Earl Aelfheah

Strange they've still not moved it.

172 times, you've posted attacking Professors Aldred and Goodman - calling them “activist researchers” and suggesting their personal views bias their research and that their peer‑reviewed papers should be “filed accordingly". You have questioned their character, motivations and the influence of their funding sources on their findings. It is hard to see how that doesn't amount to a claim that their research is corrupt. As usual when confronted with the corollary of what you have said, you fall back on semantic quibbling. Use whatever words you like, it amounts to the same thing - repeated smears over 172 posts that you now seem to be trying to back away from. And of course you have no answer to any of the questions posed, and no evidence for any of your claims, hence your usual, transparent deflections.

No. I didn’t quote you as using that word (when I quote you, it’s in quotation marks). But let’s be clear - you have repeatedly accused them of being activist researchers and attacked their motivations. You have suggested that their published work is unreliable as a result and should be ‘filed accordingly’. That is suggesting their work is corrupt. Don’t smear people, and then try to walk away from it. And of course, whilst you try to quibble over what does it doesn’t constitutes a claim that research is corrupt, and pretend you’re some sort of freedom fighter (“the worm is turning” 😳🤣), I note that you still have no answer to any of the questions posed, and no evidence for any of your claims.

What happened with the Heygate was absolutely scandalous. The lack of accountability is shocking.

You’ve repeatedly implied that their work is unreliable and biased - calling them “activist researchers” and suggesting their peer‑reviewed papers should be “filed accordingly.” You may not have used the word corrupt, but repeatedly questioning their professional integrity amounts to the same thing. You can’t smear people and then act offended when someone points it out. You’ve dismissed every source of peer‑reviewed evidence, as well as independent consultants’ modelling, traffic‑count data, years of air‑quality monitoring, and most police statistics on crime, collisions, injuries, and fatalities. And now you suggest that anyone who considers this substantial body of evidence relevant, does so out of ideology. Surely you can see the problem? This is post‑truth reasoning. You’ve offered nothing to support your claims except conspiracy thinking and an unwillingness to accept that a decision made more than five years ago didn’t go your way.

As I’ve already noted, there’s no evidence that congestion on Dulwich Village has increased since the LTN was introduced. If you have data showing otherwise, I’m happy to look at it. Regarding your other claims (higher pollution, more crime, and more collisions), multiple datasets indicate that all of these have actually decreased. Perhaps you could explain why you believe the opposite? You’ve also suggested that the work of Professor Aldred and Professor Goodman is corrupt, not by engaging with their research methods or findings, but by questioning their character. If that is your position, are you accusing their co‑authors, peer reviewers, and the academic journals that publish their work of being misled or complicit? What about the many studies in this field that neither of them contributed to? I assume you can point to robust, peer‑reviewed research that supports your stance? As far as I can tell, you have dismissed every source of peer‑reviewed evidence available, along with independent consultants’ modelling, traffic‑count data, years of air‑quality monitoring results, and most police statistics on crime, collisions, injuries, and fatalities.

Wanting long-term systemic change does not stop someone from advocating day-to-day improvements for public services. Your comment makes no sense.

It’s the usual deflection. There’s a substantial and consistent body of research showing that LTNs reduce traffic and pollution while encouraging more active travel. @Rockets again dismisses the work of Professor Goodman, Professor Aldred, by smearing their character, rather then engaging with the work. Presumably these accusations of falsifying results extends to anyone who has co‑authored with them, peer‑reviewed their papers, or is involved in the decision to publish their work in the relevant academic journals? And are we now extending the supposed conspiracy to any researchers associated with Westminster, LSHTM, Cambridge, or Imperial? What about the studies they weren’t involved in - like the one I linked above? Your argument seems to boil down to: any research that reaches conclusions I dislike must be corrupt. You’ve also avoided addressing how exactly the Council has interfered with police data, vehicle counts, air‑quality monitoring, and other independent measurements. Instead we get the usual deflection. And again, where is your counter‑evidence? After years of complaints about a scheme you don’t like, all you’ve provided are assertions that directly contradict the available data.

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.

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.

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?

Traffic decreased, as modelling predicted. So did pollution. There is still heavy congestion on some of those roads at certain times of day of course, as there always has been. 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.

Pollution has fallen on all of those roads. And of course vehicle counts, which monitored those roads for a year following the implementation of the LTN, found that traffic decreased. Those roads have of course always experienced bad traffic (especially during rush hour). There are some who seem to have convinced themselves that they were previously congestion free.

Again (sigh) - there are vehicle counts that took place before the LTN was implemented and for a year afterward. It showed a general reduction in traffic across the wider area. An independent consultancy were commissioned in advance of the LTN implementation to model the likely impacts on air quality before the changes. They concluded a likely drop in air pollution. There is several years worth of air quality monitoring data from across Dulwich, all showing that pollution has fallen since the LTN was introduced. All of this data strongly links the LTN to a reduction in pollution (that's not to say it's the only thing impacting pollution as I have already said). The evidence 'supporting' your claim that pollution has increased involves a sentence about air quality in 2019, before the LTN was introduced, whilst ignoring the above. In other words, you offer no evidence.... It's almost as though you're entirely predictable

In 2019 there was no LTN, and yes, there was a problem with air quality. By 2021 they had introduced an LTN. That was the intervention (I wouldn't call it a 'miracle cure' but you can if you want) that they 'found'. They predicted that it would lead to a drop in air pollution, based on modelling. They have monitored air quality consistently since and it has improved across the area.