For all the complaints, protests, and political back-and-forth, London’s low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are doing exactly what they were meant to: making streets safer. According to a peer-reviewed study published in July 2025, the introduction of LTNs has led to a 35% drop in traffic-related injuries, as well as a 37% drop in deaths and serious injuries, in the areas where they’ve been introduced. That’s hundreds of lives changed, and in many cases, saved.
The study, led by researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Westminster University, looked at injury data from 113 LTNs introduced between 2012 and 2024. After adjusting for various factors, including population density and the pandemic, it found that more than 600 injuries had been prevented in those zones. Of those, around 100 were serious or fatal. The full report was detailed in a recent piece in The Guardian.
Crucially, the reductions were localised. One of the most persistent criticisms of LTNs has been that they shift traffic, and danger, onto nearby main roads. But the researchers found no evidence of that. Injury rates on boundary roads remained steady, suggesting LTNs make a meaningful difference without just pushing the problem next door.
These neighbourhood schemes typically block through-traffic on residential roads using bollards, planters or camera-controlled gates. Buses, bikes, pedestrians and emergency vehicles can still get through, but cars can’t use the roads as cut-throughs. That, in theory, reduces both the volume and speed of traffic, and the new data strongly suggests it’s working.
The safety benefits are clear, but the politics are still messy
The study’s findings back up what many transport and public health experts have been arguing for years: calmer streets save lives. Inner London, where traffic tends to be heavier, saw the most dramatic results. But outer boroughs also saw measurable safety improvements. The Guardian article notes that some of the schemes included in the study were introduced during the COVID pandemic and later scrapped, but if they’d been allowed to stay, researchers estimate an additional 116 injuries would have been avoided, including 16 serious or fatal ones.
That’s a sharp contrast to the narrative you’ll often hear in certain corners of the press or in town hall arguments, where LTNs are described as “divisive” or “chaotic.” A previous Guardian column tackled that head-on, pointing out that the loudest opposition is often driven by frustration with bigger issues, such as inadequate public transport or lack of parking, rather than by the LTNs themselves.
There’s also been criticism that LTNs favour wealthier areas or leave people on boundary roads worse off. However, the data doesn’t bear that out. Many of the LTNs studied were introduced in more deprived parts of London, and the safety improvements were consistent. What mattered most was whether through-traffic was actually restricted, not the postcode or political leanings of the neighbourhood.
The study’s authors made a point of addressing these concerns, stating that their findings “challenge the notion that LTNs benefit some at the expense of others.” In other words, if the aim is to reduce injury and death, this is one of the simplest and most effective tools we’ve got.
Emergency access has been another sticking point. But the London Ambulance Service has repeatedly said that well-designed LTNs don’t hinder their response times. That’s echoed in data from other cities with similar schemes, and by London’s own Healthy Streets Scorecard coalition, which has long argued for more joined-up planning and proper consultation, but not scrapping the concept altogether.
Even so, the political tide isn’t straightforward. The government has, at times, signalled hostility toward low-traffic schemes. Former transport ministers have hinted at restrictions, and some councils, faced with local pressure, have scrapped or scaled back existing LTNs. But in places where the schemes have stayed in place, the results are speaking for themselves.
Injury reduction on this scale isn’t a marginal benefit; it’s public health policy in action. And while it may not always make headlines in the same way that traffic complaints do, it’s a key step toward what London’s Vision Zero strategy is aiming for: no deaths or serious injuries on the city’s roads at all.
The study’s publication also comes at a time when other traffic safety interventions are being rolled out.
In Wales, a national 20mph speed limit for residential streets has already shown early signs of success, with collision rates dropping in several pilot areas. Campaigners hope London’s LTNs can work alongside wider speed reductions and active travel improvements like protected cycle lanes and safer junctions to create more coherent and connected neighbourhoods.
Public opinion is often more positive than headlines suggest. Surveys have shown that support for LTNs tends to rise after people have had time to adjust to them. A 2021 YouGov poll found that most Londoners supported the idea of low-traffic areas, particularly when the benefits were explained in terms of safety and air quality.
It’s worth stepping back and thinking about what these numbers actually mean. A 35% reduction in injuries means hundreds of children, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers who didn’t end up in hospital. A 37% reduction in serious harm means dozens of lives not cut short, and families spared unimaginable trauma. For all the noise and backlash, this is what LTNs are quietly achieving.
There’s still room for improvement, of course. Consultation processes need to be better. Designs must be tailored to local needs. And yes, boundary roads deserve attention too. But the idea that LTNs don’t work, or that they make things worse, is becoming harder and harder to support with facts.
The data is there. The evidence is strong. And for once, the solution doesn’t require billions of pounds or high-tech innovation. It just needs the political will to put safety first, and the patience to let it work.