Suspicious activity on Court Lane, increasing crime from Southwark’s LTN

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

53 minutes ago, first mate said:

we do not yet know what evidence might be available to support the second statement. 

Well, quite. It was an assertion without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence.

2 hours ago, JMK said:

the lack of CCTV that would be present around the Dulwich Village / Court Lane junction 

That junction has CCTV running 24 hours a day precisely because the LTN was put in...

[first mate]

43 minutes ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

Well, quite. It was an assertion without evidence and it can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Not sure Mr Hitchins would approve your hijacking of his 'razor'.  This person was not expressing a religious belief, they were making a value judgement about someone's behaviour (not unreasonable, and something we all do all of the time; see Kahneman)

It is your choice, as well as an assumption, to dismiss the OPs perception of increased crime as unevidenced- I do not believe you know if that is the case or not? 

Edited October 7 by first mate

[jazzer]

This level of criminality is not only happening with that part of Southwark, it stretches across borough boundaries into Lewisham the other side of Langton Rise and the surrounding area. 

The lack of a police presence and activity, has resulted in this criminality spreading to areas that previously had low levels of crime. Now multiple car thefts, drug dealing and other activity etc. 

Unless and until the police react the levels of criminality will increase and become more blatant. 

 

[ArmandHelpen1]

Doesn’t the evidence suggest that LTNs lead to a reduction in crime? 
it’s weird how LTNs seem to be leaped upon every time there is an issue or a perceived issue. I don’t understand the visceral hatred of attempts to cut down traffic and the resultant pollution and the need to blame all societal ills on it.

I suspect structural inequality or some form of trauma or other mental health issue is likely the cause of the ‘suspicious male’s’ criminality, assuming he was actually up to no good as asserted. 
 

The LTNs are heavenly! It’s so nice not to breathe in choked up fumes and listen to the swearing and horns that used to ring throughout court lane and calton ave at commuter peak times. It was absolutely awful to be in the village back then. 
 

people aren’t going to commit crime because the roads are more peaceful. They’ll commit crime because of any other number of social and economic factors, but I guess that’s a bit boring compared with finding any old excuse to bang the LTN drum again. 

Edited October 7 by ArmandHelpen1

[first mate]

Has there been reduction in crime on your roads?

[Penguin68]

46 minutes ago, ArmandHelpen1 said:

The LTNs are heavenly! It’s so nice not to breathe in choked up fumes and listen to the swearing and horns that used to ring throughout court lane and calton ave at commuter peak times. It was absolutely awful to be in the village back then. 

And I'm sure that all those living in the peripheral roads which have had more traffic forced on them are so happy that the few in the Village, whether they wanted it or not, are relieved of fumes. They are so much more deserving than us peripheral peasants. 

[SpringTime]

4 hours ago, first mate said:

Springtime, speaking of taxes, you must be fuming about the millions spent on new paving in Dulwich. 

Nope FM. I'll pay. I'll also pay for public transport all across the UK so none if it needs to be ticket funded. Shall pay as much tax as I can on everything. Coppers, hospitals, fire fighters, schools, decent free meals for all kids, army/navy/RAF, care for old folk, whatever. I'll pay as much as I can. What goes around comes around.

[first mate]

Can't argue with your overall sentiment Springtime.

[ArmandHelpen1]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

And I'm sure that all those living in the peripheral roads which have had more traffic forced on them are so happy that the few in the Village, whether they wanted it or not, are relieved of fumes. They are so much more deserving than us peripheral peasants. 

Is it only LTNs in expensive post codes that you’ve a problem with? Are you ok with the ones reducing traffic in the estates then? 
I’d be angry about fumes outside my house too, perhaps you should ask for an LTN? 

[Penguin68]

Where LTNs do actually reduce emmissions overall, rather than simply shift traffic elsewhere, which includes extending journey times, and where they do actually encourage 'active' travel or travel via public transport I would not resist them, although I do not welcome nanny state interventions, but where overall emissions do not reduce but simply shift, where the actions are driven by politics not science, where alternative transport is unavailable or unusable then I am against them. I am particularly against them when all they are is virtue signalling. 

[malumbu]

Perhaps shift this to the transport section as it appears to have turned into another anti LTN thread.

[first mate]

I am interested to understand the seemingly two conflicting ideas about crime in the Dulwich Village area, especially on the streets in question. A number of people who live in the area seem to think crime has increased (vehicle theft), another person thinks that road closure should mean crime is reduced and they support this idea with general research on the effects of closure, but they do not state whether they think crime has increased, reduced or stayed the same. Presumably they are not denying the spate of vehicle thefts, as reported by another poster, have happened?

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Where LTNs do actually reduce emissions overall, rather than simply shift traffic elsewhere, which includes extending journey times, and where they do actually encourage 'active' travel or travel via public transport I would not resist them, although I do not welcome nanny state interventions, but where overall emissions do not reduce but simply shift, where the actions are driven by politics not science, where alternative transport is unavailable or unusable then I am against them. I am particularly against them when all they are is virtue signalling. 

This is uncontroversial (except for those who are ideologically opposed to any measures they consider 'anti-car'). No one wants LTNs for the sake of it. Certainly not where there is evidence that they might make thing worse.

The data that was collected and published on the Dulwich LTN specifically however, did show a reduction in traffic and an increase in active travel. There isn't any reliable data on emissions, and I suspect the shifts are too small to have any significant impact on emissions one way or the other. Together with other policies however (for example the ULEZ and wider measures to encourage more active travel), there is evidence that air quality is improving in London. 

[first mate]

Earl, this started with crime and a loose/ possible relationship with an LTN. Other aspects have cropped up, but I cannot help but note that Malumbu asked for the thread to be moved into the traffic section, I then try to get the thread back on track with a genuine query asking about conflicting views on crime in the area. Then you appear, ignore the crime aspect and take us back into pollution etc.., I can only conclude that this is a deliberate attempt to get the thread removed from the main section? 

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 06/10/2024 at 23:14, JMK said:

There’s been a very significant increase in crime on these roads and adjacent roads due to the Southwark Council LTN, even more so with the recent works that are ongoing

The crime rate has dropped every year since 2020 according to the 'crystal roof' website (which analyses crime stats by postcode). 

Centred on postcode SE21 7DG it shows crime rates as follows:

• 2020: 100
• 2021: 75.9
• 2022: 66.9
• 2023: 50.8

It doesn't include stats for 2024 yet. Not sure how accurate this is for a small area in reality. But suggests that the wider area is seeing a fall in crime.

Edited October 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

I apologise for being party to discussing specifically LTN issues, the original point is well made however. By changing local circumstances there may have been unintended (I assume) consequences by making areas more susceptible to other issues, such as increased vulnerability to crime, if that is what is occurring. 

When changes are made to local 'topographies' (in the widest sense) there may be unplanned consequences. And these should be open for discussion and, possibly, amelioration. Such an unplanned consequence has been suggested here. It is not, per se, an attack on the concept of LTNs, but it may be something which needs addressing. In the same way as a removal or reduction in street lighting to save money or avoid light pollution might have (similar) consequences.

It would be proper to examine this in detail, consider for instance changes, if any, in reported crime (at the least because some types of crime need to be reported to engage insurance claims, if not the dubious attention of the Met) and consider, if crime has increased, whether the link to the LTN introduction can be stood up. 

Comparing crime rate changes on otherwise similar roads in Dulwich would be a start. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

6 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

I apologise for being party to discussing specifically LTN issues, the original point is well made however. By changing local circumstances there may have been unintended (I assume) consequences by making areas more susceptible to other issues, such as increased vulnerability to crime, if that is what is occurring. 

When changes are made to local 'topographies' (in the widest sense) there may be unplanned consequences. And these should be open for discussion and, possibly, amelioration. Such an unplanned consequence has been suggested here. It is not, per se, an attack on the concept of LTNs, but it may be something which needs addressing. In the same way as a removal or reduction in street lighting to save money or avoid light pollution might have (similar) consequences.

It would be proper to examine this in detail, consider for instance changes, if any, in reported crime (at the least because some types of crime need to be reported to engage insurance claims, if not the dubious attention of the Met) and consider, if crime has increased, whether the link to the LTN introduction can be stood up. 

Comparing crime rate changes on otherwise similar roads in Dulwich would be a start. 

I agree. But the research that has been done, suggests that LTNs generally reduce crime. Of course that doesn't mean that it's necessarily true universally of specifically, but in the absence of any recorded increase in crime (in fact most police stats at least suggesting crime is falling) and the aforementioned evidence from other areas where similar interventions have been studied, I'm not sure why one would assume crime has gotten worse as the result of the local LTN. I'm suspicious of anecdote, leading to speculation on an effect, followed by an assertion of causation.   

Edited October 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[alice]

Crime has generally been reducing in London irrespective of LTNs.  the metropolitan police crime map lets you look at data from particular postcodes and particular crimes. 

[first mate]

In response to Earl: Yes but we are not speaking generally and some of us are not using general trends to justify our view on the specific. It seems there are conflicting narratives about an alleged upturn in crime on the roads under discussion.  It would be useful to get more specific information about reported crimes on these specific roads. I am assuming a spate of vehicle thefts would at least be reported for insurance purposes.

 

Edited October 8 by first mate

[Earl Aelfheah]

33 minutes ago, alice said:

Crime has generally been reducing in London irrespective of LTNs.  the metropolitan police crime map lets you look at data from particular postcodes and particular crimes. 

The 'crystal roof' website I quoted from uses the same data (metropolitan police statistics). The quoted trends are for the postcode. I just caveated it a little because I'm not sure that you can say too much about such a small area (as overall numbers are so small that a couple of crimes can skew things). But all in all, there is nothing in any of the available data or research (imperfect as that will always be) to back up the claim (completely unevidenced) that the Local LTN has increased crime. 

31 minutes ago, first mate said:

In response to Earl: Yes but we are not speaking generally and some of us are not using general trends to justify our view on the specific. It seems there are conflicting narratives about an alleged upturn in crime on the roads under discussion.  It would be useful to get more specific information about reported crimes on these specific roads. I am assuming a spate of vehicle thefts would at least be reported for insurance purposes.

 

I'm not talking about 'narratives'. I'm talking about available data. Some general, some more specific. 

Edited October 8 by Earl Aelfheah

[alice]

Looking at vehicle crime on the metropolitan police crime map there doesn’t seem to be any change I reported crimes over the last three years. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

The title of the OP is really, really misleading / unevidenced. 

[Spartacus]

35 minutes ago, alice said:

Looking at vehicle crime on the metropolitan police crime map there doesn’t seem to be any change I reported crimes over the last three years. 

The assumption is that crime is reported. Unless it is, it won't appear on a crime map.

Whilst in an area crime possibly is rife, if its not reported there are no official stats.

An additional downside is that the Met use the reported crime stats to justify resource deployment and funding for more officers.  If there is low reporting then there is a low priority on the resource pool. 

[alice]

I agree totally so in the above case I specifically looked at vehicle crime because people do tend to report that because of insurance etc

[Rockets]

In Dulwich Village crime IS increasing. The attached chart is the latest 3 year trend from the police website.

Now some time back I was looking at specific types of crime in Dulwich Village - the trigger for which was me seeing the aftermaths of crimes in the area and the fact Cllr Leeming had said there was no increase in crime just a perceived increase in crime. Looking at the data it looks like he, and those who say crime is not increasing, are wrong - both at the overall reported crimes and significant increases in certain crime types.

Some types of crimes are increasing significantly (or they were earlier this year and then the police stopped reporting crime numbers - I think I read they were reclassifying crime types and I have not gone back in to continue digging out the detail).

Anyway here is the trend for certain types of crime year by year. Not sure how crash for cash gets classified but there has been a lot of that around Court Lane as the thieves pray on school run drivers and rely on only the driver and the "victim" witnessing it.

 

Here is the thread from which the data below is taken and a breakdown of one of the areas that has been contributing to the increase - robberies (knife point, phone snatching etc): 

 

 

Now, it's a bit of  challenge trying to understand where the type of crime that is becoming such a problem locally is logged but there are three categories where it would reside when reported: robbery (where theft, a weapon or violence is used), theft from a person or other theft (phone snatches are filed as other).

 

Now over the last three years all three categories have been growing considerably in the Dulwich Village ward:

2021 (data from Jan 21 missing due to 3 year cut-off):

Robbery: 17

Theft from person: 4

Other theft: 45

 

2022

Robbery: 28

Theft from person:  23

Other theft: 96

 

2023

Robbery: 49

Theft from person: 35

Other theft: 77

 

January 2024

Robbery: 5

Theft from person: 7

Other theft: 6

Edited October 8 by Rockets