kford

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > But one does, David, I tried it last night. You > > soon creep up to 25-27, especially in an auto > with > > a quiet engine. I'd rather my concentration be > > spent on looking out for danger, don't you? > > And I presume in 30 mph zones you drive around 35 > - 37??? No, I drive to suit the conditions. Actually, I noted that that's around 18-22mph on the side roads of ED, including the likes of Bellenden Rd and the shopping bit of LL (when there's no traffic). On the south circular last night, it was 30. And I still had an Addison Lee MPV right on my tailpipe trying to overtake.

But one does, David, I tried it last night. You soon creep up to 25-27, especially in an auto with a quiet engine. I'd rather my concentration be spent on looking out for danger, don't you?

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

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's a massive distraction from the real causes > of > > accidents - inattention, from motorists on the > > sodding phone, fiddling with sat-navs, not > using > > mirrors or simply not looking where they're > going. > > > > > > It's these drivers who nearly have me off my > > pushbike or motorbike almost every day. > > > > And the DoT's figures will back this up. > > Being a driver who is fully in support of a > blanket 20mph limit, would love to see those > figures?if they exist? > > Really I've yet to see a solid argument > against...might as well oppose the drink driving > laws because "some people will drive pi$$ed > anyway" Here you go, it's been common knowledge for ages: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19746515

It's a massive distraction from the real causes of accidents - inattention, from motorists on the sodding phone, fiddling with sat-navs, not using mirrors or simply not looking where they're going. It's these drivers who nearly have me off my pushbike or motorbike almost every day. And the DoT's figures will back this up.

They are not speed cameras. They're traffic monitoring cameras, to observe driving habits at key locations, such as junctions or traffic lights, that's why there's a pair at the top of Dog Kennel Hill. They're used to improve road layout. See the photo attached of one in Grimsby.

Is it a speed camera? There are traffic counting cameras at the top of that road on Champion Hill (grey CCTV-like cameras on temporary poles). It's unlikely to be a yellow speed camera as it wouldn't make enough money to cover its running costs.

Lights wouldn't have stopped this accident. You'd still have a cyclist (mostly female for some reason) on the inside of a tipper truck, the most common road death scenario in London at the moment. If anything, a green light would give the driver presumed priority. London needs fewer sets of lights, and more eye-contact based solutions, like humped zebra crossings.

+

RRR, I always look at the pedestrians, like many other road users, yet there's often someone who sees the flashing green man and thinks 'all clear' and dashes out from nowhere. Especially in central London where there are tourists just see green for go. It's a flawed design.

There is a fundamental problem with pelican crossings in that the green man and flashing amber activate at the same time, so you get impatient drivers trying to get away and you get impatient pedestrians entering the crossing when they should stay put. The Highway Code says that the flashing green man means 'Pedestrians should not start to cross if the green man is flashing'. But they do, as green means 'go'. Far better to do away with both and have a flashing RED man and no flashing amber, just go straight to green, like in Australia. I bet there are dozens of accidents caused by this poor design and interpretation of the rules.

A locked-off section at the top of this forum, just for public notices affecting SE22/21/15, would be a good start

The ambiguous parking question was a shocker. Talk about leading the witness.

These old railway cottages are lovely. They're definitely worth keeping.

It's not a limit, it's an ambition and a reminder to slow down. Taken in that context, it's a good thing. No-one will be pulled up by the police, no cameras will be set to catch drivers doing 23mph (not yet, anyway). It's a shame we're not metric, because 40kph (25mph) is a much more useable, and yet safe speed.

I think speed humps and a no-right-turn onto ED Road. Someone set up a consultation.

Houses in Shawbury are different to the pic.

I'd say it's Lytcott Grove, going by the detail on the door lintels, which resemble those on nearby Melbourne Grove. It was flattened by a V1.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This only incentivises people bringing their cars > into the area from outside at a time when it's > practically at breaking point. It took me 20m to > find a space within 6 streets of my house today - > we need a CPZ as soon as humanly possible. Just a > one hour restriction in the middle of the day is > required, nothing more. It works absolutely > everywhere else in London and I don't believe the > circumstances of ED are so utterly unique so as to > buck that fact. I've lived in CPzs all over London and they don't work. You'll still be looking for a spot, except now you'll be paying through the nose for it.

I agree Penguin, the questions are far too simplistic - an hour is better than 30 mins, but not better if the restriction now applies on a Saturday; and it's certainly not better than unrestricted, especially in the case of LL.

This is the thin end of a CPZ wedge. Resist at all costs.

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kford Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The solution is to create uncertainty and > > encourage eye contact between motorists and > > pedestrians. > > > > This is the essence of the matter. As a pedestrian > I need to be woken up at this junction and as a > driver I need to be made uncertain. The problem is > that as a pedestrian I am so used to being > molly-coddled in LL that I just walk without > thinking. As a driver the absence of control is > tacitly taken as an invitation to go forward > blithely. > > Rationally, this really is a problem induced by > too much regulation - but the only practical > answer we can collectively imagine is more > regulation. That is a one way street. What in fact > is the evidence of accident incidence in those > European towns that have abolished all road > markings together with the difference between > roads and pavements? Indeed. I've suggested on here that the simple removal of white lines on roads like Barry Road will reduce speeds without the need for unproven, intrusive and eye-wateringly expensive SPECS cameras or clumsy back-shuddering humps.

The traffic lights have caused a problem. They create a false sense of priority when green and encourage rat-running across the junction when red. This didn't happen before, and I speak as someone who has motorcycled, driven, cycled and walked across this bit of road every day for 10 years. The solution is to create uncertainty and encourage eye contact between motorists and pedestrians. So: Lose the lights. Build a table-top raised junction across LL and the end of EDG to slow traffic down. ZEBRA crossings where the Pelican crossing is, and across the mouth of EDG. A half box-junction on the EDG side of LL. Enforce with a box junction camera if you must, like TfL does in town.

It was covered - the cover blew off

1982 Lancia Gamma Coupe. Worth about ?5-7k with the tyres pumped up.