To the exceptionally stupid woman......

[adonirum]

Interesting contributions over the last few days.

Seabag, this was actually a 90 degree quick turn, quite ridiculous behaviour per se, but with a buggy beyond all comprehension.

rahrahrah & AM, see what you both mean, not really intended as unnecessary detail just fact, but I will concede it could have just read "the black vehicle"

As has been pointed out by other contributors, what if a speeding moron had been there. What if it was a lorry or the 63 bus?

Gloves, how does it seem I was going to fast? I pulled up within the distance between my vehicle and a hazard, that is to say, the crossing. (I only go fast on the M11, about 110mph, and never go above the speed limit in/ on a restricted carriageway) Scummish....how very Urban Dictionary!!!!!!!!

Jeremy, just to clarify, I didn't have to slam the brakes on (although I'm not entirely sure that was directed at me)as I had anticipated the situation and, as stated, pulled up sharply. No major screeching of tyres or anything like that.

[DulwichLondoner]

adonirum Wrote:

Another driver may not have been

> able to do so, and certainly the buggy would have

> been hit if the old limit of 30mph was in force.

Not sure about that.

Drivers should approach crossings with caution, regardless of the speed limit. A 30mph limit doesn't mean that everyonw will be always driving at 30mph, especially at crossings.

I say this as a motorcyclist who commutes in London daily, and is therefore used to seeing plenty of suicidal behaviour by all kinds of road users, including pedestrians. My philosophy is that there will always be some idiot who wants to use my motorcycle to darwinianly improve the species by committing suicide, and that, however unfortunate, it is my job to prevent it.

A 30mph is in force in most of Westminster. Can you say with absolute certainty that the higher speed limit results in more accidents in Westminster compared to, say, Southwark or Lamebth? I can't - because AFAIK there is not much data available. The DfT had commissioned a 3-year study to look into the matter, because initial results from 20mph trials were inconclusive; I therefore find it extremely suspicious that so many councils rushed to implement 20mph limits without waiting the results of the nationwide study.

I can, in fact, think of two reasons why 20mph may be less safe:

1) They give pedestrians an incentive to cross where they shouldn't. In my daily commute by motorcycle, I certainly see more people crossing (in an almost suicidal fashion) where they shouldn't in 20mph zones. Park Lane going north is 40mph and in the very heart of central London, yet do we want to bet that fewer pedestrians cross at red lights there?

2) Drivers or riders may spend more time checking their speedometer (especially if analog) than actually looking at the road.

Note that 20mph limits are also in force in zones like Dog Kennel Hill (think downhill from Dog Kennel Hill school to the train station), where there are barriers preventing people and, notably, children, from crossing where they shouldn't.

[rendelharris]

The only barriers on DKH are a few yards either side of the traffic lights, the rest (90%) of the road is unbarriered, and people do cross - in fact recently Mrs.H bumped into a kid there who ran across the front of our car, coming from behind out of her blindspot - think he'd seen the bus lane light was red and so thought we were stopping. Very luckily he was unharmed, partly due to a superb bit of reaction braking from Mrs.H, who's an excellent driver, but also due to the fact that she was adhering to the 20 limit. The silly lad went down under our bumper (heartstopping moment) but the wheels didn't touch him. If she'd been doing 30 she would have gone straight over and doubtless killed him.

Why would someone have to check their speedometer more often to see if they're staying under 20 in a 20 zone than they'd have to to see if they were staying under 30 in a 30 zone?

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> The only barriers on DKH are a few yards either

> side of the traffic lights, the rest (90%) of the

> road is unbarriered, and people do cross

So you agree with me that speed limits which are too low incentivise people to cross where they shouldn't?

Mmm, I wonder why no one crosses at random in the 40mph strecth of Park Lane? Maybe because even idiots realise it would mean instant death? Want to bet that, if we made that stretch 20mph, MORE people would cross dangerously and there will be more collisions?

> recently Mrs.H bumped into a kid there who ran

> across the front of our car, coming from behind

> out of her blindspot - think he'd seen the bus

> lane light was red

You mean opposite the Domino pizzeria? Ie a bus on her left was blocking your wife's view of the sidewalk to her left? This is something I come across multiple times a day in my commute; eg when overtaking a bus that just pulled over, I always go very very slowly, **regardless of the speed limits**, because I expect idiot pedestrians to cross where they shouldn't.

> and so thought we were

> stopping. Very luckily he was unharmed, partly

> due to a superb bit of reaction braking from

> Mrs.H, who's an excellent driver, but also due to

> the fact that she was adhering to the 20 limit.

> The silly lad went down under our bumper

> (heartstopping moment) but the wheels didn't touch

> him. If she'd been doing 30 she would have gone

> straight over and doubtless killed him.

I don't debate that being hit at 20mph is better than being hit at 30 - that's self evident.

Guess what, being hit at 10mph is even better than being hit at 20mph, yet this doesn't mean speed limits should be 10mph. It's always a balance among many aspects.

My point is that the 20mph campaign failed to substantiate the benefits of lower speed limits, and rushing them through without waiting for the multi-year, nationwide study by the DfT makes me very, very suspicious.

> Why would someone have to check their speedometer

> more often to see if they're staying under 20 in a

> 20 zone than they'd have to to see if they were

> staying under 30 in a 30 zone?

I have a motorcycle with an analog speedometer. If the limit is 30, a quick glance is typically all I need to determine, with reasonable accuracy, if I am within the speed limit, plus or minus a minimum tolerance. I may not know with absolute certainty if I am at 27 or at 33, but I can be confident enough I am within the limits.

If the limit is 20, a quick glance at my analog speedometer is NOT enough to determine the same.

Note that speeding penalties were made harsher in April this year. AFAIK it is customary to allow for a tolerance of 10% + 2 mph, but it's a custom, not a law. 20mph +10% + 2 mph = 24 mph. A quick glance at my speedometer is not enough to determine, with absolute certainty, if I am at less than 24mph. The dial may well be close enough to 20 one second and one move all too close to 24 the next. Also, for all I know some speed cameras or policemen with speedguns may well fine me for going at 22mph - after all, the law doesn't mention any minimum tolerance. So, to recap, for all these reasons a quick glance is not enough for me to determine if I am within these lower limits - I typically need to spend more time looking at the speedometer, which is not safe!

Of course I could ride even slower, so as to be absolutely sure that, yes, I am within the limits. However, even ignoring the additional time this would take me, other motorists would get mad, would try to overtake even when dangerous, not to mention I would probably pollute more, I'd have to slip the clutch all the time, the engine would be less efficient, etc.

[rendelharris]

Well, it's for that precise reason that I fitted a wireless digital cycle speedometer to my last motorcycle - set it up right and they're very very accurate, only cost you a tenner or so.

With reference to Park Lane, come on, you're clearly a clever chap, you know that's nonsense - the reason pedestrians don't try to cross Park Lane other than at the lights is because it's impossible to do so, it's a four lane highway that is nearly always rammed with traffic. The argument that speed limits should be kept high to discourage pedestrians from not crossing anywhere but at lights or zebras is clearly nonsensical and also demonstrates the "we own the road" attitude of motorists: it's perfectly legal for pedestrians to cross the road wherever they choose. Of course some of them do so stupidly - just as some motorists drive stupidly - so what do you want? All main roads fully barriered with crossing only permitted at lights so you can do 40MPH?

With reference to the incident I mentioned, no there wasn't a bus there at all, we were heading towards Lordship Lane, the kid ran from the corner of Quorn Road, diagonally across the empty bus lane, appearing at my left shoulder (in the passenger seat) and running across in front of us on the diagonal. As I said, he was obviously looking at the red light in the bus lane and thinking it meant we would stop.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

> The

> argument that speed limits should be kept high to

> discourage pedestrians from not crossing anywhere

> but at lights or zebras is clearly nonsensical

I am not saying we should increase the speed limit to 40mph everywhere to disincentivise pedestrians from crossing; I am saying that, in many cases, lowering them to 20 creates too many incentives for pedestrians to cross dangerously.

Park Lane is not comparable? Fine. Let's think of many stretches of the South Circular, which is not a 4-lane road yet has 30mph limits in most stretches. I do not see many pedestrians trying to cross suicidally there.

> and

> also demonstrates the "we own the road" attitude

> of motorists:

>it's perfectly legal for pedestrians

> to cross the road wherever they choose.

I am no legal scholar, but my gut tells me it is only perfectly legal when it is safe to do so. AFAIK, a pedestrian does not have the right to jump in the middle of oncoming traffic only because he/she is too lazy to walk 200 metres to the next zebra crossing, and wait till it becomes green.

By the way, I find the approach of other countries, where jaywalking can get you arrested (eg most of the US) way more reasonable, because, guess what, it contributes to protecting pedestrians from themselves.

It's not about "owning the road", it's about finding reasonable balances that work for all.

Of course

> some of them do so stupidly - just as some

> motorists drive stupidly - so what do you want?

> All main roads fully barriered with crossing only

> permitted at lights so you can do 40MPH?

Limits at 20 near schools, parks, busy high streets.

Zero tolerance for road users (be they pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers, etc.) who endanger themselves and others. This includes fining pedestrians and cyclists, two categories which cannot be identified by cameras as clearly they have no plates. The experience of my daily commute is that I see way more acts of stupid, almost suicidal behaviour by pedestrians and cyclists than by other categories. I find it puzzling, as they are among the most vulnerable, yet that is my experience.

In the US, jaywalker can be arrested. Paris launched this campaign against jaywalkers, which I find effective precisely because it is shocking: http://www.serviceplan.com/en/news-detailed/virtual-crash-billboard.html

Limits of 30 in the rest of the city, unless it can be proven that the 20mph limits bring substantial benefits in terms of safety (eg fewer/less severe collisions) without causing more congestion and pollution.

From memory, Lambeth spent ca. ? 700-800k to implement the 20mph limits. I can certainly think of many things which could have been done with that money to improve road safety (repairing potholes, etc.).

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

The experience of

> my daily commute is that I see way more acts of

> stupid, almost suicidal behaviour by pedestrians

> and cyclists than by other categories. I find it

> puzzling, as they are among the most vulnerable,

> yet that is my experience.

Funny, when I'm in the car (as a passenger) I see more stupid behaviour from pedestrians and cyclists than from any other type of road user. When I'm cycling, I see more stupid behaviour from pedestrians and motorists than any other type of road user. When I'm walking, I see more stupid behaviour from motorists and cyclists than any other type of road user. When you say it's your experience, it would be more accurate to say it's your perception.

[DulwichLondoner]

You must be a very alert pedestrian, then :) You know what, when I am a pedestrian I pay a lot of attention to the road and the traffic when I have to cross a street, but not much when I'm just walking on the pavement or in a park.

Also, don't forget that a motorcycle exposes me to more stupid behaviour than a car: cars are more likely not to see a motorcycle than another car, I can (perfectly legally) sneak in spots which are too small for a car, etc. E.g. I often overtake busses which have just pulled over, something which cars often cannot do, so a stupid pedestrian jumping onto the middle of the road, hidden by the bus, is more likely to be hit by a motorcycle than a car.

May I ask what you think of the Paris billboards against jaywalkers?

[rendelharris]

The videos I've seen of them seem to show them scaring the crap out of people crossing completely empty streets when the red man is showing. When you get to a crossing as a pedestrian and the red man's showing, do you always stand and wait even if there's no traffic in sight?

ETA you're doing it again, by the way (and I must admit you're quite good at it): you're setting yourself up as being all concerned about pedestrians, whereas the truth is you want higher speed limits for your own pleasure and convenience. Be honest and don't pretend concern about 20MPH causing more accidents because pedestrians are more likely to cross unless you have any evidence that it's true.

[DulwichLondoner]

By the same logic, cars should be allowed to run red lights when no one is in sight, right?

Or motorists should be allowed to speed when the road is empty?

Yes, there are situations when running a red light or speeding or crossing when it's red may be safe, but rules exist precisely because we humans cannot be trusted to make this kind of determinations.

Those billboards were put up because too many pedestrians were crossing the road dangerously. What would you have recommended? Lowering the speed limit to 10mph because too many idiots cannot wait till it becomes green? Or do you think that rules apply to motorists only, not to pedestrians?

[sally buying]

At the junction of DKH and Champion Hill I always wait until the Green Man shows. Seen too many deaths and near misses.

The same should apply waiting along Lordship Lane from Goose Green to Townley Road, people just scoot across the road with out looking, singles, couples and mothers with kids in buggies from behind buses and except people to see them instantly. Perhaps people have been seduced that 20mph is a life saver particularly for Lordship Lane.

That latest message is more important.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> By the same logic, cars should be allowed to run

> red lights when no one is in sight, right?

> Or motorists should be allowed to speed when the

> road is empty?

>

> Yes, there are situations when running a red light

> or speeding or crossing when it's red may be safe,

> but rules exist precisely because we humans cannot

> be trusted to make this kind of determinations.

Your question is entirely redundant as running a red light in a car is illegal, whereas crossing as a pedestrian against a red light is not. That's why it was rather confusing earlier that you were advocating fining pedestrians - there is no offence of "jaywalking" in this country.

[DulwichLondoner]

Another dangerous crossing is the one on Edgar kail way, on the other side of Dog Kennel Hill from Pytchley road; it's the crossing at the corner of St Francis Park, to continue going uphill along DKH. It's dangerous because, if you cross when it's red, you cannot see cars or buses coming from behind the bend.

About 18 months ago someone was killed while crossing Grove Vale just oppiste the railway station. I have no idea about the details, though - no clue if a car was speeding, he crossed when red, or what.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> ETA you're doing it again, by the way (and I must

> admit you're quite good at it): you're setting

> yourself up as being all concerned about

> pedestrians, whereas the truth is you want higher

> speed limits for your own pleasure and

> convenience. Be honest and don't pretend concern

> about 20MPH causing more accidents because

> pedestrians are more likely to cross unless you

> have any evidence that it's true.

Yes, sure, I am a devious individual with an evil plan to speed undisturbed through London. That's what I'm all about. This is why, despite riding a powerful motorcycle, I am all too often overtaken by other vehicles that have a different conception of safety and prudence from me; this is why, regardless of speed limits, I always slow down to a walking pace when something is blocking my view; this is why, at night with no traffic, it takes me longer on my bike than on a taxi (something which, out of curiosity, I have timed multiple times).

> Your question is entirely redundant as running a

> red light in a car is illegal, whereas crossing as

> a pedestrian against a red light is not.

It should be, because it is dangerous for the pedestrian and for others.

I understand that a pedestrian cannot be fined if caught crossing when it's red but the road is empty, but what when there's a lot of traffic (genuine question, I really don't know)? I very much doubt there is a constitutional right to endanger yourself and others.

Take the Lordship lane high street. Do you not agree that fining pedestrians who cross when red, or are too lazy to walk 200 metres to the next traffic light, would make the road safer for all? Or should pedestrians be immune from laws limits and regulations?

The fact that jaywalking is not illegal actually worries me as a parent, because, growing up, my child will see lots and lots of example of people dangerously crossing when they shouldn't.

[DulwichLondoner]

PS I have explained it before: I get mad when public money is spent on initiatives whose benefits are unproven, and which may, in fact, end up being counterproductive (e.g. more polluting and more congestion because of 20mph and because of the cycle superhighways). Like I said, I believe Lambeth council could have spent those ?700-800k in a lot of other ways that would have improved road safety.

[rendelharris]

If pedestrian safety is really your priority, DL, then you would surely support cars driving at 20MPH rather than 30MPH, given all the well known statistics about the different likelihoods of fatality at those speeds? Are you seriously going to claim that your frequently voiced opposition to 20MPH limits has nothing to do with your desire to get around faster?

[Robert Poste's Child]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> The fact that jaywalking is not illegal actually

> worries me as a parent, because, growing up, my

> child will see lots and lots of example of people

> dangerously crossing when they shouldn't.

I certainly don't disagree that a lot of people take unnecessary risks crossing the road (in the course of cycling around ED on various errands today at least three people stepped out in front of me without looking) but it sounds as though you think laws on jaywalking are purely to protect pedestrians from themselves; a nice idea but somewhat naive. In the US, at least, they came about mainly through lobbying from the emerging car industry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

[DulwichLondoner]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> In the US, at least, they came

> about mainly through lobbying from the emerging

> car industry.

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797

This does not mean it is necessarily wrong.

Also, it may be argued that the USA are not directly comparable to Europe, in the sense that most cities, other than San Francisco NY Boston, tend to have a very limited downtown which is somewhat comparable to the centre of a European city, whereas the rest of the city tends to be spread out and to require a car.

However, Wikipedia tells me that jaywalking is illegal in a number of European countries, too, which are more directly comparable to the UK.

Regardless of why or where it is illegal, don't you think it would make sense to

1) fine those who cross when it's red?

2) fine those who cross in the middle of the road when a crossing is available within a reasonable distance?

Safety should be everyone's responsibility.

[Robert Poste's Child]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> Regardless of why or where it is illegal, don't

> you think it would make sense to

> 1) fine those who cross when it's red?

> 2) fine those who cross in the middle of the road

> when a crossing is available within a reasonable

> distance?

No, I don't! Nanny-state petty rules designed mainly to allow drivers a sense of having a greater right to the road. And with police funding under such pressure, where do you plan to take resources away to run this?

[DulwichLondoner]

What is your view, then, on a council spending ?700-800k on 20mph speed limits, without waiting for the Government to complete a multi-year nationwide study on the merits of the initiative? That is something which cost real money, real money which could have been better spent elsewhere, whereas what I am proposing would cost effectively zero; I am not saying cops should monitor every single stretch of road handing out fines, of course! I am simply saying it would, realistically, have more of a symbolic value than anything else.

Oh, and what about harsher speeding fines with no tolerance whatsoever, so that a motorist could theoretically be fined for going at 21 rather than 20mph? That is not a nanny-state petty rule, uh?

I honestly fail to understand why imposing a modicum of discipline to pedestrians should be seen as giving drivers 'a greater sense of the road'. So crossing when it's red should be fine? So jumping in the middle of the road because someone is too lazy to walk 60 metres to the next crossing and cross there is fine? I am speechless. Honestly speechless.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> If pedestrian safety is really your priority, DL,

> then you would surely support cars driving at

> 20MPH rather than 30MPH, given all the well known

> statistics about the different likelihoods of

> fatality at those speeds?

It's never only about speed. Education has a lot to do with it, too. There are many factors to balance. Practical example: if we were to ban parking on ALL kinds of public roads, roads would become way safer for pedestrians. Similarly, if we were to draconianly enforce 10mph speed limits. Clearly, neither is feasible, yet the additional benefits in terms of safety for pedestrians are quite obvious.

> Are you seriously going

> to claim that your frequently voiced opposition to

> 20MPH limits has nothing to do with your desire to

> get around faster?

Of course there is an element of personal inconvenience. But, if you think that the thrill of being able to ride at 30mph instead of 20mph for very limited periods of time on very limited stretches of road is an adrenaline shot, you are badly mistaken. Like I have said multiple times, it's a combination of:

1) annoyance that public money is spent on something with no proper cost-benefit-analysis, and without a hint of proof that it actually brings any benefits; the very same reaction I have about hs2, for example, which does not affect me at all (other than as a taxpayer footing the bill)

2) great suspicion that something fishy may have pushed council to rush this through without waiting for the Government's study

3) annoyance at the possibility of being fined for riding even only at 21mph, since the new laws do not allow any tolerance at all, AFAIK

4) annoyance at the sheer stupidity of having to spend more time looking at the speedometer, and less at the road, for the reasons already explained

5) annoyance at the greater number of idiot pedestrians who now have a greater incentive to cross where they shouldn't, endangering themselves and others

[Robert Poste's Child]

Bit disingenuous - making it an offence to cross a road other than at traffic lights is a lot more than 'a modicum of discipline'. It almost sounds like you think pedestrians should have to wait for you rather than the other way round - rather an odd point of view if you choose to live in a large city, surely.

I don't find 20mph limits at all unreasonable, particularly in residential streets as in my view they help to calm down the aggressive, selfish kind of driver who refuses to show consideration for anyone if it means dropping below third gear (obviously not all drivers are like that).

The point, surely, is that we ALL - drivers, cyclists and pedestrians (not forgetting that some of us are in all three of those groups) - need to remember to read the whole road. Maybe everyone should take the driving theory test at 17 regardless of whether they want to learn to drive. A few months ago a policeman told me he thought driver training should include cycle safety training, which sounded sensible.

[DulwichLondoner]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> Bit disingenuous - making it an offence to cross a

> road other than at traffic lights is a lot more

> than 'a modicum of discipline'. It almost sounds

> like you think pedestrians should have to wait for

> you rather than the other way round

???? And why on earth would that be?

First of all, if there is a traffic light, pedestrians should respect it. Crossing when red is dangerous for themselves and others; what justification would there possibly be?

On roads with very frequent traffic lights, like the Lordship lane high street, why on Earth shouldn't a pedestrian be patient enough to walk 60 metres or so to the next traffic light, and wait a few seconds till the green man appears? Pedestrians should not be inconvenienced even if this makes the road safer for all? I say this from direct experience: I almost never ride along Lordship lane, but do walk there as a pedestrian, and am always amazed at the people who jump in the middle of the road when traffic lights are so ubiquitous.

I can understand crossing the road on long stretches of road with no crossings, but on somewhere like Lordship lane, with a traffic light every 60 metres or so??

> - rather an

> odd point of view if you choose to live in a large

> city, surely.

Yes, surely. Which is why what I advocate is, in fact, the law in other European countries like Belgium, Italy, France, Poland. I think that in Northern Ireland jaywalking is down to police discretion if it causes an accident.

>

> I don't find 20mph limits at all unreasonable,

> particularly in residential streets as in my view

> they help to calm down the aggressive, selfish

> kind of driver who refuses to show consideration

> for anyone if it means dropping below third gear

> (obviously not all drivers are like that).

I must be the only rider and driver who finds it necessary to spend all too long looking at the speedometer to determine if I am at 20 or 22mph - everybody else must be able to recognise this just feeling the wind, so my bad!

I wouldn't be so against 20mph if there was some reasonable tolerance on speed fines but, AFAIK, by statute there isn't. And no, I don't want tolerance because I want to speed (oh, the adrenaline of going 4 mph faster...) , but because keeping my eyes glued to the speedometer to make sure I'm at 20 and not at 21 is stupid and dangerous.

> The point, surely, is that we ALL - drivers,

> cyclists and pedestrians (not forgetting that some

> of us are in all three of those groups) - need to

> remember to read the whole road.

Sure. But allowing pedestrians to cross when it's red or to cross in the middle of the road when a designated crossing is nearby goes very much against what you have just said.

> Maybe everyone

> should take the driving theory test at 17

> regardless of whether they want to learn to drive.

> A few months ago a policeman told me he thought

> driver training should include cycle safety

> training, which sounded sensible.

As a motorcyclist, I couldn't agree more!

[Loz]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> The point, surely, is that we ALL - drivers,

> cyclists and pedestrians (not forgetting that some

> of us are in all three of those groups) - need to

> remember to read the whole road. Maybe everyone

> should take the driving theory test at 17

> regardless of whether they want to learn to drive.

I would go a little further and put everyone in the cab of a reasonably large van. I've driven some pretty large vehicles in my time and I have a good idea where all the blind spots are. I now cycle about a mile or so in zone 1 and I cringe at some of the places cyclists place themselves, not understanding the driver has a very tiny chance of knowing they are there.

Preferably they would get to drive the van around a corner as well (it's very different from a car), but I realise that may be more than a little impractical.

[rendelharris]

DL: "Pedestrians should not be inconvenienced even if this makes the road safer for all?"

Substitute motorists for pedestrians and that's exactly your position re 20MPH limits.