20 MPH Limit Lordship Lane

[richard tudor]

Do you mean "Lordship Lane" SE22?

Traffic never seems to get above a crawl from Goose Green to the Plough.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Completely agree with everything djkq said

[bonaome]

@James Barber

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Making it 20mph will involve making this crystal clear.

Why can't we just make it crystal clear that it's 30?

[James Barber]

Hi bonaome,

Because the majority who travel slightly slower than 20mph would go faster and we'd have even more crasjhes.

The current crash rate costs society aorund ?400,000 each year. What a waste due to human's being crushed etc.

Also, a shopping high street should feel more pleasant and safer.

Hi DJHQ, rahrahrah,

The research shows that such speed limits bring down speeds by 1-2 mph. The DfT advice is this 1-2 mph on average is concentrated in the one's going much faster than 20mph. This should translate in fewer craches with less severity.

[TJ]

i just simply hate the enforced nature of it all.

Why can't we just be left to behave ourselves. Why does every facet of our lives have to be controlled by local councillers trying to fill their days and find a new 'initiative' to get their mugs on the southwark rag?

When the high st is busy, which is most of the time, it is impossible to go more than 15 miles an hour anyway.

The traffic regulates itself. At night / evening, when it is empty, being able to cruise about at 30 is fine.

If we really have an issue with the odd nutter doing 90, then get some sodding policemen out on the streets with a mobile camera. That will soon slow people down.

Oh yes, thats why. Can't afford it, country is broke.

So, lets make life miserable for everyone instead.

[TJ]

James Barber - I would seriously question the cost too. ?.4m to society?

The last time I had a crash (Knocked off a motorbike by a soldier driving an Army lorry), it cost ?200 to fix the bike, nothing for the bruises and grazes to heal themselves. The soldier went to afganistan and served a tour there so was unavailable to comment for insurance purposes and it was all cleared up in a matter of months.

How on earth does a minor crash cost ?22k?? Please, get us some reasoning before using this in some kind of cost analysis / argument.

[DJKillaQueen]

I agree with you TJ and have also pointed out to James that accident data doesn't give the kind of detail to know if speed would have made a difference. The vast majority of accidents are just that, minor accidents, often at speeds within the limit, caused by driver error. Most minor accidents are sorted by the drivers themselves (with no attendance by other services) through the insurance which DRIVERS PAY FOR, not the state. So the costs associated with most accidents are irrelevant in a discussion regarding the impact on community and state.

The UK has some of the lowest accident and road fatality data in the world....

http://internationaltransportforum.org/irtadpublic/pdf/09brochure.pdf

Statistics show an average of just 4 fatalities per 100,000 population for the UK, or if you like 0.004%.

I do think we've evolved into a society where many people have nothing better to do and I especially think that is the case with local government. The level of bureacracy and complexity of it is ridiculous compared to some other European nations. It's one of the reason the UK is becoming an increasingly expensive countries to live in (whilst producing less).

Most drivers can be trusted to drive according to the rules and the conditions....let's stop treating them like idiots James.

[Burbage]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Most drivers can be trusted to drive according to

> the rules and the conditions....let's stop

> treating them like idiots James.

Can they? If we're playing statistics:

"In this year?s Report, 92% of motorists believe they are law abiding, even though 83% admit to regular speeders (sic)."

"...This doesn?t stop a sizeable minority speeding on them though, with 46% of motorists admitting to speeding in a 30 mph limit, 37% in a 50/60 mph limit and 36% in a 20 mph one."

and some opinion:

"There appears to be a fundamental lack of understanding about the social impact of speeding and the increasing likelihood of fatalities and serious injuries as speeds rise. This, and a perceived lack of police presence, has engendered a lax attitude to speeding amongst a significant proportion of motorists that endangers both themselves and other drivers around them."

The source (which you might have guessed, given the lack of concern for non-motorised road users) is the RAC Report on Motoring 2012.

[DJKillaQueen]

Unless you survey every single driver then it can't be taken as fact (there is no indication of the number of participants in the survey). I can see with my own eyes when driving that the majority of drivers do not speed. I've driven, cycled, riden motorbikes.....and seen it from all angles. We have one of the lowest accident rates in the world.

[James Barber]

Hi TJ,

Not sure anyone has seen my mug in 'the southwark rag'.

When Lordship Lane 20mph proceeds to consultation you should make these points.

Yes you're right in the sense that it is a balancing act - those that want ot drive fast through a high street and those who wish to use a high street safely.

[richard tudor]

The high street can be used safely and shared with traffic if pedestrians use the pavements and cross at the crossings and not jay walk.

Never hear of pedestrians being at fault.

As mentioned before LL proceeds at a snails pace. Speed is not a problem.

Would like to know where speeding takes place. Is this job creation by Southwark to employ a man with a red flag to control traffic.

[Coops46]

Richard, jay-walking was invented by the motoring lobby in the 1920's to restrict pedestrian usage of streets, and to promote cars as primary users.

Well done James, its a great idea and the vulnerable road users of the area owe you one.

[richard tudor]

I can see that your University education is standing you in good stead with information. Have you manage to put your traffic education to good effect in a planning job yet?

That is why I mentioned man with red flag who knows when a person will jump out. They are rather like those bollards that jump out and hit your mode of transport when you least expect them.

[richard tudor]

Why did you find it necessary to edit that rather long first message and respond with this one? I am sure people would have found your first answer educational like I did. However it has gone, was it wrong?

Makes my response above seem pointless now as it does not appear to respond to your last message

[Coops46]

It wasn't wrong, no. Perhaps a bit too long for this debate, I felt. Can message you the link if you feel so inclined.

[richard tudor]

Thanks but not necessary. Brain might overload digesting it in depth

[Coops46]

I thought as much

[DJKillaQueen]

Again, most pedestrians, drivers et al get through life never being injured or worse still killed by each other. There will always be accidents no matter how much the state interferes.

Just for information though, where pedestrians do clash with vehicles, a high enough percentage of them (the pedestrians that is) are intoxicated for alcohol to be recognised as a major factor. Maybe it's time drivers were protected from the menace of drunken pedestrians and not the other way round. I therefore might suggest you add pavement barriers outside the many drinking establishments along Lordship Lane to your prospectus for a safer high street James ;)

[TJ]

James - that is not what was said or what was suggested.

There is no need for more intrusion into our lives. We all get on just fine without the need for more and more nannying.

And yes, I do see each new councillor, MP or politician on one paper or another trying to get their names out in the public sphere with a new initiative we all pay for. To be frank. I am sick of paying for politicians pet projects.

Please, do us all a favour and take the money being spent on the consultation and the money earmarked for traffic control and please, put in in the bank account named 'national debt'. It will serve a far greater purpose there. If you don't, we will all just have to pay for it. Twice.

[James Barber]

Hi TJ, DJKQ

This is the report stating the cost to the country of crashes:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9275/rrcgb2011-02.pdf

Thankfully we've not had any deaths. So taking the number of serious crashes (4) and number of minor crashes (70) divided by the data period of 6 years gives us an average annual cost to society of ?409k or ?78.65 per East Dulwich household per year.

Doing nothing is extremely expensive. Making Lordship 20mph speed limit will cost around ?15k. But their is also the annual cost of people on average reducing their speed 1-2 mph. Lets say 1.5mph. Traffic surveys show average every day of 24,053 vehicles going north and south along this part of Lordship Lane - or 8.8m vehicles pa.

The speed reduction will on avarege mean drivers driving the whole length will lose 2.77seconds. Lets assume all travel the entire length. This would equate to 6,771 lost hours per year. The London mean wage is http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_286243.pdf

?650pw or ?17.50ph. So assuming half the hours lost are working hours annual cost would be ball park ?60k vs an annual saving of ?409k.

I don't see why East Dulwich residents should pay more for the likes of you to speed. I don't get your right to speed and harm our community.

Not sure how much we can factor in the Portas effect. Such traffic safety was one of her recommendations to help high streets compete with shopping malls, etc. Assuming her recommendations are correct then local businesses should expect some benefit from Lordship Lane being 20mph - some have privately emailed asking for it to happen ASAP.

[richard tudor]

What are the official figures showing how fast people are going. You have the number of cars going down a major road what are the figures for speed.

How will 20 mph make people spend more?

[Huguenot]

You'd have to be an idiot not to concede that family cars speeding around Bluewater's pedestrian walkways would seriously impact on your ability to spend money there.

But for some reason, richard tudor, you are only willing to consider this if you know EXACTLY what speed they are going.

Excuse me for finding that demand somewhat ridiculous.

[henryb]

20mph zones are considerably more pleasant places for pedestrians - so more footfall.

Conversely making cars the priority in urban planning destroys retail areas - just look at Elephant and Castle.

[richard tudor]

Why would cars be on pedestrian walkways.

Road and pavements

When was the last time you you were in LL to see how fast traffice moves.

[Huguenot]

I'm glad you thought hard about that richard tudor, and really got the point. ;-)

I'm also impressed that you didn't stoop to personal attacks in order to address a general observation that cars and retail spaces aren't a good match.