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

[Rockets]

13 minutes ago, malumbu said:

According to research and social commentary, people smear academics for the following reasons (I've only attached the first as this is most relevant):

Ha ha, or because they are activist researchers...a, perhaps, far more worrying trend where organisations like TFL and the Mayor's office get friendly researchers to help them mark their homework for them 😉

13 minutes ago, malumbu said:

I'm avoiding the more recent debate as I have stuff to do,

I think what you meant to say was that you're avoiding the recent debate because the FOIs expose something you have said cannot and was not happening....and poses real questions about your beloved Southwark Council and their approach to active travel interventions.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Rockets

[Insuflo]

3 hours ago, Penguin68 said:

Agreed with whom? one wonders.  Not (knowingly) with me, for sure. As an elector in Dulwich Hill. Agreed with someone in Ryedale, one assumes.

So, everything that happens in the ward has to be approved by you? Handy to know given that I live in the ward. 
Councillors are delegates; we elect them to make decisions on our behalf. If you don’t like the decisions they make, you can cast your vote against them in May.

The dialogue on this thread is infantile.

[Rockets]

At what point do those who side with the council go...you know what that's outrageous and not what I expect of my elected officials? Or are some so entrenched that they will never get to that point - happy to turn a blind eye to abuse of power and seriously questionable actions because the outcome aligns with their ideology?

[Penguin68]

55 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

So, everything that happens in the ward has to be approved by you? Handy to know given that I live in the ward. 

My point was that there was no consultation on this so far as I can recall; if ward policy is to be decided, then asking people in the ward for their views might be a democratic starting point. Unless you believe that ward policy should be the remit of the Labour councillors only... Oh you probably do believe that. As do the Labour councillors no doubt. 

[Insuflo]

19 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

My point was that there was no consultation on this so far as I can recall; if ward policy is to be decided, then asking people in the ward for their views might be a democratic starting point. Unless you believe that ward policy should be the remit of the Labour councillors only... Oh you probably do believe that. As do the Labour councillors no doubt. 

No. You are wrong.
The democratic starting point is electing councillors. If you don’t like what they do, you have an opportunity to oust them, periodically. But the idea that everyone in the ward should be consulted on any change is ridiculous.
There are people in Lewisham borough who live closer to Ryedale than you do. Should they have oversight and veto also?

32 minutes ago, Rockets said:

At what point do those who side with the council go...you know what that's outrageous and not what I expect of my elected officials? Or are some so entrenched that they will never get to that point - happy to turn a blind eye to abuse of power and seriously questionable actions because the outcome aligns with their ideology?

“The end justifies the means “- J.V.Stalin.

[EDlifechat]

The debate seems to have got quite off topic. The council has tried to implement a scheme that their own internal documents envisage will damage other roads in the area. Surely the sensible thing for the council to do at this point is take a step back and think about how it implements the scheme in a more sensible way (or if it can't, scraps it and starts again). To my mind the most obvious starting point would surely be to install proper humps on Ryedale as per Dunstans and then the council assesses what else is needed to calm Ryedale after that. Any ETO can be 6 months rather than 18.

[CPR Dave]

5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

[That]  would risk undermining the procedural integrity of the scheme.

I think this is the funniest thing I have ever read on here. Chapeau.

[Insuflo]

30 minutes ago, EDlifechat said:

The debate seems to have got quite off topic. The council has tried to implement a scheme that their own internal documents envisage will damage other roads in the area. Surely the sensible thing for the council to do at this point is take a step back and think about how it implements the scheme in a more sensible way (or if it can't, scraps it and starts again). To my mind the most obvious starting point would surely be to install proper humps on Ryedale as per Dunstans and then the council assesses what else is needed to calm Ryedale after that. Any ETO can be 6 months rather than 18.

I agree with you about the debate.
However, I really support the trial going ahead. I walked down Ryedale today, from Underhill to FHR at approximately 15:00 and, as I’ve often found, the number of cars and vans using it as a cut through was significant.

For a side road, it’s quite difficult to cross for a pedestrian. If I lived on Ryedale and had kids, there’s no way I’d let them out of the house unaccompanied. So, if someone on Ryedale has instigated this change, bloody good on them. 

[EDlifechat]

44 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

I agree with you about the debate.
However, I really support the trial going ahead. I walked down Ryedale today, from Underhill to FHR at approximately 15:00 and, as I’ve often found, the number of cars and vans using it as a cut through was significant.

For a side road, it’s quite difficult to cross for a pedestrian. If I lived on Ryedale and had kids, there’s no way I’d let them out of the house unaccompanied. So, if someone on Ryedale has instigated this change, bloody good on them. 

Fair enough but is the solution to turn the parallel section of Dunstans into a main road?

And if the idea is to just gamble and see if you can traffic calm Ryedale without making living on Dunstans an absolute misery, the scheme should have been limited to the statutory six months in the first instance. 

[Insuflo]

9 minutes ago, EDlifechat said:

Fair enough but is the solution to turn the parallel section of Dunstans into a main road?

And if the idea is to just gamble and see if you can traffic calm Ryedale without making living on Dunstans an absolute misery, the scheme should have been limited to the statutory six months in the first instance. 

Well, we will find out because it’s a trial. 
Not a conspiracy, not a sinister plot by dark forces. A trial of a change in road layout.
Implemented by traffic engineers who work for the council which we elected four years ago and can kick out on their arses in May, should we wish to do so.

[EDlifechat]

11 minutes ago, Insuflo said:

Well, we will find out because it’s a trial. 
Not a conspiracy, not a sinister plot by dark forces. A trial of a change in road layout.
Implemented by traffic engineers who work for the council which we elected four years ago and can kick out on their arses in May, should we wish to do so.

Except it will be July 2027 before Dunstans Road has any hope of relief if I am right and the traffic engineers themselves seem to think I am... The biggest problem with what the council has done is the length of the proposed ETO. They are using the full period without prior consultation and knowing there will be material negative externalities. I hope they think again and at least shorten the initial trial to 6 months.

[ianr]

They can do what they want.  It's an upper limit.  I think most hits you get on searching for ET(R)O will tell you that.

"9(3) An experimental traffic order shall not continue in force for longer than 18 months."  Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/part/I/crossheading/experimental-traffic-schemes

Edited 39 minutes ago by ianr

[EDlifechat]

Agreed but it seems very unlikely given their attitude to date that they will agree to amend anything until the ETO ultimately expires. They could have announced an ETO and said we will run the initial statutory six months consultation on the current layout and then consider next steps after six months. Instead the impression I have is this is permanent until July 27, not least cos they have no funding to change it. That semi permanence without prior consultation is the cause of the anger in my view. Anyhow I guess we wait to see what happens next. 

[Insuflo]

1 hour ago, EDlifechat said:

Except it will be July 2027 before Dunstans Road has any hope of relief if I am right and the traffic engineers themselves seem to think I am... The biggest problem with what the council has done is the length of the proposed ETO. They are using the full period without prior consultation and knowing there will be material negative externalities. I hope they think again and at least shorten the initial trial to 6 months.

Take it up with your councillors. And if you are not happy with their response, vote against them in May.

I support anti car use measures, despite that some of the measures are a rather blunt instrument.
It is only by making car use more difficult for those making unnecessary car journeys that we can reduce air pollution, road deaths, climate changing emissions etc.

Ten years from now these arguments will seem as pointless as the arguments over drink driving or compulsory seatbelt wearing in the 70s and 80s.
Unnecessary car use is a luxury for the minority that has a negative impact on the majority. 
But if you disagree, vote accordingly in May.
Either way, vote. Use our democracy, as flawed as it may be, because democracy as we know it is under attack the world over. Use it or lose it.
 

Edited 8 minutes ago by Insuflo