Road Traffic Incident - Underhill Road/Lordship Lane - 17th August

[Lois Pallister]

Does anyone know anything about this incident?

I was held up by it at 7pm and later discovered that the road closure went into force before midday.

When I got there I saw yellow markers all over the road and the police with a camera and a smashed up motorcycle on the pavement by the road.

I haven't been able to find anything reported about this incident and assure you that my interest is not a macabre one.

I am a driving instructor in the area and researching as to whether the 20mph speed limits are making our roads safer or more dangerous. This left me wondering if there is a ban on reporting serious accidents that occur on the roads that have been changed to a 20mph speed limit.

[Pugwash]

I try to stick to the 20 mph limit where ever possible (not always easy when going down hill with an automatic gear) but noticed frequently over taken by prats who want to go 40 mph. Last week down Barry Road 2 buses at bus stop and I could see that front bus was about to pull out having indicated.so held back. Car behind me overtook me and the 2 buses causing a car coming in the opposite direction to brake hard and swerve, was going around 35 - 40 mph.

[Lois Pallister]

Yes it just doesn't work and is not the answer on main routes at all. The answer is in enforcing the speed limits. If 30mph meant 30mph then that would be fine for much of Lordship Lane, and Sydenham Hill and now Westwood Hill and the whole of Lewisham is about to go to a 20mph limit.

I use the mini roundabouts here on my lessons so take my pupils down Kirkdale, right at the roundabout and up Westwood Hill and right at the next roundabout and then down Sydenham Hill.

I have been a qualified driving instructor since January 1995 and am always aware of my pupils behaviour and mood (I need to know if they are too stressed, or getting upset or very happy with what they have just done) and I am painfully aware that on the 20mph Sydenham Hill they are less attentive to the road and their surroundings. They will often turn their heads to look at me when I speak which they do not do on the other 30mph roads.

And I have to admit that I myself feel extremely bored, especially as with my speed limiter I don't even need to concentrate on keeping my speed down.

I have no problems with the bottom end of Lordship Lane with the shops and parked cars and narrower road being 20 because I think that is suitable and you still need to be aware, but where this accident happened the road should still be a 30mph limit.

[nxjen]

I don't think the incident described by a speeding car overtaking two buses and a car at speed had anything to do with the 20mph speed limit. In fact, it could be argued that had the oncoming car that had to brake and swerve been exceeding the 20mph speed limit, which they might have been this information is not given, the outcome could have a lot more serious.

[rendelharris]

Sorry if you're bored, Lois, though one would have thought a professional driving instructor should be able to maintain their concentration at all times? However keeping drivers entertained isn't the main purpose of speed limits, they're there to cut the appalling toll of 3000+ people killed and seriously injured in London each year. 20 MPH limits in other areas have been proved to reduce accidents by up to 60% and, incidentally, only slowed average journey times by 1-2 MPH. As I'm sure you're aware, 20% of children hit by cars at 30 MPH will die, those hit at 20 MPH almost always survive.

How do you know the accident you witnessed wasn't caused by excessive speed? I've tried to think of ways in which a 20 MPH limit could make roads more dangerous, the only way I can see it would is if people ignore the limit.

One last thing: you say your pupils are less attentive on 20 MPH roads? Well the average traffic speed in London is lower than 20 MPH, does this mean they're less attentive most of the time?

[first mate]

I find driving more hazardous since 20mph was applied to main roads. I believe this is because it is self enforcing and so while a few people try to maintain it many more ignore it, leading to more erratic and unpredictable behaviour. Those who ignore the limit, other than slowing temporarily for the odd speed camera, are also prone to get angry and frustrated when stuck behind a 20mpher and attempt to overtake at speed or tailgate, lights flashing. Far from being bored I find it unnerving trying to stick to 20. At this speed it seems motorbikes and cyclists are also more likely to take risks in terms of weaving in and out of traffic.

[Gloves]

"20% of children hit by cars at 30 MPH will die, those hit at 20 MPH almost always survive"

If driving slowly around Dulwich and surrounding areas saves one life, I am in.

[first mate]

Gloves fine, but if people are ignoring it then it is possible the risks increase. We need to see RTA data for particular roads since 20mph introduced and also look at the whole issue of enforcement. If the data proves that accidents have reduced since 20 mph introduced on certain roads then fine, but my perception is that the roads in some places feel more hazardous not less, because many are not adhering to 20mph. Just my perception though.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Gloves fine, but if people are ignoring it then it

> is possible the risks increase. We need to see RTA

> data for particular roads since 20mph introduced

> and also look at the whole issue of enforcement.

> If the data proves that accidents have reduced

> since 20 mph introduced on certain roads then

> fine, but my perception is that the roads in some

> places feel more hazardous not less, because many

> are not adhering to 20mph. Just my perception

> though.

But if that is the case it's an argument for stricter enforcement, not relaxation of the law - if laws were made on the basis of what people feel like they're entitled to do we'd be in rather a lot of bother, I feel.

In terms of studies there are quite a few out there - Portsmouth, for example, experienced 15% reduction in accidents after introducing 20 MPH limits on 94% of its roads, Brighton 12%, Bristol 16%.

[Nigello]

Wishful thinking is cheap. Southwark ought to follow through and make sure that enforcement is thorough and consistent. To put the new rule in place and do little to make sure people are following it is wasteful and negligent.

[rendelharris]

For interest, a slightly old report (2003) commissioned by TfL and the LAAU (London Accident Analysis Unit):

http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/files/case-studies/documents/review_of_20_mph_zones_in_london_boroughs_full_report_3.pdf

Some interesting facts:

A national study of two hundred 20 mph zones in Great Britain was carried out by TRL in 1996 for

the DfT, which showed that 20 mph zones were beneficial in reducing speeds and accidents. Speeds

within the zones were reduced by 9 mph, traffic flows were reduced by 27%, injury accidents (all

categories combined) were reduced by 61% and fatal and serious accidents (KSI accidents) were

reduced by 70%.

and

...allowing for background changes in accident frequency on unclassified roads in London, the

installation of 20 mph zones in London has reduced the frequency of injury accidents within the

zones by about 42% and reduced the frequency of accidents involving fatal or serious injury

(KSI) by about 53% (78 zones)...little, if any, accident migration has taken place from the 20 mph zones (38 zones).

[kford]

Why are you assuming this is speed-related? It could've been caused by the far more common cause of accidents - not paying due care or attention.

[rendelharris]

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why are you assuming this is speed-related? It

> could've been caused by the far more common cause

> of accidents - not paying due care or attention.

It is a bit strange - if an accident happened when it was a 30 MPH limit that wouldn't be blamed (by some parties) but when one happens in a 20 MPH zone, which all figures I can find show have fewer accidents, it must be the fault of the speed limit!

[first mate]

my perception is that fewer people are adhering to 20mph than they did 30mph, leading to a less predictable journey in terms of driver behaviour.

National stats are all very well but study of a few key roads may be more revealing. Again, if everyone or even most adhered to 20mph it would be easier but in my experience this is simply not the case.

Drivers have quickly learned where the few cameras are and speed up and slow down accordingly. Those who do not want to drive at 20mph can become very aggressive in their efforts to make drivers in front of them speed up or if that does not happen they overtake in a risky way. In my experience this is the reality and I do not feel that the roads are safer. Please note the issue is not speed per se but unpredictable driver behaviour, oh and that includes motorbikes and some cyclists.

[rendelharris]

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Drivers have quickly learned where the few cameras

> are and speed up and slow down accordingly. Those

> who do not want to drive at 20mph can become very

> aggressive in their efforts to make drivers in

> front of them speed up or if that does not happen

> they overtake in a risky way. In my experience

> this is the reality and I do not feel that the

> roads are safer. Please note the issue is not

> speed per se but unpredictable driver behaviour,

> oh and that includes motorbikes and some cyclists.

I entirely agree - we've seen a selection of insane behaviour around the 20 MPH zones, especially on Champion Hill and round Brockwell Park, where the favoured method of dealing with those who have the impertinence to stick to the law seems to be overtaking around the outside of traffic islands, often into the face of oncoming traffic. But again, the fact that some people refuse to obey a law is not a reason to remove it per se. Personally I'm in all in favour of extensive APNR systems and timed in and out zones...

If anyone can find a study proving that 20 MPH zones have increased accidents, or even just failed to decrease them, it would be interesting to see them, but I've looked quite hard and can only find evidence to the contrary.

[kford]

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3716.html

[rendelharris]

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/3716.html

That's not a study, that's the opinion of a pro-motoring organisation and as pointed out in the article, it's based on complete nonsense: of course if the number of 20 MPH zones is increased then the number of accidents on 20 MPH roads will increase. It's like saying 50% more roads have street lighting, the number of accidents on roads with street lighting has gone up by 30%, therefore street lighting makes roads more dangerous.

What's just occurred to me is that the place where the OP saw the accident, where Underhill Road joins the South Circular (it's not actually Lordship Lane at that point, that ends, as far as I'm aware, at the Grove Tavern junction), is on the section run by TfL where the Southwark 20 MPH limit doesn't even apply!

[Ampersand]

Lois Pallister Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does anyone know anything about this incident?

>

> I was held up by it at 7pm and later discovered

> that the road closure went into force before

> midday.

> When I got there I saw yellow markers all over the

> road and the police with a camera and a smashed up

> motorcycle on the pavement by the road.

>

> I haven't been able to find anything reported

> about this incident and assure you that my

> interest is not a macabre one.

> I am a driving instructor in the area and

> researching as to whether the 20mph speed limits

> are making our roads safer or more dangerous. This

> left me wondering if there is a ban on reporting

> serious accidents that occur on the roads that

> have been changed to a 20mph speed limit.

I live just by where this incident happened and saw the police activity when I arrived home at 6.45pm. I was quite curious that there was nothing on the EDF or in the Standard as from the state of the bike, the yellow accident markers and the fact they had a police van doing skid tests I assumed there had been a fatality.

That part of Lordship Lane is part of the south circular and as far as I know does not have a 20mph limit.

[rendelharris]

Ampersand Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I live just by where this incident happened and

> saw the police activity when I arrived home at

> 6.45pm. I was quite curious that there was nothing

> on the EDF or in the Standard as from the state of

> the bike, the yellow accident markers and the fact

> they had a police van doing skid tests I assumed

> there had been a fatality.

There's nothing anywhere about it, so hopefully there was no fatality. Possibly the motorcycle crashed while being pursued by police, in which case the police would have to make strict records to absolve themselves from culpability? Just a guess, it's certainly odd there's nothing about it in the press.

[Lois Pallister]

Oh yes, my apologies, it is before the start of the 20mph zone.

I do still find it very odd and like Ampersand, I was very surprised that there was nothing anywhere about it, especially as the road was closed from before midday until after half seven at night.

First Mate makes some very sensible and accurate observations and if this wasn't an accident involving a police vehicle it could be possible that a driver became irresponsible with either speed or care or both having just been stuck behind vehicles who were adhering to the 20mph speed limit.

And don't accuse me of blaming 20mph speed limits. I blame the authorities who put them where they don't belong and then make no move to enforce them!

I agree totally that there should be enforcement but what hope have you got when there was never any before the 20 limits came in? Why do we have to have big yellow cameras. I've never understood that.

Surely 'entrapment' would involve you actually somehow 'encouraging' a driver to break the speed limit.

Breaking the limit is breaking the limit - nobody else is driving the vehicle but the person who chose to break the speed limit and they should be punished for that but when they know they can get away with it then of course many will continue to do it making these 20mph routes on unsuitable roads more dangerous than they were before.

Rendel, I take it you are referring to Specs average speed cameras when you say "timed in and out zones" which do use ANPR and are proving VERY effective on faster roads. But maybe I have that wrong. I am sure you will let me know if that is the case.

If these were just 'zones' the problem would still exist outside those zones and if they were on all roads apart from a ridiculous amount of clutter on our streets, which the government is trying to reduce, the cost would be ridiculous.

I have a far better idea than that which would be very effective, cost way less and cause less clutter but the simple options are never explored for some reason.

I would love proper enforcement but I believe that wide main roads such as Sydenham Hill and the top of Lordship Lane up to the old Police Station should be 30mph (with proper enforcement).

Narrow residential streets, such as those studied in the Webster and Layfield report you quoted from, AND narrow main routes with parked cars all along them are another matter altogether and I have no problem at all with all of those being 20mph.

And just to highlight the extremely poor implementation of this by the local authorities, Sydenham Hill was made 20mph long before South Croxted Road! What were Southwark thinking of? Unless SCR was left to Lambeth, the motive could not have been safety on the roads!

Since I moved here in 1986 I am only aware of one fatality on Sydenham Hill (on the roads that is) and that was a motorcyclist in the early hours who was alone on the road.

Just in the few years I was working 6 days a week, coming up to the implementation of the Theory Test and beyond, I knew of 5 fatalities on SCR.

That road should have been 20mph even before I moved here in 1986. Now that would more than likely have saved lives.

I avoided the road because I was so fed up with abuse from the drivers behind me because I refused to go above 20mph and was sometimes even slower than that.

And that includes before I was qualified as an ADI. It is pure common sense that 30mph is way too fast to be driving along that road.

But for all the roads of London, other than the TFL red routes, to be 20mph is a complete farce, and I believe more dangerous than leaving them at 30mph but actually enforcing that 30mph limit which could be easy to do if there was only any will to do so.

But instead they will be made 20mph for years possibly causing more deaths, and how long will it be before they work that one out? Maybe they won't want to admit they got it wrong and will wait until there are studies in the declining health of Londoners since this madness due to higher pollution levels and stress and anger caused by less sleep and a reduced quality of life.

[Lois Pallister]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry if you're bored, Lois, though one would have

> thought a professional driving instructor should

> be able to maintain their concentration at all

> times? However keeping drivers entertained isn't

> the main purpose of speed limits, they're there to

> cut the appalling toll of 3000+ people killed and

> seriously injured in London each year. 20 MPH

> limits in other areas have been proved to reduce

> accidents by up to 60% and, incidentally, only

> slowed average journey times by 1-2 MPH. As I'm

> sure you're aware, 20% of children hit by cars at

> 30 MPH will die, those hit at 20 MPH almost always

> survive...........

> One last thing: you say your pupils are less

> attentive on 20 MPH roads? Well the average

> traffic speed in London is lower than 20 MPH, does

> this mean they're less attentive most of the time?

I didn't say at any point I wasn't able to maintain my concentration at all times and you display perfectly with your quip about 'keeping drivers entertained' that you did not make any attempt to listen (read) or try to understand where I am coming from at all.

And the end of your post also shows your total ignorance of the point I was making.

I will attempt to spell it out for you more clearly.

My pupils are less attentive, and I am bored or frustrated at having to drive at 20mph along Sydenham Hill which is a very wide and safe road without many pedestrians, which makes it feel as though the car is hardly moving at all.

However, in busy road conditions where the speed is naturally reduced due to other traffic, and traffic controlling measures such as lights etc. of course they are concentrating on all that is happening so that they can deal with it effectively and safely, and I am helping them to do that.

> How do you know the accident you witnessed wasn't

> caused by excessive speed? I've tried to think of

> ways in which a 20 MPH limit could make roads more

> dangerous, the only way I can see it would is if

> people ignore the limit.

Again you are making assumptions! Where did I say that I didn't think the accident was caused by excessive speed? That is exactly what I thought probably was the cause, along with lack of observation and anger and frustration.

And can I add to your only reason that a 20mph limit could make roads more dangerous?

If SOME people ignore the limit WHILST OTHERS ARE OBEYING IT.

That is where the main danger comes from on the roads that are not suitable for such a low speed limit.

I was out working today from 1100 to 1500 and I made a deliberate decision to note all such situations and in those few hours I counted 12 incidents that could have proved very dangerous involving drivers who have no regard for the speed limit at all, 5 of them on Sydenham Hill which has been a 20 limit more than long enough for drivers to get used to it and even has a camera which I see go off at least once a week.

I have had so many near misses on that road since it became a 20 limit and don't think I had any before that and on 4 occasions now I have witnessed pedestrians, including children, have to quickly jump out of the way of cars overtaking several vehicles driving at the speed limit at 40mph or more. Even worse, this isn't just at the zebra crossing. I am seeing far more pedestrians walking across the road at any point and sometimes just after a bend, because they have been lulled into a false sense of security.

If I am driving along that road and am the only car on the road I am bored and that is because the speed limit is unsuitable for the road, not because I am a speed freak. I don't know about you but I have never had a point on my licence or any driving convictions whatsoever and have only been involved in two small collisions (although I was injured in one of them) that were not only not my fault but also unavoidable by myself. Over 90% of collisions are avoidable by the person not at fault and I am avoiding them on an almost weekly basis and having to avoid more on Sydenham Hill now than I ever have before.

If I am driving along that road and have a huge long queue of cars behind me I am ultra alert but also very frustrated that I have been put into such a position of increased danger by the whim of some local council member who very likely has far less understanding of road safety than I do.

Thankfully there are now plans for it to be changed back to a 30mph limit now and I wonder why they would do that unless it has proven ineffective?

I would be interested in seeing any reports you have showing a 60% reduction in accidents with only a 1-2mph reduction on journey times for this type of road.

I am sure there aren't any.

I don't have time to look through all of my files but in Portsmouth KSI's were not reduced.

In fact they increased!

But then that study was for the whole of Portsmouth, including the roads that would have benefited from a 20 limit.

I wonder what the statistics would have shown if they took just the wide main roads for which a 20 limit is not suitable?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme4/interimeval20mphspeedlimits.pdf

[Lois Pallister]

Lewisham are also making things even more dangerous during the transition with signs that should be covered until it goes live in Sydenham and a sign erected in Forest Hill which I believe is now active which is completely hidden by branches of a tree. A new sign just put up and they didn't trim the tree back?

What speed should I go through this camera on Westwood Hill?

[buggie]

The road closure could've been dependent on the condition of the person injured - awaiting news from the hospital as to if they were likely to survive or not as this changes the nature of the investigation. Having spent 10yr+ working in a local A&E I know it was often the first and repeated query of accompanying police & often wouldn't be clear for a few hours.

[rendelharris]

Sorry Lois but your spirited, if slightly patronising, defence doesn't hold up. You tried to claim that the accident you witnessed might not have been not been reported as it was in a 20 MPH zone:

"This left me wondering if there is a ban on reporting serious accidents that occur on the roads that have been changed to a 20mph speed limit."

As you now admit, the accident wasn't even in a 20 MPH zone.

"But instead they will be made 20mph for years possibly causing more deaths"

Please can you offer any evidence of 20 MPH zones causing more deaths? I've offered lots and lots of evidence based studies, above, showing that 20 MPH zones reduce both accidents and KSIs. Where's your evidence to the contrary?

" I am bored or frustrated at having to drive at 20mph along Sydenham Hill "

Sorry, your emotions at having to arrive at the end of that road approximately thirty seconds later than you did before shouldn't really play a major part in road safety decisions.

"I have had so many near misses on that road since it became a 20 limit and don't think I had any before that and on 4 occasions now I have witnessed pedestrians, including children, have to quickly jump out of the way of cars overtaking several vehicles driving at the speed limit at 40mph or more."

So we should not have laws because some people choose to break them?

[Lois Pallister]

You are calling me patronising!

And to be honest I don't really have any concern as to whether what I say holds up in your opinion.

I was just replying to your very insulting earlier message.

At least I didn't pick and choose bits of your conversation to argue against without it being in context.

And then you ask me for evidence that I have already provided - that of Portsmouth which you claimed proved the contrary.

There is no evidence that just takes the larger roads in to consideration but there should be and I am sure that eventually there will be.

I agreed that it saves lives on the narrower residential roads which is why the fact that the slight increase in the KSI'S in Portsmouth, whilst there was a drop in the rates nationally does prove my point. I am sure the KSI's for the narrow residential roads would have fallen so those on the larger roads must have risen far more than can be seen by that report.

I made a mistake about the road and speed limit and admitted that but I'm not going to repeat the parts of my earlier message that you chose to ignore other than to say that we know nothing about the incident so just as I cannot assume it was caused by some maniac who was made angry by the 20mph limit as he or she came up Lordship Lane, you cannot assume otherwise.

This is the reason I posted here to ask if anyone knew what had happened.

I still can't help but find it very odd that it wasn't reported anywhere though and would like to know why.

Perhaps I will make a FOI request to try to find out.

I take it you do not drive at 20mph down Sydenham Hill or perhaps you never drive down it at all because I have no idea where your 30 seconds came from. But that isn't the issue at all. The fact that it takes me 1 minute more to arrive at the end of the 1 mile road doesn't bother me in the slightest. It is the fact that I'm either sitting there forced to crawl at a ridiculous pace along on a huge empty road or I am put in danger due to those who choose not to observe the rules which I always do.

Of course we shouldn't abandon laws because some people choose to break them!

But neither should we introduce new laws that a majority will break and some to extremes thereby putting those who are law abiding at more risk rather than less risk. Especially when there is no intention of any protection in the way of any attempts to enforce those new laws.

One minute you are singing the praises of a blanket 20mph limit as it saves lives but now it's fine for pedestrians to be put at risk by that limit on certain roads where they never were before they got out of the habit of exercising the caution needed to cross such a large road.

The first step is to find a way to enforce the rules before putting those who do abide by any new rules at risk because of those who don't.

And THEN reduce the speed limit if there is evidence that makes that necessary as there has been on South Croxted Road for years. There never has been on Sydenham Hill.

I always read the reports and statistics with a very dubious and inquisitive mind as I know they can be very easily misinterpreted or even manipulated to show the desired result. And I am sure that if they could have shown there were less KSI's in the very first city that went for this scheme they would have. But they didn't because they couldn't.

What is more important to me is the experience of the drivers on those roads.

And I am not the only one.

First Mate knows what I am talking about as I'm sure many other members on this forum do.

And certainly many on the Sydenham Forum do too.

Road safety is the biggest part of my job and I know from my own experience that Sydenham Hill is more dangerous with its 20mph limit which wasn't even necessary.

If this was really to do with keeping the roads safer then South Croxted Road would have had a reduced speed limit decades ago and Sydenham Road would have been left as it is. They must be at least realising their mistake there as they are going to return it to a 30mph limit. And at least I can now use South Croxted Road without being made to feel that I am attempting to inconvenience other drivers. Now when they flash me and occasionally overtake me, I know that I am going as fast as the law says I can go and that they know they are breaking the law. And soon I will be able to feel safer driving at 30mph when safe to do so on Sydenham Hill.

I am not against a 20mph speed limit where it is needed.

I am just against this ridiculous all or nothing approach without any apparent reasoning.

We obviously won't come to any agreement here but that's fine.

You stop being patronising to me and I will to you

Why don't we smoke the piece of pipe ;-)