A new study has suggested that low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) can significantly reduce road injuries and deaths, with the researchers behind the paper also stating that concerns such schemes move danger onto nearby roads “aren’t supported by the evidence”.
The study, titled ‘Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London reduce road traffic injuries: a controlled before-and-after analysis (2012–2024)’, was published in the British Medical Journal by researchers from Westminster University and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, and first reported by The Guardian.

Its aim was to assess the impact of LTNs across Greater London, 113 having been implemented between 2015 and 2024 and 27 subsequently removed. The study looked at the impacts on road traffic injuries and deaths inside LTNs, as well as on ‘boundary roads’ immediately surrounding LTNs.
This is significant as a commonly heard criticism of the low-traffic schemes is that they shift traffic, congestion, pollution or injuries from one area to other roads nearby, however this was not the case, according to the researchers, just as other studies have noted zero impact on boundary road air quality as well.
The study saw police-recorded injuries from STATS19 data matched to Ordnance Survey road links that were spatially intersected with LTNs/boundary roads. Road casualties were analysed from 2012 to 2024, with some road links that did not become part of a boundary or LTN used as a control group.

LTNs were associated with a 35 per cent reduction in all injuries and a 37 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries, which researchers concluded meant an absolute terms prevention of more than 600 road injuries, including 100 incidents of deaths or serious injuries.
If an LTN was removed, the injury numbers increased back to pre-installation levels and there was “no evidence of a change in total injury numbers” on boundary roads. Notably, the researchers estimate that had 27 of the 113 LTNs not been removed, then there would have been 116 fewer injuries, 16 of which would have involved serious injuries or death.
> Reform UK branded “utterly clueless” after pledging to scrap LTNs – where none exist
The researchers definitely concluded: “LTNs in London reduced road traffic injuries among all road users inside the LTN areas, with no evidence of overall impact (and for cyclists and motorcyclists a benefit) on boundary roads.”
They also noted that the safety boost appeared to be less significant for schemes implemented in outer London.
“LTNs have led to considerable reductions in road traffic injuries inside their boundaries for all road users – from pedestrians and cyclists to drivers,” one of the study’s authors Dr Jamie Furlong commented. “At the same time, concerns about nearby main roads becoming more dangerous aren’t supported by the evidence.”
The research follows other studies which have suggested LTNs can have a positive impact on traffic levels and casualties.

11 thoughts on “London low-traffic neighbourhoods cut deaths and serious injuries by a third, new study suggests”
They should include to harm
They should include to harm for vehicle emissions as well.
But if they’d included
But if they’d included harmful emissions as well then those poor souls at the Daily Heil would have to work even harder to deny the facts. Their heads must be spinning as it is without well meaning people like you and I making it worse for them
They, and most others, won’t
They, and most others, won’t work to deny it. They’ll simply ignore it.
They, and most others, won’t
They, and most others, won’t work to deny it. They’ll simply ignore it
Damn! The Lancashire System is turning up everywhere now
Ah – “externalities” (well –
Ah – “externalities” (well – “negative externalities”).
As I understand it this means “what we’re not focussed on counting” which in turn generally equates to “the stuff we sweep under the carpet”.
There are more than just “emissions” – although the further from “driver drives into someone” the more debateable. “Emissions” may be both fuel and brake / particulate wear; then there’s road noise (and probably all the road lighting – although *some* is a positive), the overall effect of motoring suppressing mobility etc *.
* I believe drivers tend to move less (even compared with public transport users – because you have to get to the stations / stops). Although of course at some point “but without a car we can’t access activities / exercise facilities / places to walk”…
Then there’s a whole series of consequences from motoring being a very space-efficient mode which is also dangerous and just unpleasant to be around. This leads to it suppressing other modes (various reasons), which in turn has further health impacts both immediately and further in the future (e.g. on kids’ mobility and play which can then set patterns for their adult life etc.)
While the reduction in KSIs
While the reduction in KSIs is very welcome from a human/compassion perspective…
Can the positive financial impact (ie, less resources from NHS, police etc) be calculated?
Not forgetting less time lost by drivers stuck in delays due to the immediate aftermath of collisions…
mitsky wrote:
Well, if KSIs are reduced by a third it’s got to be a pretty safe assumption that emergency service and NHS resource use will fall by a similar amount.
COBA (COst Benefit Analysis)
COBA (COst Benefit Analysis) and specifically the Cost Benefit Ratio (CBR) of a scheme takes the overall cost of a collision (police/ NHS costs etc) into account. I forget the exact numbers but IIRC whilst a road scheme is struggling to break even on the CBR ratio a pedestrian/cycling scheme out performs them by 7times or more when those savings are took into account.
Who’d have thought making
Who’d have thought making roads safer would make roads safer?
I note that the image is of Railton Rd in Brixton. My wife and I were cycling along there on Saturday, heading twoards the market when a couple riding Lime bikes came the other way, on our side of the road. “You’re on the left,” one of them shouted. My wife shouted back, “Yes, and you’re on the wrong side.”
OldRidgeback wrote:
Terrible nitpicking but although that’s the start of the Railton LTN it isn’t actually Railton Road, it’s Atlantic Road. It doesn’t become Railton until the junction with Kellett Road by the second bus gate.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Nitpicking but correct 🙂