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

[East Dulwich Friend]

Having spent a very short amount of time in this forum, I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that there is literally no point in engaging in discussion with bad faith outsiders that seemingly spend their entire day glued to a computer. Why are non-residents taking up entire pages of this forum with biased conspiracy theories, when they don't live in our area? Please leave space for actual residents to debate. To the anti traffic measure brigade, you may never have the capacity or willingness to realise you're on the wrong side of history, as I'm sure this is not the first time you have been on the wrong side of history, and it will not be the last. I am so impressed by the restraint many actual residents have shown when dealing with the bad faith responses. I now change my original ask, from people reconsidering their opposition to the trial based on actual evidence rather than hearsay, to not engaging in debate with the non-residents, as their presence here is not appropriate, respectful, or constructive. Take your feelings to the ballot box. Labour have held power in this constituency since 2010, Sadiq Khan has held power since 2016. They are huge proponents of reducing cars and pollution, and their efforts have worked. And surprise surprise they keep getting voted in. So I'm afraid, along with being on the wrong side of history, you're on the losing side of the debate. I'll now join you in your rudeness...debate here has been like the below clip from the show Jam. Over and out. 

 

[EDlifechat]

16 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

Having spent a very short amount of time in this forum, I am afraid I have come to the conclusion that there is literally no point in engaging in discussion with bad faith outsiders that seemingly spend their entire day glued to a computer. Why are non-residents taking up entire pages of this forum with biased conspiracy theories, when they don't live in our area? Please leave space for actual residents to debate. To the anti traffic measure brigade, you may never have the capacity or willingness to realise you're on the wrong side of history, as I'm sure this is not the first time you have been on the wrong side of history, and it will not be the last. I am so impressed by the restraint many actual residents have shown when dealing with the bad faith responses. I now change my original ask, from people reconsidering their opposition to the trial based on actual evidence rather than hearsay, to not engaging in debate with the non-residents, as their presence here is not appropriate, respectful, or constructive. Take your feelings to the ballot box. Labour have held power in this constituency since 2010, Sadiq Khan has held power since 2016. They are huge proponents of reducing cars and pollution, and their efforts have worked. And surprise surprise they keep getting voted in. So I'm afraid, along with being on the wrong side of history, you're on the losing side of the debate. I'll now join you in your rudeness...debate here has been like the below clip from the show Jam. Over and out. 

 

Fine if you believe that. Close Dunstans too. It's unacceptable to just traffic calm one residential road at the direct expense of the neighbouring residential road. All this scheme is designed to do is turn a small residential road that is no wider than Ryedale into a main road. And as I understand it the reason that Ryedale doesn't have proper humps and so it's a cut through is that Ryedale residents in the past have objected to them being possibly too noisy! Come back to me as a Dunstans resident once you are up for proper humps going in on Ryedale and there's still a problem. I don't own a car, I just don't want to live on a main road for your convenience and luxury. 

[East Dulwich Friend]

2 minutes ago, EDlifechat said:

Fine if you believe that. Close Dunstans too. It's unacceptable to just traffic calm one residential road at the direct expense of the neighbouring residential road. All this scheme is designed to do is turn a small residential road that is no wider than Ryedale into a main road. And as I understand it the reason that Ryedale doesn't have proper humps and so it's a cut through is that Ryedale residents in the past have objected to them being possibly too noisy! Come back to me as a Dunstans resident once you are up for proper humps going in on Ryedale and there's still a problem. I don't own a car, I just don't want to live on a main road for your convenience and luxury. 

I live on Underhill, and completely understand your concern of the imact on Dunstans! I'd feel exactly the same. However, the research shows from up and down the country, where these measures are implemented, that after a short adjustment period, it has a positive impact on local roads (on average a 9% drop in traffic). Anti traffic measure people will arge that the data is biased and reference one or two dodgy researchers, but that just simply couldn't be true accross so many peer reviewed studies. The peer review process is designed to pick holes in research. Peer reviewers take pleasure in pointing out flaws and biases. There is enormous, well funded anti-traffic measure pressure from the billionaire class, who have tried to fund negative studies, but failed because the data is clear. Also, Dunstans already has slow traffic lights to desuade traffic. All of that said, I think your concerns are completely understandable, I would also be nervous, and I can see the council have been absolutely terrible at making a good case for these measures. I just see that the research outcomes are very clear. I can't find a single study that says otherwise. But I'd welcome anyone to share a peer reviewed study that shows negative impact. There is a lot of money behind the anti-LTN movement. More than enough to fund an £80k study.

[Earl Aelfheah]

23 hours ago, Rockets said:

To be fair what you claim to be a "fake AI summary"

It isn't a summary. Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique?

I would love to know whether you are actually claiming to buy that / don't understand how AI prompts work, or are simply saying that you don't care that he's been deliberately misleading. 

25 minutes ago, EDlifechat said:

Fine if you believe that. Close Dunstans too. It's unacceptable to just traffic calm one residential road at the direct expense of the neighbouring residential road. All this scheme is designed to do is turn a small residential road that is no wider than Ryedale into a main road. And as I understand it the reason that Ryedale doesn't have proper humps and so it's a cut through is that Ryedale residents in the past have objected to them being possibly too noisy! Come back to me as a Dunstans resident once you are up for proper humps going in on Ryedale and there's still a problem. I don't own a car, I just don't want to live on a main road for your convenience and luxury. 

I do appreciate your concern on this. The fact is however, that the trial is likely to proceed. I would advise you to put pressure on the council to do a lot of baselining and proper monitoring of the impacts. There is a lot of misinformation around the impacts of these types of measures. A well managed trial will demonstrate whether or not there is a negative impact on surrounding streets.

Edited 1 hour ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

23 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

Anti traffic measure people will arge that the data is biased and reference one or two dodgy researchers, but that just simply couldn't be true accross so many peer reviewed studies.

The only flaw in your argument is that the research is exclusively only carried out by, as you put it, "two dodgy researchers". Why? Because those are the researchers funded by TFL and the Mayor to, ahem, "impartially" survey TFL and the Mayor's implementations.

27 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

There is enormous, well funded anti-traffic measure pressure from the billionaire class, who have tried to fund negative studies, but failed because the data is clear. 

Do you have any links to this - first time I have heard anything about this?

32 minutes ago, East Dulwich Friend said:

I live on Underhill, and completely understand your concern of the imact on Dunstans!

Underhill will also bear the brunt of this...so be careful what you wish for. In fact, if the council then has to take action on St Dunstan's you'll be seeing a lot more traffic on your road. And I worked that one out myself despite of your accusation about Thick People!

To be fair, I am so pleased you have, amazingly quickly, developed such a strong opinion especially given you claimed, no matter than a few days ago, to have never heard of an LTN before...now you are calling people who disagree with you "thick people".  I think you are exposing yourself a bit here. In the matter of 8 posts you've gone from "I don't know what LTN stands for" to landing on "there is a lot of money behind the anti-LTN movement".....that's one hell of a shift #justsayin

Anyway, if this is the end of your time on the Forum it's been an absolute pleasure having you   thank you for joining and sharing your views.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets You constantly mock the large body of academic research, but offer no peer reviewed research to support your many 'alternative' claims.

You've smeared academics repeatedly, including individuals you've previously cited favourably when (you've mistakenly thought) their work aligns with your position.

You've repeated claims of increased pollution in the area many times, including on this thread, which are demonstrably false. 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Are you suggesting that @Lebanums is telling the truth when he says he used the prompt 'scan it and give me a synopsis?' to produced a detailed seven-point governance risk critique?

And you have ducked this question.

It would be good to know whether you're defending what you know to be deliberately misleading statements, or whether you actually believe that they're true.

Edited 11 minutes ago by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

@Earl Aelfheah try to keep it on topic please - we see what you are doing here.

21 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

And you have ducked this question.

And what you're ducking is the clear proof, in the FOI materials, that the council tried to avoid it's own internal governance procedures, ignored the testimony from its own executives and those invited to give opinion and were hellbent on rolling this out as quickly as possible and to push any hurdles aside without any formal consultation. That is what the FOI materials show - now you want to argue about what AI prompts were used to generate, what I feel, was a far more reflective AI summary than yours. I suggest if you want to talk about various AI LLMs and how the prompts work you take that to the lounge because the longer you go on about it the more it looks like a weak attempt to distract from the aforementioned subject matter which is there for all to see in black and white.