Consultation on 20mph zone across East Dulwich?

[Torben Pieknik]

The ABD do have an agenda - to promote the interests of motorists at all costs and at the expense of all other road users. There is a piece of research by TfL from 2003 (ok a bit old) which shows the number of people killed or seriously injured is cut by more than 50 per cent in 20mph zones. They also reduce traffic flows which is a good thing in residential areas.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ResearchSummaryNo2_20mphZones.pdf

[Amelie]

I hope that Belvoir Road will not become a rat-run, the right-turn onto Underhill Road should be reinstated but equally LB Southwark should be obliged to resurface all the roads and pavements affected; most of which are in a dreadful state due to lack of maintenance. Apparently the hard-standings outside the shops running from the corner of Melford Avenue are to be resurfaced in May.

[Growlybear]

Al&Em Wrote:

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

> As per previous comments coming from Forest Hill

> direction a no right turn into Melford would be a

> bit of a blockage for those trying to access

> Underhill / Wood Vale. Interested in views on the

> crafty U-Turn that I and many others take just

> after the Wood Vale turn (heading downhill towards

> the Harvester) between the two bollards, and then

> immediately left into WoodVale. As far as I can

> tell this is completely legal (there's a space

> there to go, and no signs or lines saying you

> can't), but it seems to attract lots of honking

> from people who don't approve - any views on

> whether this is a fair-enough maneouvre or a

> naughty habit we should all give up?

There is nothing at all to stop you from doing this. Although there is a No U turn sign a little further down the road, this applies to the possible space for a U turn where the sign is located, and does not apply to the gap you are referring to just after the Wood Vale turning. It is is safe to make a U turn, then there is nothing to say you can't.

[lozzyloz]

I'm broadly in favour of a 20 mph zone in principle but I'm not convinced that it wont just become another expensive addition to the the traffic calming wallpaper that gets broadly ignored. The speed humps are a waste of money and easy to ignore, particularly as Rocket mentioned earlier, when the P13 thunders down (often in excess of 30 mph) causing every Victorian house near a speed bump to shudder and quake as another tiny bit of masonry flakes off. The mini roundabout at the intersection with Melford road is a theatre of accidents and everybody (me included) ignores the no right turn both in and out of Underhill/Lordship Lane. With the technology already available it should be possible via GPS to limit engines in all vehicles according to the speed rated area, with the exception of emergency vehicles . . . and perhaps white vans.

[LuvPeckham]

I live just off the proposed 20MPH zone (and also got a letter), I am already in a 20MPH zone, with speed humps right outside my front door.

Result, everyone seems to have upgraded to a 4*4(1) to get over the speed humps at exactly the same speed as before with no enforcemetn by police, council or any other body. Equally when a lorry (of any size) goes past the resulting 'Thump' and vibration can often disturb my beauty Sleep(2)

I am in favour of reducing speeds in congested streets, but as pointed out by others Speed humps are not the best way in my personal opinion, equally the zone will need to be enforced and I really can't see council officials doing that, which will stretch our already over burdened SNT and other sections of our local Police force.(3)

What is the correct answer, not sure but to misquote The Verve "The Speed humps don't work, they just make it worse" so maybe the consultation needs to go back saying "yes" to the concept but "No" to the execution without a better method.

I am fascinated by LozzyLoz's good idea of GPS speed limiters on vehicles, which would be fine for anything made with electronic engine management systems but what about older (and sometime classic) cars that can't be fitted with the technology... would that encourage all the rat runners to buy old cars ? Equally wouldn't it give the government, The Mayor and local councils another way of tracking our movements ?

(1) Okay so an exageration - not every car is a 4*4 but they damn well hit the humps like they are

(2) I need lots of beauty sleep to enable me to go out without that paper bag on my head...

(3) Maybe we should link this to a campaign to grow the size of ED Nick to include a special "20mph" enforcement team ?

[Torben Pieknik]

The speed limiters are in development in this country. But they wouldn't be compulsory and would likely only to be fitted to public service vehicles in the first instance.

There would be no need for an electronic management system in the car and they could be fitted to older vehicles. They would use a GPS system with a speed limit map. The GPS system would be linked to a heptic throttle, if the vehicle was speeding it would prevent the driver from accelerating any more thus reducing the revs and the vehicle speed. There would also be a manual override facility for situations when the driver needed to accelerate out of danger (in a potential crash).

[LuvPeckham]

thanks Torben for the update, however as I own a 36 year old sports car, the concept of adding a heptic throttle just does not work, the design of the car (and may other classics) can not be altered to limit the revs of the engine without some major changes in the engine bay, fitment of a rev limiter or some form of electronic management system. Equally with modern day driving conditions, some classic cars can not support any more electronic additions as their batteries and electrical systems were not designed to take the loads modern day driving puts on them (slow speeds don't allow the batteries to charge fully sometimes resulting in stalling at lights or when stopping, which can be cured by increasing the idle revs but this just adds to the carbon footprint)

Also the damn speed bumps keep on grinding the underside of the old girl as she was designed long before speed humps. As such they are a constant pain in my (and her) bottom !!!

There has to be a better way to limit speeds on roads, working on design rather then humps or technology. Would be interested to see why councils seem to think humps are the only solution when they cause more problems then they solve.

[Burbage]

It's been a week since I requested further information from the consultancy concerned, and I haven't had a response yet. As the deadline for responses is 8th April, and I really can't make my mind up, I invite suggestions as to whether I should:

(a) Go with my gut instinct, that this is a mostly unnecessary and largely cosmetic make-work scheme for the council and their glossy consultancy, and strongly object to the proposal, the patronizing letter and their inability to provide any evidence to back up their tawdry, transparent and corrupt proposals?

or

(b) Go with my conscience, and support this brave attempt to give neighbouring children the chance to grow old enough to shoot each other?

If anyone has managed to worm out any information, I'd like to know. Things like comparative accident statistics for the existing 20mph zone (the one with Crystal Palace Road in it), why Etherow Street deserves a cycle-unfriendly speed hump or whether speed indicator signs would be a better use of the money.

If, on the other hand, they have a blanket policy of wasting everyone's time, I'd like to know that, too.

[bignumber5]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

> Why does no-one discuss the fact that those who

> walk - run - dawdle on the roads without looking,

> or without paying attention on their mobiles or

> whatever, in front of cars no matter how fast or

> slow the cars are doing, are to blame for their

> actions?

Not sure we can start licencing people to walk on public pavements, may cross road without walking licence if with experienced walker of 4 years or more, different classes of licence for different types of pedestrianism etc. Anyway, country kids will be walking around on parents farmland without licence for years before they can legally take test.

Where all of above silliness is heading is that whilst car vs pedestrian causes injury, pedestrian vs pedestrian causes small bump and either British over-politeness or name-calling depending on personality.

Your "no matter how fast or slow" bit is what determines reckless driving, speeding etc in the event of an accident. Kill a kid when doing 25mph and you don't get nicked for manslaughter.

For what it's worth, I think people who text while crossing the road are muppets, and should they end up getting pranged by a motor doing the legal limit, their problem. But drive under the limit etc and (however harrowing the experience might be) you will not be in the wrong, and the fact that you wont end up in chokey will demonstrate the police agree. Speed limits exist to protect everyone, even if only in a legal/moral sense - obey and no blame, break and you're on your own.

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

In case anyone is wondering - the Mayor has offered to pay for the costs of implementing a 20 mph limit in all residential areas of London so Southwark won't have to pay anything to implement this.

It has been a Green issue for quite a while because people seem to play down the significance of the thousands of deaths on the roads because we all want to retain the right to drive about in metal boxes cocooned from the world, but if the same number of people were killed by for example drugs, we would have had politicians jumping up and down trying to act even tougher than they already act and out-toughing each other on the sentences etc for drug dealers.

[macroban]

> In case anyone is wondering - the Mayor has offered to pay for the costs of implementing a 20 mph limit in all residential areas of London so Southwark won't have to pay anything to implement this.

???

My Council Tax bill has a precept for the Mayor's expenditure.