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 19 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 14 hours 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 13 hours ago by Insuflo

[malumbu]

6 hours ago, malumbu said:

@rollflick  Great to have your views on my earlier question

I'm avoiding the more recent debate as I have stuff to do, but I am grateful for @Earl Aelfheah for challenging what a number of you are saying and as with him hate the smearing of academics, that is Farage/Trump territory.

Back to AI:

Smearing academics—the act of discrediting, insulting, or attacking the reputation of university researchers, scientists, and professors—has become increasingly common due to a combination of political polarization, anti-intellectualism, and the public's changing relationship with authority.

 

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

 

1. Political Ideology and "Culture Wars"

• Perceived Liberal Bias: A major driver of distrust in higher education is the perception that colleges are too liberal and engage in indoctrination. Roughly 41% of Americans who lack confidence in higher education cite concerns that universities push certain political agendas, "brainwash" students, or focus too much on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).
• "Culture War" Targets: Academics, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, are often targeted as "out-of-touch elites" who are disconnected from the "real world".
• Populism: Populist movements often rail against the "establishment," which includes researchers, technocrats, and scientists, framing them as elitist antagonists to the common person. 

And on distrust:

Rejection of Authority: In an age of "anti-intellectualism," there is a growing tendency to reject expert consensus, especially when it conflicts with personal beliefs or political ideologies (e.g., climate change, vaccine skepticism).

@alice why is it funny to smear academics?  Do you agree with Trump about paracetamol?  Or with Piers Corbyn about the Covid vaccine and that Climate Change is fake?  I'm making a serious point.  I look forward to hearing your take.

[Moondoox]

On 23/01/2026 at 20:02, Rockets said:

. I can honestly say I can think of two instances where I nearly came a cropper due to bad driving and I was doing a lot of miles. 

forgive me for the massive necro, but in 5 years of cycling basically everywhere I have been knocked off, at speed, due to driver carelessness, twice. both were horrible. Cycling uptake in London is so blindingly obviously driven by segregated infrastructure, I have no idea how you believe this sort of John Forester bootstraps just-get-over-it nonsense.

[malumbu]

@Moondoox  agree and please see my post on the cycling training thread where a (presumably motorist) is criticising cycle training.

@Rockets I'd appreciate your views on the cycle training video, presumably you cycle/cycled with young family

[Rockets]

13 hours ago, Insuflo said:

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. 

Did it occur to you to consider why traffic is using it as a cut through or what will happen to that traffic once Ryedale is closed?

12 hours ago, Insuflo said:

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.

No, implemented by councillors. Traffic engineers are part of the process and seem to have been lobbying hard against elements of these proposals - which are still in place.

This whole narrative around "well councillors can do what they want as we can kick them out every 4 years" is a very, very dangerous precedent to set. Councillors and the council are still accountable to constituents throughout their term and they have to follow process, governance and protocol - they cannot just do what they want as they are an elected official and I very much suspect the person who withdrew from the process knew full well that rules were being bent/broken and decided they wanted no part of it.

10 hours ago, Moondoox said:

forgive me for the massive necro, but in 5 years of cycling basically everywhere I have been knocked off, at speed, due to driver carelessness, twice. both were horrible. Cycling uptake in London is so blindingly obviously driven by segregated infrastructure, I have no idea how you believe this sort of John Forester bootstraps just-get-over-it nonsense.

And therein lies my point - there is a generation of "post-Covid cyclists" who think you have to have segregated infrastructure for cycling to be safe. You don't and actually there is growing evidence that it is no longer just driver behaviour that needs to be changed to reduce KSIs but cyclist behaviour too - hence the cyclist red light jumping programme being installed in the City showing cyclists who jump red lights the video of the woman being hit by a bus when doing so.

But let's get the thread back on track the closure of Ryedale has nothing to do with cycling and we still need to determine why the council/councillors were in such a rush to get it installed without the proper consultation process.

It is one thing running a consultation and ignoring the results, it is another not bothering to run the consultation at all and pushing the measures out anyway.

[Lebanums]

14 hours 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. 

There are many in Ryedale who are not happy with the proposed ETO measures.

We agree that the speed at which these cars are travelling is unacceptable. However, there is currently an incentive to use Ryedale, as the existing speed cushions are ineffective. If appropriate traffic-calming measures were put in place, vehicles would travel more slowly and would be less likely to choose Ryedale over Dunstans.

 

12 hours ago, Insuflo said:

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.
 

Engaging with democracy is essential, and that councillors should be accountable to the electorate. However, that accountability also depends on elected representatives following due process and acting with integrity while in office. If councillors are unwilling to do so, then they should seriously consider whether they are fit to continue in that role.

Decisions of this nature should be made transparently and in the interests of the whole community, not perceived as a favour to a friend or a response to a narrow set of interests. Community trust relies on the assurance that policies are evidence-based, fairly considered, and applied consistently.

Public debate is healthy, but so is the expectation that those elected to serve do so impartially and with the wider good in mind.

Edited 1 hour ago by Lebanums
correction

[enpointe]

There is a large amount of support on Ryedale, particularly at the Forest Hill Road end where the road is narrower. It’s not just an issue of speed but the high number of cars passing through which leads to head on road blocks with severe incidents of road rage where drivers threaten other drivers with violence and shouting all sorts of obscenities, all in ear shot of families. Not to mention the regular damage to vehicles because of the number of cars trying to pass each other. It’s not acceptable and it is 100% necessary to implement some changes though a trial basis to see if these measures will reduce the volume of traffic. 
 

 

[Lebanums]

1 minute ago, enpointe said:

There is a large amount of support on Ryedale, particularly at the Forest Hill Road end where the road is narrower. It’s not just an issue of speed but the high number of cars passing through which leads to head on road blocks with severe incidents of road rage where drivers threaten other drivers with violence and shouting all sorts of obscenities, all in ear shot of families. Not to mention the regular damage to vehicles because of the number of cars trying to pass each other. It’s not acceptable and it is 100% necessary to implement some changes though a trial basis to see if these measures will reduce the volume of traffic. 
 

 

Sorry to hear about the road rage issues — that’s clearly frustrating. But closing one end of the road doesn’t really solve it, as cars can still pass from both directions at the FHR end with the proposed measures. With more people driving larger cars that our Victorian streets weren’t designed for, this just shifts the problem onto other streets. Double yellow lines on the bend would allow cars to pass safely and have the least impact on surrounding roads.

[enpointe]

9 minutes ago, Lebanums said:

Sorry to hear about the road rage issues — that’s clearly frustrating. But closing one end of the road doesn’t really solve it, as cars can still pass from both directions at the FHR end with the proposed measures.

It will solve it as it essentially makes Ryedale one way -  why would you drive down Ryedale from FHR unless you live on Ryedale, Cornflower or Balchier? You can only turn right from the latter two so the closure will significantly reduce the number of cars and subsequently the number of road rage incidents. The road rage isn’t between neighbours, its drivers using Ryedale as a cut through. 

Edited 52 minutes ago by enpointe

[Lebanums]

3 minutes ago, enpointe said:

It will solve it as it essentially makes Ryedale one way -  why would you drive down Ryedale from FHR unless you live on Ryedale, Cornflower or Balchier? You can only turn right from the latter two so the closure will significantly reduce the number of cars and subsequently the number of road rage incidents. The road rage isn’t between neighbours, its drivers using Ryedale as a cut through. 

It would also be easier for those of us who live on Ryedale to three-point turn and use Dunstans to reach the A205. There’s also a real risk that school traffic will start using Ryedale and Cornflower/Balchier for drop-offs, especially with the new school streets measures in place.

I'm not disagreeing with you that something needs done, just not this.

Edited 51 minutes ago by Lebanums
update

[Rockets]

9 minutes ago, enpointe said:

The road rage isn’t between neighbours, its drivers using Ryedale as a cut through. 

Does anyone actually consider what is causing the problem rather than just looking for a solution to solve the problem? Why are cars using it as a cut through - because of the LTNs in other parts of Dulwich.

Putting another LTN in doesn't fix the problem it just moves the problem to someone else to live with. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut and is a very blunt, and ultimately ineffective, instrument.

[alice]

Enpointe. The easiest way to solve problems you have described at the  FHR end of Rydale would be to have double yellow lines for the first 20m  wouldn’t that stop the potential collisions, road rage, swearing, upset families? Etc