet.

Which is massively undermined by her "personal actions". Surely even you can acknowledge that? So is it ok for a police officer to shoplift in their personal time - they're off-duty so it must be ok?

No, you are wrong. If that is the case then that is not an exclusive. An embargoed press release sent to hundreds is not an exclusive - it only becomes an exclusive if it is sent to only one person - that is the very nature of an exclusive - the journalist is saying: I am the only person who has this information. Again, that is absolute nonsense - you clearly have no idea how an exclusive works. I am sniping at a co-author of an "impartial" report who has a history of very impartial behaviours when it comes to LTNs as I have zero confidence that the impulsiveness she showed to tear down an anti-LTN poster in her local shop does not permeate into her work. By having her involved in the piece of work discredits the report. Surely you can see the issue there? Personal opinions are fine. We are not talking about that though are we? We are talking about someone who was caught tearing down anti-LTN posters which were calling for people to join the LTN debate in her local shop - she was trying to stifle democratic opposition to the LTNs and then is being upheld as an impartial voice in the LTN debate - it's utterly laughable that people think this is ok but actually goes to show the hypocritical nature of many.

A PCSO knocking on people's doors giving residents leaflets about how to combat crime in the area......they said that the road closures had lead to increases in crime - for example there is a real problem with moped scams at the moment where mopeds deliberately drive into cars to make insurance claims - they circle around Court Lane through to Townley looking for women in cars and drive into them - to make false insurance claims. It is happening daily and they hate it when people go to the aid of the driver.

@exdulwicher......you can only use the exclusive moniker if you know you're the only person getting it. Peter Walker will be being "given" these on the basis of "exclusivity". Here is how it works. The research house, or their PR company, will call Peter and tell him, we have a new report, would you like it as an "exclusive"? He then knows he gets first dibs at the report before anyone else and the PR company/research house will be confident they will get their message delivered in a favourable light from a "friendly" journalist. The Guardian editor will be happy because the story will get clicks on the basis that it is exclusive - they will also be happy because it will get clicks because people like me will click on it to see how it is being spun. And so the game continues.....

PCSOs have been door-knocking on streets around the Square due to problems with crime in the area and are telling people that the road closures have led to an increase in crime, in particular phone thefts, vehicle thefts, thefts from vehicles and crash scams and for residents to be alert and to buy cameras, crook-looks and what to do if someone tries to crash-scam them.

Bleedingly obvious because if you eliminate a vast majority of vehicles from sections of road does it come as any surprise that accidents involving, and reported via STATS19, diminish..hardly a big surprise is it....? Interesting that in 2021 Peter Walker was lauding a 50% decrease proclaimed and now a third - can anyone explain that? It's a bit like when the council proclaimed what a success the LTNs were because traffic had dropped on the roads closed to through traffic......errr....all a bit self-serving and for propaganda purposes hoping to blind people with headline stats. BTW do you think having Anna Goodman involved in the report adds to it's credibility? Do you think it is any surprise people question how impartial these reports are when she co-authored them after the lack of impartiality she displayed when she tore down the anti-LTN poster in her local shop? I know that the report flags the potential conflict of interest AG has and from what I hear from other residents her, and her family's involvement, in the local lobby group extends to far more than a "from time to time, AG volunteers in a personal capacity" which I suspect has had to have been added due to the shop incident which I am sure some justify as been being done "in a personal capacity". That one incident shows she is anything but impartial and, in any other business, she would not be allowed anywhere near reports that are trying to claim the same.

Interesting disclaimers on the notes: AG clearly refers to Anna Goodman - they seem to have omitted the part where they mention she was caught pulling down pro-LTN posters in her local shop...;-) Competing interests AG lives in a former LTN in South London. It is not one of the LTNs studied in this paper, having been introduced more recently than the end date of this study. From time to time, AG volunteers in a personal capacity with local healthy streets and safe routes to school groups. Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.