Rockets

@snowy maybe go back and re-read what I posted…..you have conveniently ignored what happened in 2021….why might that be? I am sure you believe you are an excellent driver @malumbu but only if everyone drives that will does a reduction to 20mph has a positive impact on pollution levels (according to TFL and Imperial College). A lot of people do not so what does that do to claims made by Southwark that 20mph reduces pollution? Probably renders if meaningless….. One backed up by data that shows that is indeed the case…it doesn’t take a genius to work out why. Only few posts back you were claiming I was questioning your “expertise” because you said the police set the speed limit and I challenged you that they did not. I am glad you have acknowledged that your expertise didn’t quite extend to that fact and that it is the local traffic authority (TFL and Southwark where we live) sets the speed. And you fail to address the point that by the definition within the Highway Code it is a 20mph road and it is one of London’s key arterial routes that was developed as such. There are many ruins where it is more than one lane in each direction. According to the Highway Code 30mph is an appropriate speed limit. Let’s back up a bit @Earl Aelfheah as you are doing your usual trick of putting words into people’s mouths again. Please try to get your facts right, I am, saying that a more pragmatic approach is needed rather than a blanket 20mph…..which no more than a few posts back you also seemed to agree with…. Hang on, no more than few posts ago @Sue was claiming 30mph is 50% faster than 20mph….yet you claim it has no discernible difference to journey times. Which one is it?

Well @Sue I answered the first part addressing the "more people will walk and cycle if the speed limit is 20 mph" in my previous messages. TFL has actually addressed the claim around pollution by saying there is no difference in No2 pollution at 20mph but that if cars are driven in a "smoother" way at 20mph there may be a reduction in particulate matter. I think we all see cars being driven less smoothly as they accelerate and brake between speed cameras. Collisions, yes of course reducing speeds reduces the risk of accidents but most accidents happen at junctions and the A205, in the main, has junctions controlled by traffic lights. This is why that statement by Southwark is so flawed, much of what they claim does not pass the scrutiny test, it is a collection of ideological soundbites they know they can throw out and their supporters will throw around as fact. On this thread alone there have been two very clear examples of people making claims that are just nonsense (claims that police set the speed limit in the area and claims that 30mph on the Westway was because of ageing infrastructure). And this is the point, a pragmatic approach would say roads like the A205 should remain 30 mph, but the pragmatic approach is not the one taken. I ask you again, do you consider 30mph on a A-road like the A205 to be too fast or as you refer "speeding".

Because often those measures are not brought in pragmatically. The A205 being 20mph is one of those, the Westway elevated section being 30mph is another. I very often cycle to West London and I would never want to cycle along the A4 no matter what speed it was - that's me being pragmatic. I often see people trying to and I often think that is being driven by ideology or stupidity - or a dangerous combination of both! I have been doing that journey far longer than the 20mph blanket measures were brought in and the route I chose to go those measures have made zero difference because the route I use is wonderfully quiet and always has been. Do you really think the A205 should be 20mph? It's one of London's most important arterial routes and is the very definition of a 30mph road in the Highway Code. Surely you can put your ideology aside and use your traffic management expertise to acknowledge that?

Do you consider 30mph to be the definition of a speeding car? As I was saying....ideological claptrap. The blanket rollout of 20mph by councils like Southwark was driven by an anti-car ideology and was not at all pragmatic. I think some in the active travel lobby would refer to it as a "nudge technique"...

Err @Sue how on earth does reducing speeds to 20mph encourage more cycling and walking exactly...do vars drivers suddenly say...oh, I can only go 20mph perhaps I will walk instead....ideological claptrap...

@snowy have we touched a raw nerve..you've gone very defensive...?;-) Maybe you are not aware but TFL started rolling-out 20mph on London roads in....2020..... Absolute nonsense. The 30mph was applied in 2020 as a temporary order whilst joints were replaced and then once the work was completed TFL made it permanent under their "Lowering Speeds Programme" in 2021 to "reduce road dnager". Are there any exceptions in, says Lambeth or Southwark...? Seemingly not....and the justification from Southwark for the blanket 20mph reads like it is far more ideological than pragmatic....would you not agree? Southwark believes that a borough wide 20mph speed limit is the most cost effective method to reduce collisions, encourage more sustainable forms of travel such as walking and cycling and help improve air quality.

And this is the point - by not taking a pragmatic approach those rolling out these plans tend to highlight themselves as being driven by ideology rather than common-sense - the A205 and many similar A-roads under TFL's stewardship are perfect examples, the A40 elevated section another and the whole of Wales was another.....and all it goes to do is turn people against all of the measures and people then look on them all ideologically rather than pragmatically!!! ;-).

@malumbu the south circular is the very definition of an urban road and it has street lights so, by the Highway Code, that is a 30mph road. It's only in Wales and parts of London that it is a 20mph road and that's because the local traffic authority (TFL and Southwark council), not the police, decided to set the speed limit as thus. Some would suggest that these decisions were driven by political, ideological and revenue-generation reasons. Absolutely. But often those doing things for ideological reasons leave pragmatism behind....;-)

I agree the folks at Finches are lovely and this is such a blow to them I really hope they can recover.

@malumbu do you consider yourself as one of the "many of you" - you're a driver as well aren't you - with, by your own admission, quite a rap-sheet of driving misdemeanours ? You rally against a culture war but you use the language of someone trying to catalyse one.

Fire and police have closed Gallery Road near the junction with Burbage as there is a lot of water due to another burst main this morning.

The point is I asked who sets the speed limits and you said the police and I challenged you on that and then you suggested I was questioning your "expertise" by asking that question. But, in fact, it is the local traffic authority who sets the speed limit and not the police. So I was right to ask the question wasn't I because what you were saying was wrong?

Well, who said I was questioning your expertise? But are you sure, the very same Google search will tell you it is local traffic authorities that set the speed limit. Who are the local traffic authorities in Southwark; TFL for major roads; Southwark council for local roads. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/setting-local-speed-limits/setting-local-speed-limits

Who sets the 20mph speed limit - it's not the police is it but the local authority isn't it? Drive from Southwark into Bromley and the speed limit changes from 20mph to 30mph.

There clearly isn't one but this is a well trodden path that some of us, me included, have been on the receiving end of previously. Some people have been warned about this in the past but, seemingly, never learn.......

Errr, ever such a knee-jerk response there @malumbu...I am not sure that referring to someone as expressionless is a hate crime - you're making a huge leap with that one and they didn't say they didn't like their facial features - what they are actually being critical of is the lack of use of their facial features.....;-)!

I very much suspect the visitors are not trying to get about London on a daily basis! I agree 20mph makes sense in some places but not all places and the blanket approach is not a smart one. I tend to agree with those who suggest the placement of some cameras in London suggest revenue generation is the paramount objective rather than road safety. I know it is not 20mph but 30 mph limit on the elevated dual carriageway section of the Westway is an utter joke and has nothing to do with road safety but is probably raking in the money - probably from the very visitors to the city who happen to have the misfortune to drive in that way and don't understand the trap that has been set for them!

It is particularly bad again at the moment and we are ring-fenced by endless roadworks. Gridlock around the A205 near the stables too because of roadworks. It's getting ridiculous - Lordship Lane was backed up around Goose Green and beyond this morning seemingly because the resurfacing machine was still parked and was creating a huge pinch point.

@Earl Aelfheah I agree but not just nonsense reporting - is anyone not concerned that the Mayor's office has then repeated this claim as part of their press release - is no-one in the Mayor's office doing any fact checking? This is utterly, utterly misleading and the Mayor has put his name to it and has been amplifying it. https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted

@malumbu the 200 years comment from Carlton's article seems to be about the combined Nox and No2 and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) Carlton wrote: London does not meet legal limits for noxious gases and sooty particles and, at the current rate of improvement, the city won’t achieve international “clean air” standards for another 193 years. Then when I looked at the report and I cannot find where is calls out 193 years for No2 specifically - there is a line but it is not clear in what context it is being used. Interestingly, and as an aside, the research points to the proliferation of motorbikes and mopeds as one of the reasons London air quality was not falling as quickly as in Paris. All I found was this within the report and it is not clear whether the 193 year comment is in relation to NO2 alone or the combined NO2 and PM: Trends in NOX, NO2 and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) for 2005–2016 in background and roadside locations; and trends in traffic increments were calculated in both cities to address their impact. Trends in traffic counts and the distribution in Euro standards for diesel vehicles were also evaluated. Linear-mixed effect models were built to determine the main determinants of traffic concentrations. There was an overall increase in roadside NO2 in 2005–2009 in both cities followed by a decrease of ∼5% year−1 from 2010. Downward trends were associated with the introduction of Euro V heavy vehicles. Despite NO2 decreasing, at current rates, roads will need 20 (Paris) and 193 years (London) to achieve the European Limit Value (40 μg m−3 annual mean). Am I missing something?

Ha ha @malumbu these sentences are just brilliantly Alan Patridge! 😉 Bravo!

Yeah the usual suspects are trying their usual tricks....the numbers are there to see and are taken from STATS19 so good that there is finally some data sources showing the scale of the problem and now the bar has been set for further comparisons on whether the problem is getting better or worse.

And he's done this 200 years early...wow he is a miracle worker! Anyone got the figures for how PM2 is doing in comparison because surely that must have seen similar progress....or was this not just of the mayor's doing....;-)

Clearly cycles do not pose the biggest threat to pedestrians - no-one is arguing that but you have to agree that cycles do pose the biggest growing threat to pedestrians would you not? Is there another category of road user that saw a 20% year-on-year jump on causing injuries to pedestrians? After all, this is a thread about red light jumping cyclists yet you have, once again, tried to make it all about cars...... Maybe put your obsession with cars to one side for a minute, take a step back and ask whether a 20% year on year increase is acceptable or whether the cycle lobby is actually acknowledging the problem exists. When I read some posts on this thread I cannot help but believe what the person who lost his wife to a cyclist said is true: "These laws are being passed despite years of fierce opposition from a tiny yet increasingly militant and ideological cycling lobby which was determined to ignore the growing number of cycling collisions on our roads” It is so enlightening when you read the long term threads on this forum that for a long time many accuse anyone who says that cyclists are beginning to pose a real problem as imagining it or, seemingly not visiting regularly enough to be able to say if there are regular incidents (I suspect some of us visit those cycle danger hotspots a lot more than some of your folks posting from further afield) and when stats do turn up showing there is an increasing problem the conversation gets diverted to those issues relative to the issues posed by cars. Why are so many of you afraid to actually acknowledge there is a problem - the longer you turn a blind-eye to it the worse the problem gets and more draconian the controls put in place to control it are likely to be.

Only if those cyclists are not hitting pedestrians which, increasingly, they are - 20% year on year increase..... It was two lines actually and you missed out probably the most important one in context of the 24 times stat... However, ten years ago the gap was far greater with 43 times more pedestrians injured by cars than bicycles. So what do you conclude from that - most people will conclude that drivers are posing a decreasing risk to pedestrians whilst cyclists are posing an increasing risk. And don't suggest I am trying to minimise anything: let me make this very clear that no injury to anyone should be accepted by there are two clear paths here: one is getting better whilst one is getting worse. Ahem......meanwhile (well a couple of years ago) in the Guardian.... Cyclists, welcome, you have just become the latest target in the culture wars by Peter Walker..... .https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/17/cyclists-grant-shapps-culture-wars