Confusing Speed Limit Signs

[bluecanary]

Mine says 30 first mate.

This makes for very interesting reading. http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s47378/Report.pdf

[bluecanary]

This is the bit where we were consulted. Oops I mean notified of the intention. Via a notice in the London Gazette and Southwark News!

In accordance with legislation2 the council advertised its intention to make traffic orders in respect of the changes to speed limits on 27 February 2014. Notice was given in the London Gazette3 and local press (Southwark News). Notice was given to the following statutory consultees: London Ambulance Service, London Fire Brigade, Metropolitan Police Service, TfL Buses, Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association.

7. Notice was also given to non-statutory consultees including: Transport for London, Southwark Disablement Association, Southwark Disability Forum, Southwark Cyclists, Living Streets and London Travel Watch and full details of the proposals were also made available for inspection on the council?s website or in person by appointment at 160 Tooley Street.

[first mate]

Wow, when is a consultation not a consultation.

I see that police put in a major objection to 20mph, but the Council just forged ahead. Unbelievable.

[bluecanary]

Indeed.

In response to Objection 5 concerning boundary roads with neighbouring boroughs it is stated that Lewisham will be making a decision shortly (document dated July 2014) yet Lewisham seem to have a lengthy and open consultation process in hand

http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s33032/Boroughwide%2020%20mph%20speed%20limit.pdf

[Zebedee Tring]

James Barber has replied to me as follows:

"Yes the 20mph could be enforced. It's a matter of whether the Police will or not. Yes, but as a stratgic decision skips over most councillors and community council involvement."

[Zebedee Tring]

James Barber has replied to me to confirm that the 20mph limit could be enforced. However, he says that it is a matter of whether the Police will enforce it or not.

Frankly the police fail to enforce other potentially more serious offences such as illegal parking, particularly where the vehicle is parked in a dangerous place, so I reckon that they won't have the resources to enforce a Borough wide 20mph limit.

[first mate]

ZT

Indeed, especially since the police were dead against it in the first place, so there is an argument to say that instead of making roads safer the council have made them more dangerous, and I, for one do not want to see a load of money spent on traffic calming, speed cameras and pavement widening, to try to enforce it. What a mess.

[bawdy-nan]

So are you advocating just disregarding the new limits? I don't fancy this much so if you could just let me know where you're based I can pop round and let your tyres down. I know it's against the law but I'm not convinced the police will stop me, I reckon I can get away with it and anyway I reckon I'm right so I'll just go ahead and do it.

[Charles Notice]

If you get caught and get a righthander you will accept as part of the game?

[first mate]

If you actually read my initial posts you will see that I am one of those who adheres to the 20mph but many do not and the experience of being aggressively tailgated is not only unpleasant but dangerous. You will also see that I am not advocating breaking the law or the limit but pointing out the fact that many do and will continue to do so, unless a load if money is spent on enforcement. Southwark states that it expects the scheme to be self enforcing.

So next time I labour up Sydenham Hill with a string of irate, hooting drivers right up my number plate, I will think of you Bawdy Nan and your kind advice.

[rodneybewes]

first mate Wrote:

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

> So next time I labour up Sydenham Hill with a

> string of irate, hooting drivers right up my

> number plate, I will think of you Bawdy Nan and

> your kind advice.

That image did make me laugh!

[bawdy-nan]

Lovely to be in your thoughts. Sorry, I just find it weird that some people feel that the law doesn't apply to them if they don't feel like joining in and they're probably the same people who wouldn't ever consider shop-lifting, tax evasion etc etc.

[bluecanary]

Have I missed something bawdy-nan? Who are these people that feel the law doesn't apply to them etc.?

[Charles Notice]

Bawdy-nan for one

[mako]

Wulf -Is it that you don't think kids being driven to school unnecessarily, adding to jams & making them less active, is a

problem - or you don't think 20 will in any way help with that?

I dont know if there is evidence of large numbers being obese as a result of being driven to school, but if this is the case I think it incredibly unlikely that they will stop being lazy as a result of a speed limit change that you think will have little impact on their journey time. 'Oh look fat johnny they have changed the speed limit, shall we walk today?'. Its just not happening.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on your 'proof' of little impact on journey times. I think it seems generally agreed that it will be 15-25 seconds a mile longer on average. I think this accumulated over every journey taken in the borough is a significant amount of time, whilst you do not. On a personal level the main reason I object to any time being added to my journey is I believe these changes are more likely to do harm than good, and are politically motivated not safety motivated, a view supported by the police who didnt want it either.

[Blah Blah]

So the council consulted with hardly anyone, ignored seven objections, to two for, including an objection by the Police! I never saw a more blatent example of a council cabinet committee pushing through personal agenda over consultation. Disgraceful.

[bawdy-nan]

or doing what they said they would in their manifesto (said james b I think)- there's the mandate I suppose

[Blah Blah]

So why waste money on consultation then? If it was never going to affect any decision.

[Help-Ma-Boab]

Not read all thread. 20mph just been burned into the road outside my flat. Peckham Rye, near The Gardens.

[first mate]

As James says, consultation does not mean referendum, it seems really to be a technical part of process the Council are obliged to do when seeking to make changes they believe are for the best, but the exact meaning of which is unclear. I am also beginning to think that the process is regularly used in quite a cynical and undemocratic way.

[dbboy]

Can someone explain why the newly erected traffic signs turning from Forest Hill road into anonbie road say the speed limit is 30mph when the area is supossed to be 20mph?

[wulfhound]

I dont know if there is evidence of large numbers being obese as a result of being driven to school

There's mountains of evidence of kids (and adults, ahem) not being active enough. Walking or cycling to school is one way, albeit not the only way, of combating that.

but if this is the case I think it incredibly unlikely that they will stop being lazy as a result of a speed limit change that you think will have little impact on their journey time. 'Oh look fat johnny they have changed the speed limit, shall we walk today?'. Its just not happening.

No, but I'd imagine "they've locked up the boy-racer tw@ts and cut the accident rate in half" will be enough for a few more kids to be allowed to walk to school on their own.

On a personal level the main reason I object to any time being added to my journey is I believe these changes are more likely to do harm than good, and are politically motivated not safety motivated, a view supported by the police who didnt want it either.

Politically motivated how? It was in Labour's manifesto, which they won on, which presumably gives them the confidence to bring it in without much of a consultation - they already have a democratic mandate from the people. I'm not sure why there is a political gain from imposing it if it's not effective though? If they don't think it'll work, why would they put it in the manifesto?

[first mate]

Wulfhoud said: "No, but I'd imagine "they've locked up the boy-racer tw@ts and cut the accident rate in half" will be enough for a few more kids to be allowed to walk to school on their own".

You see, I just don't think that is going to happen- and believe me I would like it to. Instead I think you'll get the iveterate speeders getting even more wound up when they are stuck behind someone like me who tries very hard to maintain 20 mph. The tw@ts then tend to react by driving even more recklessly. The police don't wnat to/have no resources to police this and Southwark seem to think it'll be self enforcing. I actually think a lot of money will have to be spent on speed cameras to make this work.

[Blah Blah]

Yep, saw a car overtake three cars observing the 20mpr speed limit on Nunhead Lane today. An accident waiting to happen.

[christgill]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Can someone explain why the newly erected traffic

> signs turning from Forest Hill road into anonbie

> road say the speed limit is 30mph when the area is

> supossed to be 20mph?

I guess because Canonbie Road is Lewisham, not Southwark.