Southwark council considering 20mph limit across whole borough

[the-e-dealer]

If they crack down on cyclists doing that too!

[DulwichFox]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

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

> If they crack down on cyclists doing that too!

Yes Cyclists with No Hi-Vis. No helmets. No lights at night. Wearing headphones.

Riding on pavements (Adults) Going through Red Lights.

No need for insurance. No need for any Test. No responsibility.

Fox.

[uncleglen]

They just want to create more non-jobs for the people who put the signs up. They will not stop the cycling 'accidents' or the stupid 'accidents' where people are inconsiderate or take chances pulling out and driving on the car in front's bumper.

[Coops46]

In the time it takes a car travelling 20mph to come to a complete stop, a car travelling 30mph will still be doing 24mph.

Which car would you want your loved ones to walk in front of?

[DJKillaQueen]

I'd prefer if my loved ones didn't step out in front of approaching cars, to be honest. Pedestrians have a responsibility too, to make sure they cross at points that are safe to do so.

Just to pick up on some points above regarding enforcement. Once upon a time there used to be something called a traffic cop. What's happened over recent decades is that whilst we've become the most CCTV saturated country in the world, we have reduced the number of enforcement methods. CCTV is not used to catch bad driving, but to catch incorrectly parked motorists. Granted it is used at some junctions, but the problem with fixed cameras, as we all know, is that drivers learn to know where they are. This is not the same as fearing traffic Police that can be anywhere at any time.

[Coops46]

Accidents are just that, accidents. 20mph is a sensible speed in a built-up urban area, and discourages the acceleration pattern of 0mph - 30mph - 0mph as people see 30mph as a target, not a limit.

I drive, I cycle, and I walk. I would rather everyone stuck to 20mph.

You should check out movementforliveablelondon.com

[bluecanary]

nashoi Wrote:

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

> Surely the obvious solution is to return to the

> idea of having somebody walking in front of the

> vehicle waving a flag, this would simultaneously

> lower unemployment, solve the obesity crisis and

> reduce the number and severity of accidents. The

> kind of joined up thinking we need to mend broken

> Britain.

Genius!!

[Marmora Man]

Because most of my driving is in town, I drive an automatic.

20 mph is around the point where the auto gearbox changes up.

It makes it difficult to keep at a constant speed.

My automatic car provides, as I voice all do, for a 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear option as well as "Drive". Using 1st and 2nd gears when in a 20mph zone usually works well and is no more difficult than driving a manual car.

[*Bob*]

Some great points made here.

It seems so unfair that roads and pedestrians are not forced to accommodate engine design and performance.

Let's set the boffins to work to discover the speeds at which cars are best happy - and use that as a speed limit.

[DulwichFox]

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> Because most of my driving is in town, I drive an

> automatic.

>

> 20 mph is around the point where the auto gearbox

> changes up.

> It makes it difficult to keep at a constant

> speed.

>

> My automatic car provides, as I voice all do, for

> a 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear option as well as "Drive".

> Using 1st and 2nd gears when in a 20mph zone

> usually works well and is no more difficult than

> driving a manual car.

I Have a Ford Escort Encore auto. Does not have 'Drive'

Has a 'L' Low gear. But engine revs at 3,000+ revs. and it is used for going up Very steep hills.

Could not be used to travel long distance.

Amount of Petrol I would waste and the added pollution.

Fox.

[Coops46]

By owning a car in London, you do belong to a minority. And as the roads are for the public (and funded by the public, not just motorists), they should cater for the majority - pedestrians and public transport users.

[DulwichFox]

Coops46 Wrote:

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

> By owning a car in London, you do belong to a

> minority. And as the roads are for the public (and

> funded by the public, not just motorists), they

> should cater for the majority - pedestrians and

> public transport users.

Roads are for Vehicles...of all types..

Being a Council Tax payer I too fund the roads..

Being a car owner/ motorist I also pay again through my Road Fund Licence. (Road Tax)

So I like many, Pay Twice. Despite doing less than 2,000 mile per year.

Fox.

[Lowlander]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Because most of my driving is in town, I drive

> an

> > automatic.

> >

> > 20 mph is around the point where the auto

> gearbox

> > changes up.

> > It makes it difficult to keep at a constant

> > speed.

> >

> > My automatic car provides, as I voice all do,

> for

> > a 1st, 2nd and 3rd gear option as well as

> "Drive".

> > Using 1st and 2nd gears when in a 20mph zone

> > usually works well and is no more difficult

> than

> > driving a manual car.

>

> I Have a Ford Escort Encore auto. Does not have

> 'Drive'

>

> Has a 'L' Low gear. But engine revs at 3,000+

> revs. and it is used for going up Very steep

> hills.

> Could not be used to travel long distance.

>

> Amount of Petrol I would waste and the added

> pollution.

>

> Fox.

It has a "D" though right? Which stands for Drive. Why not keep your speed just below 20mph then, say 15mph? The time you lose would be far outweighed by the time you spend on reading and replying to this post.

At that mileage you'd be cheaper getting minicabs around the place anyway.

[Coops46]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Coops46 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > By owning a car in London, you do belong to a

> > minority. And as the roads are for the public

> (and

> > funded by the public, not just motorists), they

> > should cater for the majority - pedestrians and

> > public transport users.

>

>

> Roads are for Vehicles...of all types..

> Being a Council Tax payer I too fund the roads..

>

> Being a car owner/ motorist I also pay again

> through my Road Fund Licence. (Road Tax)

>

> So I like many, Pay Twice. Despite doing less than

> 2,000 mile per year.

>

> Fox.

You do not pay twice. There is no such thing as road tax, it's called VED and is linked to the emissions of your car, hence cycling, walking and e-vehicles are free.

Perhaps you'd benefit from a scheme like Zipcar if you're doing such a low mileage. They have plenty of nice cars that drive smoothly at 20mph.

[DJKillaQueen]

Coops, road tax was initially devised to help with the cost of road maintenance (it was called road fund and ringfenced until Mr Churchill changed things), which is why motorists were required to pay it in the first place. True, that is not the case now, but it doesn't change it's origin.

I'm with fox on this. What fox doesn't mention is the amount of tax paid on fuel too. Where is that money spent I wonder? Motorists are heavily taxed in the UK. They can be forgiven for whining when forced to use more fuel keeping to ultra low speeds when not necessary to do so. The vast majority of drivers never have an accident with a pedestrian, nor any other kind of accident leading to serious injury. Many accidents involving pedestrians are also the pedestrians fault.

At the end of the day, no amount of legislation, traffic claming, fines etc is going to stop wreckless drivers being so, no more than it will stop foolish pedestrians taking the risks they do. Only better education and better methods of apprehending dangerous drivers will work.

[Lowlander]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Coops, road tax was initially devised to help with

> the cost of road maintenance (it was called road

> fund and ringfenced until Mr Churchill changed

> things), which is why motorists were required to

> pay it in the first place. True, that is not the

> case now, but it doesn't change it's origin.

>

> I'm with fox on this. What fox doesn't mention is

> the amount of tax paid on fuel too. Where is that

> money spent I wonder? Motorists are heavily taxed

> in the UK. They can be forgiven for whining when

> forced to use more fuel keeping to ultra low

> speeds when not necessary to do so. The vast

> majority of drivers never have an accident with a

> pedestrian, nor any other kind of accident leading

> to serious injury. Many accidents involving

> pedestrians are also the pedestrians fault.

>

> At the end of the day, no amount of legislation,

> traffic claming, fines etc is going to stop

> wreckless drivers being so, no more than it will

> stop foolish pedestrians taking the risks they do.

> Only better education and better methods of

> apprehending dangerous drivers will work.

Give the number of people (not in expensive cars) I see who sit with their engines running unecessarily, and the number speeding, I doubt that petrol really is that expensive. There are seven European countries with higher prices. I was sat at a level crossing the other day for 5 minutes and was the only driver of seven to switch my engine off (Tragically I did count as I got out of teh car to stretch my legs)

You could amend the existing legislation and enforce the penalties more strictly though. Scrap fines and give people 6 points every time they get caught speeding / driving recklessly.

[Coops46]

I've only recently moved into E Dulwich, and I'm quite astounded the state of the roads in this family/retail area. People are double parked all over Lordship Lane, cars speed up and down the residential streets, and have access to all the roads.

People will only behave as well as the roads are designed, and if you limit access to residential side streets with bollards at one end, it means through-traffic is reduced to a minimum.

I agree that reducing the speed limit won't do enough to help make things safe, but it's a start.

[DJKillaQueen]

Hmmm...blocking access through residential streets forces drivers to use main routes which then get overloaded at spots and what you see is increased accidents. Take a look at the data for the junction of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye for example and compare that to accident data before the neighbouring residential roads were blocked off.

To be honest coops, you sound as though you have a slightly ridiculous perspective on this. Not even driving instructors will suggest turning engines off while waiting at a junction (which is all a level crossing is).

It's actually quite difficult for drivers to speed on most roads in London anyway...because the average speed is so low. Accidents are often the result of bad driving or drivers doing stupid things to get ahead of a jam (or not the fault of the driver at all...alcohol is a factor in 30% of all acidents caused by pedestrians for example). Rural areas are where speeding is an issue and most serious accidents relating speed happen there, not in towns. So by your logic all country roads should be speed humped really..........

[DulwichFox]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

>

> Give the number of people (not in expensive cars)

> I see who sit with their engines running

> unecessarily, and the number speeding, I doubt

> that petrol really is that expensive. There are

> seven European countries with higher prices. I

> was sat at a level crossing the other day for 5

> minutes and was the only driver of seven to switch

> my engine off (Tragically I did count as I got out

> of teh car to stretch my legs)

And in those countries, perhaps people get paid more.. and do not pay Road Tax

>

> You could amend the existing legislation and

> enforce the penalties more strictly though. Scrap

> fines and give people 6 points every time they get

> caught speeding / driving recklessly.

It suits local Authorities to fine people and award just 3 points.

That way they can get more money before someone actually gets banned.

A 20 mph limit across Southwark would catch out 1,000's of even careful drivers, Generate Millions

in revenue and result in many drivers being banned.

And Southwark would get what they want. Cars off of the road.

Fox.

Fox.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKQ,

I've not seen evidence that blocking ends of residential roads creates more traffic on larger roads. Intuitively I would think that but equally lots of evidence that traffic evaporates to some degree when routes become longer.

Have you seen a study into this?

Hackney where they've done this hasnt reported extra traffic on larger roads.

Hi DulwichFox,

Most of Southwark is now 20mph zones or speed limits. But largely side roads that had few collissions to begin with. But I've not seen great numbers of people being prosecuted. Have you?

Roads like the Lordship Lane (Goose Green to Wahtely Road where the main shopping drag is) should be 20mph.

[Coops46]

Not a 'ridiculous perspective', thanks. It's a perspective on reducing road deaths and injuries. And it's not hard to speed on London's roads, there are many opportunities for it.

The 'motorist v. the world' argument has gone on for longer than its needed to, and it's why councils like Camden and Islington are reducing it to 20mph, no argument.

[MarkE]

Some unconnected thoughts:

1) No policy on speed limits should be based around what speed motor manufacturers design their cars to be most efficient at.

2) Reducing the number of privately owned vehicles in highly urbanised, well served areas, is generally a good thing.

3) No one rule is perfect for everyone, but those that help the majority tend to go down quite well. If a road doesn't need to have a 30 mph limit, then why should it?

4) A policy such as this should not be considered as a panacea for a greater problem (such as accident volumes, or environmental concerns), but taken in the context of a collective of measures which are put in place.

This suggestion would appear to pass the smell test. I like it, but can understand that it doesn't serve everyone's best interests. But, we're a society - let's act like one.

[richard tudor]

Coops46 Wrote:

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

> I've only recently moved into E Dulwich, and I'm

> quite astounded the state of the roads in this

> family/retail area. People are double parked all

> over Lordship Lane, cars speed up and down the

> residential streets, and have access to all the

> roads.

>

> People will only behave as well as the roads are

> designed, and if you limit access to residential

> side streets with bollards at one end, it means

> through-traffic is reduced to a minimum.

>

> I agree that reducing the speed limit won't do

> enough to help make things safe, but it's a start.

So all this has happened since you moved to ED. You seem quite surprised that people have access to all roads. I am amazed you did not see this before you moved to ED. If people pay the relevant taxes they can use all roads. Why do I think many people suggest things that only benefit them and how it will effect the value of their property. Most people drive correctly and if there were sufficient Police Officers out on the beat they could catch and charge the idiots. Many years ago Camberwell Grove residents suggested having a Toll Gate to keep people out for road safety a bit like your bollard idea. It was rejected.

ED is part of the overall Southwark community not a special enclave to apply their own rules.

[DJKillaQueen]

James, where do you think those drivers that cut through rat runs go when you block the runs off? Oooh they must mysteriously evaporate into thin air. Common sense says those drivers have to go somewhere.....forced onto the main roads they were trying to avoid perhaps?

Sorry coops but that's an impression you have and not one based on any hard survey. During the day, you'll struggle to reach speeds of 30mpr for any length of road anywhare in ED, either because of traffic or because of traffic calming measures.

Mark, I have no issue with reducing the need for vehicles in urban areas, as long as there are affordable and safe alternatives. The truth is that London transport does not serve most Londoners well enough. Bus journeys are long and in some cases unreliable. The cost of tickets is prohibitive too (that's why so many people now cycle and/or motorcycle). And there's the issue of safety late at night...where stations, trains etc have no staff present and so on. Many late shift workers for example, need to have their own modes of transport, and they are often those on low incomes too.

My view is that this is just the next stage in a long line of stealth measures by beurocrats obsessed with our roads, because they've got nothing else to obsess over. Yes indeed let's act like a society, and treat the majority of law abiding motorists, cyclists and pedestrians like the sensible safe adults they are, instead of penalising them, because some council official thinks everyone is an accident waiting to happen.

All the data shows that reported accidents have reduced over the past decades (and by a third since 2002*). In London, the fire brigade last year were called out to the lowest number of accidents in 25 years (in spite of an increase in the population of London by 1.5 million over that time). Any sensible road safety policy would focus on the spots where accidents are still high (which is kind of what it tries to do at the moment). TFL have been poor on this, but the answer is not to drop a blanket on a whole area of London....the answer is to kick TFL up the you know what and get them to do what they are supposed to do (junction of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Road being a case in point).

*Department of transport

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120913120348/http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-quarterly-estimates-q1-2012/

[DulwichFox]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi DulwichFox,

> Most of Southwark is now 20mph zones or speed

> limits. But largely side roads that had few

> collissions to begin with. But I've not seen great

> numbers of people being prosecuted. Have you?

> Roads like the Lordship Lane (Goose Green to

> Wahtely Road where the main shopping drag is)

> should be 20mph.

That is because most of the roads do not have cameras (Yet);

I am not at all opposed to 20 mph on some roads. I campaigned back in the 1980's to get

Dunstans Rd made 20mph after several accidents.

But a blanket 20 mph across Southwark is not needed.

Fox