Southwark council considering 20mph limit across whole borough

[puzzled]

no one, nit even james barber, has yet explained how this limit will be enforced. come on james, tell us how!

[Huguenot]

I imagine it'll be enforced the same way the 30mph limit is enforced.

Why does it need to be any different?

[LadyDeliah]

Motorists appear to expect the world to accomodate them over other users of the planet, but this article highlights the latest census data, which shows car users are in the minority in London, so why should they take up a disproportionate amount of consideration?

http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/census-data-car-free-households-now.html

[davidh]

huguenot, you miss the point. the 30mph limit is mot policed, so how will be the new one be any different? and lady delilah, motorists pay massively mote than other road users... that is why!

[LadyDeliah]

We alledgedly live in a democracy, not a plutocracy, so the majority are supposed to hold sway, not those who pay more.

[????]

Exactly LD..and 65% of households own a car.....

[macrobana]

Another Southwark cunning plan.

Increase car pollution.

Kill off the elderly.

Reduce social services expenditure.

[LadyDeliah]

Sorry quids, but if you check the latest Census stats, 58% of Southwark Households do not own a car.

[????]

Ok I meant in general, now if we take it to SE22 rather than Southwark I suspect it'll be well over 50%....if you really want local democracy. Actually, there are plenty of motorists who support this if you scroll up rather than generalise

[LadyDeliah]

This thread was about a proposed measure accross the whole of Southwark, but, let's look at the whole of Inner London, the percentage of households without a car is 56.7%. Why should the majority of people in Inner London be ignored in favour of the car owning minority?

edited loads cos I'm hung over!

[Huguenot]

Not sure what point I've missed davidh? Has anybody made one?

By and large we police by consent - there will be arseholes who speed whatever the limit is.

[Coops46]

Davidh - motorists pay no more towards the road than cyclists, bus users or pedestrians.

Amazing people pay ?100s a year on VED and don't even know why.

[DJKillaQueen]

LD the majority of people using the roads are motorists (in one form or another) and they pay huge amounts to do so. Pedestrians use pavements and crossings (or should do). So motorists have every right to voice opinion on something they use more than others. Cyclists, also have a right to input on road safety and management measures for obvious reasons. If pedestrians crossed where provision is made for them to do so (i.e designated crossings), they would be safer. More work needs to be done though to improve things for cyclists.

The thing that irks me most about this blanket limit is that it takes no account for one of the primary lessons of the highway code, which is to, drive according to the conditions. It essentially removes the ability of the driver to do this, whilst making the vehicle use more petrol (so smacks the face of any green policy that Southwark has). Imagine if every borough did this. I would find myself coming off the M1 in the middle of the night and forced to creep my way back to South London at 20mpr, when there is vitually no traffic on the raod, and no pedestrians in sight. It's lunacy! Thankfully TFL will ensure that never happens.

[LadyDeliah]

DJKQ, why should the debate be restricted to who uses the roads? Car use impacts everyone, not just those who use the roads, by way of pollution, noise, increased risk of death or injury, damage to property, disproportionate amount of space taken up by roads and car parks etc.

Also, even if we did artificially restrict the impact only to road users as you suggest, how many of the pedestrians you mention disparagingly, do you think might use buses?

In relation to the cost of roads, as has been pointed out many times before, by many contributors, on many threads on the forum, OUR ROADS ARE PAID FOR OUT OF GENERAL TAXATION BY EVERYONE WHO PAYS TAX, not out of vehicle excise duty, which is currently a form of pollution tax.

[????]

LOL at VED as the main tax on cars, seriously.......... VAT and excise duty on Fuel? Huge govt revenue, VED is a pin prick FFS

[Coops46]

'The majority of people using the roads are motorists' - not true, av. car ownership per household in London is 41%. And how many of those use it every day?

Motorists should definitely have their say, but at the moment all decisions are disproportionally weighted in favour of them.

If London was made more appealing to make journeys by foot or bike, it would benefit drivers as well with less congestion. Unfortunately most cars have 1 person sat inside, it's a highly inefficient form of transport.

I sure as hell wouldn't want motorists to decide what an 'appropriate speed' is, it means anything UP to the speed limit. Most people see 30mph as a goal, not a limit.

[LadyDeliah]

???? Wrote:

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

> LOL at VED as the main tax on cars,

> seriously.......... VAT and excise duty on Fuel?

> Huge govt revenue, VED is a pin prick FFS

Who said anything about it being the main tax on cars? My comment was related to who pays for the roads.

[DJKillaQueen]

Just to take you up on some of your points LD. Forcing reduced speed increases fuel consumption and therefore pollution, so if you care about polution you probably wouldn't want to see a 20mpr blanket limit. Having said that, cars are far less polutant than ever, engines are quieter than ever, those suffering injury or death are lower than ever and as a percentage of those who use cars, it's still a very safe form of transport. So I just don't recognise the alarmist picture you paint. Go back 20 years and longer and there really was something to say in all of these areas.

With regards to users of public transport (buses being some of the most environmentally damaging vehicles on the road btw), they were not part of your attack, which was specific to car owners. Buses and lorries (both necessary) have some of the poorest records in road safety and cyclists for example.

Quids is quite right to point out the tax on fuel and the billions it brings into government coffers, but that aside, central taxation is just that - central taxation. Does the childless couple get to demand that only parents pays the taxes that fund our schools? Of course they don't...no more than one road user should have preference over another when it comes to roads maintenance (again heavy goods vehicles being the highest cause of wear).

Coops the majority of people on the roads are in vehicles....which means that the largest users of the road are people travelling in a vehicle (be it a bus, lorry, car etc). Household car ownership percentages have nothing to do with it.

And who said anything about motorists setting their own speed limits? I was merely pointing out that 30 mpr works perfectly well and the ridiculousness of a 20mpr limit accross London. There are people that have to drive accross London to get to work for example. I have worked in places like Pinewood and Shepparton doing 12 hour days, a journey I can do in 70-90 mins on a motorcycle in peak traffic. It would take twice the time by public transport and cost four times as much. London already takes forever to get around at certain times of the day.

[henryb]

"Forcing reduced speed increases fuel consumption and therefore pollution".

That is not true. In built up areas the of effect constant acceleration and deceleration reduces the optimal efficient speed as 20 mph limit results in more steady driving. When it was done in Germany it was shown to improve fuel economy by 12%

But you are right at constant speed the optimal is a lot higher and on motorways we should reduce the max speed to 55 mph because of that.

"Coops the majority of people on the roads are in vehicles...."

Well if you include the pavement then I would say the most are pedestrians. But regardless, the speed of vehicles on the roads effects everyone - so everyone gets a say. This is a democracy and ultimately these things get decided by elected officials not by who pays the most or drives on the roads the most.

[LadyDeliah]

Thanks henryb, I was about to post on the same German study. There was another study in the UK that showed the same thing i.e. that on a straight long road reduction from 55 to 20 decreased fuel efficiency, but in an urban setting speed was far less significant than the acceleration/deceleration of vehicles and different traffic calming measures had different effects on driver behaviour in this regard.

I've seen other studies that reducing the speed limit to 20 mph smooth out the overall flow of traffic so the overall effect would be a reduction in emissions.

As for DJKQ's comment on bus emissions, the emissions per user are far smaller than for car drivers and the new buses have lots of emission saving technology, which reduces emmissions per user even further.

I agree that there are problems with too many lorries on the road but not being an expert on freight shipping, I'd be unable to comment in how many of those would be able to shift to rail.

[LadyDeliah]

peckhamside Wrote:

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

> The research is in the Independant today,

> apparantly the human skull has developed to

> survive impacts of up to 20mph but any increase

> over that and the damage rises disproportionally

> and alarmingly.

Also, lets look at the damage we are trying to prevent. The inconvenience to car drivers by having to reduce their speed cannot be more important than the lives that are more likely to be saved by such a reduction.

[DJKillaQueen]

Pavements are not part of the road Henry. I agree with your points regarding acceleration/ deceleration though and fuel consumption and motorways etc.

Studies are fine but not conclusive. Most roads are not straight, or clear of obstruction for that matter either. Perhaps a study measuring that would be more appropriate.

A point you might find of interest LD is that in Paris heavy good vehicles are not allowed to drive inside the outer orbital. They are required to offload to smaller vehicles (as a general rule).

Does no-one have a view to my point regarding the impact on travel times for those who have to use vehicles for long jorneys across London. 20mpr limits work fine on a local level, but would make journeys for those who work out of or across London unfeasable. Imagine if all of London ground down to a 20 mph limit. It would add anything up to three hours travel time for me just going to and from work if I were based at certain locations. Many people and commuters would be severely impacted in this way.

This is perhaps why TFL control all main routes across London, to make sure sure such a ridiculous proposition never comes about. The same is true for Southwark. A blanket 20mpr limit wouldn't touch TFL controlled roads, and there can't be many Southwark controlled streets untouched by humps or 20 mpr limits already anyway. As someone above pointed out, people speeding on those roads rarely get caught doing so anyway. Questions around enforcement are a real issue.

[henryb]

> Does no-one have a view to my point regarding the

> impact on travel times for those who have to use

> vehicles for long jorneys across London.

Yes it is fair point and a concern. I would hate for anyone?s commute time to go up. Commute times bad enough as they are for most people.

But as I understand it, if this going be implemented as it has in other places it would just mean a default 20 on residential roads, arterial/trunk/red routes wouldn?t be included. Also when driving on residential roads you spend a lot of time under the max speed because of the junctions, crossings so on plus a lot are 20 already.

The limiting factor is for car journeys in London is congestion rather than max speed. That is why cycling is faster than driving in London. Slower max speeds improves flow and reduces bottlenecks, it also encourages cycling and walking all of which reduce congestion.

Once you take all that in account it will hardly make any difference to journey times.

[James Barber]

The average speed across London is low, 9.5mph-11mph depending on your data source. All that stop starting.

So yes to 20mph across Southwark but also yes to phasing traffic lights to be green for those doing 20mph & average cycling speeds. Their average speed would be much higher than present and their journey would be significantly easier, cheaper and more relaxing.

[trizza]

This really is a non issue.

As previously stated, main routes won't be impacted as Southwark don't have the power to impose a 20mph limit on them.

Many residential roads are 20mph anyway.

For those that do speed, the likelihood of any substantive enforcement action in 20 mph zones (or 30 mph zones for that matter) can be realistically assessed at around nil in any event.