20 MPH Limit Lordship Lane

[James Barber]

Hi richard tudor,

I've given detail of the average and 85th percentile speeds at two points taken along Lordship Lane earleir in the thread. Please do take a look at them.

Unforutnately the surveys havent yet been placed on the Southwark mapping system for public access. I've chased this.

If roads were good for retial shopping malls would have roads and pavements in them. They don't. Now I'm not saying block the roads - although that has helped North Cross Road market. I'm saying lets ensure all traffic not just the vast majority drive responsibly through this high footfall area.

If you're not sure please do read the whole Mary Portas Review for further back ground.

[TJ]

James - please can you qualify your comment: "I don't see why East Dulwich residents should pay

> more for the likes of you to speed."

Please, get off your high horse right now.

Did I say I want to speed? No. Did I say I resent the constant intrusion? Yes. Did I say the odd 'nutter' will speed. Yes. Did I indicate at any time I have sped or wish to? No. Have I ever had any kind of ticket, fine or been stopped? No.

I think I would you to correct yourself and issue an immediate apology before I consider how far to take this.

The apology will be here, not via PM please.

TJ

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi TJ, DJKQ

> This is the report stating the cost to the country

> of crashes:

> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa

> ds/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.

[James Barber]

Hi TJ,

I apologies for any implied suggestion you speed.

I have wrongly assumed that your strident defence of the right for people to speed meant you speed.

The likes of people such as yourself stridently fighting 20mph limits often do speed though.

[Huguenot]

".... issue an immediate apology before I consider how far to take this"

Jeez TJ, you fancy yourself a bit don't you?

Call the police maybe? Letter to the Prime Minister?

TJ gets in a huff online - stop the world turning shall we?

Get over yourself.

[TJ]

You couldn't quite let it go could you James? You had to get one last dig in.

'The likes of you'. Love the sweeping statements. I suppose you must know me very well without my knowledge. Do you say the same sort of thing to the black community, or single mums, or any other part of society? 'The likes of you should...'etc. I bet you don't. I bet you would be swiftly slapped back into place. Motorists are of course, rightly pigeonholed as planet raping despots, and are therefore fair game.

You do not have to assume we are all criminals who break the law at every opportunity until you have removed every civil liberty. Just leave us and our poor streets alone. The city is an eyesore. Getting about to anywhere other than the centre and back is a nightmare. Some of us have to travel about all day in this city. It is a struggle. A mobile population is to be encouraged.

I voted for you, by the way...

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi TJ,

> I apologies for any implied suggestion you speed.

> I have wrongly assumed that your strident defence

> of the right for people to speed meant you speed.

>

> The likes of people such as yourself stridently

> fighting 20mph limits often do speed though.

[DJKillaQueen]

'The likes of people such as yourself stridently fighting 20mph limits often do speed though.'

Where is your evidence of this James? You really must stop making assumptions about people who take an opposing view to yours. There IS a lot of lunacy in the management of roads by local authoirities. Those of us that try to bring common sense into the debate are not advocating speeding or anything of the like.

Now how about my suggestion that you lobby for some roadside barriers to protect drivers form the masses of intoxicated people that fill the lower end of Lordship Lane most evenings, when traffic might just be able to get above 20mpr (because the rest of the time it can't).....or do pedestrians bear no responsibility for their behaviour.

Oh and in case you think I am barking... here's my reasons for making such a suggestion....

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202152019/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/alcoholandpedestriansno20?page=3#a1011

So when I read results like alcohol levels are excessive in 66% of pedestrians injured by vehicles...then I can be frogiven for thinking the emphasis is completely in the wrong direction. When you combine pedrestian accidents with pedestrians not using designated crossing points then you really do start to get a good picture of the real cause of pedestrian accidents with motor vehicles...and speed has nothing to with it.

[edhistory]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Now how about my suggestion that you lobby for

> some roadside barriers to protect drivers form the

> masses of intoxicated people that fill the lower

> end of Lordship Lane most evenings, when traffic

> might just be able to get above 20mpr (because the

> rest of the time it can't).....or do pedestrians

> bear no responsibility for their behaviour.

This is a good idea.

The picture shows where I would like to see barriers on my part of Lordship Lane.

John K

[James Barber]

Hi TJ,

I'm sorry for being crass - whether you've voted for me in the past or not.

I'm overly passionate about this issue but that's a poor excuse for rudeness. Sorry.

Hi DJKQ, edhistory,

Thanks DJKQ I've seen that before. I've also seen evidence that barriers encourage speeding as drivers know that pedestrians wont be a problem for them. So a London and Southwark wide programme to remove them.

[DJKillaQueen]

So you think nothing should be done to curb the behaviour of pedestrians?

Are you now also saying that drunken pedestrians wandering all over the road is some kind of acceptable traffic calming measure?

I think you are just anti car James. Passion is fine, but passion without common sense is something else, and there's far too much of that within local authorities as it is.

To put all the emphasis on drivers and ignore the other factors and the roles that the behaviour of certain pedestrians, cyclists etc play in all of this is just blatent bias and I have little support for those kinds of arguments. Like others, I'm getting increasingly irritated by this need to 'nanny' everything. Don't you guys have far more important things to be passionate about?

[James Barber]

Hi DJKQ,

Of course not. But guard railings along a high street arn't helpful for a high street. We know that corralling pedestrians like cattle results in cars and lorries going faster and people voting with their feet to shop elsewhere. I couldnt agree with making Lordship Lane a race track or harming local businesses that are already suffering. Hence a London and Southwark wide programmes to remove such railings.

I'm not anti car. I use our car often enough for journeys that are easier with using one. Just because I use them doesnt mean I can't think ensuring they go at a reasonable speed is better. It's about a balance. We clearly have different priorities for the area. I want to help local businesses, residents get about. You view speed limits as nannying and to be avoided - you're a pure Libertarian

[DJKillaQueen]

LOL.....libertarian is an interesting word when we are by far one of the most bureaucratic countries in the world (with everything from having the most CCTV in operation to the daft health and safety mandates that stop children doing most of the things you and I did as children). And we all know you want 20mpr accross the entire borough which IS nannying.

Personally I think you are over reacting to a problem that doesn't exist. As countless people have already told you, you would struggle to get above 20mpr most times of the day on the lower end of Lordship Lane. The vibrant economy already does the job of making drivers slow down. And the data shows LL to be of average for minor accidents with serious accidents nowhere near the status of blackspot levels. In fact, looking at the data, improvements to specific junctions and sight lines from them (something that many on here have been arguing for) would be far better use of your time.

[bil]

Does this mean that Conway will be on LL again to install speed humps?

The bottom of LL (near co-op and outside The bishop) is now very congested with all the numerous traffic measures in place. Bus journeys to the station take even longer than before.

[TJ]

I am equally passionate that we need to reduce interference in every aspect of our lives by local and central government and the individual should relearn to take responsibilities for their own actions. I am also concerned that our streets are becoming a assault course to everyone, bikes, cars and busses and travelling about in London REQUIRES an SUV to have any level of comfort. I am also very keen that all initiatives that are a struggle to justify, such as this one, are shelved and the money put to a better use such as giving help to stay at home mums or families on a single income. I know a colleague of yours who would probably appreciate that.

In reply to your comments about barriers increasing speed - take a look at this link about simplifying streets and reducing visual clutter written by TFL:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/review-of-simplified-streetscape-schemes.pdf

Rationalising traffic barriers, warnings and signals in fact had the exact opposite effect. It slowed traffic down entirely. It would seem, the opposite of what you are saying could be the path of least resistance. A win/win. The key line is how TFL views this approach in a London high street environment:

"This means that applying the simplified streetscape philosophy to the London situation could be successful as long as it is not taken to extremes and does not simply involve removing everything ? streetscape simplification and shared space schemes have moved on from such a simplistic approach.

Urban design is concerned with more than road safety. Many schemes are conceived as a way of improving the appearance and aesthetics of public space, some strive to improve access, amenity and regenerate streets that have become dominated by motorised vehicle so that pedestrians and cyclists avoid them whenever possible."

Why not take a look at this instead of adding another challenge (speed up, slow down, bump, unclear junction, speed up, school & give way area, enter 30 zone for 8 yrds, enter 20 zone etc etc ).

Go on James, if you really are passionate about making lordship lane a better place, do something unusual and extraordinary that really makes a difference rather than just fidgeting about with pet projects.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Hi TJ,

> I'm sorry for being crass - whether you've voted

> for me in the past or not.

> I'm overly passionate about this issue but that's

> a poor excuse for rudeness. Sorry.

>

> Hi DJKQ, edhistory,

> Thanks DJKQ I've seen that before. I've also seen

> evidence that barriers encourage speeding as

> drivers know that pedestrians wont be a problem

> for them. So a London and Southwark wide programme

> to remove them.

[henryb]

Yes those shared space schemes generally come with a 20 limit. Any faster and the different road user can't interact naturally and safely via eye contact.

Yep remove all the bumps, signs and clutter and have a universal 20 limit. Perfect.

[TJ]

Not quite universal, but in shopping areas, why not have something more engaging, then we can be left in peace elsewhere to manage our own lives without the need for borough wide 20mph nonsense.

henryb Wrote:

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

> Yes those shared space schemes generally come with

> a 20 limit. Any faster and the different road user

> can't interact naturally and safely via eye

> contact.

>

> Yep remove all the bumps, signs and clutter and

> have a universal 20 limit. Perfect.

[Burbage]

TJ Wrote:

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

> Not quite universal, but in shopping areas, why

> not have something more engaging, then we can be

> left in peace elsewhere to manage our own lives

> without the need for borough wide 20mph nonsense.

Right. So, you're proposing we start a preliminary fact-find aimed at designing a process for appointing a committee to assess the feasibility of working towards a carefully-considered and widely-consulted definition of a 'shopping area'? Fair enough, but you would also need to assess the likely flood of objections from people wanting to know why it should be safer to walk about outside a newsagent than outside a school, hospital, park, clinic, nature reserve, dentist, retirement home etc. And that's not including the amusing side-debate of what counts as a residential area, and thus suitable for a zone, or why it shouldn't if it is. It's like the urban/suburban debate, but with a lower chance of resolution.

The point about managing lives is a good one, though. After all, fear of traffic is at least partly responsible for the school run, congestion and low rates of cycling and walking*. Crossing roads, even ones with signalised crossings, is intimidating enough with just a touch of lumbago, for those with serious mobility, balance or vision problems it can render them virtually housebound. And that's no way to manage a life. So it really comes down to whose life you think is more important.

*Officially, fewer trips are made by foot in London (31%) than by car (39%), and although there's likely to be some undercounting, that's much lower than the average in France, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, all of which, presumably coincidentally, have fewer pedestrian fatalities per capita than the UK.

[DaveR]

What is the real objection to a 20mph limit for LL between Goose Green and the Plough? I mean other than the libertarian* nonsense, and 'it won't stop the nutters anyway' type arguments? That section of LL is mixed residential and retail with a lot of pedestrian traffic at one end and a fair amount at the other - a change to 20 mph is almost certainly going to have some impact on both the perceptions of safety and actual safety, and little effect on overall journey times. What's not to like?

(I'm as keen a libertarian as almost anyone, but freedom to drive at 30 in a busy built up area is an accident of history, not a precious human right)

[Earl Aelfheah]

My objection is that there is no evidence that it will reduce average speeds, it won't be enforced by the police and will lead to more signs, painted road surfaces and visual clutter. I would rather see some enforcement / policing of problem driving which seems to be completely neglected because its not such an easy tick box response.

[DaveR]

So no real objection other than more road signs. Worth a go then.

[DJKillaQueen]

I don't have any objection to say the section between Goose Green and Northcross Raod being 20mpr (it is most of the time anyway) because that makes some sense....but all they way to the Plough? C'mon...really? Lordship Lane is a main road, NOT a residential one. And compare the accidents data to other main roads in London and you'll see it's not anywhere near remarkable for accident rates.

[Burbage]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> My objection is that there is no evidence that it

> will reduce average speeds,

There never is, to be fair, until afterwards. Unlike 20mph zones, 20mph limits (the difference is spelt out in Setting Local Speed Limits: Department for Transport Circular 01/2013) aren't nearly so common, and there's not a lot of data. But if the incessant whinges we have put up with from the car-bound are any guide, 20mph is a giddy aspiration that's unlikely to be broken at the moment, so the aim won't be so much to reduce average speeds as to make the adjacent zones contiguous, with an eye to abolishing any 'edge effects' at the current zones and, more importantly, felling all the lovely signs that would have become redundant.

As for enforcement, the same DfT document doesn't fail to mention average speed cameras and, despite the popular conception that they're more of a cash-cow for dodgy solicitors than an enforcement regime, I'd imagine they be a lot more effective, and possibly less chippy, than any alternatives. Though it seems that trees and lamp-posts have been playing a significant enforcement role this year, so maybe they'll just leave the role to them.

[DJKillaQueen]

Average speed cameras won't work for various reasons. They work on motorways or long stretches of single speed limit roads, but not across areas where traffic stops and starts, using roads with variable speed limits.

[James Barber]

Hi DJKQ,

The proposal is for 20mph between Goose Green and Melbourne/Whateley Roads.

I've never talked at taking it along to the Plough.

Average speed cameras do work exceptionally well even in urban areas. Even with stop start normal drivers will still be concerned they don't get a ticket. This then impedes those trying to play the numbers.

[Penguin68]

With all the pedestrian controlled lights between Goose Green and Whately Road the only vehicles during the day that get any chance to accelerate through 20mph are cyclists (and I?m sure nobody will catch them, even as they go through the lights - and yes, I do know there are many law-abiding cyclists as well).

Late at night, when there are far fewer pedestrians, and all the lights aren?t always red, then traffic might speed up to the (currently legal) 30mph (though not often) ? of course then there is far less risk to pedestrians ? but I am sure the ?speeding? fines will be a nice little earner from the motorist, the milch cow of greedy councils.

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

The council doens't receive speeding fines.

Not sure where you got this incorrect idea from?

The survey I was assured shows drivers going faster than 20mph day and night.

Not many cyclsits going faster than 20mph and yes some cyclists and car drivers jump red lights. I which I'd prefer to crash with.

I agree the lights could work better for everyone - we had asked for zebra crossing but TfL blocked that as we have Puffin crossings because council officers think they're safer than Pelican crossing. Yet to be shown any evidence of this.