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

[Rockets]

@malumbu I completely understand the benefits of active travel, I also understand your point on tactics being used to try to get people out of cars.

But what if the interventions deployed thus far are just increasing congestion and pollution and the oft-celebrated increases in cycling are being propped up by people jumping on Lime bikes instead of walking a and delivery riders on souped up e-bikes.

To try and get it back on track just look at what we are talking about- Ryedale being closed to through traffic to try to manage the increased flow of traffic caused by the Dulwich LTN displacement. 

There is very little evidence that these measures do what those who support them promised.

If all you're doing is chasing the displacement (which is exactly what is happening on Ryedale and a resident on here admits that) then the approach is failing.

What is happening on Ryedale is an admission the LTNs have not worked.

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

I get that you don't understand that cyclists should normally adopt the primary position on urban roads, I have tried to explain this to you in the past but hey ho.

Maybe it is, in fact, my knowledge of when to use primary position which means I have only had a couple of hairy moments on my bike over the years. Maybe it is because I cycle acutely aware of when other road users may struggle to see me and cycle accordingly. Maybe It is because I don't cycle thinking I am the only road user that matters. Maybe it is because I obey all the rules that apply to me as a cyclist.

[Earl Aelfheah]

12 hours ago, Rockets said:

But what if the interventions deployed thus far are just increasing congestion and pollution and the oft-celebrated increases in cycling are being propped up by people jumping on Lime bikes instead of walking a and delivery riders on souped up e-bikes.

What if - its' constant innuendo with you. You say that people aren't getting out of their cars, but then quote the fact that the number of people driving has decreased. At the same time there have been steady increases in cycling over more than a decade now, driven in no small part by the type of cycle infrastructure improvements that you oppose. The constant claims of widespread 'displacement' and increased pollution aren't backed up by the research evidence, or by local data, which shows that traffic overall fell after the introduction of the Calton road filter. Air monitoring data shows year on year declines in local No2 levels.

You ignore the obvious fact that Waze directs people down Ryedale constantly, in order to avoid the lights and save maybe 30 seconds - and instead blame it on a 5 year old road filter on the other side of Dulwich - it's a classic example of confirmation bias. You're obsession with that filter is unhealthy - you've blamed it for imagined increases in crime and pollution, and now for the impact of a dynamic routing app in a completely different area. It's just nonsense. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:00 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

54 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You ignore the obvious fact that Waze directs people down Ryedale constantly, in order to avoid the lights and save maybe 30 seconds - and instead blame it on a 5 year old road filter on the other side of Dulwich is just a classic example of confirmation bias. You're obsession with that filter is unhealthy - you've blamed it for crime, imagined increases in crime and pollution, and now for the impact of a dynamic routing app in a completely different area. It's just nonsense. 

@Earl Aelfheah you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Waze works that is clouding your opinion. It diverts cars on the fastest possible route using realtime data from other Waze users.

I am afraid for you there are strong correlations between the filters and all the things you mention - so it may be your unhealthy denial of reality, and the likely causes of that, that is the challenge here.

I mean even @Moondoox, who says they live on Ryedale, admitted traffic had become worse following the implementation of the interventions.

59 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The constant claims of widespread 'displacement' and increased pollution aren't backed up by the research evidence, or by local data, which shows that traffic overall fell after the introduction of the Calton road filter.

Except of course for the limited monitoring the council put in on Underhill that showed a 6% increase in traffic levels post LTN implementation.....which, I hasten to add were not used as part of the famed "traffic overall" stat you like to use at proof of success.

One day you will realise that these LTNs do nothing more than displace traffic. 

Unfortunately for you what is happening on Ryedale is a living and breathing validation that our argument is correct and yours is wrong.

[Penguin68]

49 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Except of course for the limited monitoring the council put in on Underhill that showed a 6% increase in traffic levels post LTN implementation.....which, I hasten to add were not used as part of the famed "traffic overall" stat you like to use at proof of success.

For the record, one monitoring strip was placed close to where I live on Underhill - but it almost immediately went faulty (one end became detached from the monitoring equipment and just flapped about) so I doubt it's 'reports' were much use as a record. It was only in place at all for about a week - it took longer for that for regular commuters and drivers around the area to firm up the Underhill route as being the prime choice to access east : west routes via the South Circular for their particular journeys. 

[Rockets]

@Penguin68 I suspect it was there long enough for the council to realise that monitoring it wasn't in their interests - which, if that is the case, may actually be environmental fraud.

[Penguin68]

Impossible now to prove anyway, I made no record. Any council record will be long gone. 

[Rockets]

Yes clearly something was going on as they refused to include Underhill in their "success" dashboard.

[malumbu]

@Rockets it's good that you appreciate the benefits of active travel.  I forgot to add that this could help address the obesity epidemic and the rise in Type 2 diabetes.

Whilst clearly a separate thread you raised, and I discussed, segregated bicycle lanes.  Per km you are 48 times more likely to be harmed cycling than driving.  Motorcycling even higher

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5aa168ace5274a53c3f3eae8/pedal-cycle-factsheet-2017.pdf

As said come and join us on the light side, you'd be an asset.

Edited Tuesday at 14:18 by malumbu
For some reason I had two drafts and used the wrong one

[MrsR]

[Rockets]

Brace yourselves the surrounding streets.....the Ryedale displacement is heading your way soon.....

Honestly, this is the biggest admission that LTNs don't work - "we need an LTN to deal with the fallout from the other LTNs"!

 

[march46]

One filter does not make a low traffic neighbourhood @Rockets. 

[Rockets]

Well @march46 increasingly it does because one filter makes low traffic for one street by forcing it onto another. I refer you to the forthcoming Ryedale closure for a living, breathing example if you want to see exactly that in effect.

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 hours ago, Rockets said:

one filter makes low traffic for one street by forcing it onto another.

A 5 year old road filter on calton avenue is not forcing traffic onto Ryedale over the other side of Dulwich. Neither has it led as you've claimed, to increases in crime, increases in pollution, or more road accidents (all have reduced). Just because you say things over and over, it doesn't make them true. 

Edited 22 hours ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Raeburn]

Rockets did say that the DV filter could lead to a 28% increase in traffic 5kms away in Oval….

[CT_R]

One of my neighbours received a pack of info through a FoI request…. 
 

full of things like 

 

I "If we could bypass the internal governance processes to move this project forward" "likely to be a contentious scheme, with not much evidence to justify it"

 

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

A 5 year old road filter on calton avenue is not forcing traffic onto Ryedale over the other side of Dulwich. Neither has it to increases in crime, increases in pollution, or more road accidents (all have reduced). Just because you say things over and over, it doesn't make them true. 

Oh yes it does......just because you refuse to acknowledge doesn't mean it is not happening. How on earth do you explain the 6% increase in traffic on Underhill during the limit post-LTN monitoring done by the council?

Also @Moondoox who says they live on Ryedale acknowledged that traffic had increased post the other Dulwich interventions....are you claiming to know better than someone who lives on the road concerned.....?

1 hour ago, CT_R said:

One of my neighbours received a pack of info through a FoI request…. 
 

full of things like 

 

I "If we could bypass the internal governance processes to move this project forward" "likely to be a contentious scheme, with not much evidence to justify it"

Well I do hope they share it far and wide because if they do have FOI info that shows that there is a smoking gun for you.....

FOI's are increasingly becoming the only weapon left to residents to expose council hypocrisy.

[ianr]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

FOI's are increasingly becoming the only weapon left to residents to expose council hypocrisy.

How many have you made?

[ETA:]  And how many inquiries other than FOI requests?

Edited 18 hours ago by ianr

[malumbu]

Wow I've posted 19 times on the thread.  Surprises me as I haven't a lot to say about the scheme itself although I did go off on a tangent due to blame being put on cyclists.

Earl, you came in a little late and have had a few ding dongs and overtaken me by a couple

The prize goes to Rockets with 46.  Haven't we got better things to do with our lives, particularly as this scheme probably has little or no effect on us?  Why don't we let those who live closer got on with the discussions.

Give me a like if you agree, or a confused if you want me to post more.  I'll abide with the majority.

 

Edited 16 hours ago by malumbu

[Rockets]

11 hours ago, malumbu said:

Why don't we let those who live closer got on with the discussions.

To be fair @malumbu this is a bit rich coming from you, you've posted over 7,000 times on this forum! 😉

You can't just try and shut down a conversation because you don't like the subject matter.

As we have seen time and time gain, these interventions, however local, have wide ranging implications. Underhill and Ryedale are soaking up the displacement from the Dulwich LTNs.

If someone has found council communications in an FOI that do state that: "If we could bypass the internal governance processes to move this project forward" "likely to be a contentious scheme, with not much evidence to justify it"  then it is important for people across Dulwich to understand the behaviours of our elected officials - or would you prefer that all to remain hidden from view?

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

52 minutes ago, Rockets said:

If someone has found council communications in an FOI that do state that: "If we could bypass the internal governance processes to move this project forward" "likely to be a contentious scheme, with not much evidence to justify it"  then it is important for people across Dulwich to understand the behaviours of our elected officials - or would you prefer that all to remain hidden from view?

Have they?

[Penguin68]

56 minutes ago, Rockets said:

or would you prefer that all to remain hidden from view?

Now, is that a nonne or a num question I wonder (for those with a classical background)?

Edited 3 hours ago by Penguin68

[Sue]

19 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

Now, is that a nonne or a num question I wonder (for those with a classical background)?

I did O level Latin 🤣 and I had to Google that.

Don't think that counts as a "classical background" though 🤣

Especially as I was crap at it 🤣