The Big '20mph Zone' Con

[Lee Scoresby]

On Peckham Rye (Road), adjacent to the Rye, a banner has appeared which should put paid to any hope that there is some limit to Southwark's capacity for self-serving silliness . . .

Way back at the height of Thatcherism, the idea was mooted by the swivel-eyed proponents of marketising everything that sponsors' names and logos, and other advertising, could be placed within public information signage of all sorts. With a few limited exceptions, this top-hole wizard wheeze was swiftly quashed, as the massive efficiency and safety implications became apparent to the public. Yet here we are in 2015, and Southwark Council has placed a 20mph roundel, a safety sign, within what is an advertising display. Utterly irresponsible.

More yet. The campaign to which the self-congratulating penant refers, the gradual designation of every other street in Southwark as a 20mph zone, is in fact an utter fraud, and a reprehensible waste of public money.

The facts are these: Most people drive responsibly. They also drive slightly too fast and carelessly at times. A minority of drivers is so immature, so reckless and anti-social, that, at the extreme, in the words of a safety expert I heard once, they simply should never be allowed to drive.

How on earth do zones on maps and interacting electric signs begin to deal with this reality of urban traffic? It is an example of the long tendency of the UK establishment to take refuge in emptily symbolic solutions: a re-designation here, a line on a map there, a bit of PR puff sprayed over it all.

The tendency to carelessness and speeding can be 'engineered out' by careful street works. The boy-racer minority will only ever respond to the overwhelming likelihood of being apprehended, charged and receiving meaningful punishment.

Slower speeds in residential streets is a great idea - part of the process of taking them back, I would say. But where is the slightest hint of commitment from Southwark for solutions to make this possible? Apart from the measures I mention, many more side roads would need to be 'capped' to become cul-de-sacs. Whereas, apart from a few favoured cases, this council seems entirely happy that the borough is one enormous rat-run.

If EDF readers want to see a bogus 20mph 'in inaction', proceed a little further up Peckham Rye, and see how much difference it makes to traffic in Cheltenham Road. And I'm sure we all know plenty of other examples all over East Dulwich.

Lee Scoresby

[Lowlander]

Probably heard the same story in 1930 when the 30mph limit was introduced.

Like the smoking ban, give it a few years and people will be thinking "why didn't we do it sooner"

[uncleglen]

Everytime I travel on Sydenham Hill towards Crystal Palace people overtake me when I do 20mph. It is a wide clear road and 20mph increases pollution and petrol consumption- a ploy to extract more taxes methinks

[grace3]

I drive 'slow' but 20 mph is too slow and is dangerous on a stretch as it causes overtaking.

[StraferJack]

It causes overtaking does it?

Any other laws you think cause disobedience?

[sandyman]

I don't want to turn this into a cyclists v drivers debate but I've been overtaken by cyclists on the slightly downhill stretch of East Dulwich Grove from Townley junction while observing the new speed limit.

[kford]

It's a massive distraction from the real causes of accidents - inattention, from motorists on the sodding phone, fiddling with sat-navs, not using mirrors or simply not looking where they're going.

It's these drivers who nearly have me off my pushbike or motorbike almost every day.

And the DoT's figures will back this up.

[Lowlander]

kford Wrote:

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

> It's a massive distraction from the real causes of

> accidents - inattention, from motorists on the

> sodding phone, fiddling with sat-navs, not using

> mirrors or simply not looking where they're going.

>

>

> It's these drivers who nearly have me off my

> pushbike or motorbike almost every day.

>

> And the DoT's figures will back this up.

Being a driver who is fully in support of a blanket 20mph limit, would love to see those figures?if they exist?

Really I've yet to see a solid argument against...might as well oppose the drink driving laws because "some people will drive pi$$ed anyway"

[Blah Blah]

There was another thread on this but yes I agree with kford. Improving road safety is about weeding out careless drivers and most road safety measures do nothing to address that. You shouldn't have to be ten times over the limit or kill someone before you lose your licence. Any collision caused by carelessness or poor driving (no matter how minor) should lead to at least refresher driving lessons.

[Blah Blah]

Not the same thing lowlander. Drinking and driving has far more serious consequnces than driving at 30mphr, which is why people lose their licences if caught.

[StraferJack]

That's not really true blah blah

Various people have posted the stats on fatalities after being hit at 30 vs 20 mph

[Blah Blah]

Yeah but my point is that most people drive perfectly safely at 30mph. Most people would not be able to drive safely over the drink driving limit. They are two different things. So the analogy was a poor one.

As I said on the other thread on this, there are roads where it makes perfect sense to have a 20mph limit. I just don't accept that making all roads 20mph is necessary, and I'd be interested to see accident figures after 12 months of it in place. I wouldn't be suprised if there is little difference in the number of collisions/ accidents. People who drive poorly or wrecklessly with a 30mph limit in place are still going to drive badly at 20mph so the key figure will be seriousness of injury. Again I won't be suprised if there is no significant difference. But we shall see.

[Lowlander]

But enough people drive stupidly at 30 to warrant the 20 limit.

As a driver myself I'm fully in support of 20mph blanket ban and have yet to see a convincing argument in favour of retaining the 30 limit.

The injury / fatality saving figures stack up and you'll waste more time posting objections here than you'll lose in driving at 20 rather than 30.

[Lowlander]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Not the same thing lowlander. Drinking and driving

> has far more serious consequnces than driving at

> 30mphr, which is why people lose their licences if

> caught.

Some people can drive well pi$$ed

Some people can drive well at 40 - 50 in a built up area

We have the laws in place to control the ones who cannot do either

AS my last post, I cannot see a valid argument against the new 20 iimit

[mako]

Its politically driven and will be used to raise cash through enforcement cameras that is a fact. Anyone would think roads were getting more dangerous by the day but the fact is that the most recent full year data was the lowest death rate since records began. only 20% of the deaths of 20 years previous and only 30% of serious injury of 20 years previous. reducing speed will reduce the effect of a crash is fairly irrefutable, but I think innappropriate limits like are being enforced will increase the number of crashes and the net impact will be less safe roads. I have already had 3 incidients of people recklessly overtaking because the speed limit isnt a natural one. And as for the time saving if you travel for 10 miles a day at 20 rather than 30 your journey time will be increased by 10 minutes a day. not a lot to some but thats 70minutes a week, 3640 minutes a year, 145600 minutes in the 40 years i hope to continue driving for. 100 days extra stuck in my car. that to me is significant, even if someone proves it is safer it is at a cost.

[mako]

there are also arguments that with cars travelling slower, pedestrians are more prepared to take risks crossing roads rather than walking to a crossing/waiting for lights etc), increasing accidents.

[Lee Scoresby]

Thank you for your responses. I apologise if I'm repeating the subject of an earlier thread. Time marches on! The EDF grows ever larger.

I'm interested that no-one responds to the matter of using one of THE fundamental road-safety icons, the speed roundel, within advertising. To me it is, as I said, grossly irresponsible.

What I mean is this: the roundel was designed to be seen and taken in with as little cogntive work (ambiguity, delay) by the driver as possible. Now, if a driver sees this sign on what is mere Southwark puffery, should she or he think that the limit applies to that stretch of road? They will need to think about it. I do not claim it is a huge issue in THAT instance. It IS an enormous corruption of purpose in general terms - which is why even the Thatcherites in their pomp had to let it go.

One of London's defining characteristics is that it has grown 'like topsy' - almost entirely from 1000 years of spec building, including streets and whole districts, spreading and spreading. Conurbated villages, as it is also often described. Which is surely very charming but gives rise to problems of easy movement round the whole.

I myself think the great ones should have seized the nettle and built an arterial network in 1946 - and I mean in fact, not on a map. And before people start yelling about that, in other cities this sort of planned, functional separation allows precisely for safe, low-speed, no-through-traffic neighbourhoods. Some of the posted comments about the 'natural' speed limit, and the time taken to get anywhere, express the fact that we come up against this historical, horse-&-carriage layout. The point is to mitigate it, to overcome it as much as possible. I'm certainly not advocating bulldozing freeways thru in 2015. But there are solutions - which is why the time and money-wasting bad faith expressed by bogus 20mph zones makes me so angry.

So I do not oppose the 20mph zone AS SUCH, just the pretend-implementations - what I have called, in other posts (about other things) the official culture of 'who's kidding who?'

The point about the smoking ban, drink-drive laws, and the 30mph limit is that they have been ENFORCED (albeit imperfectly). The exchange between graces3 and StraferJack reflects what happens when a law is NOT enforced and, as a result, is held in wide contempt, becoming literally 'optional'. And indeed, kford, that certainly extends to rules about using digital devices on the move. As is widely recognised (including on this thread), traffic policing and enforcement have degenerated in our wacky capitalist paradise into a mere money-raising exercise.

Blah blah, pace our earlier EDF discussion about the Rye path, I rejoice you now see the value of works which PRE-EMPT casualties.

In a rational transport infrastructure, cyclists would have their own network - as in the Netherlands. I strongly believe it is long past time that cyclists were held to account for their riding. As it is, this is one of the many things the Met and other UK police forces have decided is not much to do with them. (On which list was also domestic violence, until recently).

I believe, uncleglen, that what causes poorer fuel consumption and increased emissions is endless stopping and starting. Don't get ME started on the primitive state of traffic light technology and traffic flow management in London (on which I've posted before). But for sure, it would be good if the motor industry could start selling us appropriate urban vehicles, minimal and clean, rather than pandering to the open-road boy-racer impulse. And what is this general migration in recent years to huge, high 4WD/people movers?

No-one can "drive well", in any reasonable definition of that expression, either intoxicated or speeding in a built-up area.

The difference to an impacted human body (a precious human being) between differing speeds of the metal object which strikes it has been, I always thought, a very powerful point of consideration for thoughtful drivers. Indeed. But as some sort of yardstick for road-speed policy it strikes me as cold-blooded, actuarial and pessimistic: we must insist on a transport system which gives rise to no hurt or damage whatever.

Pedestrians "taking risks" crossing roads needs a little context. Historically, people (like us all) lived much more outside, on the street, and many more human activities took place in that public space. The advent of the self-powered motor car in the late 19thc required a decades-long war by the police to clear that public space for the exclusive use of motor vehicles. So that we now think this is just 'what roads are for'. Part of a REAL re-consideration (a remembering, truely) of what roads are for (as distinct from this phoney 20mph carry-on) is precisely to say that not all roads are the same; that different roads can have different rules, governing different predominant uses.

(Believe it or not, I ACHE for the day when I can post to the effect: 'Look, Southwark have done x! Isn't that great? Way ahead of the curve! Something to be proud of! Intelligent municipalism in action, right here in SE London!' I'm not a moaner or cynical by nature, and I'd be really happy to hear of any Southwark projects which other EDF'ers think deserve that positive gut response . . . )

Lee Scoresby

[Blah Blah]

Got half way down and got bored Lee, you don't half go on.

'Blah blah, pace our earlier EDF discussion about the Rye path, I rejoice you now see the value of works which PRE-EMPT casualties.'

No, you are putting words in my mouth. Read what I wrote again. I doubt that making anything but residential roads (that are already 20mph) will make any difference to accident figures and their severity. But neither you or I will know that for 12 months. There is no data to prove anything as yet, just theories of what might be the impact.

That's the difference between you and I. I prefer to wait and see before concluding anything. I like hard evidence, not conjecture on what might happen in a worst case scenario. So just as I don't think anyone is going to be hit by a runaway cyclist on a sparkly new path, I don't think accidents on main roads are going to drastically reduce because of a 10mph drop in the limit. You are after all the person that tried to make out that kids playing cricket in the park with a soft ball were a serious threat to the public. So your perspective on all these things is seemingly alarmist.

Lowlander, in all cases, alcohol reduces reaction time, so any driver drinking and driving IS adversely affected. Not having an accident while driving over the limit does not equate to being able to drive while p*ssed. Most drivers driving at 30 mph however, are not adversely affected by driving at 30 mph. That's why it's a poor comparison. It's also why 30 mph remains the limit on the majority of urban main roads. That a handful of boroughs have chosen to blanket down to 20 mph is a local choice.

[rodneybewes]

mako Wrote:

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

> Its politically driven and will be used to raise

> cash through enforcement cameras that is a fact.

Well, hopefully. What's the point in setting a speed limit if you're not going to enforce it?

It's not like a tax where you've got no choice but to pay it. Don't go over the speed limit.

[kford]

Lowlander Wrote:

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

> kford Wrote:

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

> -----

> > It's a massive distraction from the real causes

> of

> > accidents - inattention, from motorists on the

> > sodding phone, fiddling with sat-navs, not

> using

> > mirrors or simply not looking where they're

> going.

> >

> >

> > It's these drivers who nearly have me off my

> > pushbike or motorbike almost every day.

> >

> > And the DoT's figures will back this up.

>

> Being a driver who is fully in support of a

> blanket 20mph limit, would love to see those

> figures?if they exist?

>

> Really I've yet to see a solid argument

> against...might as well oppose the drink driving

> laws because "some people will drive pi$$ed

> anyway"

Here you go, it's been common knowledge for ages: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19746515

[mako]

'according to the international comparison chart in the report, Britain has the safest roads in the world.'

Rodney it is very much like a tax and yes you can avoid it but you can avoid most taxes if you choose to-dont smoke, dont drink, dont drive, dont fly, dont work, dont save. But like these other things it doesnt mean it is right just because you can avoid it. Enforcement if done by the police also comes at a cost and as there is no cash it means at a loss of something else, the knock on effect meaning something else is also probably less safe.

[rodneybewes]

Yes, but it's not saying you'll be taxed if you drive. It's a matter of being taxed if you break the speed limit when you drive. If you're saying it's just done to raise revenue then that revenue surely offsets the cost. If no-one breaks the speed limit and there are no fines I bet they'll remove the cameras soon enough.

It isn't as if they didn't have this as a policy when they were voted in.

[rodneybewes]

By the way, I agree with the op's first couple of paragraphs. Advertising splashed all over everything we see is a blight on London. What advertiser wants to be associated with a speed restriction anyway?

[JohnL]

Maybe its this (from Southwarks FAQ)

"13. Will the scheme clutter the borough with signs?

We will seek to minimise street clutter as much as possible. The new 20 mph signs

will be placed on existing posts or street lighting columns (lamp posts) where

possible, instead of on new posts. We will also aim to keep ?repeater? signs including

road markings to a minimum in accordance with Department of Transport guidance"

I like street lighting columns :)

[kford]

Maybe they should say "KEEP YOUR EYES ON THE ROAD" or "DON'T LET UNNECESSARY SIGNS DISTRACT YOU".