Earl Aelfheah

@ianr - that's interesting. It does indeed suggest that TfLs internal guidance on dealing with appeals is to give 20 metres of grace. This does not amount to what was originally claimed however - that TfL allow people to drive in bus lanes when turning left - you can read the signs, their guidance to drivers on their website and the relevant rules in the highway code. There is a big difference from the rules in place and the circumstances under which a public body decides it's worth the time and cost of pursuing an appeal (and possibly legal action) against a traffic offender. The document appears to have been obtained through a freedom of information request on internal procedures, by people looking for loopholes for their offending. There is an easier way to avoid having to pay out, and that's just to follow the rules in the first place. To be clear, you are not allowed to enter a bus lane, even to turn left except where there is an arrow and a dotted line indicating that you can. Drive in a bus lane and you will still be issued a ticket. And of course, the bus lane in question is operated by Southwark, not TfL - so it's kind of irrelevant. @Rockets You can blank out your car in the pictures. You've chosen to spend a year complaining across multiple threads about how unfair the enforcement of that bus lane is, and have finally admitted that you're really talking about an incidence where you got caught yourself. Why not share the evidence, so that people can judge that themselves? I don't - the road markings and signage are clear. The turn into Overhill is easy, there is no reason at all to enter the bus before turning (it actually makes the turn more difficult). So in what sense is it a 'trap'?

Drive in a TfL bus lane. See what happens. Better still, just wait next time and don’t slip by stationary traffic to turn left using the bus lane. Or do, and take the fine on the chin like most people would. Anything really, but 12 months worth of excuses and conspiracy posts across multiple threads.

@Rockets TfL do not let you drive in a bus lane for 20 metres before turning left. You continually repeating it, doesn’t make it true. The quote you provide is from guidance marked ‘in confidence’ (no doubt obtained by someone trying to find loop holes for their offending) to outsourced enforcement companies processing appeals in bulk on behalf of TfL. It does not suggest that you can use a TfL bus lane if turning left and not get a ticket. The document (actually an appendix to a schedule) also states that it must be considered in context of other documents, which we don't have. It's just another tedious example of your searching for snippets of information that you think vaguely align with what you want to believe, whilst ignoring everything else. Both Tfl and the highway code are clear that you must not drive or stop in a bus lane during its hours of operation unless the signs indicate you may do so. If you insist on driving in bus lanes you will get fined, whether they're operated by Southwark or TfL. Suggesting otherwise is extremely misleading and irresponsible. Southwark's response suggests that you were in the bus lane before turning left. Why you had to hide the fact that you had been fined and wrap up your annoyance in conspiracy, (rather than just accept an error like most people), is beyond me. The fact that you've gone on about it for nearly a year, is ridiculous. This is where the bus lane ends. The road goes in to one lane.

Yeh, that's quite different. Rockets apparently got fined in the bus lane when turning left (before turning left?) into Overhill Road. Although he didn't admit this for quite a while, rather pretending that he was just concerned generally about an unavoidable trap, cynically set by Southwark to trick people. He's referenced it for months across multiple threads. He also repeatedly stated that you are allowed to drive in TfL operated bus lanes if turning left. This isn't true of course (unless there are dotted lines and an arrow indicating that you can move across) and is not a very helpful myth to spread.

I wasn’t suggesting you shouldn’t look. Just pointing out in the context of the picture that it’s a one lane road, so you have lots of room to turn into it.

Just a quick reminder. Back in 2024 Rockets started a thread ostensibly to 'warn' people of a conspiracy by Southwark council to 'trap' people innocently driving into the bus lane at the junction of Lordship Lane and Overhill Road. At the time Rockets refused to confirm whether he had been fined. The suggestion that he might be motivated by having been caught out himself was described by First mate as an outrageous personal attack: "seen before with the pro LTN lobby if you cannot debate with facts and evidence, then go low, seems part of the playbook.". Worth pointing out that nearly a year later, he's finally fessed up. This is the junction in question: Overhill Road (pictured going off to the left) is one way, so you're turning into the middle of the road - there is no traffic coming towards you. It's pretty hard, turning left, to 'clip' the bus lane without getting close to also clipping the near curb / hitting the lamppost. But there is often stationary traffic queueing back from the lights, and people do get caught by the cameras slipping up the inside of another vehicle (in the bus lane). @Rockets you weren’t 'clipping' the bus lane as you cut up the inside of some traffic to turn left were you?

No, but do you think that's what happened in Rockets case? Anyone who knows that turn and who followed Rockets ridiculous multipage conspiracy post (in which he refused to actually confirm that he had been fined - good to get that clear), will note not just what was said, but the questions that were assiduously ignored / ducked. And the fact that he appears not to have appealed it. It's just a very public demonstration of sour grapes, and an ongoing inability to admit error.

It’s not that hard to avoid crossing into a bus lane. If you felt your fine was unjust, you should have appealed it, instead of repeatedly complaining about it across this forum over many months.

Not this again. Is the issue unclear signage when it comes to you driving across a bus lane too? Because bus lanes are pretty easy to see

Play another tune Rockets

On Bicycles less than an hour ago: On cars less than half an hour ago:

And of course 20mph isn’t meant to be a money saving scheme. It’s meant to make roads safer, which it does.

... Err, some of those links are tenuous at best and read more like a "we think someone once said this so therefore it must be true". Click the link on the 20mph does not increase journey times one.......;-) the CSV files contains raw data. No narrative.

@exdulwicher Yes exactly, it is likely that in built up areas traffic can flow more freely at 20mph, due to reduced braking distances (enabling drivers to leave a smaller gap to the vehicle in front) and increased junction capacity (as drivers are able to pull into slower traffic more easily). This is why I am asking if anyone has seen that analysis as the Welsh did it and came up with a figure. So you're starting with the statement that there is an economic cost to 20mph in London and then asking if anyone has evidence to prove it? Yes, that follows your usual pattern, but perhaps you can see the problem?

It has all the raw data in CSV format if you look Is there? What is it? What do you think the economic cost of 20mph limit is in London? Tfl suggests it has a positive benefit/cost ratio, although again, it is not intended to be money saving measure, but a road safety intervention. Are you suggesting that it's an ineffective road safety measure, or that it's an effective one that's too expensive? If it's the latter, what's your evidence for this and what are you suggesting would be a better investment in road safety for the cost you're identifying?

Where there is poor signage it obviously should be addressed (as you acknowledge it has been previously). But I just don't accept that one can either attend to the road and the pavement, or to road signs. It's clearly the case that you need to do both. And it was suggested that it's somehow cynical for the council to target specifically, inattentive drivers near a school. I couldn't disagree more.

It should hopefully be a minority, but not necessarily a miniscule one - that assumes that there aren't a significant number of people who drive around paying minimal attention (you just need to observe the number of people on their phones to know that's not true), or over the speed limit (again, good data that this is common place, especially in 20mph zones), or just feel that the rules shouldn't apply to them. For example, no one really believes that it's difficult to see a bus lane, but it doesn't stop individuals complaining across numerous threads when they're caught in one - it's not always about poor visibility.

The idea that you can attend to either the road and the pavement (ignoring road signs), or to road signs (ignoring the road ahead and what's on the pavement), is obviously nonsense.

People shouldn't be inattentive when driving a car, van or HGV past a school (or any other time). As for the suggestion that it's only 'new residents' that want the streets outside schools to be safe for children - I'd remind you that it used to be the norm - before we allowed more and more, faster, bigger cars to slowly take over and then dominate our public spaces, stripping kids of much of their independence.

Of course you also had lot's of local diaries. My grandmother had a job as a milkmaid in Camberwell when she was young!

It is a good looking station and well connected re. naming conventions, Clapham Junction, being situated in Battersea is also a bit of an anomaly.

@Rockets TfL included a cost/benefit analysis showing positive returns in their Strategic Business case for what’s called the ‘Lowering Speed Limits programme’. I believe the benefit / cost ratio was 7.63:1. There’s plenty of post implementation monitoring data and analysis also. But does it matter? I’ve never once seen you honestly engage with a piece of road safety data or research. We all know the standard pattern. You lazily state something as true providing no evidence at all and when the data is signposted, you’ll just ignore nearly all of it, to cherry pick anything that tenuously aligns with what you want to believe. And again, the 20mph limit wasn't designed as a money saving measure, but as an investment in road safety. It’s been extremely successful, saving many lives. If you want to argue that it’s a poor investment, then it’s really up to you to firstly explain how much you think it is worth spending to save a life, show your ‘alternative’ cost benefit calculation, and then explain what a better, more cost effective intervention would be. I have never heard you do anything but argue against every proven road safety measure that’s been implemented in London- so genuinely interested if you have anything constructive to add?

So just to be clear; This thread is about the stretch of road running along Peckham Rye Park near Piermont green. Neither the 20mph limits in London nor Wales were designed to save money (although they may do long term), but as investments in road safety. If you want to argue that 20mph limits in London cost a lot of money, then you need to point to your evidence and ideally put a figure on it. If you believe, having demonstrated that cost, it is a poor investment in terms of the number of lives saved, then you really ought to say how much each life is worth in your mind, and what a better, more cost effective intervention would be.

How is it that you think traffic is slowed more by a 20mph limit in a built up area where there is congestion, than it is in a less densely populated area with higher average speeds? That’s just nonsensical. There is actually some evidence that, since average speeds in London are well below 20mph owing to congestion and junctions, traffic can flow more freely at 20mph. This is due to reduced braking distances (enabling drivers to leave a smaller gap to the vehicle in front) and increased junction capacity (as drivers are able to pull into slower traffic more easily). There is no evidence that I’ve seen that 20mph limits in London cost the economy anything. There is quite a lot that the significant reduction in collisions, injuries and deaths saves money. But regardless, the argument is more of an ethical one than an economic one. Why should more people give their lives so that a handful of individuals can accelerate and brake more aggressively toward the back of the same line of traffic?

Clearly it’s not made you think. The impact on journey times in a densely populated area where the roads are not free flowing, is obviously, considerably less. In Wales (less densely populated) the average journey time was estimated to be less than one minute slower…Not one minute per mile, less than one minute in total. In London the difference between travelling at a max of 20 and a max of 30 is mainly one of how hard you’re accelerating and breaking as you travel towards the back of the same line of traffic. On average, I would guess the difference to one’s overall journey time is close to zero* - Whilst the impact on stopping distances and on pollution is not. *In fact there is some evidence that lower, more consistent speeds, may improve traffic flow in built up areas, reducing overall journey times (when adhered to).