Confusing Speed Limit Signs

[Blah Blah]

I can cycle faster than 20mpr as indeed do many cyclists. But how can we observe any limits when we are not required to carry a speedometre? I swear some of these things are dreamt up just to validate the jobs of some council departments.

[PeckhamRose]

Meanwhile, instead of concentrating on the road we are constantly having to take our eyes off the road to look for signs. They may be in peripheral vision but they may not. This is in direct contravention with the recommendations set down in the Advanced Motoring Guidelines. "Always drive according to the conditions."

[PokerTime]

The cost of this scheme is ?1.59 million. At a time when vital services to the most vulnerable have been cut, should we really be wasting money like this? You really have to question what planet some councillors and council departments live on. It's not as though our roads are a constant war zone of death and injury.

[bawdy-nan]

blimey Blah Blah, that's impressive!

[dbboy]

Yep, money would have been much better spent repairing the roads properly and not just having a bit of tarmac chucked in a pot hole and finished off with the back of a spade, a favoured Conways method of road repair!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wulfhound]

I can cycle faster than 20mpr as indeed do many cyclists. But how can we observe any limits when we are not required to carry a speedometre? I swear some of these things are dreamt up just to validate the jobs of some council departments.

Cyclists cannot be required by law to obey general speed limits, but they can be charged with the offence of reckless cycling. Just keep pace with the car in front - they're sure to be obeying the limit.. right?

It's not as though our roads are a constant war zone of death and injury.

Average 6 deaths, 100 serious injuries & 800 minor injuries per year borough-wide. That's on the same scale as gang violence - and costs far, far more than ?1.5M - more like ?15M per year. On that basis, even a 10% reduction would pay for itself within a year. Other LAs who've rolled out 20mph see a greater reduction than that.

[bobbsy]

I posted about this yesterday, and some observations this morning. Driving north on lordship lane, a bus was observing the speed limit - and the line of about 10 cars behind, all as close as possible to each other, were all itching to get past this "slow" bus, each one constantly inching right to see past the next vehicle, into the path of oncoming traffic. It's currently not very safe at all. Ok, maybe with time and education people will realise its a 20 limit, but 20 for most of the main roads is a ridiculous limit, it feels like a snails pace, and it will not be observed.

Abolish it. Now.

[bluecanary]

Bobbsy was this in the actual real 20 zone between roundabout and police station or somewhere on Lorsdhip Lane which is not signed as 20 mph unless you count the incorrect signs at some side road junctions?

[bobbsy]

This was a bit further up, coming down the hill from the mini-sainsburys, towards the police station. Part of the confusing area, as 20 signs (heading north) start just after the south circular, then are quite random until the main high street.

[bluecanary]

I just don't get the slapdash, piecemeal implementation. It looks more like a diy effort by disgruntled residents than a carefully considered plan of action carried out by a professional body. Southwark Council? More like Bodgett & Cockup.

[nunhead_man]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19226144

Read down to see casualty figures - many more at 30mph - later figures elsewhere.

Eg this updated 2014 - www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Evidence/Details/10390

Attachment with thanks from RoadPeace

[bobbsy]

Nunhead_man - would like to see figures per mile...sorry if its buried deep in the article, I just skimmed it. Love the picture attached though!

[poppet27]

Also really angry about this. And that does not mean I am against Road safety.

The 20 mph on Sydenhan Hill is ludicrous. It's a long, wide and not too steep road that doesn't have any schools or care homes nearby as far as I'm aware

As both a pedestrian and a motorist, I've actually felt less safe on this road since this limit came in because you can see people concentrating on either not pissing off the car behind or fretting about looking for cameras. So painfully slow - but that doesn't mean that when we drive at 30 we're suddenly reckless a-holes.

Without a Tube or a train service that runs on time,or buses that take an hour to get to Central London, sometimes driving is a necessity as well as convenience. Feels like Savannaket are trying to score school swot points rather than think through this spending.

[joom]

I've been told that the idea behind the borough-wide 20mph speed limit where there is no monitoring is to encourage drivers to stay below 30mph, as people will undoubtedly drive over 20mph but if the limit was 30mph then people would go over that and speeds approaching 40mph are obviously more dangerous.

[kford]

It's not a limit, it's an ambition and a reminder to slow down. Taken in that context, it's a good thing. No-one will be pulled up by the police, no cameras will be set to catch drivers doing 23mph (not yet, anyway). It's a shame we're not metric, because 40kph (25mph) is a much more useable, and yet safe speed.

[henryb]

kford Wrote:

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

> It's not a limit, it's an ambition and a reminder

> to slow down.

Well, legally, it is actually the limit - but I get your point no one is going to get charged for doing 23 on quiet road, however if you are going over the limit and you knock someone down then you will be at fault.

[nunhead_man]

bobbsy Wrote:

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

> Nunhead_man - would like to see figures per

> mile...sorry if its buried deep in the article, I

> just skimmed it. Love the picture attached though!

Some more numbers here ...........

New drivers : driving test passes fall by 8% in 12/13 - From Local Transport Today issue 622

Driving licence holding hits a new high

Average mileage fell in 2013

The number of people in England holding a driving licence rose to an all-time high of 31.9 million in 2013, an 800,000 increase on the previous year, according to Transport Statistics Great Britain 2014.

The average mileage driven by motorists in Great Britain fell from 8,100 miles in 2012 to 7,900 miles in 2013, the statistics say. The total distance travelled (by all modes) by the average citizen fell slightly to 6,584 miles, down from the 2003 peak of 7,202 miles.

The number of people who passed their driving test in 2012/13 in GB fell to 677,000, down from 736,000 in 2011/12.

The number of licensed vehicles in GB rose to an all-time high of 35 million, up from 34.5 million in 2012.

The total volume of all motorised traffic rose slightly in 2013, to 303.7 billion miles (up from 302.6 billion miles in 2012), but was still well short of the 2007 peak of 314.1 billion miles.

The total cost of motoring, in comparison with a 1997 baseline, had risen by 45.3% in 2013, despite vehicle purchase costs having fallen 31.8% in the same period. The discrepancy is explained by maintenance, fuel, tax and insurance costs all more than doubling in the 16-year period in question.

Rail fares since 1997, meanwhile, almost doubled (up 94.4%) and bus and coach fares increased by 103.1%.

Road deaths, at 1,713 in 2013, fell by 2.3% to their lowest level since records began in 1926. In terms of the road safety 'league table' of developed nations, this figure places Great Britain second (at 28 road deaths per million population), just behind Sweden at 27 deaths per million.

Transport Statistics Great Britain 2014 is available athttp://tinyurl.com/nmtawc6

[Topbird100]

I drive around dulwich all day long, it is very confusing the speed limit on these roads now. When I leave Grove Hill Road, there is a sign on the floor, saying 30mph, and then a sign on a post saying 20mph. If I'm confused, how must everyone else feel????? There is no consistency with regards to the new speed limit signs. Forest hill road is 20mph from Dunstans Road, but as you get nearer Honor Oak Park train station, there is no speed change sign, (there are 2 signs near Devonshire road that are covered in black bags, this doesn't help, that the speed on Stondon Park, doesn't say if this is a 20 or a 30 road. In fact when you leave Devonshire Road onto Honor Oak Park, there is a white circle painted on the road, without a speed limit painted in it. Really Southwark Council, you surely didn't do your homework, and go round and remove all the 30mph limit signs, before, you just whacked up 20mph signs. This is not only confusing, but dangerous. Help required #southwarkcouncil

[christgill]

The numberless circle in Devonshire Road is, technically, Lewisham's - though I suspect that they haven't put a number in there because they (Lewisham) are as confused as everybody else!

[Blah Blah]

So that BBC article says accidents down by 1% on 30mph roads but up by 24% on 20mph roads.

Clearly that in itself shows that speed and road safety don't always go hand in hand. And speed isn't a factor in most accidents anyway. Errors of judgement by drivers are the main cause of accidents. Motorways are the safest roads to travel on statistically, and they also happen to have the highest speed limits. Most accidents tend to happen during manouvres, like changing lane, turning corners/ right, etc - actions that require drivers to be slowing in speed, and likewise, most accidents result in no personal injury to anyone. We have completely lost perspective of the issue, and think that a few road signs and reduced limits will somehow cure errors of judgement and wreckless driving.

And given that we have a crazy amount of CCTV dedicated to traffic lanes too. We don't care about real crime, but we must clamp down on anyone who even farts in a car in a bus lane! It's a truly bonkers obsession and one that no other country in the world shares.

[nunhead_man]

That is the motorist / speed freak take

Look at the difference in absolute number of casualties.

And they are NOT accidents - they are collisions.

Someone is ALWAYS to blame

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> So that BBC article says accidents down by 1% on

> 30mph roads but up by 24% on 20mph roads.

>

> Clearly that in itself shows that speed and road

> safety don't always go hand in hand. And speed

> isn't a factor in most accidents anyway. Errors of

> judgement by drivers are the main cause of

> accidents. Motorways are the safest roads to

> travel on statistically, and they also happen to

> have the highest speed limits. Most accidents tend

> to happen during manouvres, like changing lane,

> turning corners/ right, etc - actions that require

> drivers to be slowing in speed, and likewise, most

> accidents result in no personal injury to anyone.

> We have completely lost perspective of the issue,

> and think that a few road signs and reduced limits

> will somehow cure errors of judgement and

> wreckless driving.

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[first mate]

henryb Wrote:

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

> kford Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's not a limit, it's an ambition and a

> reminder

> > to slow down.

>

> Well, legally, it is actually the limit - but I

> get your point no one is going to get charged for

> doing 23 on quiet road, however if you are going

> over the limit and you knock someone down then you

> will be at fault.

So are you saying that from now on we can just ignore 20mph and instead drive at 30mph because 20 will never be enforced, either by camera or plod?

I must say that does seem to be the attitude of the many drivers who have aggressively tailgated me up Sydenham Hill over the last few months. I feel positively wrong-headed, even foolish, for actually trying to adhere to the speed limit (doesn't mean I agree with it).

[christgill]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> So that BBC article says accidents down by 1% on

> 30mph roads but up by 24% on 20mph roads.

Without bothering to read any articles, my first thought on reading that statistic was: "But if the amount (i.e. total length) of 20mph roads has increased dramatically and the amount of 30mph roads has decreased, then one might expect accidents to have increased on the 20mph roads."

The statistics need to take into account the total length of each type of road at the time the calculation is made.

[Blah Blah]

First of all numhead man, I am not a speed freak. I cycle mainly and am fully aware of the problems of congested roads and inconsiderate road users. BUT speed is not a factor in most accidents (or collisions if you want to be semantic about it), that's well documented. Error of judgement or wrecklessness is the main cause of collisions. Speed only has a bearing on the consequence. So my argument is this. If councils, government etc really are concerned with reduicing accidents, then tinkering with speed limits is illogical. It does nothing to make poor road users into better road users. In fact I'd argue that it will only serve to increase the impatience of the already wreckless driver, add to the frustration of the already frustrated driver etc.

[rodneybewes]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> First of all numhead man, I am not a speed freak.

> I cycle mainly and am fully aware of the problems

> of congested roads and inconsiderate road users.

> BUT speed is not a factor in most accidents (or

> collisions if you want to be semantic about it),

> that's well documented. Error of judgement or

> wrecklessness is the main cause of collisions.

> Speed only has a bearing on the consequence. So my

> argument is this. If councils, government etc

> really are concerned with reduicing accidents,

> then tinkering with speed limits is illogical. It

> does nothing to make poor road users into better

> road users. In fact I'd argue that it will only

> serve to increase the impatience of the already

> wreckless driver, add to the frustration of the

> already frustrated driver etc.

The point is that the slower you are going the more time you have to correct your error of judgment (and possibly avoid a collision) and the less catastrophic the consequences. So reducing the speed limit lessens the harm. There is nothing illogical about reducing speed limits in order to reduce harm. Your last sentence makes no sense. It's like saying you shouldn't refuse to serve an abusive drunk more alcohol because it will make them more abusive.