Object to Cycleway 35 between junction with East Dulwich Road/Nunhead Lane and its junction with Stuart Road by this Thursday, 11th...and I say this as a cyclist.

[FiL]

I am a cyclist and do not drive a car. I do however cycle to work every day along Peckham Rye (Nunhead side).

The only thing that makes me feel unsafe along Peckham Rye is the condition of the road surface, NOT the vehicles using it, who mostly all drive very considerately towards the many cyclists using the route. 

There is no need for anything other than road resurfacing along Peckham Rye and at the EDR/Nunhead Lane junction in my opinion. The cynic in me understands that the one of the only reasons the council would spend so much money on implementing this unnecessary cycle lane is that they know they will in turn make money forever more, from the implementation of parking permits that the installation of the cycle lane will mean for the car users who currently park freely along Peckham Rye and the surrounding roads, for example.

In the years this has been in discussion, I have not once seen a site survey being carried out, only a stall at the Peckham Rye fete manned by members of the Southwark Highways team for the past couple of years. I would also be very interested to know how many fatalities/injuries there have been along this route to warrant a cycle lane? Again, I haven't heard of any accidents (thank goodness) myself.

Object at https://consultation.appyway.com/southwark or send a statement to [email protected] quoting reference ‘TMO2526- 015 Peckham Rye C35’ by 11 September 2025.

Edited September 8 by FiL

[sunbob]

I don't mind a cycleway,  but if there's money to create one it would be really good to have one where it's needed ratherthanon an already quietish road.

I would like to see a proper separated cycleway all the way along East Dulwich Road instead. 

[malumbu]

@FiL you obviously know the road well but your post plays into the populist narrative expressed regularly on this forum that the Council are out to get drivers ie manufactured culture wars.

I'm not objecting, nor am I supporting the scheme as I rarely use that side of the road.

I'm generally happy cycling in traffic but many cyclists aren't, and new riders put off.  So segregation appears the favoured way ahead whatever more experienced cyclists think.

My commute was the other side of the Rye, horrid with traffic often backed up a considerable distance from the main lights.  

There are numerous good cycle routes throughout Southwark and London as a whole which are welcome.

[Penguin68]

14 minutes ago, malumbu said:

My commute was the other side of the Rye, horrid with traffic often backed up a considerable distance from the main lights.  

That is frequently a function of the innumerable road works into and around Peckham and little to do with specific road issues other than they could be wider, which they actually probably can't unless you 'stole' carriageway from the Rye, which I am not advocating. 

[malumbu]

No it's due to the narrow road, limited space to get through the traffic and the number of vehicles.  Road works exacerbate the issue. I've cycled it in rush hour for over 20 years and know it very well.  It's nicer when the schools are off.

[Penguin68]

You've said 'no' and then mention narrow roads (I said they could be wider) and roadworks (a point I made) - the only area of difference appears to be that in rush hour you note the roads are more congested, which I'd have thought was fairly obvious, but I apologise for not mentioning it. You post disagreement and then seem generally to concur. Strange. 

[mima08]

That seems to be the section where the islands are in the road? If so, we cycle along this road during hockey season on a Sunday morning. In my two years of taking my tween kid, he's been knocked slightly on his bike 3x  by drivers too impatient as he's going up the little hill, I've been sworn at and having cars reving behind me as we're going past the bit with the islands (there's not enough space for a car to safely overtake). And that's just on a Sunday morning...I know such infrequent use doesn't necessarily justify the expenditure  but it would make me feel safer.

[malumbu]

29 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

You've said 'no' and then mention narrow roads (I said they could be wider) and roadworks (a point I made) - the only area of difference appears to be that in rush hour you note the roads are more congested, which I'd have thought was fairly obvious, but I apologise for not mentioning it. You post disagreement and then seem generally to concur. Strange. 

You said it was due to roadworks.  It is due to road users.  The road is narrow as one side is taken up with parked cars.  Would you suggest prohibiting parking to widen the available road?  You could also widen the road by taking away some of the Rye, or similarly put a cycle lane on the Rye, but many would protest.  And it would all cost money so there would be a campaign against it.

So the issue is the number of cars using the road at peak times.

 

 

[Rockets]

Does anyone remember that time not so long ago that the trend was for removing as much street furniture as possible to make our streets safer....the polar opposite now seems to be in play....?

[first mate]

12 minutes ago, malumbu said:

So the issue is the number of cars using the road at peak times.

So, I guess, your solution, rather like Cllr McAsh', is by using indirect methods build up as much pressure on drivers at peak time as possible, in the hope they stop driving and start cycling?

[malumbu]

I'd like them to consider if they need to make that journey and if so if there are smarter ways to do it rather than jump in the car. If they need a few restrictions and expense, good.  

[first mate]

What makes you think that the majority of car journeys made at peak time are unnecessary?

Cycling works for you. That's great, but people are different with different needs- although I would add that you do use a car for some journeys, don't you? Isn't that a kind of exceptionalism?

[Penguin68]

Mal, like everyone else on this forum,makes sensible choices for him which are wholly justified to him, the difference is he chooses also to be the arbiter of our choices. And to decide, himself, which are good or bad. And he's not even been elected with a mandate, whatever that is taken to mean (again, for some folks, quite a flexible definition). 

[exdulwicher]

28 minutes ago, first mate said:

Cycling works for you. That's great, but people are different with different needs

That's very true but if society provides people with a range of options to suit the needs of everyone, then people can more easily select an option which suits them at that moment.

If you build more cycle lanes, more people will choose to cycle some of the time (instead of walking, driving, getting the bus etc).
If you put in more bus lanes / add more buses / improve bus reliability, more people will choose to use a bus some of the time (instead of driving or cycling or getting the train)

And so on.

No-one is saying that everyone should cycle all the time, in the same way that no-one is suggesting that everyone makes every journey by bus. But if you give people the option, it at least allows a choice relevant to their needs / wants at that moment. If you don't provide the choice (ie if there are no safe cycle lanes, no buses) then more people will drive more of the time - which then clogs up the roads.

Some people will usually have to drive but if there are fewer people around them also driving (because they're on the bus or cycling) then it helps them to drive where they need to go.

All that said, that's still off-topic a bit from whether the proposal for the cycle route via Peckham Rye is good, bad or indifferent. Or not fit for purpose.

[jazzer]

More TfL buffoonery p;laying to the minority. Take a look at the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill, installed and I've never seen anyone ever use it.  

[malumbu]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

Mal, like everyone else on this forum,makes sensible choices for him which are wholly justified to him, the difference is he chooses also to be the arbiter of our choices. And to decide, himself, which are good or bad. And he's not even been elected with a mandate, whatever that is taken to mean (again, for some folks, quite a flexible definition). 

Driving short distances for able people is not a good decision.  Driving your kids to school, when your neighbour is also driving to the same school, and they could share lifts is not a good decision.  Behaviours are entrenched.  Ask behavioral scientists.  Not sure why your default is to stick up for all drivers.  

The world is polluted.  The world is getting hotter.  The world will have even more extreme weather events.  More droughts.More heatwaves.   We are getting more obese and less active.  At least some people in control are doing something.

[exdulwicher]

25 minutes ago, jazzer said:

More TfL buffoonery p;laying to the minority. Take a look at the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill, installed and I've never seen anyone ever use it.  

That's rather my point - you cater for EVERYONE, minority or not.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, you may as well say that since most people can walk fine, we don't need step-free access. However I bet you'd never say that cos you'd rightly be outed as a compete muppet...

And fortunately, "jazzer hasn't seen anyone using it" is not a verified metric in transport stats.

[jazzer]

11 minutes ago, exdulwicher said:

That's rather my point - you cater for EVERYONE, minority or not.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, you may as well say that since most people can walk fine, we don't need step-free access. However I bet you'd never say that cos you'd rightly be outed as a compete muppet...

And fortunately, "jazzer hasn't seen anyone using it" is not a verified metric in transport stats.

but its a true statement, never, ever have I ever seen anyone use it

[Insuflo]

5 minutes ago, jazzer said:

but its a true statement, never, ever have I ever seen anyone use it

I’ve never seen you- true statement. Therefore, you don’t exist. As you have such strong opinions, can we presume that you will be taking part in the consultation process, as you have been invited to?

[Johnny Dulwich]

I question why it's always Conway who get the job to do any road works in Southwark, or most London boroughs. They seem to be constantly carrying out unwanted unnecessary improvements at a massive cost to the tax payer. It's pretty obvious how it all works, 

[Penguin68]

I believe Conway;s has a call-off contract with Southwark (and perhaps many other boroughs) - this nominally avoids the costs of tendering for each job (costs for the Council as well as for Conways)  - the idea being that Conways has competitively tendered for an unspecified range of jobs (either to an overall annual sum or perhaps at a ceiling cost per job) which includes 'emergency work' which allows for a quick response and which in theory gives the council some budgetary control, although that depends on them exercising that control and remembering that construction work has always been an area as regards Council (and many other operations) where corruption is rife and back-handers very common. It's an industry, not an employer issue, in the main. I am not suggesting Southwark is corrupt (save where it has been shown to be) I am saying that construction is an area where corruption, in general, is common.

Please note I am not saying that call-off contracts are necessarily corrupt (although the frequency of the tendering process to let such contracts may be an issue) - I am saying that they need proper, effective oversight which includes an assessment of how good the job was that was done. How quickly did, e.g pothole repairs, then fail?

Edited September 9 by Penguin68

[ianr]

26 minutes ago, Johnny Dulwich said:

 

Crossed w P68, to whom thanks for the input.

Edited September 9 by ianr

[Sue]

4 hours ago, jazzer said:

More TfL buffoonery p;laying to the minority. Take a look at the cycle lane on Sydenham Hill, installed and I've never seen anyone ever use it.  

And you have been watching it 24/7 ever since it was installed.