Southwark plans to be 1st London council to be 20mph thru-out

[first mate]

Yes, but we don't live our lives according to averages. PR has a point in that the option to exercise discretion or judgement is being slowly eroded.

[Huguenot]

"Yes, but we don't live our lives according to averages". That's quite simply not right, in everything you do you make a cost benefit calculation. In this situation your community is helping you make the decision, by researching the issue and informing you in an area within which you have little or no knowledge and cannot trust your intuition.

As in any society, decisions need to be made that are in the interests of the majority, that's what laws are for.

And sure sure, you should have both the rights and freedom to kill other people through indifference and principle.

The point is, the 20mph limit won't make your journey any slower, but it will save 100 lives. Geddit?

There is no penalty for the lower speed limit. No price, no cost. You will not get to your destination any later. There is evidence you'll get there quicker.

There is another benefit, and it's 100 grieving families.

Vehicles are a very weird area for legislation, as we associate cars with freedom and exclusivity. It's a product of 50 years of advertising. When you get tied up in emotional conflicts over cars, just remember it's because you believed the ads, not because it's true.

[first mate]

The thing is, the times of day I am most likely to drive the roads are clearer, thus moving along at 20mph will almost certainly slow my journey.

The evidence points to something other than speed being at the root of accidents. I'd bet that a lot of it is to do with mobile phone use and other technological distractions, possibly used by young pedestrians and drivers who are not "aware" (in your argument I think you refer to the lives of young people being saved). I also remember an advertising campaign, around this very issue, a year or so ago. Is there not an element of personal responsibility in all of this? In other words where is the line between legislation that reduces risk to as near zero as possible and we, as citizens, being responsible for the judgements we make?

If you ask me is the right to drive at 30mph worth more than the lives of a 100 people, then of course I will say no. It's just that this type of legislation begins to feel a bit nanny state-like.

H and Sean, I would add that I'm fairly swayed by your arguments but this other aspect is niggling. I suspect it may be part of PR's concern too.

[Huguenot]

You sound like a very reasonable person! :-$ I'm embarrassed by my fervour

[Brendan]

How is legislation telling you to drive at 20mph any more ?nanny state? than legislation telling you to drive at 30mph or 100mph for that matter? It?s just a speed limit. They?re hardly uncommon.

[thebeard]

Why doesn?t the GOV just make it law that all cars be fitted with a GPS Speed limiters would stop all this bullshxt.

For those who don?t understand how GpS speed limiters would work

VIA GPS the CAR speed is LIMITED derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

So the whole of Southwark becomes a 20mph zone say between the hours of 7am and 8pm

From 8pm to 7 am it goes back to 30 mph or more yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

This would also be great revenue for retro fit to all cars say after 1990.

Great where do I get my franchise to fit these systems?

If the GOV had any bollox they?d implement this ASAP.

BUT they don?t so we?re stuck with cars that do 155mph and a speed limit of 70 mph and soon to be 20mph in town.

And dead kids.

Mind you the revenue they?ll get from speeding fines will make em happy.

Nonsense!

[thebeard]

What about 20mtr fencing along all pavements to stop pedestrians getting to the roads this would also be a great way of keeping numbhead well separated from east dulwich by stopping any walk ways over said fencing into each area this would keep the scum from peckham out too.

Why oh why does Southwark not look at common sense idea like that instead of faffing about with speed bumps and cameras.

On a more important note

WHY do the parking attendants rapidly attach tickets to cars with one wheel on the pavement yet avoid ticketing the numerous cars parked dangerously on zig zag lines at zebra crossings.

[KoolBananas]

Scum in peckham? Is/Are there not any "scum" in ED? I'm quite intrigued!

[PeckhamRose]

But it is so much easier and vote-catching picking on motorists - all motorists - well, all except the ones who will never listen anyway - than concentrating on pedestrians who will not take responsibility for themselves. And I am a pedestrian too!

[SeanMacGabhann]

is that true? I would have thought judging from the outcries I hear that picking on motorists is a vote-LOSER.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

IN THE RED CORNER LADEEZ AN' GENELMEN We have the Pro-20 MPH, GET'EMOUTTATHEIRKARZ LOBBY

IN THE BLUE CORNER LADEEZ AN' GENELMEN We now have 29.4 Million Cars, which is 30% up on 10 years ago....

The more "restrictive" the Authorities want to be, the more freedom to buy and drive a car the "People" become..

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE?

WE ARE THE PEOPLE !!

[PeckhamRose]

And I am a biker!

Well I just re-read my original posting.

I think my point was missed which is my fault for not having written it more clearly.

My point is that this little plot of land called Southwark is just one little plot of land, politically run, and road users will just have more rules to read from the signs and it won't serve any purpose other than to antagonise. And yes, if some idiot runs out in front of us and we hit them through no fault of our own, they may survive if we hit them at 20, but how far do you drag that argument down?

But it was mostly interesting reading people's thoughts. At least we thought about it.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

You won't catch me criticising Southwark as they are a Nucleur-Free Zone.

If we are about to get nuked I'm catching the "53" and getting back within her secure Borders as fast as my little tootsies willget me there.

[Sherwick]

20 mph is so slow, like an asthmatic snail. can't they make it 25?

[Mick Mac]

PR. I agree with 20 on certain residential roads. But should remain as 30 on main through roads such as barry rd.

Dont mind if southwark sets these rules if they are in the best interests of residents.

Children need to be protected but adults need to get from a to b. It should be a compromise so i do not agree with 20 across the board.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Sorry to come back again PR, but this is the bit I tried to clarify earlier - from what I can read and pick up from radio news and media, this is being considered not just in Southwark but across London, and is already in place in cities such as Leicester and Oxford. So surely that specific problem (drivers having to change "rules" outside of Southwark) isn't really an issue?

[Huguenot]

I should add that Red Routes such as OKR are outside of this regulation.

60% of Southwark's roads are already 20mph

[PeckhamRose]

So if red routes such as Old Kent Road are outside the regulation, and someone wonders out in to the road on their mobile and is stupidly unlucky enough to be hit by my bike or a bus doing 30, rather than a car having to do 20 on the far side of the bus lane... then it was all a bit arbitrary wasn't it.

And another point I tried to make is that I think there should just be one big rule for the whole of London and not all of the 33 little plots of land within it.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I agree 20 MPH on Residential roads in Southwark are an excellent idea.

"50" on a Dual Carriageway, which is now being proposed is absolutely farcical, as any experienced, long-term Driver on those roads will testify.

They are "mostly" for financial gain and "remarkably" many of those pretty lemon yellow boxes are hidden behind large road signs and corners and overgrown trees that do not get cut etc...in fact most boxes are, out of Town, in my experience.

It was a sound idea when they were positioned in Road Hotspots but, as per usual, once the precedent was set, the Authorities turned the original "inch" into a "yard"...

How can they be a visual deterrent to warn a Motorist of potential danger when they are concealed, "mostly" ?

Answers on a Postcard, anyone?

[SeanMacGabhann]

With an annual death toll of about 3000 people a year, I'm struggling to comprehend what other disease, or terrorist threat, or anything would be tolerated to the extent where 60 people die every single week.... and have so many people opposed to any measures to curb that number

yet any vote-losing initiative to reduce that amount is met with endless excuses - either pedestrians are dopy (which they can be to be sure!) to "its a money making scam"

It's just childish. To claim that the government are petty and farcical when drivers openly admit flouting existing speeding laws is just double-speak. So cameras are hidden are they? And your point is what? That you only obey the law if you know you are being watched.. Shame on you I say

[Tony.London Suburbs]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

....."its a money making scam"

It's just childish. To claim that the government are petty and farcical when drivers openly admit flouting existing speeding laws is just double-speak. So cameras are hidden are they? And your point is what? That you only obey the law if

you know you are being watched.. Shame on you I say

Firstly, shame on you for saying that those who hold an alternative view to your own are "childish".

Unlike you Sean, I shall take the moral higher ground and refrain from, well, frankly, childish comments ironically.

Back to the Subject matter.

These cameras were brought in to raise awareness at certain Road Hotspots and to try and limit the speed of motorists at these places. That was their sole original intention.

The Ministry Of Transport has extended its tentacles to place these speed cameras at thousands of other places, nationwide.

Many of these "additional" areas have had few, if any, accidents so first question Seanis:

Why have the cameras been placed at many areas with little or no previous history of accidents, if its not to raise cash?

Second question for you is:

If the Government are genuinely trying to curb the speed of motorists on roads out of Town that are 50/60 MPH then why are so many of these cameras deliberately positioned in places where you are least likely to notice them? ( The A2 from Kent to London has the majority of its speed cameras concealed, for example.

Many of these speed cameras are situated at the bottom of hills, like Shooters Hill or when the mph limit suddenly decreases so why do you think that is Sean?...Co-incidence...

If you do not realise that many of these initiatives have meandered away from their original good intentions then you are naive Sean, one must say.

p.s At least "naive" is a kinder criticism than "childish"...

Over to you as I will be fascinated as to how you answer these points, because, at least, you are one of the few I'm glad to say (in my experience)who always attempt to converse and answer direct questions.

Most people on most fora, in my experience, just avoid "awkward" questions or are simply too ignorant or supercillious to answer.

Hurry up though please Seanster as I'm off on a Country ride today M8...:)

p.s To re-iterate its an excellent idea to have strict limits near Schools/Hospitals/Residential Roads but drivers have this funny feeling that there are having the royal p+ss taken out of them and, strangely, they don't like that...

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm going to stand by the "childish" word Tony - I will clarify and say I'm not directing at you or any other poster on here with a different viewpoint. I am directing it at the collective motorist voice, which in my view is far too quick to claim victimhood in all of this. And again I say, what other activity would be tolerated with an average of 60 casualties every single week? I try to keep that number in mind when I make any judgement on traffic

As for position of speed cameras. When I got my license they were nowhere near as prolific as they are now and yet, when I took my test - nay, tests plural - I did so in the full knowledge of what the rules of the road were. I know what the speed limits are. I know that speed limits vary from road to road. I know they can change dramatically (I lived in Devon at the time where country road to A road to tiny village happened regularly) and yet I managed to keep to the limit. It's easy. And it's the right thing to do. And if that menas I stand accused of being holier-than-thou then so be it

But since the proliferation of cameras (and other measures) road deaths have decreased. So when I hear people say "they" are trying to catch "us" out I just despair for humanity. Something so fundamental as taking responsibility for our own actions is thrown out the window as we reach for the "money making" excuse.

As I have said before let's state for a fact that we know 100% these cameras are money making scams. Let's just agree with that for the sake of argument..

Now.... how could such a dastardly scheme be defeated?? If only there were some way we could make "them" wish they had never spent all those millions on expensive cameras. There must be some way, surely?? What if.... and hear me out, what if people kept to the speed limit and then no revenue went back to them! It's crazy but it might just work

But I know for a fact it's not about hidden cameras in revenue making spots - and by "fact" I mean from a drivers perspective. Not bothering with a car in London I end up in other peoples cars. And the majority of these people, when travelling outside London, start smiling and grinning childishly as they show me their camera detector. They drive recklessly, and slow only when the detector warns them,... What was that number again... 60 people a week..... And don't you think it was these "normal" drivers who before they killed one of those 60 people a week who felt immune from any risk of it happening to them?

So - in order

Question 1 you asked:

My answer is that if the random chance of being caught speeding is higher it should motivate people to take fewer risks. I would say that that has been successful in recent years

Your second question sounds very like the first one so I'll give the same answer

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Sadly. time is against me Sean, but I did not even know about "Camera Detectors!"..:))

Sean: "My answer is that if the random chance of being caught speeding is higher it should motivate people to take fewer risks. I would say that that has been successful in recent years"

That could still be achieved by not concealing these cameras, but I can see that could be the case but the cynic in me tells me that that is not the primary reason for the existence of the "additional" cameras.

Strangely the M20 does not appear to have any outside The London Borders and many parts of The M25 do not have them.

See you later Sean, change of plan, its a River Trip from Greenwich down to The EmbankmentB)

p.s. You don't know a bloke who can get 'old of any second-hand detectors do ya?...on second thoughts lets leave it M8..;-)

Have A Good Day...

[SeanMacGabhann]

Isn't the more likely reason for concealement, the fact that motorists are quite open about only slowing down for cameras? So if the goal is to stop people speeding, then making the cameras obvious only works in proximity to the cameras?

[skidmarks]

Hi, I?m new to this forum and new to the area.

This is sort of my field (yawn). I have only had a quick scan of this thread so sorry if I repeat anything. These blanket 20mph zones are a bit of a gimmick at the moment. Royal Borough of Kingston is currently doing the same, to the dismay of the police. 20mph zones are unenforceable under the current highway act unless the local chief constable agrees to police it, which they haven?t for Kingston?. so probably not for Southwark? Ideally a 20mph zone should be self enforcing i.e. it is difficult for traffic to exceed this limit by the use speed control features usually placed at 60 metre centres. Obviously installing speed bumps, raised tables etcetera on the whole of the Boroughs? roads will be expensive, not suitable for some and controversial on others. So they will end up doing what Kingston has by chucking up lots of signs instead. So if the zone is not enforceable by the police and not self-enforcing what is the point? Sounds like a gimmick to me.

I saw someone talking about 50mph limits on dual carriageways. This is not usually done on safety grounds but capacity you can get more traffic through the network at lower speeds at peak times owing to the shorter headway distances required. Take the M25 variable speed limit for example.