they are - everywhere!
http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/transport/road-safety/Pages/20mph-borough-speed-limit.aspx
I can’t say I’m all that happy about it in general, but it should be targeted at roads like this
20mph limits are not the solution.
They infuriate drivers, and the last thing we want are more angry drivers on the road.
Bad drivers will ignore 20mph limits in any case, leading to good and bad drivers having dangerously divergent driving styles on the same road.
We may not always agree in many other areas of society, but I agree on this. This is not going to work.
I drive at 20mph along Sydenham Hill (as per the limit) and you can feel the drivers behind you sitting on your tail swearing at you!
Cranston is a 20mph anyway, doesn’t do much for it, so would not have an impact on the rest I don’t think.
It becoming a regular check area would help.
Like 20mph zones, physical restrictions can also cause frustration and outbursts especially on corners, with buses and heavy vehicles involved.
Sydenham Hill’s 20mph is a prime example, when you watch the speed people burst into after passing the camera to pass the “annoying person” doing the speed limit for the whole road.
Lewisham council have committed to more 20mph limits being imposed unfortunately, and the rollout will come into effect in September
I’m sure a study was found that showed some benefits in 20mph zones, but I suspect most of the negative consequences of 20mph limits will be seen just outside the zones themselves - particularly on junctions where a 20mph zone meets a (more sensible) 30mph zone.
In fairness the thought process behind where and where is not a 20mph has always been flawed.
Here for example. Sydenham Hill, 20mph all the way along… However turn onto one of the side roads, like the tights roads of Droitwich Close, and it is even signed as a 30mph again. How does that work?
The much wider Crescent Wood remains 20mph
As for the evidence supporting 20mph zones:
20mph limits changing driver behaviour - for the worse:
And for safety?
The people who are most likely to speed and cause an accident don’t give two hoots for. 20mph zone.
I actually emailed the council yesterday specifically to ask them to address the issue of speeding on the stretch of Stanstead Rd that forms a triangle with the South Circular (around Rockbourne Rd). They responded to inform me that they were introducing 20mph limits across the borough. As I pointed out in response, if motorists are already ignoring existing limits and speeding I don’t understand how lowering the limit solves that problem and forces a change in motorists behaviour?!
Exactly. It may affect good drivers - it will slow them down. But bad drivers will continue to break the limit. And now they’ll encounter other vehicles moving at 20mph. Sounds risky to me.
20mph limits will be ineffective, in that no one will respect them. It will affect our driving attitudes. I worry that people will stop taking speed limits seriously in general…
@anon17648011 Another target for the Community Speed Checks I am trying to get sorted out.
Sounds like a cluster of roads being properly identified now. Surely that will be enough for the Ward Panel to present to the local Police to extend the program.
In what other areas is poor enforcement and anger just to be accepted?
If the Journal of Public Health comes out in favour of a policy, why should some dissenting expert in the Guardian be taken as authoritative?
Can we just have good drivers, and drive bad drivers off the road? Aren’t they the ones who might be getting angry? If I’m a good driver, who does obey the rules, don’t I have a right to expect others to do so?
There are many roads where the 20mph speed limit makes sense. For me, Sydenham Hill isn’t one of them, yet it’s one with an active camera. I sincerely hope it is being used to monitor the bullying and dangerous overtaking that now goes on.
One of the problems is the implementation of the new speed limits on a borough-by-borough basis. This is why you can leave a 20mph main road and turn into a 30 mph side road when you cross a borough boundary. When I learned to drive, I learned the Highway Code which gave default speed limits per type of road, unless sign posted otherwise or conditions dictate a slower speed. Does being constantly on the lookout for signs aid safe driving?
Sadly it will only catch stills of actual offenders. However a speed watch would be able to record information such as bullying I am sure.
As for the point about constantly having to look for signs for bus lanes, speed restrictions, parking restrictions, schools, ducks crossing etc… It is a distraction for sure.
I would welcome a logical re-write of the speed limits, but don’t think a blanket 20mph on all residential roads is an answer.
The mystery of Droitwich Close lives on. Can’t see any logical explanation for that, and would love Lewisham to answer my emails about it one day.
Sydenham Hill is in Southwark, presumably Droitwich Close is in Lewisham. When Southwark implemented their changes and new signs were painted, I think they marked up where the default still holds. If Lewisham haven’t specifically designated it as 20, then it’s still officially 30. It’s the same at the junction of Sydenham Hill and Wells Park Road. New markings for 30 mph at the end of the latter. Could that be it?
Aaaah I stand corrected, thank you @RachaelDunlop
From this thread I’ll make a list of the Roads mentioned for the next Ward Panel meeting re “Community Speed Checks”. if I’m not able to make it I’ll pass it on to @Michael or email it.
Thanks @Pauline
Two things:
What annoys me about 20mph limits is that 30mph was deemed safe for many years, and cars are orders of magnitude safer now (better brakes, better tyres) than they were 20 years ago. So what next? 15mph? 10? It is nanny state run amok.
20mph on Sydenham Hill is just dangerous.
In addition to Stanstead Rd’s problem with speeding we have another menace in the form of motorised scooters (driven by delivery drivers and local teenagers racing) who use the segregated cycle lane. It’s incredibly dangerous and anti social. I’ve raised it before with council and police and suggested camera enforcement of the cycle lane but they don’t seem unduly bothered…
I would think camera enforcement of a cycle lane might be quite difficult. Although as a regular cyclist I agree with the sentiment and the issue.
Mopeds as a whole when in the wrong hands are a total menace, but so very hard to deal with. Speed limits will do very little to them.
WON’T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
I’m really quite amazed at the free market approach that people have towards speed limits. Let the cars go as fast as they like without regulation because even if you tell them to, they wont slow down anyway!
I drive only very occasionally, as I don’t see the need to use a car for regular life in London - but when I do I follow the speed limit, whatever it may be. I’m of the opinion that if you can’t follow the rules of the road, you really shouldn’t be driving (this is also the law btw).
Honestly, if people in cars cant seem to follow a speed limit on a piece of road, then why don’t we close the road to cars? The busses would certainly benefit and it would be considerably safer.
I drive quite regularly and I can’t bear 20mph zones. When I created this thread I fully expected an occasional driver might pipe up to defend 20mph limits and tell me I’m wrong. 
I don’t think it’s so much free market, than realistic.
Its nice to believe that posting a speed limit means everyone will abide by it. It’s also great to believe that everyone breaking the limit can be caught and he) d to account, every time.
I too, using many forms of transport these days follow the rules set for me, but see many others who don’t.
Telling people smoking kills doesn’t get the message across, they still smoke… Drinking, eating bad foods, not exercising. Driving is no different.
Some are susceptible to having things impressed upon them, speed kills etc. Many others are simply too selfish and cocooned in their private bubble to bother paying attention.
Limits can be lowered, signs can be put up everywhere, bit enforcement is the key. Hence the community speed project suggested.
As for 20mph limits… My road is 20mph and has speed cushions which zig zag down the road. A car travelling at 30mph on the same road without speed cushions is LESS likely to have an accident IMO. Rather than 20 and swerving about all over the place.
Enforcing school zones, halving the speed limit when lights are flashing etc (like the US) is more appropriate
Blanket 20s are silly.
Telling people smoking kills may not get the message across but in order for it to stop killing others, it was banned from pubs, cafes etc. If driving is no different, then…
I’m making this comment only half tongue in cheek, really - why do so many people feel the need to drive everywhere? and so fast?
No idea to that question. I am happy to cycle, run, walk, drive, use public transport. Whichever is most fitting for the journey.
Driving shouldn’t be frowned on, the idiots that abuse the privilege should. Just like casual drinkers vs binge drinking 'violent thugs.
As for the speed, many reasons, but none acceptable.
Please bear in mind we sit on the Forest Hill ward SNT panel, not Perry Vale. At our last meeting I was almost at a loss to list roads in Forest Hill ward where speeding is a problem. Kirkdale was one (but I think the traffic calming has helped), south end of Dartmouth Road may also be a bit of a problem, but there aren’t many other roads where speeds much above 30mph are possible.
Perry Vale is a bit different - Woolstone Road, Houston Road, Stanstead Road, Perry Vale, Westbourne Drive all seem to suffer from a minority of people going too fast on occasion.
I very much doubt the camera on Sydenham Hill will send you a ticket if you are going at 30mph. I suspect that 20 mph limit would not actually be enforceable by a camera. Has anybody here ever got a ticket for going above 20mph (but below 33mph) in a 20 mph zone?
Maybe we can have a chat about this to see where we can help x
I live on Honor Oak Road, where it’s definitely possible to exceed 30mph (and plenty of cars do). Rarely have I felt like shaking my fist at someone though – It doesn’t feel too dangerous to me. As a resident, I think I would rather have the smooth swish of the cars zooming past, than the slowing down and accelerating that continuous speed bumps must generate.
I don’t think it’s a free market approach at all. It’s simply asking for common sense. As I asked earlier, why not 15mph? Why not 10? If 30mph has been safe enough for (presumably) decades, why all of a sudden do we need a blanket drop to 20? I completely agree that there are plenty of narrow residential streets that are unsafe at 30 (kids popping out from between parked cars comes to mind), but there are also plenty of roads where 30 is a completely sensible, and safe, speed limit.
So I’m not advocating free market, I’m advocating common sense.
I found a passage that much better describes my feelings about this. It’s from a book called The Principle of Fairness and Political Obligation, by George Klosko (apologies for the image, it wouldn’t let me copy/paste):
@Michael Given the last survey had the average speed on Manor Mount at 40 mph I would say there is a case. That 40 mph was the wrong way down Manor Mount BTW. Mich
Maybe it was safe enough in a golden past when road deaths of 8,000 a year were acceptable,
but a better world is possible.
The probability of someone being killed by a car rises dramatically when the impact speed rises from 20 mph to 30 mph
The reason for a general speed limit is because it makes implementation easier, and defines what over time will become the acceptable norm.
Do people want to take a general discussion on road safety to another thread? I don’t want to start splitting things here because many of the posts are about specific roads in our area.
I didn’t include Manor Mount as this is primarily a problem with people going the wrong way. The speed issue is secondary.
Agreed but Waldenshaw/St. David’s is an issue. As I said, the last time we had a policeman and a radar gun was 2004. I live there so will obviously have a bias but will also be able to lay testament to the fact that there is a lot of speeding on the road.
@RachaelDunlop I think as it relates to SE23 as q whole best left in?
Absolutely. Just saying it’s an option if people want a more wide ranging discussion (with graphs 
). I’m not going to split anything off from here as it’s all relevant.
On a related note (i trust) I recall that when Perry Vale was “restructured” when the new flats were built, there were calls for crossings for pedestrians crossing the dangerous Waldram Place (with all the cars joining PV from the South Circular) and across Perry Vale itself to the station and the underpass.
Instead, we were told that “research shows” that NOT putting in traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossings was somehow supposed to result in more careful driving since the risk factor was elevated.
I never believed it, and I don’t know of the accident statistics for that section of road, but I would not feel comfortable with my kids trying to cross them alone if they were heading to the station.
In any case, I seriously wonder whether that research was up to date enough to take into consideration not just drivers’ attention, but pedestrians engrossed in their smartphones and plugged in earphones.
My wife witnessed a lady almost getting over just a couple of days ago for that very reason.
Yes, if cars were to drive more slowly that might help, but as others have said, not all will or do, so purposely putting pedestrians at risk seems foolhardy
… and not just pedestrians. On Perry Value if you’re waiting for the bus or sitting outside a local restaurant you appear to be in the firing line.
Everyone has a duty of care when using the roads and pavements. Some people just dont care. It doesnt matter how low the speeds are dropped to or how high the penalties are raised for transgressions there will always be people out there who DGAF!
You cannot mitigate against this, you cannot build “enhanced” features to stop it. You can only prosecute, and if there is no one to prosecute then where are you?
I am sorry to seem so negative but I have little reminders nearly every day where the 1%'ers win.
I dont think there is a need to be so negative @Londondrz! When I first started cycling to work from Forest Hill, I used to have at least one incident every day where a car would nearly hit me or do something absolutely ridiculous that would cause me to brake hard or swerve (often more than one a day). Now, 10 years later, these events are quite rare. There are a number of reasons for this change in behaviour (another topic) but my point is that people/society can change. They may not GAF but they will grudgingly accept that that is the accepted norm, until it becomes the norm.
The trick is starting the change in attitudes/behaviours. If (big if, it seems!) people get forced to travel at 20 in a residential area, they may just get used to travelling at 20 in a residential area and everyone will be safer.
We can encourge them to change their behaviour without forcing them perhaps by (for example) making owning (or using) a car ridiculously expensive so they think about driving in the first place (but giving them alternatives) or changing road layouts, but again these are probably another topic.
@comoed Sorry, just having one of those days, will cheer up soon 
I’m all for making heavily polluting (generally older) cars ridiculously expensive through taxation. But I dislike the suggestion of trying to force cars off the road. People have valid reasons for choosing cars and vans over bikes, busses and taxis. I’d like to see you take six heavy bags of waste to Landmann Way on your bike or on a bus.
I suspect our kids & grandkids will be interested to look back on this debate and wonder how we ever coped without shared self-driving transports and laugh at the thought of “owning” cars that you had to drive around and decide what was safe and what speed to go at 
How many of us would know how to prepare our horse and carriage, to drive it around town, feed the horse and care for it? (yes, I just read Black Beauty to my son)
@anon5422159 thats a bit off-topic, it was just an example - but if it were me, I’d either hire someone or something to transport 6 bags of waste somewhere. (To be even more precise, I’d wander down the road to Siddons Car Hire) For a one off (or irregular trip) its still far more cost effective and practical than owning a car, when for example a truck or van might be better suited.
I grew up on a dairy farm so I can
Speed limits exist for safety reasons. London boroughs are gradually adopting 20mph as this is much safer in built up areas where there is interaction with pedestrians. Note that the arterial roads run by TfL continue to have a 30mph limit.
There is an issue with enforcement but this applies whatever the speed limit is. Over time people will get used to the new limit (as they did the old one) and it will be the new normal. Many lives will be saved and the environment will be more pleasant for all. There will always be idiots who ignore the limits though IMO.
I will be glad when Lewisham finally adopts 20mph as it will end the frankly ludicrous situation where Honor Oak Park traffic comes down One Tree Hill at 20mph (due to Southwark borough limit) then gets the green light to accelerate to 30mph just when approaching two zebra crossings and a parade of shops and restaurants. @Michael, if you want an example where the speed limit is routinely broken, and dangerously so, then this is in Forest Hill ward (just) - the effect is enhanced by a short stretch of dual carriageway over the bridge.
Fair point that speed should be moderated around this area.
As a driver I always moderate my speed in narrow residential roads, and on high streets - because I tend to think in terms of cause and effect, as opposed to slavishly following speed limits.
IMO all drivers should be situationally-aware (observing weather, traffic, pedestrians etc) rather than looking out for speed limit signs and driving based on what Lewisham council’s years-old research decided was best for them.
That is a fair point too but if all drivers did this then we would not need any speed limits anywhere! We have to assume that some drivers are not either capable or inclined to do this, ergo speed limits apply.
I use that crossing at least twice a day every day and cross at one of the two places in the road where parallel lines have been painted across, presumably to mark the places that visibility of oncoming traffic is best for crossing. A very cheap and easy short term solution is for those lines to be repainted and maybe made more pronounced as they are faded enough at present that they are easily overlooked.
@Gary_Brown to be clear, is this comment re Perry Vale crossing?
Yes, sorry, Perry Vale from the underpass to the other side, where the Perry Vale restaurant is.
Indeed, and what safer and more pleasant roads we’d have. Herein lies the difference between libertarianism and authoritarianism
How the heck did you get the word “politics” into this @anon5422159
Not sure if I am impressed or disappointed lol
As for the whole debate, my line on this is as it has been all along. All parties need to play their part in the matter. Obviously cars being licenced, loved / hated, and the most dangerous, are the simple solution.
My view on this one is that local authorities tend to use the 20mph limit as a panacea for anything traffic-related. It’s the old “if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” approach.
Generally slowing traffic in cities is one way to reduce fatalities from accidents, and a 20mph limit will have the effect (generally, on average) of slowing traffic. However, I would agree with a lot of the points above which question whether it makes the roads (and pavements) safer. In my own fairly limited anecdotal experience, Sydenham Hill has become like an F1 track with a safety car deployed - you get someone (like me, I have to admit) doing 20mph and a bunch of people dangerously overtaking. In other places (like for example the Stanstead Road / Perry Vale area where I live) you get a 20mph zone on some fairly wide residential streets which is practically ignored by everyone - and which incidentally doesn’t meet any of the government’s guidance for signposting 20mph limits.
The upshot of all of this? There might be lower average speeds, but there is less uniformity in how drivers behave, and given that the ability to predict the actions which others are likely to take is probably the most important thing in road safety, that seems counterproductive to me.
I know this might be simplistic, but I’d like to see more of the American / Canadian model of traffic policing with less automation and more traffic police. This should be something which is either cost-neutral or profitable since they could levy fines / impound cars (and maybe sell them) and would be much more of a deterrent than our current approach which is so easily ignored by so many.
@Dave Agree totally. The issue addressed in your last paragraph is one we are unlikely to see any time soon. Given my level of interaction with the police over the last 2 weeks (and it’s quite a bit) they are overstretched, undermanned and tired. Very tired. I very much doubt that traffic policing (unless it is in relation to an RTC or significant event) is very much a second or third priority in Lewisham atm.
Thanks @Dave for putting it so well.
Simply, a community cannot be governed from afar by putting in more signposts. Just like the unpopular university dorm autocrat that puts notes up everywhere about other peoples’ behaviour - it just creates emotional distance and mutual resentment. The answer is to have the community empowered, and visible on the street, helping the police catch the worst offenders, while letting all other drivers get on with their lives.
I’ve lost count of how many times we’ve been driving at 22-24mph and someone has accelerated past us to overtake. Very dangerous!!
A driving instructor has posted on the Sydenham forum in the past complaining that she can’t safely teach her pupils to manage higher speeds in Southwark (and now Lewisham). She goes out of borough.
I’m glad that she does that. While it is all very well having localised limits, it causes confusion for new drivers between boroughs. Assumed limits etc.
Not saying its completely wrong, it is strange to have local differences, and speed limits changing half way down a road.
At some point Google maps etc will actually start routing traffic around places to maintain a higher speed.
After being undertaken by a bus today (while I was doing 20mph) I got thinking.
20mph is all well and good… OK it’t not actually, it’s still badly thought out in my eyes, but hey, it is here now, so suck it up.
But here is a question. On a lot of the main roads (non red routes), there are many many buses, large vans and lorries, all now also required to not exceed 20mph, although most will.
So the question.
Given that large vehicles have longer stopping distances, should they not have lower speed limits. God forbid they were to impose them. But where in the new scheme was consideration given to larger vehicles.
Have a look at the graph below to see what I mean.
From your graph, a HGV travelling at 20 mph can stop in a substantially shorter distance than a car travelling at 30 mph. I think this supports a lower speed limit in general. Also, having different classes of vehicles with different speed limits will encourage overtaking, which is a very dangerous manoeuvre.
Critics have accused the government of operating a nanny state and some drivers have complained their personal freedom is being infringed …
Junior Transport Minister Linda Chalker said: "Nobody likes being told to do something when they haven’t seen for themselves the sense of it.
The above quotes were from 1983 when drivers were ordered to wear seat belts.
For cars yes, but for larger vehicles? Is it just pot luck then? That said the calculations are both ball park and out of date.
My point was not that 20s should not exist but if they do, surely it’s about stopping distance not speed, in which case larger vehicles should go slower, as they do on motorways.
The speed limit being disjointed is aggravating. Very much like when most councils allowed motorcycles into bus lanes but some didnt. I spent a considerable amount of time looking at signs when I should have been looking at the road.
I have to say, a few days in and the rollout of the 20mph is a HUGE success.
I haven’t see anyone going over it on my trips to and from work etc. Really quite impressive.
I jest, I am yet to see anyone sticking to it for any duration, certainly doesn’t seem to have had much of an effect. Maybe putting up some high profile advertising would have helped. Yes there are round red and white signs with numbers in them, but its very easy for commuters to become sign blind on regular drives.
Also curious if this has impacted on bus route timetables.
Also noted a 4 car smash on Stansted Road last night, could have been avoided if the speed limit was lower.
I admit to being thrown as I walked along Brockley Rise yesterday and realised it’s now a 20mph road. It’s a point which has been made before, but putting these sorts of artificially low limits in place without changes to the streetscape to make them feel more natural and appropriate will reduce the subconscious adjustments to their environments that drivers should be making (instead they’ll be looking out for a roundel with a number to tell them what to do).
I think most of those who have spoken on this are skeptical about the value of enforcement of the 20mph limit, but I fear after a few days that drivers are going to find their speed attenuated on main roads by traffic and then speed up on side roads.
That would be the side roads where people are more likely to be crossing / kids playing.
There are plenty of changes planned for the “Brockley Corriidor”:
http://lewisham-consult.objective.co.uk/file/3081917
Have to say I think that it is through schemes like this that the speed limit behaviour will be, not so much enforced, as nudged. I think the Crofton Park stretch will be targeted first as this has been an accident blackspot.
Nice share Brett, thanks for that. Will give that a look over in detail later.
No worries. I think this is a more recent version which also mentions the priorties due to accidents:
I wonder if they are taking into consideration the post rollout reviews of the 20mph zone too. In the announcement they said after the launch they would review traffic flows, impact of the limit change, and put in physical measures where needed.
I hope the two projects are being worked together, and won’t end up in a rework of the rework.
Well the later copy does mention the 20mph limit as part of the safety design. It is a shame Honor Oak Park itself is not included in this but hopefully that will come.
Is the Honor Oak Park parade actually part of the 20 zone? There’s no signage there yet apart from the Southwark-controlled section above Devonshire Road and it would seem daft to not have the lower lint in one of the places in the borough with most dense pedestrian footfall.
The dangers of an implied blanket limit. No signs on entry to roads if the limit is not changing, so if starting a journey from there it’s total guess work.
If it’s not a red route, and in Lewisham, it’s a 20mph.
I think that’s fine in principle. Tricky in practice, though.
What happens when someone is visiting from outside the borough? Or outside London? Or from overseas?
In Hackney they had lamp post banners which advertised that ‘Hackney is a 20mph borough’, which were quite large, and impressive, but I wonder how many people saw them, or noticed them. They also had big notices on the boundary roads advertising it.
one thing I’ve noticed when driving at 20mph is that if someone is sat right on my tail, they can’t see the 20mph road markings as they’re too close to me, and if they’re not noticing the road signs either, there’s not much that will change their behaviour really. I’m sure if I stopped and spoke to them, to point out that it’s a 20mph zone, I’d probably just get a shrug, and a ‘so what?’ attitude.
I wonder if any of the speed cameras in the borough have been changed to 20mph yet? I’m frequently passed by cars at 30mph through the one on Brockley Rise just after Lowther Hill when cycling to work, seems the message really isn’t getting across because I’d expect those that know it’s a 20 limit but don’t care to slow for the speed cameras then speed up after (as people who didn’t care it was a 30 used to). Would be good if they were set to flash only (ie no ticket) for those doing over 23/24 say but less than whatever the current limit on them are (30 + 10% or whatever).
I suspect none of the cameras have been updated with the 20mph limit yet.
This morning I drove the length of the “Brockley Corridor” and saw barely any signs and it’s clear that there are a lot of drivers either unaware of the new limit or unwilling to comply with it. Overtaken a couple of times by people in the bus lane, I really don’t feel like doing 20mph is generally accepted yet.
I was in the pub this week and had a straw poll of a couple of friends about the new limit. Most were unaware - perhaps this is linked to the fact that I’ve yet to see any billboard-type advertising which might raise consciousness. I appreciate that the Council has a bit of an issue in that it’s damned either way (either for not doing enough to tell people or for “wasting” public money on advertising) but surely a central part of an initiative like this should be to raise awareness of the new limit?
I don’t really want to bring this into politics, but checking on the council’s consultations website (https://lewisham-consult.objective.co.uk/portal/regeneration/t/) I can’t see any evidence of any consultation about this change. That seems like an oversight to me.
Not exactly overused is it!? I think this lack of consultation goes against their own guidelines but it has been a while since I last trawled through the site.
When they turned Perry Vale into a Pay and Display I arrived to find about 30 people all swearing and waving tickets about. I complained pointing that their own guidelines stated that all changes to parking in the borough would be consulted on (and they didn’t) and they rescinded my parking fine - wonder how may paid up…
I don’t buy this conclusion at all. Other studies show that 20mph zones make barely any difference to speed:
So a 42% reduction in casualties seems utter implausible.
In any case there is a huge caveat against studies that attempt to draw conclusions from 20mph zones:
@anon5422159 you are taking this out of context - the key indicator will be to see whether casualties reduce in particular targeted areas locally, e.g. Stondon Park with its planned changes. There are plenty of studies, some of which TfL think are worthy, to show the opposite. Let’s see what happens locally rather than a snapshot of the whole borough of Islington.
Who will enforce the 20 mph zones? I had some muppet right up my arse the other day whilst driving towards Peckham. He then overtook me whilst gesticulating using the “Nescafe” gesture and then brake tested me all because I was doing 20 mph. How do we stop idiots like that?
Please refer back to my post less than half an hour ago, replying to you with the same question!
“Nudging behaviour” by putting up a whole load of speed limit signs to be generally ignored by all but the most careful drivers?
It’s a bit like the unpopular person in a uni dorm who puts up notes everywhere to try to nudge people’s behaviour… it just creates resentment and increases the rift between good and bad behaviours.
Who said that? Look at the plans - they are way more about streetscape and traffic calming than speed limit signs.
So no one. As Chris says, apart from those that stick to the limits no amount of traffic calming and streetscape is going to stop persistent offenders from speeding.
Which is the situation now as far as I can make out. This does not mean that the 20mph borough speed limit is counter productive!
Though having said that if they hit a ramp at 30mph it might well be uncomfortable and damage the vehicle.
Tell that to the many many drivers who drive down my road well in excess of the speed limit bouncing off the ramps. I can usually tell the time by the driver of a well known builders merchant flying down my road in the evening, truck crashing over the humps in his desire to get to the yard for 5pm.
Am guessing, but am sure you can correct me if I am wrong, that your road is not targeted for streetscape enhancements. Neither is ours as it happens but, annoying though their behaviour is, persistent offenders on our road have not made it a borough accident hotspot.
As a strategy this makes perfect fiscal sense IMO. Reduce the speed limit everywhere, that is cheaper and more effective than doing it piecemeal. Then improve the streetscape to nudge the behaviour. Of course with a tight budget you target the accident blackspots first.
When you say “streetscape enhancements” I assume you’re talking about the humps, cushions, chicanes etc that damage car suspension, hurt the environment (slowing/acceleration), cause seismic damage to houses, distract drivers from the things they should be observing (pedestrians etc) and cause dangerous behaviour (drivers using central cushions).
Enforcement of existing limits, and more importantly enforcement against dangerous driving at any speed is what’s lacking in Lewisham IMO.
Sigh! you can lead a horse to water… Yes but there is more - look at the plans.
You could be correct that this is lacking but whether the council have the resources to tackle this is another matter. Also a different subject IMO.
Well they certainly don’t have the resources now they’ve spent £1.23 million on 20mph zones. #facepalm
I think you must be playing here @anon5422159. Am sure you realise that manpower to catch persistent speeders across the whole borough would cost way more than that,.
I don’t have costs for London to hand, but a FoI request was made to Nottingham Police, who state the cost of training a police officer is £12,900, and the average payroll cost of an officer is £30,520*
So, that £1.23M could have paid for 95 officers to be trained, or could have funded 40 man-years of policing in the borough.
We don’t even need fully qualified police officers on the street. PCSOs would do the job. PCSOs (£2,100 training, £28,817 payroll) out on the streets, observing dangerous driving as high-credibility witnesses. Fast-tracking prosecution.
*needs to be adjusted for London weighting
Just one PCSO rotating around accident blackspots with a camera would be a serious deterrent to all sorts of dangerous driving.
#DifferentTopicContinues
And what about transport costs - are all these newly trained bobbies going to catch speeding motorists on foot? Oh wait, then there is pursuit training and legal costs.
Police on foot with cameras. No pursuit necessary. Recorded evidence. It’s all it takes to make drivers think twice, IMO.
That slightly awkward moment when, in Sainsbury’s, you bump into the person you’ve been disagreeing with all day on the local forum
Thanks for being friendly, @Brett 
I noticed that 20mph signs are being painted onto roads now.
Surely we just need a change so that speed enforcement pays for itself? Am I right in thinking speeding fines go to the Treasury?
Outside London mobile cameras are a common site to catch uninsured / speeding drivers but I don’t think in 15 years of living round here I’ve ever seen one. Given the volume of traffic passing on the South Circ surely this is a missed opportunity.
My pet hate. I just pass them on the left, all legal as long as you have not gone from the off side lane down to the nearside lane and back.
Actually, I didn’t find it awkward at all @anon5422159. It is ok to disagree but be civilised 
Besides, was rather more focussed on the tired and grumpy 2 year year old who really didn’t enjoy the massive queue!
This is a good point though not directly connected with a 20mph limit in my view. I think that rather than speed cameras, a network of vehicle timers would be better. The technology is there, just log the time the vehicle, by number plate, passes the camera, upload the results to a central server which calculates average speed between points. The software is not hard but there would be an infrastructure capital hit commissioning it (somewhat larger than the road signs mentioned though). If the local council got the year on year revenue then it would be worth the investment. Lives saved and no need for bobbies to hang around street corners.
These are average speed cameras and have been trialled in some boroughs in London. Not sure what the output of those trials are.
Well that was interesting! Just walking back from Sainsbury’s and about to cross my road. Stopped and checked. Silver Jag estate turns off the London and onto the road I am going to cross. Car is swerving around a bit and looks like it is going to park. No indication but that’s the norm these days so I start to cross. But wait, they are not parking, the Jag is now on the wrong side of the road, I step back, then jump back.
The lady driver, channeling Mia from Pulp Fiction is Facetiming someone. Had no idea I was there or what she was doing.
Whilst she wasnt speeding an average speed camera would not have picked that up. We need real police to sort these idiots out.
BTW, if anyone knows who she is (silver Jag Estate), please tell her she is a tw*t.
Yep, phone in one hand balanced on wheel having a great old chat. Car all over the road. I was so shocked I didnt even get her registration.
Also saw the lady in a white Nissan Qashqai who I stopped whilst going down Manor Mount about a week ago. Sailed straight through a red light at the Esso station this morning. I waved at her again. She gave me the finger. Her daughter (about six) must be sooooooo proud.
On the first occasion I stopped next to her, one of a number of people who did and asked why she thought it was OK to drive the wrong way down a one way street. She told me she “would accept my criticism as I didnt matter to her”. That is when I noticed her daughter standing in the back of the car, no seat belt.
I left her with “I dont matter to you and it appears neither does your daughter”.
Massive swearing as I drove off.
The sad thing is it is an almost daily occurrence to see driving like this. People just do not care anymore.
I’m not sure many people welcome honest feedback on their driving, whether from professionals, friends or strangers.
It’s one thing when you have some lazy habits, but quite another when you’re going the wrong way down a one-way street with a child in the back standing up. That person should be prosecuted.
Now, has this strayed off-topic slightly? Maybe I can bring it back on track by mentioning the charming woman who undertook me in her Polo just before Adelaide Ave approaching Brockley the other day once the bus lane was available. I wound up sitting beside her at the lights and since we both had our windows down, I politiely enquired whether she was was aware that the speed limit there is now 20mph. “Get a f&£king life” was her response.
Sadly I think the only feedback she’ll accept will come from the boys in blue and will be a lot more expensive and disruptive for her.
Zipcar membership very helpful for this, and much less expensive than owning a car.
Agreed, Zipcar was great when I was a member. We sometimes did struggle to find last-minute availability of cars around us in HOP though. And if I got stuck in traffic and tried to extend the booking, occasionally this would fail because there was an adjacent booking… leading to panic!
“Whose side you’re on”
That’s exactly the problem here. Amongst non-drivers (and perhaps the council staff that authorised the 20mph limits) there will be a lack of understanding of the counter-productive consequences of this policy.
And the “them vs us” tone of your comment suggests an ideological attitude against drivers. A lot of Lewisham residents rely on vehicles for their work. Or have legitimate reasons to use them outside work.
I’m also against drink driving. Is that ideological? Don’t be such a snowflake
Post of the year so far. Sorry Chris
I remember a lot of speculation about why the new speed limit was counter-productive, but I don’t remember any evidence. Can someone point me to some?
Aside from the environmental impact and congestion from keeping cars on the road for up to 33% longer, some recent statistics don’t look good for 20 mph limits:
Although in this case the overall casualties went down (as they did across the country in a more general trend).
It would be interesting to see a study that looked into the impact on lifesaving ambulances and police cars of being stuck in traffic caused by 20mph limits too. And deaths via the pollution impact.
I think the consensus of studies is that traffic calming works:
http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail/?id=246
Our press love to highlight any studies that are outliers. Sorry @anon5422159
I suppose 20mph signs are probably better use of Council funds than this from my hometown Southend-on-Sea:
If this is actually true, their entire procurement department should be fired for not calling a halt to this purchase long before it got to the contract stage.
I say ‘if’ because, as a financial and business journalist, I’m very sceptical of these ‘cost’ figures that get bandied about. As for the £100,000 statutory penalty - source?
It may be worth noting that the site is a spoof site.
The photograph is probably real, but I have my doubts about Councillor Guusfat, the £25,000 price tag, and Southend.
Still, no worse than quoting The Canary, Breitbart, or The Express.
I think if we dog into the casualty figures quite a lot of the casualties where causes by drivers not sticking to the 20mph limit. I will try and dig out the report. Also any emergency vehicle is not subject to the limit so he it 20 or 30 mph they can still get through traffic where possible. Lastly, I cannot think of many areas around here where you can do more than 20 mph due to the sheer weight of traffic. Doesn’t stop people though, I keep checking that someone hasn’t changed our 20 mph sign to a 60 mph one as most drivers seem to do that.
Thanks for the response, @anon5422159. I seem to remember that the average traffic speed in London is less that 20 mph, so the 20 mph limit would likely reduce pollution due to a reduction in accelerating and braking behaviour.
I’ve posted before about this. The issue isn’t the 20mph limit - it’s the enforcement (or lack thereof) and the fact that on single roads we now have a two-tier speed system. On the one hand, people travelling at 20 - a decent speed on most roads in SE23; on the other hand, people travelling in excess of 30.
I agree with Chris - conventional cars travelling at 20 will pollute more than a car travelling at 30. They’re on the road for longer to cover the same distance, which means the engine is running for longer. These limits are environmentally costly (as, incidentally are speed bumps which encourage speeding up and slowing down) but they’re not about reducing pollution, are they?
If you hit someone at 20, they’re much less likely to be killed or seriously injured than at 30 or 40mph (though I’d prefer not to hit anyone at all). And for that reason, 20 is a good idea. Theoretically it should also help with congestion with the theory being that traffic should flow better for speed being regulated rather than stopping and starting, but I don’t think that London traffic flows at all well (that’s to do with road layouts and the plethora of traffic lights we have).
More vulnerable road users should, again in theory, be better off. 20 isn’t that much faster than most regular cyclists will be travelling and there’s less chance of a knock / sideswipe with cars going more slowly.
To my mind the problem is that the borough-by-borough piecemeal implementation has (as ever) been a bonanza for those who sell traffic signs and road paint, but there has been little or no education of the driving population about what they should be doing and why. It’s not often you’ll hear me say it, but I think someone needs to spend a lot more money on marketing and advertising in this case. And it needs to be co-ordinated across London.
Just painting numbers on the road isn’t enough - we need to change the perception of speed so that going too fast in your car is considered as anti-social and unacceptable as drinking and driving.
Maybe worth another thread, but I like the honesty and transparency of the mayor in Paris, who openly admits that the objective there is to reduce the number of cars on the road by 50% rather than hiding behind a fig leaf of safety.
That’s admirable honesty.
[obvious point regarding population growth and congestion redacted]
@moderators - this seems to be an overtly political point (and an example of correlation without apparent causation). Should this be edited / moved?
But it could also be said that in having to accelerate to 30mph you are using more fuel and also causing more pollution in doing so. But then I drive a bunny kissing tree hugging Volvo so feel smug at many differing speeds
Given that Chris acknowledged the subject has been discussed at length in Politicos I’m inclined to let it slide. Pulling up every passing comment that could be construed as political is not always helpful to maintaining flow in the forum. On the other hand, I wouldn’t encourage anyone start pursuing an off-topic subject here. The discussion so far has been informed and informative. Carry on.
Air pollution is obviously a problem in London but is there any evidence that 20 mph limits (if people stick to them) cause greater pollution. I don’t think there is.
It can be argued and demonstrated that in fact the reverse might be true…
Research in Germany has shown that the greater the speed of vehicles in built-up areas, the higher is the incidence of acceleration, deceleration, and braking, all of which increase air pollution. German research indicates that traffic calming reduces idle times by 15%, gear changing by 12%, brake use by 14%, and gasoline use by 12% (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39–40). This slower and calmer style of driving reduces emissions, as demonstrated by an evaluation in Buxtehude, Germany. Table E-1 shows the relative change in emissions and fuel use when the speed limit is cut from 50kmh (31mph) to 30kmh (19mph) for two different driving styles. Even aggressive driving under the slower speed limit produces lower emissions (but higher fuel use) than under the higher speed limit, although calm driving produces greater reductions for most emissions and net fuel savings (Newman and Kenworthy 1992, 39 –40).
Admittedly this research is not that modern so if anyone had any research to counter it then I’d like to see it. There is research that suggest traffic calming in the way of road humps do increase emissions slightly.
Luckily cyclists are not legally bound by speed limits (morally maybe!)
To minimise pollution we should drive a steady 55mph
IMHO the impact of the new limit on pollution can only be answered empirically and there are a lot of conflicting effects to consider and MPG and time on the road really aren’t going to capture it.
Actually, to minimise pollution, don’t drive!
Agreed re empirical approach. Project for someone with time on their hands. There are diffusion tubes on Stondon Park and also intersection of Brockley Rise/South circ, I believe. Get daily NOx and other pollutant details from Lewisham (probably using FoI request) and plot against time. If speed limit has had an affect should notice this on the Stondon Park device but adjust baseline for any movement from South Circ (where speed limit has not changed) to remove other bias.
All a bit of a sideshow though. It saves lives through prevention, and impact, of accidents. See RoSPA article posted up thread on this.
If the 20 mph is enforced, then it may slowly take hold - you will only need a majority of people to uphold it to enforce it on the remaining drivers. I wonder if people will be less inclined to rat-run through narrow suburban streets and wait it out on the south circular instead.
Doubt it, look at the sheet amount of people who still drive and use mobile phones despite a large fine and six points.
Sadly, I suspect that people will be more likely to speed on the quieter roads. There’s both less chance of enforcement and more chance of spotting someone with a speed gun.
The limit makes no difference to our street, which has been in the PV 20mph zone for a number of years now. Rarely do I walk down the street without someone coming off the South Circ and blasting down the street at 30+. And what can we do? There are already sleeping policemen which do no good at all.
I am truly horrified at the speed people drive up Forest Hill Road, past the school on the corner, and down Honor Oak Park. I walk my kids up there every day and on the corner we basically run because I am convinced one of these crazy drivers is going to lose control and hit us. The other day, when it was SNOWING, someone drove up and over the hill and down onto Hengrave Road without indicating going at least 30MPH if not faster, nearly hitting someone crossing the road. I don’t drive often, but do those little smiley faces that show you how fast you’re going actually work? Or do people who are determined to drive fast really not give a S**t and will drive fast no matter what?
I absolutely agree with you re that stretch @fran. In fact the run up/down the hill on HOP can be a bit of a speedway too - I think that this has been mentioned on here before. Not sure what the answer is, especially as there are 2 councils involved. Ironically, Neighbourhood Planning could have addressed this… (slaps own hand)
The school has asked both Lewisham and Southwark multiple times to address this but neither of them seem to care because it is on the far reaches of their boundaries. The other big bug bear there is parents and delivery vans pulling up on the wide bit on the pavement to drop kids/deliveries off with no regard to who is walking past. I shout at someone pretty much every day but the council don’t want to put a fence or posts there. One day I am going to install a massive flower pot there with a sign saying ‘ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL OUR CHILDREN?’ (not really).
The research might not be modern but the laws of physics haven’t changed. Of course any petrolhead would always dispute this very fact, but congestion has nothing to do with the speed limit. In fact, the additional time due to the reduced speed limit is most likely negligible in the context of the very low average speeds anyway due to the omnipresent stationary traffic.
I agree that the key problem is the lack of enforcement. I’d be in strong favour of handing greater powers to councils to do their own speed enforcement and using the receipts from fines to improve road safety and curb pollution - a classic win-win, although no doubt the Daily Mail wouldn’t approve.
“People relying on their cars” is to a great extent a lifestyle choice, there are indeed very few people strictly relying on cars in London, at least for private use.
What would stop councils from setting the limit at 10mph as a cynical ploy to raise money via fines?
The incentives here are stacked heavily against the driver.
These schools and houses we want built - the materials will not arrive in the hands of bicyclists. They will arrive in trucks, along with a lot of other vital services we need for our local economy. Driving is not just vital for some, but a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice for others, and the council should not disrupt drivers and spend £1M+ of our money unless they have very strong evidence that proves their argument.
The ROSPA numbers just don’t tally with the behavioural changes shown in studies cited on this thread. Barely a 1mph reduction in speed - this would not cause a dramatic fall in accidents.
If traffic was already travelling at 20mph or less, then Lewisham Council just wasted £1M+ of our money.
That money could have been spent on boosting police numbers. Actual enforcement, tackling all causes of road accidents: bad driving, not just “fast” driving (25mph, lol!).
@Forethugel was sugggesting local enforcement powers rather than local legislative powers.
Also, an average speed doesn’t reflect the distribution of speeds within the borough. @anon5422159, I feel that you are taking tips from politicians and distorting some truths here.
A new data point:
This is an interesting test case - some areas in Manchester got the limits, and some didnt.
And the areas without 20mph limits saw a larger decrease in accidents.
These findings ought to make uncomfortable reading for those that spent over £1M of taxpayers money on Lewisham’s 20mph limits.
The issue I have with the 20 mph limit is that I spend more time watching my speed than the road, not a great idea.
I suspect there is a large sample selection bias here and the interpretation that lower limits does not decrease the number of accidents is flawed. The 20mph limit was (presumably) not introduced on randomly selected roads, but on certain types of roads, with different users and conditions.
Additionally we are only told about the number of accidents, not the severity of them.
I gather Lewisham intend to monitor the efficacy of the 20mph speed limit until March 2018.
I believe Sadiq Khan is also supportive of the policy. Hardly surprising as Tooting, part of his old constituency was an early adopter. Anyways, I was at a conference this week where a speaker from TfL spoke a bit to this and to the hotly anticipated London Transport Plan which will link to the Mayor’s London plan.
In part to address pollution as well as congestion, London and subsequent Mayors since Livingstone have attempted to shift transport modal share away from cars. Apparently they’ve been successful, decreasing modal share from 48% to 37% since 2000, an effort only bettered globally by Chicago. Yeah London!!! However, the TfL presenter was clear that a reduction in accidents, while important was not a key consideration. Lower speeds would encourage more people onto bicycles or into walking encouraging better health. I was even surprised to hear that encouraging people onto trains and buses also increased physical activity on a daily basis… 8-15 minutes per journey as opposed to less than 1 for cars. Cars currently account for half of the congestion on London roads, but only 1/5th of passengers. Lower speeds are expected to encourage disgruntled drivers into alternative modes of transport. And while TfL accepted that around 1/3rd of car journeys are unavoidable, at least 2/3rds were unnecessary in context of alternatives.
By the way, I’m not advocating on behalf of Lewisham’s 20mph speed limit. Though as a non-car driver I’m perhaps not quite as sympathetic to the plight of drivers as others may be. But based on what I understand, there is more at play then simply reducing road accidents. And it appears to be a national issue which is gaining traction at local and regional governments from both sides of the political spectrum. I doubt this news from Manchester is worrying anyone too much. And I wonder when this will become national policy?
But council chiefs say speeds have not changed significantly where the new limit has been introduced - and on some roads they have actually gone up.
Without policing of the lowered speed limit, I doubt that anyone was surprised that the new 20 mph limit was effectively ignored. People in London may be more likely to refrain from using their mobiles while driving today than they were six months ago; this is not due to an increase in awareness of the dangers that they pose (they still think that they can multitask fine) or even the increase in the severity of the penalties, but because they know that policing has increased and they fear being caught.
Cycling accidents have dropped 42pc across Manchester since 2012, but in the areas with 20mph limits the figure is between 12pc and 16pc.
I think that the above fact should be ignored. A decrease of cycling accidents of between 12pc and 16pc in the new 20 mph zones after a decrease in the average motor speed of just 0.7 mph indicates that there have been other infrastructure initiatives, or a general awareness campaign.
The article shows an image of Meltham Avenue in Withington (reproduced below). The scene struck me as having quite wide roads, low levels of parked traffic that can hide pedestrians from motorists and also a moderate housing density.
As the se23 forum brings together Honor Oak and Forest Hill, I took Devonshire Road as a metaphorical equivalent and example, dropping a pin in its middle and looking on Google Streetview (image below). I don’t want to labour the point, but one of these streets has a greater density of residents, more schools in locality, narrower pavements, narrower roads, more parked cars to hide pedestrians from cars and vice versa. If you think that the road in the below image is suitable for a 30 mph speed limit, please say so. If you think that the road in the below image is too narrow for a driver to attain 30 mph on, please take some time to observe it when traffic is relatively busy and drivers and accelerating, braking and swerving into passing spaces.
In my mind I heard a microphone drop.
Your comment makes a lot of sense @Starman - and you’re honest about the real motivations behind these policies.
But this awkward state-led “stick” approach to changing transport culture… will it make people’s day-to-day lives more efficient, and more pleasant?
The campaign against drivers appears to be successfully shifting us into the armpits of fellow rail users on overcrowded public transport…
Yeah London… 
OR… it might mean that 20mph limits are causing divergent driving styles within 20mph zones (some driving at 20mph, others at 30mph+ – with all the dangerous conflict that results).
We’re comparing similar areas in the same city, and we’ve seen a 40% drop in accidents outside of 20mph limit zones (vs a 12-16% drop within). That’s statistically significant and we definitely need to probe deeper here to find out more about this discrepancy.
Before the 20mph limits came along, I was using my judgement as a qualified driver to work out the safe speed for each road situation. And I always drove at 20mph or below in narrow residential roads.
Now I find myself focussing more on signs, speed bumps and cameras than I focus on pedestrians, parked cars and schools. I’m not saying this is the correct behaviour - I’m just being honest, and I think other drivers are probably similar.
Chris, unlike you, I am a terrible driver who is always in a hurry and plays music in my car from Spotify on my Bluetooth linked phone that I keep in a cup holder.
Anecdotes about you and me, and our self-perceived behaviours are fine to give out, but should not be relied upon to evidence a point.
If this is the case, then you’re probably driving too fast
Doesn’t look new to me. Looks distinctly second hand.
Given the original structure dates from the 14th century it may well be more than second hand.
Not excusing these idiots for one moment. But has anyone considered that 20mph limits might making aggressive drivers worse?
I think an aggressive driver would be aggressive no matter what the speed is. Some people get into a car and feel invincible. Sadly, with a lack of roads policing over the last few years people who wouldn’t ordinarily think of driving or behaving badly do, because there is no one to stop them.
So a) the speed of the car in front and b) your desire to overtake it?
Two completely unrelated things?
Not really no. There are very few opportunities in FH and it’s surrounds to do so anyway. If someone is tootling along at 5mph, sure, go for an overtake if safe. Sitting on someones arse isnt going to help as the traffic is usually so bad that getting frustrated is hardly worth it. Also, if you feel the need to go faster then you should have left home earlier. It’s people in small two seater sports cars I find the worst! 
Hence why the d-bags are mounting the pavement, I fear
“Small”??? Compared to your tractor maybe! 
Problem is, D-Bags will mount the pavement regardless of traffic. Some people are just d*cks. Ask yourself the question, can you actually go any faster on the majority of roads in London? I certainly couldnt as there was a big stretch of traffic most times. Getting wound up in traffic, then consider another method of travel as it will only be getting worst.
Small cars, yep. I drive a 4x4 now so it’s tiny!!!
Best advice ever.
I don’t know if 20mph encourages the D-bag in some people… maybe though. A bit of a "oh ffs, 20mph, what a load of bs… I’m not listening to that crap… " mentality. But probably it’s just a case of the average person used to 30mph in residential areas wondering just not seeing the need to drive so slowly down wide roads with good visibility both sides.
I actually think the width of the roads encourages speeding more, that’s a personal theory though. Brings out the inner racer, the freedom and liberty of space and a wide open road. Just like being in a crappy car advert.
I agree the width of the road has some impact for sure, especially when quiet. Driving along some roads, Sydenham Road can be borderline painful.
As a cyclist I see a lot of frustrated drivers, the ones who make me laugh the most are the ones following me impatiently at 20-24mph in a 20! For them to have passed, as the speed they do, they must be way over.
You will always have the people who are more important and need to get there quicker than you, but unless you have blue lights and a suitable job title, you can drive like the rest of us.
Of course this is nothing new, we still have roads full of light jumpers, puller outers (people who calmly pull across your path, speeders, idiot parkers, and basically a poor standard of driver. That said, there are some fantastic and very patient drivers too, I thank many each day on my ride to and from work.
I see the monitoring equipment has been installed on certain roads where there is concern, like Perry Vale. Sadly it is almost at the roundabout so will show a much slower average speed than it would further up. Maybe this is to be used a stats for success and showing how the average speed has dropped, all thanks to the efforts of the signs!
And while all that is going on, there is STILL a flashing matrix sign outside Brockley Cemetery which still incorrectly activates and flashes 30MPH ! Errm, wrong!
In short, I am still underwhelmed by the scheme, but expect to see lots of traffic calming installed soon.
I do think that the limit incites aggressive drivers to drive poorly if the car ahead is following the 20mph - I’ve seen cars overtake on the ‘wrong side’ of a traffic island on a blind bend - just to get past. But it’s not just that - there are times that cars scream down London Road from the Horniman Lights down towards the Grove at well over 40mph. I also cycle to work and the vast majority of drivers are considerate and I give far more thank you waves than mutters under my breath.
Most people though don’t like being held up and any time at a standstill or going slowly feels frustrating. I am sure that all road users groan if a light turns amber as you approach. Logically we know that it might add 30 seconds to our journey but grrrr! I do think they should look at rephasing the traffic lights to encourage people driving at 20mph to find them mostly green wherever possible
We could probably all do with being a bit more patient - particularly given average traffic speeds in London. Today I cycled home from Victoria and met a furniture van in the first 200m. We swapped positions on the road at various lights all the way till Brixton when we split. In many ways that’s ridiculous, that an average cyclist (with 10kg of shopping on board) can keep up with a truck in urban traffic.
Some boroughs use chicanes to narrow the road and reduce speeding.
By far one of the most effective ways for sure.
I did suggest a narrowing on Perry Vale also, as from experience, with a priority flow direction, they are effective, and far less damaging than humps and bumps.
It’d be a good way to improve the ‘pedestrian crossing’ at the station entrance.
It’s all cost, though. As many others have said, the issue with the Lewisham 20mph limit isn’t the idea itself, it’s that the only investment has been in paint and small signs, rather than adapting the roads sensibly. I was overtaken dangerously by an eejit last week while I was sticking to the limit on Mayow Road - he didn’t care that there were roundels everywhere and “20” repeatedly painted on the road. The only thing which would have stopped him would have been a kerb.
Indeed, and something I have again mentioned before. Allowing free flowing traffic FROM the South Circ, reaching the raised area, and narrowing, safer / easier / quicker to cross, reduced traffic speed… There is plenty of room there for one, with the traffic coming from Dacres giving way, there is a good sight line for them.
Could easily do a test one with the red and white water barriers. No lights, just a couple of barriers and signs.
[quote=“Dave, post:180, topic:748”]
It’s all cost, though
[/quote]Does Lewisham actually apply for money that is available?
Chicanes and road narrowing work still don’t stop aggressive drivers - they just speed up between them. And they really don’t help cyclists - either the road is narrower in places which doesn’t feel safe or where cars are forced to pull over to let oncoming traffic through (e.g. where there are lots of parked cars) it often means that cars rush to overtake you between chicanes before pulling over in front of you and stopping either of you continuing. Railton Road between Herne Hill and Brixton got them a couple of years ago and has become less pleasant to ride as a result - and still doesn’t make people keep to 20mph.
Road policing stops fast aggressive drivers. Problem is, there isn’t any road policing any more.
True! Wasn’t there talk at one point of letting councils enforce speed restrictions and traffic light violations and allow them to take a cut of the fines to help fund it?
There was, but it didn’t happen. Recently though there has been a more citizen approach with the police. Chris Beach was armed with a speed gun and a PCSO. He was discouraged from wearing his Bat Suit.
I thought we were talking about wide roads. Isn’t Railton narrow?
As a driver and ex-cyclist (cycling around London for 35 years) I definitely favour chicanes. I used to hate cycling over humps, having to stand up off the saddle at each hump. As a driver I hate humps - constant gear changing, potential suspension damage, and I know I am causing noise pollution and air pollution trying to keep to 20 MPH and slowing down for every hump and speeding back up.
A major factor is - which you will not know about if you don’t live next to a hump - when a heavy vehicle goes over a hump, there is vibration into nearby buildings.
It’s only narrow because of the parking on either side.
I do understand your comment on humps and heavy vehicles as my flat shakes regularly when HGVs use the road as a cut through. I am sure it can’t be great for the building!
If you go down to Thornton Heath, just after Crystal Palace Triangle, you turn right then left, (ie not past the Palace Ground) half way down that hill there is a vehicle activated speed limit sign (its also a 20 zone), but this one has camera magic and ANPR, so if displays your number plate details. Surly something life this could be linked directly to something to automatically issue FPNs.
From the Department for Transport:
In 2016:
• 46% of cars exceeded the speed limit on motorways
• 8% of cars exceeded the speed limit on national single carriageways
• 53% of cars exceeded the speed limit on 30mph roads
• 81% of cars exceeded the speed limit on 20mph roads
So, I would suggest that 20mph aren’t worht the metal or tarmac their written on. Sadly, rather than set limits appropriate for the roads, we seem to be the victim of someone’s pet project which clearly isn’t working.
Local democracy in action there…
The boys and girls in blue were out this morning with speed guns and pulling people over on my road going over the 20 mph limit.
Good to see.
Did you get nabbed on your bike?
I’d actually like enforcement of the 7.5t limit too.
Too early in the morning for my old legs to break 20 mph!
Interesting reading the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) guidance on policing 20mph zones, from 2013:
The updated 2015 guidelines are basically the same:
https://www.cambs.police.uk/roadsafety/docs/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf
If anyone has more recent updates from ACPO, please share.
That is why there are regular signs on the road surface and beside the road. Sat nav systems (e.g. Waze) also tell you what the speed limit is on the road.
If you are stopped by the police and claim you were not aware of the speed limit, they will probably give you a penalty notice for driving without due care and attention. But they are unlikely to give you a ticket for driving at 30 mph - it can happen but not very often.
The whole purpose of this project is not to reduce speeds to below 20mph, but to head that way rather than motorists routinely traveling at 40mph or more on minor roads.
Worth noting that not all sat navs are accurate. Mine, which is google based (Audi Connect) thinks that Dartmouth Road, for example, is still 30. Maybe it’s observed speed limit rather than actual…
I recall after Cranston Road was reduced to 20 and totally ignored by virtually everyone we later got a letter from the council proudly announcing that average speed had been reduced to 27 mph (or thereabouts). I think the average speed had gone down by 2mph!
Average speed down by 2mph. And 99% of drivers are suddenly “offenders” in a farce that demeans the term. Great success!
IMO the answer to making roads safer is to get PCSOs out on the beat, observing the spectrum of dangerous driving behaviour. Slapping 20mph signs everywhere and hoping for the best - that’s just idealism.
100% agree. A 20mph sign does nothing to people who ignore it.
There is very little speeding through 20 and 30 mph villages up here because there are both citizen and police operating. It has been mentioned that the police up here are able to do so as there are more of them and less crime, not so.
Unbelievable. This is basically a free for all to ignore the speed limit, it’s utterly ridiculous.
I agree that roads should be “self-explanatory”, but it’s just not consistently achievable, and never will be in a million years. That’s why someone decided it’s a good idea to put the limit on a sign and stick it next to the road - a concept that people understand around the globe.
The only way to educate drivers who routinely speed is through severe pain in their wallet. This does not happen, so people keep doing it. As fast as possible is the norm in London rather than the exception, bar those areas that got fifty odd short horizontal lines painted on the road. The Association of British Petrol Heads Drivers agrees with that approach (except for the lines). Sticking a 20mph sign up and saying it won’t be enforced is like kindly asking the robber to not steal anymore!
Leading by example is another way of course - and it would work wonders if more people did it. The few times I happen to drive down Brockley Rise, I meticulously stick to the 20mph limit. I always get there in the end, usually as quick, and it makes me feel much more relaxed too.
We decided that 30mph was a sensible limit in built-up areas and thus for many decades, every single driver in the UK has been taught this limit before being granted a license. There is little need to signpost 30mph areas because this is the default limit in built-up areas. The limit that all drivers are taught to abide.
For a local council to buck this, and thus have to put £1.3M worth of signs in our local area (to be ignored by nearly all) is hugely questionable. It risks making a mockery of all speed limits, not just those at 20mph.
Prosecuting any driver for travelling at 25mph is farcical, which is why I support the police’s Community Road Watch efforts, which do not impose fines on people for travelling at 25mph, but instead put a visible police presence on key streets, making all drivers think carefully about how they’re driving. Speed is just one element of safe road use.
You might find it relaxing, but I’m not sure the ambulance driver trapped in needless gridlocked traffic behind you would feel the same.
If just everyone did it then there wouldn’t be an issue, but that’s not the case.
Secondly, the world has moved on since decades ago and for at least the last 20 years it has been consensus that the preferential treatment of car traffic prevalent until the 80s is outdated and has no place in modern urban transport. Indeed, 20mph in residential areas is increasingly becoming the norm on residential streets in most countries in the western world. The fact that most streets in London are factually residential doesn’t help here and is probably the actual issue, and I can see how this is annoying to some.
In particular, there is the often-cited evidence that the chance to survive being hit by a vehicle travelling 30mph is disproportionately larger than at 20mph - so the main case is safety here.
Driving at 20mph does not cause gridlock, but constant accelerating and breaking does. Which is why for instance motorways have variable speed limits. I would also have thought that you ought to make way to an ambulance behind at the next opportunity, rather than staying ahead of it but driving faster.
Says whom?
Academia.
Transport planners around the world.
Probably the evidence from most streetscape redevelopments occurring in the last 20 years on the western hemisphere. Even London is starting to grasp this.
It doesn’t cause gridlock if everyone overtakes the one driver travelling at 20mph.
But overtaking on narrow London roads is very dangerous.
This anecdote is an interesting counter-point:
The 20mph experiment is interesting from a scientific point of view. There are all sorts of side effects that emerge. If it is shown empirically to be counter-productive, we must set aside our ideology about “preferential treatment of cars” and restore 30mph limits for the public good.
So no actual motorists, more groups with an interest in making money then.
I am sure if I had the time and inclination I would be able to find academics, transport planners and streetscape developers who disagree with you but such is life.
Can I ask why a blanket 20 mph limit is a good idea when, as Chris has already said, academics, streetscape developers etc were quite happy with 30 mph limits? We also seem to have forgotten that cars themselves are safer, my bunny hugging Volvo stops automatically when any myopic iPhone users make a bold dash across the road without looking.
Once again the many are disadvantaged because of the few.
We’re not citing this stupid article again, are we? The article doesn’t mention one piece of data which doesn’t have a glaring hole in it. It probably takes some skill to take facts and obfuscate them so effectively.
Is it stupid because you dont like it and it doesnt reflect you views or something else?
No, it’s stupid because it provides near irrelevant data which have been derived from relevant, but not provided, data.
Irrelevant? The number of accidents has fallen across Manchester, but fallen less in 20 mph zones than in 30 mph zones. It’s a small dataset, but it certainly supports the arguments of those of us who warned about the negative consequences of 20 mph limits.
If you can find better data that refutes this, perhaps share it?
I’m not going to look for better data, but the obvious questions about this stat are:
The article also argues that the new speed limit has had marginal impact on speeds. If this is true then why should we expect anything more than a marginal impact on accidents anyway?
Not having useful data available does not mean we should infer things from useless data.
Irrespective of the arguments for and again the 20 mph speed limit, I love this statement more than I can say. I think it should be engraved at the top of any screen with internet access.
Good questions, both of which Manchester Council must have considered before choosing to halt the rollout of 20 mph limits.
As I’ve argued elsewhere:
I can imagine there is some truth to your 1st and 3rd bullets but I haven’t read that enforcement of 30mph has been de-prioritised and can’t see how de-prioritising 20mph enforcement would lead to worse behaviours than under a 30mph limit.
And of course your arguments need to be weighed up against the argument that many drivers will now drive more slowly and this will reduce the incidence and severity of accidents.
You asked why 20mph zones might see increased accident rates - I mentioned police enforcement because the police chief guidance clearly de-prioritises enforcement within 20mph zones due to the inappropriate limits. Reduced enforcement will lead to more dangerous driving behaviour.
I wasn’t talking about enforcement within 30mph limits.
Are you referring to the ACPO guidance article you posted?
I took the article to mean that they will chose when to enforce the new 20mph limits, but not that this would mean enforcement becoming more relaxed than pre Sep-2016 (even in ‘20mph zones’).
If someone could put together a list of which SE23 roads “feel and look like a 20mph zone rather than a zone with a 30mph or higher limit” I’m sure many of us would find it useful.
Yup.
I see your interpretation, but don’t believe that they are suggesting only enforcing any kind of driving standards “where the limit is obvious to drivers”
Seems the 20mph blight continues to spread to other boroughs. Quite irritating when switching from one borough to another, where the neighbouring borough doesn’t need to post obvious speed signs as mentioned above, 30 is the assumed limit.
Lovely to see places like Perry Vale where the average hasn’t dropped, embellished with “Thank you for driving safely” signs. More money, thanking people for nothing. Well done Lewisham.
Still seems to me like more thought is needed on these zones. Especially when the speed activated matrix on Brockley Road STILL flashes up with 30mph in the middle of a 20mph.
Can’t wait for the next phase to start, the traffic calming measures. Thank heavens for cycling.
Cannot wait for 20mph in Forest hill. It scares the life out of me when lorries turn on South Circular road to the left, opposite the WHSmith on high spreed. Sometimes i step back hoping it may save me if a lorry flips over, but of course there are hardly any chances of survival if happens that a lorry looses control and flips over. Some drivers are mad, not all of them, very few of them but because of those few people have to suffer.
That is a Red Route and will remain 30mph. The rest of Forest Hill other than the red routes are already 20mph.
Shame, why do people need 20mph on quiet roads when cars are driven like mad on the main roads where most accidents happen?
Main roads are for the movement of the majority of traffic volumes, smaller roads are mainly residential where people cross and children play.
The borough is already slowing down badly due to the borough wide 20mph, especially on more major roads. The last thing it needs is to be even slower.
The speed of large vehicles is always exaggerated by perception due to their large size and close proximity. I’m pretty sure most lorries are not doing much more than 20 around that corner.
Slowing traffic down or people’s lifes and safety…hm…what a choice.
Far from it. I think that dangerous parts of the roads should have 20mph speed limit, like the one opposite WHSmith. No need to lower the speed limit everywhere, it will be silly. City and town roads are not motorways at the end of the day and drivers should be careful and considered when driving.
Some parts of roads, like the one you suggest, have naturally imposed speed limits, being the maximum speed it is possible to navigate the corner. As I say, larger vehicles are unlikely to occur exceed 20 due to the angle of the corner.
Speed is not a killer, the vehicle is, and the manner in which it is driven. Speed and stupidity are not the same thing. Sadly the latter is the the largest contributor to accidents.
While other countries raise and lower speed limits at what seems like 100 metre segments at a time, this is both costly and impractical. Of course lives matter. Given the footfall on that piece of road vs accidents, I would say it’s a pretty safe spot. Except for when idiots refuse to wait for the lights to change, or commuters play chicken 20ft from the crossing.
TfL do actually have a few sections of their RR which is 20mph, New Cross for one, but I get the impression that it is not an ideal at all.
While I despise the borough wide roll out of this limit, I can appreciate it is needed in some spots. The danger now is those too impatient to drive at that speed, recklessly over taking.
If any reconsideration is to be had, I would say it was to UP the speed limit back to 30 on certain roads, such as Brockley Rise through to Lewisham Way for example. Sadly I don’t think their assessment and adapt phase has this in mind for a second.
not exactly persuaded by that. Is that the NewsShopper known nationally for its authoritative research studies or perhaps a different one? Agree it would be interesting to see local consultation outcomes but wonder how representative of wider opinion it would be. I’ll drop that national study here so we can see it on this thread. http://www.bristolhealthpartners.org.uk/latest-news/2017/10/16/public-support-for-20mph-limits-holds-firm-new-study-reveals/961
“However, approximately half of those surveyed agreed 20mph speed limits will be ignored by many drivers so are of limited benefit and that limits will not be policed or enforced effectively.”
What do we want? More ineffective and widely ignored measures! When do we want it? Now!
The question asked on that study was “do you support the introduction of 20mph speed limits in busy streets”
Not “do you support a borough-wide 20mph limit regardless of road type”
The study is barely relevant.
Seems entirely relevant. 64% supported introduction in residential roads. A large majority. I do not see why Lewisham residents would give a different result in a study of this type. And we learn that accident rates fall even with the 2mph small reductions in speed. And that likely compliance to limits claimed by drivers is increasing over time. These seem some good reasons to stick with this policy and keep monitoring these promising outcomes and driver behaviour.
The data collected from various 20mph experiments over the country has been patchy, and certainly hasn’t always supported the introduction of blanket 20mph limits.
The Manchester one is interesting and recent.
The reason I picked this up this afternoon is that you mentioned the 20mph limit is unpopular as though this were accepted generally and I did not believe this to be true. Among the general population we can now see it is popular - people want lower speeds where they live work and play, and that to me means residential roads too. I do get why many motorists don’t like it though.
More up to date data and interim analysis on the 3 yr national research for the DfT here for interest. http://www.pacts.org.uk/2017/08/atkins-research-on-20mph-limit-areas-interim-results/
As others have said, it’s completely ineffective without enforcement. As a driver, I hate driving up Perry Vale at 20mph with every driver behind me too close, hassling and trying to over take. As a cyclist I am alarmed by the speed that some drivers do on Perry Vale, definitely more than 20 and probably more that 30. It’s pointless having the lower limit if people know it won’t be enforced.
yes I share that experience both as a driver and as a cyclist. I remember some of the very earliest Perry Vale Assemblies where speed was identified as the major issue residents wanted to be addressed. We would have been happy with a 20mph limit but naively expected that it would be enforced in some way.
In Perry Vale I think I drive around up to 25mph - whereas before the limit I would stick at 30 ish. This sometimes gets me tailgated, but I reckon if I support the limit then I should act like it too - maybe I have some responsibility here, and can’t just look to others to make it happen. The more of us who make an effort, the more we can gradually influence others around us to accept this as normal. We know that this limit has great popular support. Why don’t I drive at 20mph ? Because like you I find that seems to induce some drivers to attempt unsafe overtaking. It’s my compromise I suppose.
My own behaviour change seems quite representative of the average driver. Nationally, one of the research studies mentioned above says that:- ‘Evidence suggests 20mph limits result in a decrease in average driving speeds of between one or two miles per hour, and studies of speed limit reductions across the world imply that this reduction in speed would lead to a drop in collisions of between six per cent and 12 per cent.’
For me, that’s one very promising outcome, that is a very significant drop in accidents, with savings for the many agencies and families who get caught up in them.
I think it takes time for public health and social innovations to stick, and to get general public acceptance. Compliance with limits, new or old has never been 100%. There will always be drivers in a tearing hurry, people who just don’t care and late night boy racers. We had another quite serious looking accident in Perry Vale just a week or so ago, and from the look of the car damage I doubt the limit had any impact at all.
Reading around this, traffic management experts have considered evidence and different approaches. The most cost effective way of achieving a mass change in speed is to do signage only across all the roads - which is what Lewisham has done. If it is true that overall collisions are reduced by that amount, then it represents very good social value - in terms of reduced health costs, loss of life, injuries, jobs and so on.
Reinforcing limits through infrastructure (humps, pedestrian crossings etc) is very expensive, and it looks as though they can only be done on a small scale where there is a particular need. eg accident blackspots, rat runs. General enforcement does not look like a priority for the police…
There’s one other outcome that is quoted in these studies; that is though the average reduction is 1-2%. it is on the roads where much higher speeds were previously encountered that the biggest difference happens. In a road like Perry Vale that might mean something like an average of 35 mph before the new limit and somewhere under 30mph with the new limit.
This would be an improvement for the people who live work and play here.
Some more data just came in:
Chris, you forgot to quote the bit that says:
A nationwide review of 20mph limits published by the The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) last month concluded: “A large number of evaluation studies have demonstrated a link between the introduction of 20mph zones and a subsequent reduction in casualties. The size of the reductions and the consistency of results over a wide number of areas are further evidence for this link.”
Does a nationwide study not trump a local study?
The article points out that the experience of Bath council and others “is reflective of the national situation.”
And of course I respect that RoSPA may have a different take on the matter, but you forgot to quote the caveat about the RoSPA findings in the Telegraph article.
And I believe those RoSPA studies may be outdated, and they have since been forced to revise significantly.
This revision illustrates how inaccurate RoSPA’a studies have been, and how real-world data from Manchester, Portsmouth and Bath (all of which show a decrease in safety outcomes) should concern us all.
But one year on, a report has found that the rate of people killed or seriously injured has gone up in seven out of the 13 new 20mph zones.
Which means that in 6 of the 13 areas the rate has reduced. Although 7 is more than 6, it is hardly conclusive evidence and is based on a small area.
So far all that has been proved is that people, papers, and councils will pick and choose statistics that support their viewpoint. (referred to above as the Texas Sharpshooter)
Reduced? Or stayed the same:
Only in two of the 13 areas did safety improve:
Overall it sounds like the 20mph limits were an embarrassing disaster.
Here’s the full report:
Concluding:
So in three areas KSI stats stayed the same (at a rate of zero) - I’m not sure anybody would have expected that to reduce. Three area have reduced KSI rate and seven have seen an increase. Four of the seven have seen KSI rate rise faster than a control area. Not a good report for the effectiveness of 20mph zone, but it is only one set of data (others also exist but so do contrary-indicating stats).
No doubt the larger DfT study will be met with much interest.
It would be interesting to know if these studies measure levels of adoption. If you change the limit from 30 to 20 and drivers largely ignore it (and its rarely enforced) - then how relevant are the results.
The results are interesting because whether or not the 20mph limits are effective or enforced, we’ll still see the negative side-effects (driver anger, divergent driving styles on the same road, diminished respect for speed limits, distraction of signage and bumps, overtaking etc).
And it looks like the negative side effects might be more than speculative…
Perhaps pedestrians thinking cars are driving at up to 20mph when they are actually driving 50% faster is a recipe for accidents.
Our erstwhile Mayor of London, aka BoJo, saying in 2015, provided untrammelled support for the 20mph limit,
“The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: `Lower speeds have the potential to significantly improve road safety while enhancing the environment for walking and cycling. As well as actively supporting and funding the installation of 20mph zones and limits on borough roads across London, we have also been looking at the TfL Road Network to see where further 20 mph limits could provide significant benefits. These locations will help us to better understand the role that 20 mph limits could play going forward.’”
In the same TfL item this was said,
"The six key commitments are:
The key element is “reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on the capital’s roads by 2020”
To be found here -
It’s simple - and as testing as it may seem - reducing speed increases significantly the survive-ability of those struck by motor vehicles.
Precisely, hence the importance of the studies carried out post-implementation.
That does indeed sound like a simplistic view of the policy.
Empirically simple and of immense value.
With national studies having a significantly greater veracity and accuracy over some of the local outputs.
I am waiting to see a car travelling at 20mph! I have tried to stick to 20 and been horned abused and overtaken probably more likely to cause an accident.
The point is - accidents do and will happen. Nothing here increases or decreases that frequency significantly in the short term.
It has to be said that the point that is most relevant is - a child struck in an accident when a vehicle is doing 20mph has a much larger chance of surviving than a child struck by a vehicle at 40mph.
Thought this might be of interest.
Confused? Is that not stating the obvious?
Jonathon
Initial reading of the reports on the report and the report itself is not clear on the answers to these questions.
Where the KSI figures increased, what was the recorded speed of the vehicles involved.in these incidents.
Were any speed limits being observed ? Did all the incidents happen with vehicles doing 20mph ? Are these data present in the analysis ?
I bloody love the 20mph zone. I really like it. 20mph is a much more civilised speed in cities. Most people in Lewisham don’t drive anyway. I don’t know why everyone’s being so down on it.
I agree. I choose not to drive and as a pedestrian I love the 20 mph. If only there would be better enforcement.
It was an interesting read. It’s good to see multiple interpretations of the data.
Particularly interesting, his criticism of the choice of control area. The council chose a control area where the accident rate increased significantly. This means the worsening accident rates in 20mph zones will overall look better (as the control area also exhibited a worsening too).
The author thinks a different control area should have been chosen. In this case, there’s a good chance the overall worsening of safety in 20mph zones would have looked even worse.
The reason I find this odd is that it’s clear that the author wanted to try to show up the study. Yet he hasn’t shown it up, aside from his (accurate) statement that more data is required to build a strong case against 20mph zones.
Also I love the blog author’s title “20mph zones are not causing more deaths” - which seems a very black and white conclusion to reach from a complaint that the Bath study is inconclusive. 
yes fair point - comparable indeed to the motorist lobby fodder Telegraph headline misleading a national audience by drawing an entirely spurious conclusion from this rather flawed local study to support what it wants to be true!
‘Safer’ 20mph zones led to rise in number of road deaths’.
Let’s imagine though that 20 mph really is causing higher KSI’s and the limit needs to go up. Accident rates might plummet if we went to 50mph. Worth a go? at least most people would now drive inside the limit. Don’t think you’d see too many pedestrians and cyclists around - so it would keep them much safer too.
I think it’s probably best to just reset it to a safe 30mph, consistent to the urban speed that all drivers are taught in their driving lessons.
Drivers should observe what’s in front of their windshield and drive at a speed appropriate to the road (as pointed out by the Association of Police Chiefs when they explained why they see enforcing the council’s arbitrary 20mph zones as “inappropriate”).
Safe for the road might be 30mph. It might be 20mph. In some cases it is 15mph. Point is, the driver should not be infantilised. They should be responsible for decisions they make. They should be looking out for cyclists and pedestrians. As opposed to looking out for cameras and speed bumps, and fixating on their speedometer.
The £1.5M spent by the council on impotent signage could have been allocated to the police to help them catch dangerous drivers. It’s a shame that this didn’t happen. But it’s all a learning experience for councils over the country as they evaluate the success and multiple failures of 20mph zoning.
oh well, I do not expect we will agree on this but it’s been quite fun.
the 30mph limit is just as arbitrary as the 20mph one. Set many years ago when city traffic density was a fraction of it’s current level and population too. Behavioural change and retraining in drivers is possible - or perhaps too many drivers are generally too selfish or obstinate to change. Driving lessons teach us to drive safely within the speed limit. Don’t see how we can truly trust drivers to make their own responsible decisions when we see how people drive around here.
It would be very disappointing if lowering the limit does not affect accident rates , but even if it does not, it makes sharing the residential environment with motorists much more tolerable for those who are not driving.
When non-drivers attempt to impose punitive measures on drivers regardless of negative outcomes, I’d argue that the non-drivers are being selfish and obstinate.
It doesn’t matter if you trust them or not.
It doesn’t matter how many signs you put up.
Bad drivers will be bad drivers regardless of what new speed limit is dreamt up by bright sparks in the council and lobby groups.
You fix dangerous road activity (of which speeding is just one) by a visible police presence. Not by ineffective passive-aggressive measures akin to this:
So are you saying there should be no speed limits? No road laws at all? Why does having a 20 mph limit infantilise drivers when a 30 mph one doesn’t? Do traffic lights also do this - After all I am grown up enough to know when it is safe to cycle or drive through a red light!
So you have supporting evidence to prove that all these measures are put in place by non drivers? Be nice to see it.
Policing is hugely expensive and you keep mentioning that we, as a society, have no money - perhaps if drivers could self police a bit more effectively then we wouldn’t need to keep spending money on yet more policing. You even seem to want to spend even more money to change the speed limits back to what they were.
Me I just drive a bit slower or I get on a bike and go as fast or slow as I want. Can’t see much of an issue.
Nope, as I said, the limit should be reset to 30mph. That way, drivers will take it more seriously, and the police will be more willing to enforce it.
It’s evident from comments above that the measures are generally supported by non-drivers and not drivers. It seems pretty likely that the lobby groups for 20mph limits represent non-drivers but I’m happy to be proved wrong.
£1.5M of our earnings was spent on the 20mph zones. I’d simply rather that money had been allocated to the police.
If the pattern observed in Portsmouth, Manchester and Bath holds true countrywide, the £1.5M has not just been wasted but has actually harmed safety outcomes. I’m sure none of us would want that, and if we found our assumptions about 20mph zoning were proved wrong, we’d have the humility to admit it.
Policy-making shouldn’t be ideological.
So you happy for more money to be spend on reverting the limit and you didn’t answer the question on why 20 mph is infantile while 30 is not.
Well you made the original assumption so it is not up to anyone to prove you wrong - it is up to you to prove your assertion or at least provide some evidence rather then speculation.
The data seems incredibly marginal at present and I would be hesitant to make any firm conclusions either way. The Bath figures need much more careful reading but the reporting of them seems to be somewhat tenuous.
I’m sad for any more money to be spent on this saga, but hopefully it’s far cheaper to remove signs and bin them than it is to manufacture and fit them.
In practise, the council didn’t really have £1.5M to spend on the scheme in the first place, and it certainly doesn’t have any more money to remove the scheme now.
I’d happily lend a hand if they wanted help removing the signs. I’m sure a lot of drivers would…
Hopefully other boroughs that still enjoy the standard 30mph limit will observe the mistakes of 20mph limits elsewhere, and less public money will be wasted in future.
In Manchester they were able to halt the 20mph rollout as they’d done a pilot scheme first and seen the outcome. Let’s ensure Lewisham pilots future traffic measures before imposing them borough-wide in future.
Too late, speed limit will stay, there ar no second chances in this country just look at Brexit, at least I am agreeing with the speed limit of 20mph, personally I would like to see the day when drivers start to indicate which would be a start!
There were areas of 20 mph long before this was introduced - my road being one of them but I cannot say if or how they were analysed.
It is one of the most annoying things and I speak as a driver, pedestrian and cyclist. How much effort does it take really…
As a pedestrian I welcome the 20mph limit - it means that traffic should be going slower, giving me more time to cross the road. Surely fewer accidents right?!
but as a motorist, I’ve slowed down, and I realise that not everyone else has slowed down. The studies show that average traffic speed has only dropped by 1.5mph (or something like that…?) - so cars are only going a bit slower, and yet pedestrians are thinking that they’ve got much more time to get across. a recipe for more accidents in total, and therefore, in absolute numbers, an increase in KSI (and possibly a percentage increase in KSI too).
those that aren’t obeying the new limit are being more dangerous than they were previously - again leading, presumably, to more accidents.
my issue with all this is that there’s just too much other stuff going on which might be affecting the no of accidents, KSIs, etc to single out the 20mph introduction as the primary course of any change in numbers.
there are more cars on the road now, generally across the country, than a few years ago, but there are fewer in London, where more people are choosing public transport, or cycling/walking. There are other factors that play into this too.
Very much liking your fridge notes – did they work?
The 20mph decision was made by elected representatives, led by a Green councillor, discussed and voted through by the Mayor and the rest. I would expect that the great majority of councillors use pavements and roads and are also drivers, so this cannot reasonably be seen as a punitive measure led only by non drivers.
Incidentally, 36% of drivers are also cyclists. Most are also pedestrians. So there’s no real them and us here, it’s just us and how we share our roads and the environment around them together.
The policy was introduced with great popular support - limits are very, very popular. In the latest British Social Attitudes reports, only 13% of drivers and 5% of non-drivers were against speed limits of 20 mph on residential streets. Overall, 72% were in favour of 20 mile per hour speed limits in residential streets. So it is clear that the great majority of drivers and non drivers are in favour of this policy or at the very least neutral.
In the expectation that we will be less fearful of using the roads, and of course that safety is enhanced - more reliable evidence awaited.
The 30 mph limit was apparently introduced in the 1930’s. No idea why it was 30mph, but it looks as arbitrary as 20mph to me.
Adding police presence would be great but does not look as though that’s going to happen.
And I agree with you there is far too much ideological policy making about, but it is not this local policy area that’s suffering from it.
Slightly misleading use of stats there. People might well support 20mph limits on small residential roads where appropriate.
How about the attitude reports for borough-wide limits regardless of road category?
Here’s an appraisal of a blanket 20mph limit imposed on a London borough. Not very popular at all:
http://londonroadsafetycouncil.org.uk/some-roads-more-dangerous-as-a-result-of-20mph-limits/
thanks - re my use of stats - I quoted directly from the BSA 's own summary report.
Still its the outcomes that matter. Here’s another thought.
I drive up my road to go shopping in Forest Hill at 20mph. A frustrated eejit in a hurry overtakes me at 30mph and mows down a family crossing the road. This keeps happening nationwide. What is the best response?
It’s nearly Christmas - and so a little light relief.
In the words of the immortal Dave Allen - “Keep death off the roads - drive on the pavement”.
I know, I know - just don’t write.
I have to say that, in my experience of both driving and cycling in the 20 zone, the signage is ineffective on its own. I’ve been overtaken on my bike on Perry Vale by drivers clearly not just doing more that 20 but more than 30. I’ve been dangerously tailgated by drivers when i’ve Been driving at 20, which makes sticking to 20 difficult. At the moment, because in the areas I drive in there are no speed cameras or other enforcement measures, the 20 zone is completely ineffective. Of course it would be much better if everyone did accept and abide by the limit, but safely they don’t and won’t until they know there is a penalty for failure to drive at or below 20. In the meantime, i’m still driving with some idiot right on my bumper, so if I did have to emergency stop for the proverbial child running into the road after the ball, that person would be straight in the back of me. I don’t like the 20 zone, but i’d Happily live with it for safety reasons, but I don’t feel safer as a cyclist and i now feel less safe as a driver. In my view, it has to be enforced to be effective.
I agree with you that 20mph zones are ineffective without enforcement (but think it would be insane for drivers to receive speeding tickets for travelling at 24mph).
The Association of Police Chiefs is also unenthused about enforcing 20mph speed limits set arbitrarily by the council.
A question - would our roads be safer if the £1.23M spent on the 20mph measures had instead been spent on human police enforcement of safe driving within Lewisham (keeping the standard 30mph urban speed limit)?
It is also a legal speed limit. Should a discussion about people wanting to break the law be in the general forum? Would a thread about drink driving be tolerated too?
If the point is specifically about spending priorities, isn’t that for Politicos? As well as being academic as the money has been spent.
£1.5m on signage? Not true. What a very misleading statement. The project budget approved by the Council showed just £100k to be spent on signage.
The overall project budget of £1.23m was spread over the 3 years of that budget , up to 2016/17 and £490k of it was allocated into 2017/18 and beyond. Annualised this is a miniscule part of Lewisham’s budget.
A much greater part (about £460k) of the overall project budget was allocated, following a review, to design and implement interventions to improve compliance. Compliance is something many posters on here seem to agree is desirable. And as we know, 20mph is a very popular policy among motorists and non motorists alike.
I’d think your support for the Mayor of London who is also arguing for increased Met Police budgets would be warmly welcomed.
I stand corrected and will alter to “£1.23M on various measures” - which include the clutter of signage, the insanity of road narrowing and the irritation of speed bumps (which cause eco-unfriendly slow-down / speed-ups, cause wear to suspension, discomfort to passengers, distract drivers and do not actually keep drivers at 20mph).
It’s easy to argue for increasing parts of budgets in isolation - when you’re not the one in charge of balancing the books. Khan’s hot air helps no one.
As mentioned previously, the surveys you quoted were not for borough-wide 20mph limits, and therefore this is a misleading statement.
We’ll soon have a better idea how popular the Lewisham borough limits are with drivers and non-drivers.
You may need to tweak your various mentions of “popular 20mph limits”
I believe main road speed limits in London are controlled by TfL . Residential roads (which the British Social Attitudes summary says are ‘not main roads’, I can’t be bothered to drill down further than that) are controlled by Lewisham, with the popular 20mph policy being part of it. Popular is a perfectly valid term because of the nationally recognised BSA data below, also because it was heavily trailed by the Lewisham candidates that have been elected on the 20mph ticket.
As an aside though I wonder what the under 18s think of this – no one seems to be asking them.
The BSA 2015 study says that ‘in 2015 68% were in favour of having 20 miles per hour speed limits in residential streets’. …
‘Around 73% of non-drivers were favourable towards having 20mph limits in residential streets compared to 66% of drivers’…
In 2016 they said it had hardly changed.
re the new SE23Life poll I’m all for the fun of it, but it is not research really is it.
How popular people think this is is not really the point. If there is a collision with a pedestrian then there is a greater likelihood of death if the impact is at a greater speed. This is due to basic physics. The level of enforcement is also a non-sequitur as this has not changed AFAICT.
Even if one believes that the speed limits have not changed any behaviour then this doesn’t change the basic facts.
So this all resolves down to whether some drivers would prefer to drive at a higher, illegal, speed and risk killing more pedestrians. Not very sociable is it?
Road safety is far more complicated than raw speed limits themselves, as described in the many posts above.
The post-implementation safety data from 20mph zones has been worrying and the idealism of 20mph limits is starting to show. I’m not arguing with the physics of impact between cars and pedestrians - but there is far more to consider here, and there are muitiple consequences of setting low speed limits.
These policies should be data-driven, not made in a simplistic and ideological way.
yes, and let’s not forget that this is not just about the easier things to measure such as road safety, accident frequency and severity. It is about making it more pleasant to live, work and play in our city.
Lewisham say
'Reducing traffic speed also helps people feel more confident about being on their local streets. This results in more children walking to school and elderly people feeling more able to travel independently and safely.
On the whole, calmer road speeds help to make walking and cycling more attractive leading to less traffic congestion, better health, less noise, more social interaction and stronger communities. ’
Please point me to what was ideological in my post? What I have posted relates to severity of accidents and how this correlates to speed. Slowing down saves lives. All other argument aside, this is sufficient as the sole justification required for the policy in my view.
You seem fixated on accident rates, in an ideological way I might add. As usual, you appear to decide on your stance and then find ‘sources’ to back it up - this is not ‘data-driven’ either.
Tea time. Grab a biscuit, this is a slightly longer post.
Let’s have a look at the claim often repeated on this thread that, in a poll, Tower Hamlets folk took strongly against their Borough 20mph limit. In a local paper headline in 2016 a local Councillor made the claim, that in a Council poll, “53% had disagreed with the speed restriction” to support his views on the issue and to demonstrate how unpopular the scheme is. The story was picked up by several other publications.
But is that true and, if so, how reliable is it as proof of the unpopularity of 20mph cross- Borough limits? To find out, we need to look for the research, which it turns out had only been very selectively quoted from.
Tower Hamlets 20mph review
Council papers from September 2016 look at an independent review of 12 months operation of their scheme. The Council concluded, on the basis of the review, that they would, with some tweaks, make their scheme permanent. Lots of interesting stuff there, but let’s keep the focus on that poll.
_“n internet survey of borough residents attracted over 900 replies and overall showed only 40% support for the limit compared to 53% disagreeing with it. The method was used because of its simplicity to implement and its low cost however it is important to understand the limitations of the survey.
_As it is selfselecting it can be expected to engage residents that have a particularly strong opinion one way or another. It is unlikely to engage those with no opinion or who do not feel particularly strongly either way. Such survey methodology tends therefore to exaggerate the negative opinion as motivation to respond on a self-selected basis is most often generated by negative concerns. _
_This survey method does not provide a representative sample of the population and it does not provide a safe basis upon which to conclude that the result is an accurate representation of the wider communities’ views. It does, however, give those who want to express a view the opportunity to do so and have it considered and it gives some limited indication of the strength of opinion of the group that engaged. _
With these significant caveats in mind it is evident that this result varies on a geographical basis, suggesting that the speed limit is more widely endorsed by those expressing an opinion in the north of the borough than in the south. Of the 900 replies, over 500 came from the E14 postcode area and showed 65% were against the limit. However, a lower level of responses in each of E1, E2 and E3 showed only 44%, 37% and 27% (respectively) of respondents disagreed with the limit.”
Not reliable
So not reliable evidence at all then; no explanation as to why such a disproportionate number of those polled lived in a very small section of the borough. That misleading headline in the local paper is still on the web but hey, the Councillor got his headline and that should play well with some target voters.
Responses in Tower Hamlets mirror very closely what happened on the recent SE23.Life Poll, where , entirely predictably, self selecting early responders tended to be those with a strong opinion against the limit.
And finally… A couple of wider general quotes from our neighbours in Tower Hamlets.
‘This report summarises the key findings of the review of the scheme, which are broadly positive.’
“By making the experimental traffic order permanent, it will provide road safety benefits to all residents of the borough, with particular positive impacts demonstrated for vulnerable road users including the elderly, young children, cyclists, pedestrians and mobility impaired people.”
“From an economic viewpoint, the costs associated with implementing the 20mph speed limit has brought benefits, and based on the analysis of ‘after’ casualty rates, the scheme has provided value for money.
Furthermore, a reduction in serious and fatal injuries has supported the safety benefits of introducing the scheme “
I look forward to a comparable review from Lewisham in due course. Thanks for listening; my tea has gone cold now.
Can I just ask, pro or against it doesnt matter, how will this 20mph limit be enforced (speed camera’s aside)?
Perhaps it is a matter of perspective but I’m not sure it is fair to characterize the APC as unenthused.
I’ve been rereading the linked article from Chris’ earlier post
As a non-driver, I’m not immediately aware of the measures in place to inform drivers of the 20mph speed limits. So it wasn’t long after reading the last clutch of posts I found myself on the top deck of the 185 heading towards East Dulwich and I purposefully looked for measures to inform drivers of the 20mph speed limit for anyone coming off the South Circular 30mph zone.
Frankly I was surprised at how well sign-posted the 20mph zones were. Most streets off the SC had well position 20mph signs uncluttered and unfettered by other road or direction notices. Often this was re-inforced by a road marking of a large white 20 circled in white. While walking later in the day I also noted that coming into the South Circular there were often signs noting the speed limit was changing to 30mph.
The APCO (now the National Police Chiefs Council) guidance from almost five years ago was…
It said that “routine enforcement” would only be employed “if the limit is regarded as appropriate given the prevailing road conditions in the area and clarity is offered to non-local drivers.”
I’m going to guess that we could debate what constitutes “appropriate given the prevailing road conditions” until the cows come home. But I would argue that there is more then sufficient clarity offered to non-local drivers. If drivers’ local or otherwise are missing these fairly significant visual clues then then police should be considering other forms of fines or prosecution.
I concede though that some drivers may “expect” a 20mph in a predominately residential street like Church Rise more than more heavily trafficed roads like Honor Oak Road or Brockley Rise. But even in those other instances, there appear to be some fairly obvious speed notices in the form of banners.
Frankly I like that the police have some flexibility in enforcing these speed limits. I gather in a 20mph zone they don’t necessarily consider fines until the speed registers at plus 10% plus 2mph so around 24mph. I also like that the police can chose an alternate course of action if they feel appropriate. Apparently when APCO issues their guidance almost five years’ ago there was not specific speed awareness course for 20mph zones. There now is through DriveTech which I believe is the service that drivers are referred to by the police.
The same way the previously enforced 30mph zones were?
You seen any police with speed guns recently? They have far more pressing matters to deal with.
So are the police not enforcing any speed limits regardless of level?
Not personally, but I know a man who has:
https://se23.life/uploads/default/original/2X/f/f94b9e32b97503a3b2d50a5b0cec4697fd3f63fe.JPG
I dont believe they were enforcing the 20mph limit unless there was a need in a particular area. The Met did say they were not going to enforce them when they initially came out. However, like many things if there is an accident black spot or a police incentive then I imagine you will see speed guns. My point is, there are not enough police to routinely have speed traps, Chris went on a citizen patrol which helps of course. Here in sunnny Norfolk, with lower crime rates, I routinely see both police and citizen speed traps. I am sure one of your local police will be able to give us an accurate picture.
Not wishing to be pedantic but the rather handsome chap is standing alongside a PCSO and not police.
What I liked about community roadwatch is that it helped avoid PC time being spent enforcing 20mph limits, and also it means only warning letters are sent and not actual fines. Fining people for driving at 24mph is just absurd, I’m sure most would agree.
this is what Tower Hamlets Met police said in consultation re their role in continuing their 20mph borough wide limit.
'As with all speed limits, if the site doesn’t look like or feel like the limit imposed then there will be larger scale offending and routine prosecution seen as inappropriate and quite simply over the top. It is for Tower Hamlets Council to appropriately sign and if necessary engineer a limit, leaving the police to target the persistent and deliberate offender, together achieving the very highest level of compliance and safety for other road users.
_ _
Beyond this, it should be pointed out that the nature of the TLRN roads, and of the traffic using these links, does make them suitable for average speed enforcement using fixed cameras. Clearly this would be a significant escalation in the use of camera enforcement, and would require a political will from both Tower Hamlets and TfL to achieve, although in terms of effective enforcement to encourage compliance, this would be by far the most effective solution.’
I see that discussion of the poll has been stopped on the poll thread, just when things were getting interesting. Of those who expressed an opinion for or against 52% are current against the 20mph limit and 48% were in favour of the borough-wide speed limit (no, I didn’t make up those percentages).
I still think a better measure of the views of drivers is to measure their speeds on roads like Southend Lane, Mayow Road, Sydenham Hill, Sydenham Rise, or Perry Vale (all roads with minimal traffic calming) - I think speeds of cars would suggest that most motorists prefer going above 30mph, even in the new 20mph zones.
Michael,are you seriously suggesting most motorists will want to drive at over 30mph? Sure, there are some idiots out there but most! Slightly sweeping generalisation or have I misunderstood your comment?
As a resident of Mayow Road, I’d exclude it from your list, @Michael. We have humps galore, many near islands which make mini-chicanes. For sure people do speed on our road, but you have to make a special effort to do so, really putting the foot down between traffic calming interventions. It’s not somewhere where the ‘average’ driver speeds, only those who are determined to ignore any speed restriction, at whatever level it is set.
I was thinking more about the Sydenham end rather than after Dacres Road.
When I drive on the roads mentioned I’m sure I see plenty of people driving slightly above 30mph, and occasionally well above 30 mph. If speeds on these roads have reduced in the last few years - without any traffic calming measures, then it would suggest that the 20mph zone have had an impact on adjusting driving speeds to below 30mph, but I’m not really sure that this is true.
Yes, interesting that comments were blocked very quickly after the poll ceased to provide ‘evidence’ that the 20mph limit is widely unpopular. I wonder why…
Never mind, I’m sure we can keep the discussion going here.
There are split humps the entire length of Mayow Road, starting at the Thorpes.
So do I. Why do you think it was stopped?
perhaps because inconveniently the poll (flawed as it was) did not provide support to the arguments of its originator that the limits are broadly unpopular, in the face of proper research evidence to the contrary.
But it was put up with a chance for anyone to vote. If you don’t like the results of this poll why don’t you start one of your own, then you can monitor it and keep abreast of the results. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
No more polls on this issue, please. Not just because it is divisive of the community and the commenters all steadily hardened their preexisting beliefs, but also because I have no self control and have to read the same point over and over again.
I think some kind of ‘whiteboard’ where arguments / mitigants can be displayed diagramatically and without duplication might help with this 
Well you see that is my issue. We had a poll, people voted and some dont like the outcome. Sound familiar. Perhaps we should take Nigel Farrages newest stance and run it all again until someone is happy with the result.
You misunderstand me. I am very interested in what people think but this poll is not a representative way to find out. Yet when it seemed largely anti it was held out as supporting evidence, then when it went broadly 50-50 the thread was closed. It is surprising that it ended up where it is though since in a self selecting poll of this nature researchers would expect the antis mainly drawn from drivers to dominate.
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).
It’s a small poll on a local web forum not Gallup poll, what did you expect?
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.
Had Chris or I posted this Rachael what would you have said to either of us?
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.
… or unpopular.
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.
The way people drive now is dangerous. Can’t decide if the 20s are a great idea.
The same idiots that drove dangerously before will just take more risks over taking now. Seen lots of it already.
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.
Buses around Epsom are limited to 26. Which is weird as some of the roads are 40.
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.
As predicted:
Sorry. Was the 20mph speed limit introduced to regulate buses and their timetables? I missed that.
As for buses and their fumes you should check out Mayor Khan’s new London Plan. Some great stuff in there.
You may have missed this post:
GIve it 10 Years and driving will be in the same league as Smoking and plastic straws, private car ownership as it is, is not sustainable
As London’s population rises - seemingly inevitably - from 8M to 10M, something has to give, for sure. Feels like congestion is getting exponentially worse.
The calamitous response of our council is to a) slow traffic down and b) narrow our congested roads.
I’m sure it all makes sense to those who view the situation as an ideological battleground between different modes of transport.
This sure is a soapbox issue to you isn’t it? I would counter that the only person who is ideologically obsessed on this is your good self.
Buses being limited to 20mph is a great idea as this will help keep general traffic speed down to a reasonable level. You will not be breathing so many fumes as these progressively become hybrid/electric and there are already some stop start types on the P4 route for instance (much nicer as a passenger too).
In terms of journey speed, this is much more about traffic flow than maximum speed of individuals. This is the sort of thing that is taught in foundation courses at Maths degree level (as of 30+ years ago in my case but probably at school now I imagine). But we have already been round this buoy and it doesn’t suit your conclusion so on we go.
I’m trying to avoid this being a personal dispute and I’d appreciate you doing the same, @Brett
Doesn’t that depend on one’s definition of “reasonable” speed?
I’m familiar with queueing effects. I’ve seen no convincing scientific evidence that artificially restricting drivers to 20mph improves traffic flow in Lewisham.
On the subject of queuing effects - how do you think speed humps, chicanes and other unpleasant road clutter might contribute to queuing effects? These are all being advocated alongside the 20mph signage.
To be fair Chris, that did not seem overly personal - your opposition to the limit is, not exclusively but quite clearly, ideological. And if you counted up, there are around 360 posts on this thread, I wonder how many of them are yours, and how many of those complain over and over again that the policy is unpopular, and ideological? You’ve made your point, but of course great social changes have come from ideology, some you’ll agree with some you won’t. The 20mph limits are a very popular social policy, as evidenced in this thread many times, and Lewisham people voted heavily for the candidates that promised to introduce them.
I do not criticise you in saying this - as one large scale study of attitudes found: -
˜there is a possible ideological opposition to 20mph with 30% of all drivers agreeing that *20mph is an example of the nanny state, but rather tellingly 65% of opponents of 20mph limits think this (over four times as many as supporters)’
If you read my posts you’ll see my concerns are mostly practical concerns, not ideological concerns. But in any case this shouldn’t be a personal dispute, so let’s stop making it one.
I had an experience whereby an entire community complained about the speed limits on two main roads. So a reduced speed limit was introduced and monitoring carried out to assess the speed of cars using said roads.
The results interestingly revealed that 85% of cars exceeding the limit belonged to local residents the highest recording belonging to the Chair of the Parish council and the vicars wife!
Similarly we had the same a good few years ago with cars driving the wrong way down Manor Mount. Complained and the police turned up. Most caught lived on Manor Mount. It seems people do sh*t on their own doorsteps.
Back to the 20 mph limits. It seems a lot like them, a lot dont, a lot feel safer with them but quite a lot dont because of pressure from those who want to go faster than 20mph. The police are not interested unless it’s an accident hotspot. So, I would surmise, it has been a well rounded and thought out scheme.
Not!
so what is the evidence to justify your spreading of this rumour? it sounds unlikely, but serious if it were true.
Not quite “legislation”. LA’s have powers to implement Traffic Management Orders (TMO) and these must describe and authorise specific restrictions or rules…
It is a simple matter to write to the relevant local authority and ask for data such as evidence of the TMO having been processed and on what date.
In a borough wide scheme it may require several TMO’s to be in place.
It is one of the standard techniques promoted by firms who represent drivers with speeding charges.
The absence of a corresponding TMO means that any restriction is not valid.
Thanks for this information. I may wrote to the council to get evidence of the TMOs. It will be a game-changer if we find out their limits aren’t binding.
May also explain why the Association of Chief Police officers was so skeptical about borough-wide limits.
Once you have confirmation of the presence or absence of an appropriate TMO, then there will be hard evidence that validates what so far is an anecdotal report of a discussion with an officer who for all we know may be commenting on rumours that they have in turn heard.
Any identification of a missing TMO will be subject of formal reporting by police to the relevant authority and it would be very remiss of that party not to take corrective action - particularly given the high-profile borough wide nature of this scheme.
And omissions have been found before.
Given that their publicised delivery schedule begins with a specific step for applying for Traffic Orders - I’d be amazed if was forgotten.
https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/transport/road-safety/Pages/20mph-borough-speed-limit.aspx
Is it possible they did apply but didn’t get a response, or a final, approved TMO?
And here is a starter for ten on 20mph TMO’s
https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/transport/road-safety/Pages/20mph-borough-speed-limit.aspx
A table in the middle of the link makes reference to Traffic order applications commencing in Mar 2016 and finishing in July 2016.
There is no evidence it was completed and from preliminary searches it would seem TMO’s are not so frequently published now.
My legislative knowledge is insufficient to comment on whether there is an obligation to publish.
Oops duplicating with @armadillo.
There is hard evidence from other matters where officers have not complied with or departed from their standard processes as exampled during the listing of the Bell Green gasometers…
here are public record of notice of two Lewisham 20mph traffic orders. Along with everyone else so far I don’t know what process apart from this publication needs to be followed to make 20mph enforceable.
I understand that some roads are actually too short to allow enforcement to take place. Presumably that would apply whatever the speed limit is.
The second traffic order refers to ‘to enable the Police to better enforce the 20 mph speed limit restrictions in Lewisham, by specifically identifying each length of street involved in the Order.’, so specifically to help the police in their enforcement.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2442985
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2756840
I’d speculate that the second order is something to do with this, from a well known pro 20mph web source.
‘In order for the police to enforce a limit then they require a clear distance for them to observe drivers and for drivers to see them. This may make certain sites less suitable for speed detection. Different measurement equipment are available. Whilst in the past some “radar” based speed detectors were not approved for use below 30mph, most forces have “laser” type devices that are fully approved for use at 20mph.’
Thanks for the links. Those look like records of proposals by Lewisham Council. In both documents the language of the clauses is very much “would be” rather than “is”.
I have raised an FoI to get the actual Traffic Order documents and their coverage over the borough.
But when driving you should always obey all traffic signs and road markings. How is Joe Blogs from Scunthorpe, down here on holiday, supposed to know that because of a technicality, the signed speed limit is unenforceable?
Its simple, the speed limit signs and road markings are there, anything other than obeying them is stupid.
Out of curiosity, would you say the same if Lewisham Council decides the limits will be 10mph tomorrow? Or 5mph?
How low would the limit have to be before you’d consider obeying the limit “stupid”?
I would find it highly amusing if speed checks were targetted to Lewisham councillors and perhaps even the Mayor!
Publication of the findings would be very interesting and possibly the quickest way to change the limits.
I recall there was a volunteer service to monitor speeds could a good location be near the council offices
Is this a suggestion that officials of the Council are more likely than others to speed or flout the speed limits? Why would one think they require more scrutiny as drivers? I wonder what our councillors like @CllrPaulUpex or @MajaHilton or @John_Paschoud would think of these suggestions?
FWIW I think “targeting” of automated speed enforcement would breach several MPS protocols, whether the targeting was at holders of elected office or any other personal characteristics - except perhaps an established history of speeding or other motoring offences. It would also be a waste of resources. Responsible drivers (including bus drivers) keeping to the limits will help to make them happen, by holding up the few who would like to drive dangerously faster.
My point is that the 20mph limit is unworkable without expensive monitoring and enforcement. It is also overkill especially on todays roads.Whilst I have no doubts that our public servants are responsible drivers, I do not believe they are faultless so a confirmation that ‘responsible’ people can fail may help in future decision making.
Doesn’t prove the not enforceable allegation one way or another, but perhaps worth noting that the second traffic order notice from 2017 refers to amending the first one, 2015 which it indicates as already being in force.
Bus drivers are not necessarily all good either. Some are, of course, but the whole of Hackney is also a 20mph zone, and I’m regularly on buses that are exceeding the speed limit.
I would hope that a council would not be stupid enough to try to implement a Borough wide speed limit of 5 or 10mph, without significant reasoning, but if they did, then I’d probably follow it.
and after a quick search, this is the public record showing that the traffic order was duly made and published by Lewisham. Unless anyone can say why this is not legitimate, it looks as though we do have a 20mph speed limit after all.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2791779
Looks conclusive - having examined it closely it leaves no doubt that a lawful statement has been made thus:
“1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Lewisham Borough Council on 22nd May 2017 made the above-mentioned Order under sections 84(1)(a) and (2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which will come into operation on 1st June 2017.”
This is unquestionable evidence of the validity of the 20 mph controls for all motor vehicles in the borough.
Note the the language and tense - “made” and not “would be”.
It leaves only one question - why would a knowledgeable officer speculate to a member of the public about whether the 20 mph controls are enforceable ?
Perhaps he was being mischievous - will we ever know ?.
I would appeal for people to be reasonable - don’t exceed twenty mph - it’s not as if you are being required to restore the man with the red flag walking a few paces in front of you.
Perhaps there are loopholes (of the “road too short for radar enforcement” type), or perhaps other subsequent TMOs that change the parameters? The documentation suggests two or three TMOs in the space of a few years - that we’re aware of
One or two interesting arguments here (note: an old forum topic):
Well there we all are.
We should be assured that this maxim now holds true:
“For all who will take up the loophole, will die by the loophole”
Let’s find out what the long-term DfT study reveals about area-wide 20mph limits. If, like in Bath and Manchester, they are linked to worse safety outcomes than the standard urban 30mph limit (and with a more statistically significant sample this time), then it will be our moral obligation to either reverse Lewisham’s 20mph project or find a loophole in it.
Apologies in advance for the slightly sarky response, but I’m still not convinced why the laws of physics need to wait for being confirmed by a DfT study.
The correlation between injury rates and speed being hit with is well studied and accepted around the globe. That being said, I’m in no doubt that a study could be crafted to prove exactly the opposite should this be the intention of the one asking the question, as is the case with everything.
I trust that there is a chance indeed that accidents actually rise if there is zero enforcement of the 20mph, as it may lead to increased levels of reckless driving. Reverting back to 30mph because of this would be a defeatist conclusion in my view.
There is of course the question about what is proportionate. I would argue that this should be answered from the viewpoint of the one being exposed to the risk rather than the one posing the risk. Where there are many pedestrians and not enough protected crossing facilities, 20mph is most likely to make a material difference to safety. Unfortunately, this situation applies to most roads in the borough regardless of how important they are to motored traffic. Even the South Circular is technically a residential road, as it has as many residents living and shopping either side as other roads, if not more. One could argue that an alternative to 20mph would be to make people to use pelican crossings only, “enforced” by fencing off all other areas where one might wish to cross. This is pretty much the solution adopted decades ago, although many London areas still suffer from the blight this has caused. The arrangements on the South Circular as a half-way house work, but not very well, and should really form the exception rather than the desired standard.
A further solution would have been to separate out trunk routes entirely from where people move on their feet, but we’re around seventy years late for this so the ship has sailed. Any attempt to rectify this now (anyone remembering Boris’s road tunnels under Central London?) is doomed for glorious failure.
I accept that if everyone drove more slowly, roads would be safer - although (crucially) it very much depends on how you engineer that situation.
Regarding the “well studied” point:
When 20mph limits were first envisaged, ROSPA told us that the risk of being fatally injured by a 30mph collision was 20%.
They later changed their mind and now tell us the risk is 8%.
What kind of research produces such wild margins of error?
But that aside, you suggest that it’s only “reckless drivers” in 20mph zones that lead to the poor accident records of those zones.
What about the many other factors mentioned in this topic? For example - in a 20mph zone with associated road clutter and limits that don’t match road types, drivers are forced to focus on speedos, humps, chicanes and cameras rather than pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. Wouldn’t this make a material impact on accident rates?
Was this a repeat of the research or just a re-analysis? If it was repeated it is plausible that advances in car design etc have reduced the risk of death. Likewise re-analysis could make sense if methods of figuring out the speed at which collisions occurred had improved. Agreed that other factors are clearly important too- affected sight lines due to street clutter being an obvious one of course.
The original ROSPA study was from 1979 and they later said it had “overestimated the risks”
It’s quite possible that improvements to car design are responsible.
Thus, reducing car speeds from 30mph to 20mph is now significantly less important than it was in the 70s.
So many expensive decisions made on the basis of bad science. Five minutes ago, diesel cars were good, this week they’re bad, who knows what next week will bring?
Has anyone measured the extra noise and air pollution caused by the 20 MPH limit?
Personally I would favour 25 MPH, as most cars are geared to manage a constant 25 in 3rd gear.
I suspect so, but isn’t this a separate issue to 20mph? In my view, roads should be designed in such a way that makes them intuitive to drive (and walk and cycle) on at the appropriate speed without even thinking about it. This takes time, money, foresight and will to implement.
Just to use one example, for all its bad press, the way one drives down Exhibition Road would have completely changed since it has been redesigned compared with before (i.e. much more carefully), without featuring any of the above, and probably even without a speed limit. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but other measures may be suitable elsewhere. Raised tables might be a more targeted solution than speed humps, cameras should be less visible (why should anyone care seeing them, it’s for them to see you), carriageways shouldn’t be any wider than necessary (because of perceived speed), and sight lines are really important. In fact, parked cars are one of the key risks, but we can’t do away with parking. When planners get the chance, they can come up with cracking solutions to transform road space to the better. 20mph was always only going to be a quick fix that is comparatively cheap, has immediate effect (at least in theory) and treats all parts of the borough the same way.
It cost £1.23M (of our money) and will take four years in total to implement.
It never was our money, it always belonged to the borough. And it is probably still cheaper and quicker than doing a Dartmouth Road type upgrade of at least every single shopping parade in the borough. That doesn’t mean that the way of spending shouldn’t be scrutinised, but I suspect that there have been similar expenditures in the past that had less of an impact.
9 posts were split to a new topic: Whose Money is the Borough’s Money?
To see general politics discussion on SE23.life, please join our “General Politics” group.
A post in response to @Forethugel’s suggestion of road management was merged into an existing topic: Proposal: Part-Pedestrianise Perry Vale
And improvements in medicine too.
Suspect that your suggestion of car design is th bigger one though. Car drivers and passengers now walk away from accidents that would have caused major injuries 30 years ago. Cars have better crumple zones and protection. They also feel safer to drive faster.
Speeding is a strange crime. Most crimes are around abnormal behaviours where the action generally is always right or wrong (e.g. assault)
We expect drivers to be competent at various speeds so it’s hardly surprising that we feel just as comfortable driving at 30 than 20 or 50 than 40. We just rebel that our judgement of conditions is better than some faceless bureaucrat however expert they claim to be. Speeding is seen as victim-less until something goes drastically wrong - at which point it’s unlikely to be the only factor. It feels similar to how drink driving used to be perceived . Although excessive speeding is seen like excessive drinking now, there are still discussions about what limits should be in both camps
@applespider very balanced and reasonable post.
The one thing I would say about comparisons to drink driving - many cars and vans want to drive at the standard urban limit (30mph) not for the thrill of it, but because they have economic functions to perform (ie tradesmen, delivery vans etc). A 20mph limit would, in theory, increase their journey time significantly, with knock on effects to their business, and to the rest of us who use those businesses.
This would surely only be the case if they avoided arterial routes (which are TfL-controlled red routes in most cases) and tried to stick to the secondary roads which would be limited. Nobody’s proposing making every road in the borough subject to a 20 limit, so those tradesmen wouldn’t see significant impact.
This is close to being an argument in favour of 20 limits since there would be more of an incentive to stay on the main roads (saving time). And therefore more of an incentive to keep those main roads moving (reducing pollution).
If the average speed is currently 13 mph, that’s below the 20mph limit, so on average, you’ll be going at the same speed, lower than the limit. it’s only at odd times of day (3am) when the roads are empty, where the limit would make a difference.
And here we have from last week a positive report from Bristol following a UWE study of over 36m vehicle journeys over 2.5 years.
Key findings include:
The study estimates that between four and five people every year who would otherwise have been killed are still alive today, because the 20mph was brought in.
The report estimates the total number of in juries avoided across the city each year is 4.54 fatal, 11.3 serious injuries and 159.3 slight injuries.
The average speed has reduced on 100 of 106 roads. This includes a statistically significant reduction of 2.7mph on average.
This has brought an estimated savings to the local authority of £15,256,309 every year.year is 4.53 fatal, 11.3 serious injuries and 159.3 slight injuries.
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristols-20mph-saved-lives-should-1205025
Full report here.
Bristol will shortly undertake their own study and it will be interesting to hear of its results.
I can’t see any sign that this was a controlled experiment? That is, comparing the fall in accidents in 30mph zones with the fall in accidents in 20mph zones in the same city over the same time window?
It’s interesting how much has been made of this report in the media, given that the report itself qualifies its own findings as follows:
…
… so their extrapolated casualty reduction figures seem overstated.
And here is a key side-effect of the 20mph zone, whose negative consequences may be evident outside of the zone:
Has the 20mph zone encouraged people to ditch their cars, as the council hoped? Nope.
Sorry to any “20’s Plenty” lobbyists that I remain a voice of skepticism - but IMO it’s always good to explore both sides of an argument.
And 20mph zones have plenty of practical drawbacks that must be weighed against any potential safety benefits.
You all keep banging on about the 20 mph limit, it may be right, it may be wrong but I still dont understand how it is going to be effectively enforced.
In reply to @Londondrz post here.
And some thoughts on the matter were discussed before.
You know, I should be flagging this, as you would, but it really is not worth it
Ditto! Starman, as you helpfully pointed out there was a solution, I believe you referred to a photo of Chris with a speed gun. That’s your solution. Really!
If you want to have a debate then do so but accusing me of “stirring” when all I have done is ask how the 20 mph limit will be enforced is stretching it. Why, when I pose a question am I “stirring” but anyone else who poses the same question is merely “expressing an opinion”? What do you hope to gain? I thought you were better than that.
In light of your response I will immediately withdraw the post with my apology…
I interpreted your post as being light-hearted and there was absolutely no intention to be accusatorial.
Thank you for that.
My post, and the original, are not light hearted. Apart from Chris with a speed gun, how do you enforce it. Fixed cameras and mobile cameras are an option but costly. The police have bigger fish to fry so what do we do. Be it 30 mph or 20 mph there are still the 1% of the population that do not care and will drive as they like. How do you legislate and enforce them?
I was of the same opinion. I thought this was a rare moment of levity in an often over-heated discussion. I’ll adjust my reply appropriately.
I didn’t.
A pragmatic view is that for the majority of times when speed in London is at an average of circa 13mph it is de facto self-policing.
Where I live on Perry Hill there is a bend at which vehicles travelling over 25mph in non-rush-hour traffic frequently get into trouble and spin-out - peppering parked cars and garden walls with collision damage.
A side effect of the intro of the 20mph limit has seen a reduction to virtually zero incidents.
Why people chose to argue how is 20 mph to be policed when there was minimum to zero policing of the 30 mph is specious. The old regime was related to very occasional multi-purpose camera vans and even rarer speed traps ergo why is that regime somehow deemed unsatisfactory for the new 20 mph restriction.
And yes, volunteers being asked to man speed guns…
Do you have a source for that statistic, please? Or is it just anecdotal?
Again, source?
Wouldn’t we expect police to be more willing to police a 30mph limit and spend their valuable time prosecuting genuine bad drivers speeding at 40mph, rather than harmless individuals travelling barely faster than a bicycle?
Knowing you would ask this Chris - my follow up is based on my day-today observation of incidents. Good solid evidence based observation - and certainly not anecdotal.
Something that we have touched on before - your persistence in asking for sources has been noted.
On this occasion if you wish to challenge my evidence with any counter-evidence, the data for any given period is published approx 12-to 18 months afterwards. Happy to give you the opportunity to argue your case when you obtain those statistics.
Wouldn’t you expect a reasonable debate to be conducted in context where hard observational evidence is respected.
If you can find contrary evidence to my observations it can be scrutinised.
Last I checked there are no published statistics on the frequency of execution of speed checks. Or for prosecution of speeding drivers.
Do you have a source for that please?
You selectively circle the part that you think supports your case. Unfortunately it is preceded by the phrase “(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable”.
Is it your intention to infer that my account is untrue ?
No, actually. When debating something like this, it’s simply unscientific to use personal anecdotes - especially when the source has evidenced a non-neutral stance in the matter.
Observational evidence based data is about as scientific as it can get.
I do not understand your closing words
Sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_performance
The police have been asked by Lewisham to enforce against drivers travelling above 24mph (10% above limit + 2mph)
The police are usually their own determinant in setting policy and thresholds.
As you have made the statement you will be able to enlighten the board as to who is empowered to ask the police.
Or is this in the “policeman told me” category. Something that when you deployed it before was completely debunked by @ThorNogson
The council. Via the Traffic Management Order that I’m still waiting to receive evidence of, via my FOI request.
The 10%+2mph is the guideline of the ACPO, although the ACPO have also been critical of blanket 20mph limits and do not recommend enforcement.
It’s not necessary reliable in this case, unless you can prove you stood watch at the site 24/7 and collected data which could be independently verified.
The published Traffic Management Order, which is the instrument whereby the action is made is present at the link provided by @ThorNogson
There is no mention of the council setting prosecution limits.
Do you think your FOI will bring forward a different document ?
You are so right about the 24/7 thing.
What gives it all away is the collateral damage that I and my neighbours endure.Clear, hard incontrovertible evidence.
Ah. I didn’t get that the bicycle riders you were comparing your harmless individuals to were the ones on racing bicycles getting an optimum top speed performance on flat terrain. Personally I would have thought the average cyclist in London would be using utility bikes and perhaps the average cycling speed was more comparable to the something like cyclists in Copenhagen.
For cyclists in Copenhagen, the average cycling speed is 15.5 km/h (9.6 mph).
I would think using stats for average cyclists to compare with average motorists would be more useful, don’t you? Or was your original quote more anecdotal?
My quote was about calls for drivers to be enforced against for travelling faster than a bicycle. A bicycle rider of average fitness is easily able to attain 25mph. Drivers would be enforced against for travelling at 25mph if the 20mph scheme were enforced.
Not interested in pedantry or side discussions about Copenhagen, sorry.
How is that to be applied to this thread ?
Well isn’t this jolly!
Can I call on all sides to take 5 on this and come back with a cuppa and biscuits and a positive attitude.
For future reference the average speed of cyclists in London is usually quoted somewhere around 22 km/h or about 13.5 mp/h. I’ve seen more than one source in the past but for now this bit of work from cycling app Strava should be good enough as an unbiased source.
And yes, I’ll give it to you. A few cyclists can achieve top speeds when they wish which can surpass the 20 mp/h and probably even then 30 mp/h speed limits in Lewisham. I bet even a roller blader on a down hill with a wind behind them could as well.
Not interested in pedantry or side discussions about Copenhagen, sorry.
But if your concerned about anecdotal evidence backed up by robust statistics then you should be interested in this.
I’m off for tea and biscuits now too.
Thanks everyone for your contributions to this thread, it’s been a great and at times passionate debate. As the thread has started to drift away from specific SE23 related matters we’re going to put it to rest for now. We’ll leave the thread up of course for anyone who wants to read it but for now, mind the doors please…
