And not the “20’s Plenty” lobby? Not dominating the discussion at all?
The poll is still open. The poll discussion was closed because of the needless animosity. The poll result can still be used as a casual indication of dissent at the 20mph limits. There’s certainly no local study that proves the borough-wide limits are popular. As @Londondrz suggested, you’re welcome to try a different poll methodology to get the result you’re looking for.
I think the point is that it looks like the poll is closed because the thread is closed. Might be worth tagging a note on the end of the closed thread to explain this (and link back to the poll itself).
Eh? @ThorNogson stated a fact: he’s interested in this topic but doesn’t think that poll was a good way to find out the answer. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable position. Nor did he ever say he didn’t ‘like’ the results. It feels like this whole conversation is at cross-purposes at this point.
How is that relevant? That is not the part of the post you quoted that I subsequently questioned. Please remember, I am no longer a mod, so in all likelihood I would still have said nothing.
I have no problem with you challenging @ThorNogson or indeed anyone else. I just thought your last post was challenging something he didn’t actually say, and some of your previous posts suggested to me you might have misunderstood what he was saying about the closure of the comments. What do YOU think happened there? Everyone is pussyfooting around, perhaps someone needs to be explicit.
IMO all future councils should ensure policy decisions like this are strictly data-driven (and not ideological).
If accident stats show no improvement to Lewisham after the limits, we should be able to reconsider the policy and its many negative side effects (see earlier posts in this topic). As more data becomes available, let’s make full use of it.
I am concerned that the 20 limit is soon going to result in an impatient driver running into the back of me as I attempt to stick to the limit. I find driving in 20 zones very stressful because it seems that the people driving behind me don’t share my willingness to abide by the new rule. I have said this before on this thread so i’m conscious that I am repeating myself, but really the limit is pointless unless people know it will be enforced, because those who don’t care about safety will carry on driving over 20 ( and actually in some cases well over 30),endangering cyclists and pedestrians and compromising the safety of those who are trying to stick to the limit. However much we think it would be nice/right for people just to accept the new limit in a spirit of social responsibility, my experience both as a driver and cyclist is that they aren’t doing that. And I suspect won’t, until the penalties for not doing so ar sufficiently high.
I think that this is almost universally accepted regardless of people’s personal position on the limit. I personally feel that the dangerous drivers now seem empowered to take risks when driving behind a car doing less than 30 mph.
It is, however, still relatively soon after the speed limit was lowered and I think that we need to see how people adjust over the next few years. Historical road safety measures and more general public safety measures are nearly always deemed unnecessary by sections of the public when they are legislated (e.g. seat belts, seat belts in the rear seats, lower blood alcohol limits when driving, mobile phone use at the wheel, compulsory motorcycle helmets for motorcyclists, public smoking ban). People will complain about a reduction of freedom and/or state that it is not necessary for them personally, but society will generally accept the change and move forward. I believe that there is a plan for busses to be speed limited to local limits on local roads, so this may get people used to driving at 20 mph as, after all, twenty is plenty.
I’m quite sure this will increase pollution and worsen congestion (although I’m sure some bright spark will dig out a study that suggests the opposite…).
Bus timetables will be hurt, making them even less appealing as a means of mass transit (no doubt someone will claim that busses already travel at 20mph hence timetables won’t change - begging the question: why speed limit them?)
Cars overtaking busses will become more frenzied and more risky.
It seems policy decisions like this are made in a total ideological bubble. The council believes in a zero sum approach - that hurting car users will convert them into eco friendly cyclists. Utter tosh, IMO.
I have a bike. I’ll be less inclined to use it if I’m gonna be stuck behind a speed-limited bus, breathing in its appalling diesel fumes and trying to avoid drivers who are understandably infuriated by inappropriate speed limits.
Chris oh Chris - we all hear the beat of your drum on this one.
When did anyone in London ever rely on a timetable for bus routes? Aspirational fantasies at worst and something about which everyone could thereby complain about.
It’s a modern world now - we have bus countdown and it is available on every type of mobile device on the market. It’s a game changer of the greatest order. People no longer look at timetables - they look up when precisely the next buses will turn up.
We all live happily in the shade of this progress.
I think you misunderstand my concern. It’s not the timeliness but journey lengths that are the issue. Like you say, few people care about buses sticking to rigid timetables. But obviously we care about journey times.
Not necesssrily so - I have commented earlier on how much the average speed of travel in London has increased and decreased over the years without the 20 mph limit.
The introduction of this limit is almost inconsequential as most routes never get close to that speed and have never done so.