Careful in Lewisham’s 20mph zone - Speeding fines increase 24 Apr 2017

Be careful in our 20mph zones - the fines are now quite punitive:

• Band A – This refers to the lowest level of speeding. For example, you could be driving at between 21mph and 30mph in a 20mph zone, 31mph to 40mph in a 30mph zone, or 71mph to 90mph on a 70mph road. You can expect 3 points on your licence, and a fine of around 50% of your weekly income
• Band B – This is for more serious cases of speeding. If you’re in a 20mph zone and you drive at 31mph to 40mph, or in a 40mph zone at 56mph to 65mph, or up to 100mph in a 70mph, that’ll be a Band B fine. That means 4 to 6 points on your licence, or disqualification for between 7 and 28 days, plus a fine of 100% of your weekly income.
• Band C – This is for the most egregious speeding. If you’re doing 41mph or above in a 20mph zone, 51mph or above in a 30mph zone, or above 100mph in a 70mph zone, that’s a Band C fine. That means 6 points on your licence or disqualification for between 7 and 56 days, as well as a fine of 150% of your weekly income

Whose weekly income? Mine or household?

The offender’s.

My weekly income is zero.

You would still get fined. So don’t bother painting racing stripes on your Figaro.

Interesting. So when the owner of a vehicle gets a automatic fine from a box, the household can decide who claims the fine as driver in order to minimise the potential fine.

And risk jail for perjury and obstruction of justice, yes. Absolutely.

For many I wonder where that will fall on the decision making ladder. Chris Hune and Vicky Price for instance.

A bad decision to take the blame became a terrible decision when she told someone else. Not a happy episode at all.

OK, 20mph is nuts, typical over-reaction, and it’s crazy…but I agree with you Cazimo, just as crazy is the peer pressure of other drivers…especially if you are clearly a girl, driving in a car that is clearly girl-like design (plus with flower stickers on the boot put on by previous owner to cover dents). My car draws certain kinds of drivers like wasps to a pub lunch on a sunny day dining al fresco… how they hate a girl driving sloooowly. So I’m now looking more in my rear view mirror than straight ahead, so as not to piddle off the drivers behind me. The pressure is enormous from car drivers making me feel like an a-hole driving at the speed limit because I cannot risk the points and the fines.

Does anyone get prosecuted for speeding in town other than via fixed speed cameras? I certainly rarely hear of it, and just don’t think it’s a priority for the Met.

Just to give you some idea what it is like in the Shires. Limit here is 60 mph with 30 mph through villages. People bomb around at around 70 mph but stick rigidly to 30 mph in the villages. The reason why, there are always either police speed checks or local speed checks. Saw 2 cars getting stopped last week in our local village by police. With the new fines it is just not worth exceeding the 30 mph limit in villages.

However, been here two weeks and seen a police speed check. Sixteen years in FH and saw one. Different priorities for different forces.

To be honest, there probably isn’t much else for the cops to do where you live, now - especially now they’re not allowed to give naughty boys a clip round the ear.

If you use Twitter, give this account a follow, it is where most of the figures and operation details are shared.
In answer to your question, yes, and there has been a recent crackdown (before the increase)

https://twitter.com/MPSRTPC

20 mph is by no means nuts. A very high percentage of pedestrians and cyclists hit by cars driving at 20 mph survive. By 30 mph and above that declines dramatically. Drivers need to learn to share urban space with other users.

Some drivers are downright reckless and need to be curbed (but speed is a crude measure by which to judge bad driving).

Pedestrians also bear responsibility for road safety too.

Punitive speed limits on all drivers? Is that really the solution here?

Surely we should set speed limits that balance the needs of drivers, congestion, the environment, business, and many other concerns, one of which is pedestrian safety?

I keep hearing arguments that suggest pedestrian safety is the only factor worth considering. If that were true, why not ban all cars? And whilst we’re at it, ban running too - God forbid someone might fall and graze their knee.

Chris. I would not for a moment argue that cars should be banned in cities, although I would like to see more pedestrian streets in the centre of London – a separate issue. As a cyclist and as a pedestrian I witness too much crazy driving from a minority of drivers. Take Sydenham Rise – a few drivers going the wrong way round the bollards halfway down the road either to overtake another car or a cyclist. Even more frightening are the few who enter at speed into Sydenham Rise from Sydenham Hill on the wrong side of the bollards. Anyone car or mother and child in a pram coming from Little Browning would naturally look right checking the direction of traffic not left. A tragedy in the making – all for a few seconds gained that will most likely be lost at the traffic lights.

No matter how seemingly ethical they are, 20mph limits will only exacerbate this problem in practice.

Not at all. It is just not acceptable that some drivers drive so recklessly. No one should be driving at close on 40 mph in residential streets. Given the current level of traffic allied to the volume of parking 20 mph is a perfectly acceptable speed on residential streets, especially given the survival rates I have already mentioned. Furthermore, without banning cars, if we could more pleasant make walking and cycling more pleasant and safer there would be very big health benefits.

Healthy? Didn’t someone quote figures before on this here which showed that levels of pollution are higher when cars at being driven at 20 mph rather than 30?

I agree with Chris - the 20 limit (doubtless unintentionally) causes much more visible anti-social behaviour in drivers.

There’s a point to be made about collision outcomes. Cyclists hit by drivers coming too close are one thing, but for pedestrians whose survival rates are changed, why are they being hit by cars, anyway? Isn’t there some education needed on safe road crossing?

We are drifting (at about 20 mph) off-topic.

Greater emissions at 20 mph? Please see:

An evaluation of the
estimated impacts on vehicle
emissions of a 20mph speed
restriction in central London

‘Section 5 detailed the development of London-speci
fic 20mph and 30mph drive cycles for use with
instantaneous emissions databases. The effects of
a 20mph speed restriction on were shown to be
mixed, with particular benefit seen for emissions
of particulate matter and for diesel vehicles. The
methodology was validated by consideration of
real-world tailpipe emissions test data. It was
therefore concluded that air quality is unlikely to be made worse as a result of 20mph speed limits
on streets in London. This analysis is suitable for per-vehicle emission rates, and does not consider
secondary effects such as congestion.’ (page 66).

‘I agree with Chris - the 20 limit (doubtless unintentionally) causes much more visible anti-social behaviour in drivers.’

On this argument no speed restrictions should result in considerate and careful driving by all drivers and no anti-social behaviour.

Doubtless there are times that pedestrians should take more care crossing a road but don’t forget that, for instance, elderly people’s sight may be poor and they may well unable to move quickly. I hope the new level of fines will persuade those impatient and selfish motorists to drive with greater care and to respect speed limits and that means at 20 mph in most of Lewisham.

Think Rachael is right here.

Any objections to me splitting off the posts which are debating the limits in general? I’d propose making a new topic, “The 20mph Debate - 2017 Edition,” which linked to the old debate, and to this one.

Personally I think the two topics are so interlinked youll never have one without the other. Leave it.

That’s a straw man, isn’t it? My own view (based on experience) is that the danger is increased for other drivers. Saying that, it’s probably better for pedestrians.

Happy to accept your data about little difference between 20 and 30 on the basis that the source looks good. Good point.

No, someone just said it.

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/news/20mph-roads-emissions.html

Matching one biased source with another for balance.

http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/drivers/speed/20mph-zones-and-limits/

I’ve been to a briefing on London road infrastructure where TfL advised the Mayor’s plan (current and past) to convert automobile journets to other modes of transport. They estimate as much as 4/5ths of private car journeys are unnecessary and simply put London’s roads are already at full capacity. Less car journeys less missions. Higher co2 compensated for. The suggestion that beyond road safety the 20mph which the Mayor’s office supports is part if an overall strategy to significanty change the mix of transport modes. I’ll try to find my notes and share with you. It was fascinating.

Genuine question. Any physicists/chemists here? A litre of unleaded weighs less than a litre of water. In rough figures call it 0.75kg.

So how does 0.75kg of unleaded produce three times its own mass - 2.36kg - of CO2?

It takes 5,000-20,000 litres of water to produce 1kg of meat.

I guess the fuel statistic took into account the whole lifecycle?

??? That’s MORE water producing LESS meat - which makes sense. How does less become more?

The production and transportation of petrol produces CO2.

Ah. Yes, I see what you mean, now. That’s not how I read the data but I guess that could be the answer.

“The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that is produced from burning a fuel weighs more than the amount of the fuel itself, because during complete combustion, each carbon atom in the fuel combines with two oxygen atoms in the air to make CO2. The addition of two oxygen atoms to each carbon atom forms CO2, which has an atomic weight of 44—roughly 3.6667 times the atomic weight of the carbon, which is 12.”

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=82&t=11

Got it! Thank you! So it’s the combination of the mass of the petrol and some quantity of mass of air in which it combusts that produces ‘more’ CO2.

Thanks, @Foresthillnick!!

Phew guys what’s that in sweetie weight, gases etc

In other words, the only changes are likely to apply to the worst offenders and only then when they land in court?

In other news: Telegraph newspaper guilty of click-bait headlines… (see OP)

20 mph is just a joke if I put my car in 4th gear take my feet off the accelerator my car will do 27mph the roads are for everyone but in saying that we all have a duty of road safety pedestrians need to cross in the right place not just walk out in between parked cars cyclists need to obey the highway code and hopefully the roads will be a safe place for everyone

Sounds like your car is in urgent need of a mechanic or taken off the road.

I think the blanket introduction of a 20mph across all roads in the borough, excluding the TFL roads is the issue. I have no problem with our narrow, residential streets being 20mph - when there’s only room for one car due to parking 30mph does seem excessive. But to roll this out on roads such as Perry Hill, Sydenham Hill etc just leads to driver frustration and ultimately people ignoring the limits.

Not really the case. Most cars will keep themselves idling at about 800-1200rpm, if you slowly release the clutch on a manual car, it will increase the speed to maintain engine speed, therefore accelerate. I do the same with my BMW when in traffic.

I totally agree that cyclists need to sort themselves out. As a keen cyclist myself, I now find myself shouting soft abuse at riders who ignore signs, lights etc.
Everyone “sharing” the roads needs to do their bit.

Spot on! There are some roads where it is painfully ridiculous to maintain the speed, even on a pushbike! And it does indeed make it more dangerous, especially when one frustrated driver makes a manic overtake. No they should not be doing that, but they are, and it puts others at risk.

This is a cultural perception IMO. A bit like 55mph on a wide US freeway. It only feels painful as you are not used to it.

The State wants to change cultural perception. Don’t resist. You’ll get used to it after a while.

20mph is doubleplusplenty.

I would disagree slightly on that. 55mph was imposed due to dangerous road surfaces, and stays mainly only in place where roads are poor and unsuitable for higher speeds. Certainly in Florida and Georgia.

I am used to travelling at low speeds on London roads, who isn’t. But there is a logical time and place for lower limits, and they are not every road in the borough. The irony is, the red routes which remain 30mph in most places are sometimes more dangerous and risky to pedestrians and other road users, than those roads the limit has been dropped on.

Then add to that the poor roll out of the limit, and the remaining flaws in the rules, such as the flashing matrix outside Brockley Cemetery which still flashes “SLOW 30”

I thought the American 55mph limit came in after the 1970s oil crisis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Yes, correct. It is called a speed limit. The State imposes it via the law.

Straight out of Politicos more like which is where statements like that belong I thought.

I’ve tried to whip this thread into shape before but to no avail.

It started as an information post with regard to the new fine scheme. General discussion about how the 20mph rule affects our lives locally is one thing. But we are veering into more general political discussion now.

Can you all pick up your chairs and shuffle off into Politicos now? Ta.

Yeah shut up with ya political rubbish, I’m trying to moan here!!

George Orwell was a genius and a total visionary for having imagined a dystopian world in which most people have their own motor vehicles and are compelled by Big Brother to drive them at a very moderate speed.

It’s okay, @RachaelDunlop, I was just leaving…

Edit: Er, sorry, I think I hit the wrong ‘reply’ button there, @Brett.

I thought it was to make us all criminals and slow down London so we all make less money and waste more time on the congested roads. Whilst also making the constantly delayed trains look better value for the overpriced tickets.

Maybe I was wrong?

Does it? I’d like to see if a 20mph limit actually slows down significantly a driver’s ability to get from A to B. With congestion hot spots, traffic lights, and traffic calming efforts do you actually get to where you want to go that much faster if you’re driving at 30mph?

I honestly don’t know. If there isn’t much of a difference as I would anticipate then why not drive at a slower speed which is safer for other road users?

This reminds me of the time, on arriving in the City passing a traffic light at green, that a trucker friend showed how if you stick exactly at the speed limit, you then sail through to the other side with every signal at green. Of course, this relies on no other stoppages but does demonstrate how the roads are designed this way and that going faster does not actually save any time, in fact can just cause more stopping en route.

Yes purely anecdotal but it does reinforce @starman’s proposition.

It’s 20mph in most of Hackney now too, and there are still people who drive too quickly and overtake dangerously. I’ve even seen bus drivers going at 30, surely they should be told about new 20mph zones, and surely they have telematics in cab which monitor speed, and could give automatic fines for speeding based on that data?! There’s absolutely no excuse for a bus to be breaking the speed limit.

I was tempted to whip out the mobile and track my last bus ride on Strava because the driver was dick and was doing way over 20 - probably over 30 - but got a call and then got off the bus.

The same sort of arse that sits right behind you riding in the bus lane, then overtakes and pulls in immediately at a bus stop? I know them SO well.

I don’t have any issues with making a whole bunch of roads 20mph, ALL residential roads for a start. But Brockley Rise, Stondon Park, Brockley Road… seriously? And that is just a single example. I did wonder if the off peak bus timetables would be rewritten to allow for the decrease in permitted speed. Have yet to look into this further.

The average speed in London is a very awkward thing to calculate, as it is based on hot spots, and not entire journeys. Also an average speed is very different to the speeds you are permitted to travel at on a clearer road. “making up time” is the phrase most used.

The ability to drive at a predetermined speed along a long road in London and hit all greens in pretty much a thing of the past. With junctions and roads lights being controlled by various bodies, and each having a specific aim. Not to mention the junctions controlled by TfL which are frequently adjusted depending on traffic volumes and flow.

At the end of the day, the roads are a nightmare. They will never be “safe”. The sooner people take responsibility for their own actions, and take more care, the safer each person will travel. Cycling, I am torn between my #1 enemy. Pedestrians can be ignorant and bloody dangerous, crossing where they please and with no care of the dangers around them. Distracted drivers are another, but can usually be spotted with ease. But malicious drivers who don’t wish you to pass them while stuck in traffic, they are appalling, and drive all manner of vehicles.

Anyway, I digress from the 20mph limit. IMO, it is too wide spread, especially for roads which move large volumes of traffic. There are always going to be people pushing the limits, so I fear that as we get used to slower moving traffic, there is less awareness of the dangers that roads pose.

My feeling is that overall our society has become too car-centric. I have noticed that car drivers generally behave as if they should have right of way. What makes a car driver’s journey more important than a pedestrian’s? There seems to be something that happens to many people (not everyone!) when they get in a car that makes them determined to get everywhere as quickly as possible and park as close as possible, with disregard for the safety of others.

So I do find the 20mph limit frustrating at times, I can also understand the reasoning for it.

I’m often surprised how quickly some drivers want to get to the next red light.

@Daffodil and @starman - have you considered that our many local traffic “calming” measures and punitive speed limits might have the unwanted side-effect of making drivers agitated, more impatient, and more aggressive?

Maybe off topic but the south circular should be moved , it was created as a avoidance of London but London has grown and it is not fit for purpose anymore, any other country in Europe would have done that ages ago and the EU paid for it, it should be at least tunnelled at some points like forest hill or Catford , apply for grant while the uk is still in the EU

If drivers are unable to control their emotions over perceived annoyances then they shouldn’t be on the road.

If councils fail to consider the side-effects of obvious irritants on human beings, they shouldn’t be responsible for road infrastructure.

Imagining that all drivers will always be (or should always be) unflappable machines is idealistic and naive.

Agreed re south circular but re funding, one of the richest parts of the EU is unlikely to get a grant for this. Most counties in Europe fund this sort of thing via capital expenditure themselves. The local councils do not have access to the sums required, only central government can do that here currently.

That is definitely another topic and one worth starting a discussion on, if you are interested. I suspect there are people here with a wealth of knowledge about what has been proposed over the years and what has been deemed feasible and not.

Straw man

Fair point. Have edited “emotionless” to “unflappable”

In my (ahem) safer driving course following a speeding misdemeanour I learnt that in a 20mph zone driving in 2nd was a good way to ensure your car doesn’t run away with you and they made the point that you drive the car, not the other way round. In a 30 zone driving in 3rd, same principle. Fuel use differences in modern cars were said to be negligible. Doesn’t stop idiots tailgating you, but it is perfectly possible to drive at the limit- if you make that your choice.

I don’t doubt 2nd gear would help keep us at slower speeds, but is it advisible at 20mph?

http://www.drivingtesttips.biz/when-to-change-gear.html

My only issue when driving with the new 20mph limit in London was I spent more time checking my speed than looking at the road. Not a good thing to be doing.

Interesting to see that advice. Try it though. On a speedbumped road , think Cranston or Sunderland it works fine in my small car without unduly high revving but probably varies according to what car you drive.

Agreed, my Volvo is a pain to drive at 20mph as it is not happy in second and chugs along in third.

I suspect that if you hit some of the speed bumps on Sunderland Road doing 20mph in a lot of cars, you’ll be on here shortly afterwards looking for details for a reasonably-priced garage to repair your car.