Rockets

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

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. 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!

Which is all a bit bizarre as they seemingly made the decision based on a non-council approved "petition". They're a bit contradictory aren't they? Is this on the Southwark petition website?

But it doesnt mention shared-use does it? This is why the shared-use signage is beyond the vehicular entrance - the road leading to the gate is not a shared-use route. Those vehicles allowed to enter the park are alerted to the 5mph limit at the vehicular entrance. The shared-use route signs are beyond the vehicular entrance and can be found at entrances no longer used for vehicular movements. Were you exceeding 5mph too? BTW did the Lime bike abate it's top speed - my kids are convinced Like bikes dont slow in the park.

Remember Southwark Labour's motto is: for the few, not the many!

As ever, I am more than happy to clarify things for you @Earl Aelfheah. The signage is telling people who the users (pedestrians, dogs and cyclists) of the shared-use path are and the speed limit on that path (5mph). Vehicular movements are permitted only under special circumstances: permit holders and event specific movements - both of which are governed by separate usage rules (that allows them to use a shared use route) and require a specific application to the council to get authorisation. To be honest I am not sure what point you are trying to make - the 5mph limit applies to ALL vehicles - this is why the council refer to it on the entrance board at the Dulwich Village gate as a "5mph area" which is the term given to a private area where a local authority has applied a specific speed limit. As I said it is the same as Dulwich Estates making 10mph the speed limit on the shared-use path in front of Dulwich College per the image.

Alternatively, another thread exposing the nonsense our council does in the name of active travel which actually makes problems worse. @Earl Aelfheah traffic trying to avoid congestion caused by the closure of one of the only East/West routes across Dulwich by using Underhill is very much to do with the Dulwich LTNs. Displacement impact travels a long way. Many posters on here have talked about the big increase in traffic along Underhill post LTNs. Are you using Ryedale/Dunstan's etc as a rat-run then? Absolutely. They seem to wilfully ignore constituent feedback to their own consultations but are happy to embrace the scribbled input from a few folks on one road. It's scandalous.

When Southwark put in the Dulwich LTNs cars started looking for alternative routes to the Lordship Lane/Grove Tavern route due to the congestion leading down to Melford. The traffic started cutting up Underhill (it's why Southwark did not monitor Underhill as that was where much of displaced traffic from the LTN was going). Only if the Waze community of drivers are going more slowly along other routes or there is some form of user-reported blockage on the app.

I bet they saw a big jump after Southwark put in the Dulwich LTNs! I don't think you can pin this on Waze because it goes against the algorithm and the way Waze works - far more likely people can see down Dunstans that there is a car or van coming the other way and turn onto Ryedale via one of the cross routes knowing full well that you can get stuck along Dunstans. Now they will just get stuck on Dunstans - maybe this is the nudge plan Southwark are hoping for...meanwhile the poor Dunstans residents have to live with the fall out.

@malumbu if you live on Dunstans or any other road absorbing the displacement this is anything but a minor initiative. I think the only thing disproportionate here is the council's approach to inflicting displacement hell on many of their constituents based on unscientific lobbying by a group of vested-interest residents who live on Ryedale. This is the height of blinkered selfishness. Your implication that any resistance to this is due to someone pinning their hopes on Reform is utterly underhand and quite disgraceful. But we know this is your go-to place on anyone who dares suggest a view exists not aligned to your own.

Interesting article on the BBC that touches on this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c23e3d1r17go

But we know how this goes: after 18 months the council celebrates how happy their friends on Ryedale are and tells everyone it has been a tremendous success. They will run a consultation where 80% of the wider residents in the area say it has been awful and we don't want it and then the council will announce it is being made permanent. Ryedale may go down in history as the nadir of the nonsensical approach this council takes to interventions - and my word there have been a few. How on earth a survey from a load of vested-interest residents can lead to this just shows how out of touch and control the council are? But they have a big majority so clearly think there will be no recourse.

@ianr are you asking for the councils that do add a note on the school holidays. Bromley makes it clear on theirs that they are only in operation during term-time.

Has anyone seen, bar the resident led "survey" anything from the council on the justification for this - or can we all make requests for changes on the basis of a few notes put through people's door? If the council are now implementing these measures on the basis of a few residents lobbying and have not done any sort of research themselves then they are absolutely out of control. The irony is of course that I am sure the residents of Ryedale noticed an increase in traffic when the Dulwich LTNs went in as the displaced traffic from those closures tried to find other routes through.....

Cyclists face new traffic lights in Regent's Park - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c150n02d10po Cyclists in Regent's Park will face new traffic lights aimed at improving pedestrian safety after a series of crashes and near misses.

Does anyone know what is going into the vacant Cheese (with a hint of rodent) shop? There appears to be a lease agreed sign in the space.

And if any of those impacted by this do want to flag with the media Issy Clarke at Southwark News is the one who deals with such stories and I am sure would love to hear from someone. [email protected]

@Lollipop this is ridiculous but another example of Southwark Labour "democracy" in action. it seems a few residents on Ryedale present a "survey" or "evidence" and they get whay they want and the council implements an experimental TMO to deliver it without any form of consultation with anyone due to be affected. An intervention that will create hell for residents on other roads nearby. Meanwhile around 80% of local residents tell Southwark via their consultation on the DV closures they don't want it and they go ahead regardless. It's getting ridiculous. Wow! If that is what swayed Southwark we are all in trouble. Spending thousands of tax payers money to massively impact other residents. Unfortunately this is how Southwark operate. They can no longer be trusted with the powers they have. This is a disgrace and the front of them to think they can get away with it - they are treating Southwark constituents with contempt.

Someone with influence at the council perhaps? We saw the same pattern of behaviour in Melbourne Grove. Has anyone seen anything from the council to justify this decision - surely they must have monitored vehicular traffic before making this decision to determine there was a problem?

What a ridiculous plan. If this is to stop traffic "cutting through" where do they think it is now going to "cut through" via? Has the council produced any data on the scale of the problem on Ryedale - anything to back up their hypothesis? You cannot do these things in isolation as all it does is displaces traffic elsewhere. Dunstans is going to become awful - I feel for the residents there. Councils should not be allowed to implement these experimental TMOs, they are clearly using them to circumvent proper planning and engagement. Has anyone contacted the local councillors about this? The laughable thing was the local ward councillors were concerned about displacement from the wider Dulwich LTNs on their ward so is this an indirect acknowledgement that they are being impacted? Ridiculous.

No it is the pavement in front of the College running up to Huntslip from the A205. No, again you seem to be trying to put words into my mouth - I have not said that at any point.

Which probably explains whey the speed limit for bikes on the shared-use route in front of Dulwich College is 10mph. Maybe you should all lobby to get the speed limit in Dulwich Park raised to 10mph for bikes.

Not according to the signage. If you know your Highway Code you know what that sign means. Let's look at the evidence: Nationally recognised signage that conforms to the Highway Code: the speed limit applies to cyclists The Friends of Dulwich Park: the speed limit applies to cyclists Cycle rental operator in Dulwich Park: the speed limit applies to cyclists The main board at the entrance of Dulwich Park at the Village end stats that the park is a "5mph area" which is how authorities communicate that there is a private speed limit enforced by them. Meanwhile..... Online cycle-lobbyists on local forum: the speed limit does not apply to cyclists Thank you - it was a naughty truncation that completely changed the context of what I said. But it is @Earl Aelfheah. Look up what those signs mean in the Highway Code and what I have said is exactly what the signs are communicating per the Highway Code - it is a shared-use route for the exclusive use of those groups with the priorities set per the signage. That cannot be argued with.

No what is nonsense is how vexed some people are getting arguing that rules to protect more vulnerable users somehow don't apply to them. And the nonsense that cyclists cannot cycle slowly is beyond reproach and stated by those who probably don't cycle much, if, at all It is not. This is absolute nonsense. Why did you crop out the rest of my sentence - you doing some selective editing again? I said "The shared-use route is for the exclusive use of pedestrians (many with playing children), dogs (off the lead) and cyclists but pedestrians and dogs have priority. No other vehicles are allowed on the shared-use route." Which is exactly what the blue sign is telling you.

But @exdulwicher you are wrong. It does apply to cyclists - cyclists are not immune to rules implemented to protect more vulnerable shared-use route users than themselves.