kford

Probably because it's a low-budget short, not an ad or feature where the rates are ?1000-2.5k.

The citymapper app has lots of options. And takes into consideration delays.

Loz's route by TfL is best. 50mins. Or cycle, 35 mins. Or motorcycle, 27 mins.

Drive to suit the conditions. Eyes on the road, not on your dials. And not on your phone please, like the Zip-car driver I encountered today tootling along at the state-approved 20mph, on the blower, who drove straight across the zebra crossing on ED Grove while I was on it.

See dulwichfox's post on the other 20mph thread

If they didn't flash, you're fine. I suspect they're still set for 34-36mph.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be so simple to produce vehicles which > were restricted to the speed limit with the use of > technology. And it doesn't have to report on your > driving to insures / employers etc, in order to > restrict your speed. There is no good reason why > new cars shouldn't include technology to prevent > speeding - but the truth is, people wouldn't > accept it.. because they like to have the freedom > to drive fast. And still people will use their phones, pull out without looking, drink and drive, drive tired - the real causes of collisions - but because they're doing 20mph, they'll consider themselves officially 'safe'.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would be so simple to produce vehicles which > were restricted to the speed limit with the use of > technology. And it doesn't have to report on your > driving to insures / employers etc, in order to > restrict your speed. There is no good reason why > new cars shouldn't include technology to prevent > speeding - but the truth is, people wouldn't > accept it.. because they like to have the freedom > to drive fast. Lorries have been speed restricted for years, yet the seem to be crashing more: http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/media/21-10-2013-lorry-fatalities-research

Fair point

But they won't happen at all if the primary causes are addressed.

I'll repeat my fear that this looks like nothing more than a hey-we're-doing-something distraction from the real causes of fatalities and injuries in the borough. I'd be interested to see the statistics for causes of collisions in Southwark. I'll wager they reflect the national average: Failed to look properly 35% Failed to judge other person's path or speed 18.9% Careless, reckless or in a hurry 16.2% Loss of control 14.7% Poor turn or manoeuvre 14.1% Travelling too fast for the conditions 10.2% Slippery road due to weather 10.1% Pedestrian failed to look properly 7.2% Sudden braking 7.2% Following too close 6.7% Which would suggest that a campaign to get people to pay attention - to think - would have more effect. I'd much rather those posters say 'PUT YOUR PHONE DOWN', especially as I was nearly knocked off yesterday by a girl in Ford Ka who was texting (she was driving under 20mph, so she probably thought she was 'safe') And most London fatalities are caused by (usually female) cyclist + tipper truck + roundabout/junction - a sub-20mph collision. Address this first.

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > mako Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > lowlander, why do you presume that kford drives > at > > 35-37 in a 30 just because his car isnt suited > to > > driving at 20mph? > > Because he has trouble driving at 20? > > My car protest violently coming down a hill in 2nd > gear but is quite happy going up. It depends on > the gradient. I didn't say I had trouble, I can easily drive at 20, and do on side roads without noticing. On main roads, it creeps up to 25+ because that's what suits and that's what I'll continue to do.

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.