Earl Aelfheah

No both robbery and violent crime specifically, and ‘all crime’ generally are lower than they were before the filter was introduced. As well as trending behind the London average.

Explain how. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery way above current levels and the London average. Since the filter was introduced it has fallen back in line with background trends. The data on violent crime is even more stark - falling in absolute terms and massively against background trends. Both are lower now than ‘pre-filter’. And of course ‘all crime’ is lower too. By your logic (not mine), this suggests the filter has reduced robbery and violent crime specifically and ‘all crime’ generally. Explain how you think the opposite is true?

An example: https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/news/city-of-london/news/2024/august/cycle-team-producing-great-results-a-year-on-from-launch/#:~:text=The seized e-bikes are,with 'hotspot' policing initiatives. They’re usually targeting illegal e-bikes as well as red light hoppers. I’ve seen crews on Blackfriars road before.

You quite often see people being stopped and issued FPN on some of the major commuter routes into London. Ex-Dulwichers point re. the ‘Idaho stop’ is spot on. We need more nuanced rules in relation to those on bicycles, better enforcement of road laws in general, and education putting the safety of others first.

Was walking past this earlier and wondering the same thing. Definitely looks like it's being redeveloped.

This is simply untrue. I have addressed the specific categories that you've cherry picked. But if you think that the filter has had an impact on crime, then you cannot ignore categories that don't fit your narrative. It is not logically coherent (shock horror). Really? What about violent crime - down in absolute terms and way down against background trends. Why have you not picked that? Applying your logic, it is evidence the filter has reduced violent crime. Yes, but you've suggested that the filter has caused an increase in crime, which suggests a disproportionate increase in crime. There has been none. Crime, is down against background trends. Robbery has moved in line with the London average since 2019. Between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery, way above the London average. So how come that isn't relevant to your 'analysis'? 'Theft from the person' has trended down significantly against the London average since 2021. It's an extreme form of confirmation bias when you're cherry picking data, it still doesn't align with your preconceived notion, and yet you convince yourself it's evidence you were right anyway. It's beyond ridiculous.

You think the fact that all crime has trended down against the London average is irrelevant? Why is that? You've literally posted a chart showing that for robbery they absolutely have been. In fact between 2015-2018, before the filter was introduced, there was a significant increase in robbery above the London average. For the other two types you've cherry picked, they've seen slight movements towards the background trend before and after the filter. They've trended down against the average since the filter was introduced. I'm glad you like the site. It does have some interesting data. But your interpretation of those charts is truly bizarre. They don't support your claim that the filter has lead to a disproportionate rise in any crime at all - quite the opposite.

@Rockets Not sure what you think that's showing, but I'll help. From 2021 onwards: The numbers for Robbery have moved exactly in line with the London average 'Theft from the person' has trended down significantly against the London average. 'Other theft' trends down against the average up until 2023, after which it stays flat and the London average falls back down; Worth noting that for Dulwich it's fallen again for the first 5 months of 2025 as previously mentioned. What's interesting is that you've ignored all the other types of crimes. Here's the trend for all crime. As you can see, since 2021, The crime rate for the area around the filter has trended down compared to the London average. So by your logic, this is 'proof' that the filter is reducing crime.

A nice YouTube vid on the pleasure of cycling in London

.

Ah, the 'I know you are but what am I' retort. Brilliant. Is this an example of your "Experience, common sense and logic"

There are just some wild claims being made on this thread, by people desperate to paint the square as a disaster for business, for air quality, road safety and as the cause of rampant crime. But of course there is no evidence for any of these things. The apocalyptic fantasies are so far removed from any reality it just comes across as slightly ridiculous. Pretending that the village has turned into some sort of hellscape, or worse, convincing yourself that it has, is not going to ease your sense of grievance at being slightly inconvenienced by a road layout change made half a decade ago, which you didn't approve of. We're talking about a 200 foot (ish) stretch of road being used to create more space for pedestrians and shoppers. It feels like a little perspective would be good.

You keep saying this. But where is your evidence of reduced footfall? Chains are typically very adept at researching footfall before opening new stores, and I have never heard of them targeting areas with low footfall. I don't believe anyone would accept that Gail's is using it's size to 'weather low footfall' in the Village.

Yes footfall is a factor. I have little doubt there is more footfall now that there is a large pedestrian area outside the shops; It certainly feels as though there are a lot more people milling about now, than when it was just a narrow pavement. But It's not for me to prove that footfall hasn't fallen - you're the one saying it has - where is your evidence? There is very little evidence that lot's of car traffic improves the viability of a local shopping area. In fact most research shows the exact opposite - that an easily walkable, pleasant pedestrian area increase footfall and spending in local shops. Dulwich Village is not (ad never has been) a destination shopping street - it caters primally for local and nearby residents. The cheese shop was a new business which opened after the square was introduced. You seem to dismiss the idea that the square contributed to the creation of that new business, but then make a causal connection between the square and it's closure. Explain that logic. It appears to be just bad = square, good= not square. Other nearby businesses that have opened since it's introduction (from top of my head) - Gails, Megans, Redemption... apparently a new organic veg shop is on the way too.

There are loads of new businesses in Dulwich. What evidence is there of falling footfall? There is clearly more pedestrian activity around the square than when the space was taken up by a queue of traffic. When a new business opens up, it's not because of the square. But when it closes, it is? Explain that logic.

When in doubt, blame the filter. We don't need evidence it's true (and any evidence to the contrary can be ignored and labelled propaganda). That's the rule right?

The LTN is having a big effect on pork markets.

Urgh. All we need now is for them to call it 'Ollie's on the Lordship' and satire is officially dead.

Urgh, people can be awful. Really out of order.

hmmm... According to the Rockets Data Unit, average earnings across Dulwich are going to fall.

Post truth nonsense here.

Putting aside what a PCSO may or may not have said to Rockets, he himself has made several claims around pollution, safety and crime which he has provided no evidence for and / or are demonstrably false. There is no evidence that the filter increased crime. Around the square crime has been broadly flat since 2018, and trended down against the London average There is no evidence of increased road danger. Data shows a reduction in collisions and serious injuries. There is no evidence of increased pollution. Local air quality monitoring demonstrates there to have been significant falls in NO2. I don't think it's reasonable to just make stuff up. If you do, repeatedly, then it is right for people to treat what you say with scepticism.

This is absolute nonsense. I have supplied a link to crime data for the area in question and a comparison to the London average. Around the square crime has been broadly flat since around 2018, and trending down against to the London average. This also aligns with high quality research which suggests that in general LTNs reduce crime. Rockets has not provided any evidence at all, that there has been a disproportionate rise in any type of crime as a result of the filter. He has provided partial data on a few hand picked crime types, for the whole of Dulwich, with no context or reference to background trends. He has provided no evidence of his other claims either, concerning pollution or pedestrian injuries. Absolutely zero. I have provided links to official data that show the exact opposite to what he has claimed. If I say that average earnings have increased as a result of a cheese shop opening, and then provide some patchy pay data for the whole of Dulwich Village, with no comparator data linking it to background trends across London or anything linking it to the cheese shop in any way, that is not evidence of my claim. It is an irrelevance. It's just making stuff up and kicking up dust in the hope that people take the use of some random numbers as 'statistic-y' / don't notice. It is not a case of 'interpretation of statistics'. Rockets has offered no relevant data to back up his claims.

There is no evidence that the filter increased crime. Around 'the square' it has been broadly flat since around 2018, and trending down against to the London average. Research suggests that in general LTNs reduce crime. There is no evidence of increased road danger. There is data showing a reduction in collisions and serious injuries. There is no evidence of increased pollution. Local air quality monitoring shows that there have been significant drops in NO2. When you make unevidenced claims, or claims which run counter to all available evidence, that is a case of just making stuff up. It is no different to me claiming that the traffic filter has made everyone taller and then failing to produce any evidence to back it up when questioned. It is nonsense.

And here we go. Rockets has achieved exactly what he set out to. To be clear: There is no evidence of increased crime. Data suggests that it is flat across the wider area, and that there has been no spike around the filter. Data for the first 5 months of this year actually suggest it’s falling. Research suggests that in general LTNs reduce crime. There is no evidence of increased road danger. There is data showing a reduction in collisions and serious injuries. There is no evidence of increased pollution. Local air quality monitoring shows that there have been significant drops in NO2. So what we have is an individual making stuff up. And yet when they say that a policemen told them (and only them) that crime has increased as a direct result of a road filter, apparently it's unconscionable that one should be sceptical. Rockets repeatedly makes things up in order to exercise his half a decade old grievance, knowing that people will start discussing these things as if they had any basis in fact. It’s a tactic of throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks.