Does Southwark listen

[richard tudor]

After all the discussions on here regarding the 20mph speed limit on roads, it is interesting that Southwark has now put in legal notification notices, Southwark News, to make it official.

How many people in the borough actually read these notices and have the time or will to comment for or against.

Rather like the manifesto, hidden away on page 7/10 , under healthy living last para.

From what I can see it effects all roads. Although they say one can comment I think we can accept they will push it through on all roads no matter what.

Do all roads need to be included? Denmark Hill, Sydenham Hill etc.

What next, the possibility of traffic speed cameras on all routes. More wardens hiding behind trees? Revenue stream.

Everyone has their own views on this but I suspect it is passed no matter what.

Be warned.

[Lowlander]

1. Hasn't it been 20mph for years?

2. I stick to 20mph. It's easy. Every single time someone overtakes me (esp. on Barry Road) I have caught up with them within 60 seconds at the next traffic light/junction/traffic queue.

3. It's a revenue stream that people donate to voluntarily - if you don't want to donate, don't break the rules.

4. If you don't like the rules, challenge them

5. The RAC found that 80% of people support a 20mph limit in residential areas - which all parts of ED are - http://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/drivers-support-20mph-limits-poll/

6. That would put you in a minority of 20%

[intexasatthe moment]

I agree with the 20mph limit but I don't find it easy to keep my speed to that .I find I'm always looking at my speedo or having to growl along in a second or third gear .

Wish I was a better driver ....

[Jeremy]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> 5. The RAC found that 80% of people support a

> 20mph limit in residential areas - which all parts

> of ED are -

> http://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/driv

> ers-support-20mph-limits-poll/

20mph should be the limit on narrow, predominantly residential roads... if anything it still seems a bit fast. But major routes and 'A' roads away from busy shopping areas? I think they should still be 30.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sydenham Hill shouldn't be 20 IMO. Im sure there are others where it is OTT, but generally, for most roads in the Borough, I'm in favour.... As long as it doesn't mean more speed bumps.

[JohnL]

20mph isn't too bad - we're not down to 4mph yet and I rather like this law

.. legislators unanimously passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible ... disassemble the automobile", and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight, behind nearby bushes"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

[rendelharris]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Lowlander Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > 5. The RAC found that 80% of people support a

> > 20mph limit in residential areas - which all

> parts

> > of ED are -

> >

> http://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/driv

>

> > ers-support-20mph-limits-poll/

>

> 20mph should be the limit on narrow, predominantly

> residential roads... if anything it still seems a

> bit fast. But major routes and 'A' roads away from

> busy shopping areas? I think they should still be

> 30.

But as Lowlander notes, there's no real advantage to doing thirty anyway, you're only getting to the next stop quicker. On my bicycle going at an average of about 15mph if there's any sort of traffic about I find I keep up with cars for miles on end - they get away then I catch them at the next lights. The important thing to remember is that a 20mph limit is not for the convenience of car drivers (though it's not a "revenue stream" - as Lowlander rightly pointed out, if you don't want to pay, don't break the rules) but for the safety of those not in cars: as often stated, at 20MPH 90% of pedestrians survive a collision, at 28mph+ 50% die. These limits are not there to annoy drivers, nor to raise money, they're for the safety of vulnerable street users. If 20MPH limits get you really irate, consider this: 2/3 of London car journeys are less than three miles in length (and half of those are less than two miles and a third less than 1.25 miles). 20MPH roads (in clear perfect conditions, how often do you get those in London?) are slower by a minute per mile than 30MPH roads, so the vast majority of journeys will be delayed by a maximum of three minutes. I don't regard that as too high a price for massive and proven safety benefits.

[uncleglen]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/6018081/One-in-three-road-accidents-happen-a-mile-from-home-survey-says.html

As regards pedestrians being safer in 20mph zones, I noticed that whilst driving in 20mph zones I am distracted whilst poodling along, and will look around more often, and take less notice of the road. I have lived around here for 35 years and there are many things I have noticed that I have never noticed before.

But on the plus side, if someone runs out in front of me and I hit them they will be less injured.

And if someone is doing 35-40 mph and hits someone or something they will be easily convicted- no grey areas there.

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> As regards pedestrians being safer in 20mph zones,

> I noticed that whilst driving in 20mph zones I am

> distracted whilst poodling along, and will look

> around more often, and take less notice of the

> road. I have lived around here for 35 years and

> there are many things I have noticed that I have

> never noticed before.

Then with all due respect you need to up your game and take some more training if necessary - if you can't concentrate properly at 20MPH it's you that needs to change, not the speed limit. You should be giving your driving full attention at all times, whether you're doing seven or seventy - you're in charge of half a ton of lethal metal!

[rupert james]

Perhaps by the same token pedestrians and cyclists should up their game and take notice of their surroundings, before crossing roads and making turns. Not being distracted using phones, drinking coffee etc etc

It is a 2 way street.

[rendelharris]

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Perhaps by the same token pedestrians and cyclists

> should up their game and take notice of their

> surroundings, before crossing roads and making

> turns. Not being distracted using phones, drinking

> coffee etc etc

>

> It is a 2 way street.

Certainly that is also true, but given that inevitably some pedestrians will be small children, the intoxicated etc etc who will not pay proper attention then drivers need to be fully attentive at all times. I don't know about you but if I knocked down and killed someone it would scar me for life whether or not it was 100% their fault.

[Jeremy]

My point mainly was that Lowlander was referring to the results of a survey specific to roads "around schools, in residential streets and in the centres of villages, towns and cities." While this may apply to probably all of ED, IMO it doesn't apply to all of Southwark IMO.

[DaveR]

Under the heading, "does Southwark listen?", the OP says:

"After all the discussions on here regarding the 20mph speed limit on roads, it is interesting that Southwark has now put in legal notification notices, Southwark News, to make it official.

How many people in the borough actually read these notices and have the time or will to comment for or against.

Rather like the manifesto, hidden away on page 7/10 , under healthy living last para."

Surely the question arising is 'does anybody read notices, manifestos, make comments, or do they not bother and then complain afterwards?' There may well be valid criticism of Southwark not consulting or ignoring consultees views, but this seems an odd way to raise it.

[rendelharris]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> My point mainly was that Lowlander was referring

> to the results of a survey specific to roads

> "around schools, in residential streets and in the

> centres of villages, towns and cities." While this

> may apply to probably all of ED, IMO it doesn't

> apply to all of Southwark IMO.

I take your point, but it has to be considered that nearly all roads round here are residential - even the South Circular is predominantly lined with housing - and also we need to consider the effect of just having a few roads or stretches with 30MPH limits and the rest 20MPH, surely it's easier for drivers to focus on one speed limit than for it to be continually changing?

[Jeremy]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> South Circular is predominantly lined with housing

Red routes (including South Circular) will actually remain at 30mph, I believe. Ironically, I'm not sure I've ever reached 30 at any point on the south circular..

[rendelharris]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > South Circular is predominantly lined with

> housing

>

> Red routes (including South Circular) will

> actually remain at 30mph, I believe. Ironically,

> I'm not sure I've ever reached 30 at any point on

> the south circular..

Well indeed, a lot of the arguments are somewhat theoretical!

[Lowlander]

Exactly, it's only going to impact those who drive long journeys across 20mph zones in the quiet hours. For everyone else the impact will be zero, or up to a minute or two at worst (an extra minute to travel 1 mile assuming you can keep to 30mph for that long).

People who oppose the 20mph limit would be better served arguing for certain traffic lights to be switched off during off-peak hours. Although be activated temporarily where pedestrians press for a green man.

[rendelharris]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> Exactly, it's only going to impact those who drive

> long journeys across 20mph zones in the quiet

> hours. For everyone else the impact will be zero,

> or up to a minute or two at worst (an extra minute

> to travel 1 mile assuming you can keep to 30mph

> for that long).

>

> People who oppose the 20mph limit would be better

> served arguing for certain traffic lights to be

> switched off during off-peak hours. Although be

> activated temporarily where pedestrians press for

> a green man.

That's a great idea - does anyone do that at the moment?

[ianr]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> 1. Hasn't it been 20mph for years?

The original order was made in 2014 and can be downloaded from https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3116/frequently_requested_traffic_orders. It specifies roads by bounded areas, apart from some explicit exceptions.

The current proposed order amends that one "so as to positively identify all roads, streets and parts of within the London Borough of Southwark in which the maximum speed limit of 20 miles per hour will apply, that is:-", and thereafter follows a list of ?hundreds of roads. It's at https://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/2558/traffic_orders. Whether they differ at all in effect, I don't know. Quite possibly not. A note says that "This change is at the request of the Metropolitan Police Service, and is intended to provide a robust basis for camera enforcement of the speed limit."

There are interesting national sample statistics on compliance with speed limits in free-flowing conditions. Those for 2015 included 20mph limits for the first time. "For all vehicle types, 20 mph roads had the lowest level of speed limit compliance in 2015."

84% of cars observed were over the 20mph limit. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-in-great-britain-2015

[spider69]

A note says that "This change is at the request of the Metropolitan Police Service, and is intended to provide a robust basis for camera enforcement of the speed limit."

So it is the police who are looking for a revenue stream on certain roads and Southwark.

There are interesting national sample statistics on compliance with speed limits in free-flowing conditions. Those for 2015 included 20mph limits for the first time. "For all vehicle types, 20 mph roads had the lowest level of speed limit compliance in 2015."

84% of cars observed were over the 20mph limit. [www.gov.uk]

Do you think then that the speed limit they want is wrong and needs to be reconsidered?

The OP wrote "What next, the possibility of traffic speed cameras on all routes. More wardens hiding behind trees? Revenue stream".

[PeckhamRose]

Blanket rules are there for ease and cheapness of control. They do not make us safer. Good education and regular personal driving tests say every 5 years (which would be expensive to administer and for which we would have to all pay), would be better. Blanket 20miles an hour does NOT make us better drivers. We may exceed a speed limit but we, as well advance-trained drivers, could argue that we were not driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions we found ourselves in. Road bumps definitely do not make driving safer either. We are trained to look ahead, plan ahead, but meanwhile folks swerve to avoid the bumps. There is no sense in any of any councils' thinking. They just want money.

[rendelharris]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

There is no sense in any of any

> councils' thinking. They just want money.

There's just one problem with that - and with anyone saying the Met Police are just trying to raise money - all monies from speeding fines go directly to the Treasury, the only money councils can claim is for the installation and maintenance of the cameras. Parking fines go to the council, all speeding fines to the government, so it's ridiculous when people say "revenue stream" for the council, it's not. You might not agree with the enforcement (though as always, if you don't want to get fined, don't speed) but the only reason Southwark has to install speed cameras or take other enforcement measures is for safety reasons.

[spider69]

Or a hatred of the motor vehicle.

[rendelharris]

Or maybe asking the motor vehicles to drive a little slower (losing a whole two minutes on the average London car journey) for the safety of all isn't hatred, just common sense.

[????]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Blanket rules are there for ease and cheapness of

> control. They do not make us safer. Good

> education and regular personal driving tests say

> every 5 years (which would be expensive to

> administer and for which we would have to all

> pay), would be better. Blanket 20miles an hour

> does NOT make us better drivers. We may exceed a

> speed limit but we, as well advance-trained

> drivers, could argue that we were not driving at

> an inappropriate speed for the conditions we found

> ourselves in. Road bumps definitely do not make

> driving safer either. We are trained to look

> ahead, plan ahead, but meanwhile folks swerve to

> avoid the bumps. There is no sense in any of any

> councils' thinking. They just want money.

You're wrong on this as the stats show that survival rates on a pedestrian-car collision at 20mph are far and significantly higher than at 30mph. Basically , in layman's terms, if you're hit at 20mph the chances are you survive, if you're hit at 30mph the chances are you don't.