Earl Aelfheah

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, or just feel that the rules shouldn't apply to them - observe the number of people on their phones, or travelling over the speed limit. 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).

With the possible exception of the south circular, I can’t personally think of a road in Southwark where a 30mph limit would make any difference to your overall journey time. The thread btw, was about Peckham Rye, by piermont green, which has very visible speed cameras and a very clear and appropriate 20 speed limit. Driving at 30 round here (which just means accelerating and breaking harder), is absolutely pointless, increases your stopping distance considerably, increases pollution, and makes it more likely you’ll hurt someone else.

As Malumbu says, the comparison between densely populated London and Wales is obviously ridiculous. But worth noting that even in the Welsh government’s initial impact assessment, those figures you quote were based on the average journey being one minute longer. The method for monetising these small delays is under some debate. The large savings from significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths, less so. In central and inner London, moving slightly more quickly towards a line of vehicles / set of lights, makes little to no difference to overall journey times. It is untrue that a cyclist who has caused a death through collision cannot face legal recourse because of the existing legislative framework. And you were explicitly arguing for 20mph limits on those travelling by bicycle. Now you’re arguing against 20mph limits for those travelling by car, van or HGV. …whilst accusing people of being ‘ideologically driven’.

@rockets 20mph has saved lives. It makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey times. So what exactly is the argument against? And why did you have no issue with it when you were arguing for the same rules to apply to people using a pedal bicycle? It wouldn’t be ‘ideological’ would it?

Rockets, who’s argued for 20mph speed limits when people are travelling by bicycle (which would involve a whole new system of registration and licensing and changes to primary legislation), is against those same speed limits for cars? 🤔 Yeh, nothing ideological there. 20mph has saved lives. It makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey times. So what exactly is the argument against?

The South Circular is an edge case. It's possibly the one street where you might make a reasonable case for 30 mph. But for the vast majority of borough roads 20 mph has minimal, if any, impact on overall journey times, and has been shown to save lives, so not sure why anyone would object. And the thread wasn't about the South Circular, but driving alongside Peckham Rye Park, where at 30 you're just moving slightly faster towards the back of the next line of cars or of lights.

I thought we were talking about the speed cameras on Peckham Rye near Piermont Green?