Ryedale SE22 - Proposal to block end of Ryedale at junction of Underhill Road - January 2026

[Rockets]

Just now, malumbu said:

The scale of this is tiny.  And the response on this thread is just silly.  All schemes will have some inconvenience - but this one is pretty small.  It is not stopping people doing their normal journey.  There is a tiny detour.  These particular streets have fairly limited traffic.  Really no need to go on  about social justice.  Bigger worries in our world.

This is utter myopic blinkered nonsense.

So @malumbu if as you suggest, these streets have "fairly limited traffic", then why on earth do the council need to put this in?

And by doing so are they causing that "fairly limited traffic" to evaporate or displace? If it displaces where does it go? I very much suspect you know this is wrong but feel the need to try and defend your/not your beloved council.

4 minutes ago, malumbu said:

@Rockets how can you not possibly deny as a whole motorists need to use their cars smarter.  This is irrespective of the great harm you feel due to LTNs.  And as far as I am aware this is not one of your local roads, as you are particularly vexed about the other side of LL.

Nobody is suggesting car drivers don't need to be smarter but anyone with any commonsense knows this will will have zero impact on car usage but will have an impact on road usage and may well, quite tellingly, lead to more congestion and subsequent pollution.

I can guarantee you the Southwark council interventions on my side of Dulwich have had a contributing factor to increases in car traffic on the Ryedale side of Dulwich.

To be fair @malumbunone of the roads you always have an opinion on are definitely not "your local roads" either - I mean, you're not even a resident of Dulwich or Southwark are you? So is it not a bit rich and hypocritical of you to try and throw that one at me don't you think!

 

[Angelina]

Rockets - I don't think all posters know the background as to why this has happened, so don't understand the frustration 

[malumbu]

I regularly use these roads.  Usually as a cyclist.  Occasionally on the P13.  And occasionally as a driver.  I know Underhill Road very well, I expect better than you.  I use the shops, the surgery and until the pub was ruined that too.  My fave cafe is the one down there.  I know where William Henry Pratt was born.  So I am in a position to talk about it.

If you read my first post you would see I questioned why they would pick this road having such a low rate of traffic.

You go on an on about displacement of traffic due to LTNs.  If more decided not to drive, or shared journeys it would be better for all.  But for many it is a hard habit to break.  I have dealings with a number of older men, who drive because they see it as a right, social status and the like.  I question why they don't use their bus pass more, as for some journeys it would make better sense but they insist on driving.  That is not an ableist or ageist comment, that is common sense, and just an easy example.  There are many other groups including the ones that say "well I would use public transport if it was better". They are particularly irritating.  

 

[Rockets]

8 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I know Underhill Road very well, I expect better than you. 

You may expect wrong......are you basing this incorrect conclusion on the fact I live near the Dulwich LTN?

8 minutes ago, malumbu said:

You go on an on about displacement of traffic due to LTNs.  If more decided not to drive, or shared journeys it would be better for all.  But for many it is a hard habit to break. 

Of course I do because displacement is very much a thing associated with LTNs. LTNs do not lead to "evaporation" they lead to displacement and whilst the council will no doubt herald how the closure of one end of Ryedale has led to a drop in through-traffic on that particular road they will be less keen to talk about what it is is going to do to traffic and pollution on Dunstans.

The whole plan is utterly daft and really shows how unhinged the council has become.

Edited 1 hour ago by Rockets

[malumbu]

So we are not getting evaporation because too ,many people still use their cars?  Do you not agree that if we used our cars wiser there would be less congestion?

Do you not agree the means to do this are both soft (nudge, good citizenship) and hard - cost/road restrictions?

I expect that you make better decisions than most when choosing to drive. Don't let your dislike of LTNs, Southwark, Labour etc put you off encouraging others to do the right thing.

[Rockets]

1 minute ago, malumbu said:

So we are not getting evaporation because too ,many people still use their cars?

These interventions do not deliver evaporation. I still laugh that councils referred to evaporation - which was a ludicrous choice of words as we all know that evaporation condenses and falls somewhere else.....which is displacement.

4 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Do you not agree that if we used our cars wiser there would be less congestion?

Of course but these types of intervention don't deliver less congestion, they deliver more congestion. They are a blunt instrument. 

6 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I expect that you make better decisions than most when choosing to drive. Don't let your dislike of LTNs, Southwark, Labour etc put you off encouraging others to do the right thing.

My dislike is of utterly stupid interventions like this which is clearly going to Rob Peter to pay Paul. The fact someone signed off this plan shows how out of touch the council is and why they should be stripped of the powers they have been given. They are abusing the powers of their office.