Confusing Speed Limit Signs

[mako]

I actually think a lot of money will have to be spent on speed cameras to make this work.

And of course that is what is going to happen, and there you have the reason for it in the first place. As for it being in the manifesto and a 'democratic mandate from the people', they didnt get that from 'the people' of east dulwich or the village where Labour trailed in third both times. It is also obviously unlikely that you agree with all the policies of anyone you vote for as you have to pick the best of what there is, so that doesnt give politicians carte blanche imo to bulldoze opinion just because it was on their manifesto, much of which they have failed to deliver on.

[first mate]

Mako, well said. There is a feeling that we are being bulldozed. I do hope that anyone who feels strongly on this has taken time to object the parking restrictions on Lordship Lane...consultation ends today. Another disgusting example of political dishonesty, manipulation and bulldozing.

[Blah Blah]

What do you expect? We have a government in power voted for by a minority and they've been bulldozing just about every ideology they possess through. Never has been anything democratic about our electoral system.

[BrandNewGuy]

mako Wrote:

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

> I actually think a lot of money will have to be

> spent on speed cameras to make this work.

I'm not even sure they want to make it work. It's idle wish-fulfilment. By putting the restriction in place they can tick some boxes to make themselves look eco without actually doing anything to enforce it or spending any money once the iniital signage is in place. It's greenwash / safetywash.

[Zebedee Tring]

In the early 80s Lewisham Council declared the borough a "nuclear free zone". It was commented cynically at the time that if the Soviets were flying over London in order to drop a nuclear bomb, the crew would be told "You mustn't drop it on Lewisham - it's a nuclear free zone". Another example of right on box ticking.

[bawdy-nan]

Who is being "bulldozed" exactly? I don't see much evidence, aside from the handful of people expressing themselves here, of a mass uprising against this new speed limit. Indeed, why would there be.

There are all kinds of things of which I don't "approve" and which the council and government don't consult me directly but I participate in the democratic process and accept that "representative" government doesn't mean that things done in my name will always be exactly what I want.

People who feel passionately about issues often band together to lobby the policy makers and attempt to wield influence that way (ie the bike and road safety campaigners).

That's an option open to you. For those of you who feel very strongly about the parking / promotion of road safety / consultation of your views more broadly you could perhaps form some kind of SE22 tea-party movement.

[BrandNewGuy]

Well, that was an intemperate little rant. Personally I think we should be vigilant about what those we elect into power do. That's democracy, innit?

[Charles Notice]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Well, that was an intemperate little rant.

> Personally I think we should be vigilant about

> what those we elect into power do. That's

> democracy, innit?

Careful. The poster will come round and let your tyres down to stop you getting to your protest group as he reckons he can get away with it

[bawdy-nan]

It's not a rant and I don't think it's intemperate. Of course I think that elected representatives should be held to account but decisions aren't made by referendum.

Because you don't agree with a policy being implemented and you haven't been asked directly to agree to it you can't just say it is being "bulldozed". From what I can see there doesn't seem to be huge opposition to this here, or wherever else in the UK it has been put in place. There are bound to be competing interests and in this instance you appear to feel that your interests are losing out. You just don't like the new rules. I prefer the rules that put the lives of pedestrians over the needs of one type of road user.

As has been pointed out many times (and often as a point of criticism) there are many groups actively campaigning for the changes they would like to see. I agree that sometimes lobby groups wield disproportionate influence and that shouty campaigning doesn't always mean that everyone's voice gets heard.

You too can campaign and lobby to have your interests represented if you really care very passionately about your ability to drive at 30mph. Otherwise why not just obey the rules. Obviously, I don't think I should be able to come and let your tyres down because I would like to see fewer journeys made by car. I agree that, despite my desire, I should respect the rules.

I'm interested by the turn of the threads towards the demand to be "properly" consulted and what this might mean. For instance, the citing of the council's refusal to take on board the "7 objections" in a previous consultation seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. Its right, isn't it, that so few voices raised in objection to a policy shouldn't be able to influence that policy.

[Charles Notice]

Those voting against were more than those in favour.

So not carried.

Most people have much more important things to worry about than pet adgenda,s from like minded Council Officers thought up behind closed doors

[BrandNewGuy]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> It's not a rant and I don't think it's

> intemperate. Of course I think that elected

> representatives should be held to account but

> decisions aren't made by referendum.

It's not a referendum people are asking for, it's an end to phoney 'consultations' which are no such thing. If they did what they wanted without consultation at least it would have the virtue of not being hypocritical.

> There are bound to be competing interests and in

> this instance you appear to feel that your

> interests are losing out. You just don't like the

> new rules. I prefer the rules that put the lives

> of pedestrians over the needs of one type of road

> user.

I don't know if you're addressing this to me, but I haven't expressed opposition to it. I merely pointed out that the Council will have no intention of enforcing the new speed limit. FWIW I think A roads and B roads in cities should be 30mph and all other roads 20mph, though you might feel I callously ignore the lives of pedestrians by doing so.

I'll continue to speak out on issues I feel are of importance to me, my family and my local area. If you don't mind, of course.

[rodneybewes]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> I merely pointed out that the Council will have no

> intention of enforcing the new speed limit.

I think you'll start to see speed cameras on some of the longer, faster stretches. I don't really understand why they wouldn't or why there shouldn't be?

Of course the point is that if the limit is 30mph then a lot of people will drive closer to 40. If you make the limit 20 then people will edge towards 30. The idiots will drive like idiots no matter what limit you set.

[Applespider]

Now if they rephased the traffic lights so that those keeping to 20mph never saw a red and those closer to 30 always saw a red, it might act as positive reinforcement.

Agreed that you'll never get rid of the muppets who would pass three cars on wrong side of road or perhaps as I saw tonight, undertake a lorry stopped at lights, drive through the ASL (luckily avoiding the cyclists) and across the pedestrian area just to avoid getting stuck behind the lorry when he turned. D of course, got stopped by a set of lights further up the road so gained nothing...