Earl Aelfheah

@Rockets TfL included a cost/benefit analysis showing positive returns in their Strategic Business case for what’s called the ‘Lowering Speed Limits programme’. I believe the benefit / cost ratio was 7.63:1. There’s plenty of post implementation monitoring data and analysis also. But does it matter? I’ve never once seen you honestly engage with a piece of road safety data or research. We all know the standard pattern. You lazily state something as true providing no evidence at all and when the data is signposted, you’ll just ignore nearly all of it, to cherry pick anything that tenuously aligns with what you want to believe. And again, the 20mph limit wasn't designed as a money saving measure, but as an investment in road safety. It’s been extremely successful, saving many lives. If you want to argue that it’s a poor investment, then it’s really up to you to firstly explain how much you think it is worth spending to save a life, show your ‘alternative’ cost benefit calculation, and then explain what a better, more cost effective intervention would be. I have never heard you do anything but argue against every proven road safety measure that’s been implemented in London- so genuinely interested if you have anything constructive to add?

So just to be clear; This thread is about the stretch of road running along Peckham Rye Park near Piermont green. Neither the 20mph limits in London nor Wales were designed to save money (although they may do long term), but as investments in road safety. If you want to argue that 20mph limits in London cost a lot of money, then you need to point to your evidence and ideally put a figure on it. If you believe, having demonstrated that cost, it is a poor investment in terms of the number of lives saved, then you really ought to say how much each life is worth in your mind, and what a better, more cost effective intervention would be.

How is it that you think traffic is slowed more by a 20mph limit in a built up area where there is congestion, than it is in a less densely populated area with higher average speeds? That’s just nonsensical. There is actually some evidence that, since average speeds in London are well below 20mph owing to congestion and junctions, traffic can flow more freely at 20mph. This is due to reduced braking distances (enabling drivers to leave a smaller gap to the vehicle in front) and increased junction capacity (as drivers are able to pull into slower traffic more easily). There is no evidence that I’ve seen that 20mph limits in London cost the economy anything. There is quite a lot that the significant reduction in collisions, injuries and deaths saves money. But regardless, the argument is more of an ethical one than an economic one. Why should more people give their lives so that a handful of individuals can accelerate and brake more aggressively toward the back of the same line of traffic?

Clearly it’s not made you think. The impact on journey times in a densely populated area where the roads are not free flowing, is obviously, considerably less. In Wales (less densely populated) the average journey time was estimated to be less than one minute slower…Not one minute per mile, less than one minute in total. In London the difference between travelling at a max of 20 and a max of 30 is mainly one of how hard you’re accelerating and breaking as you travel towards the back of the same line of traffic. On average, I would guess the difference to one’s overall journey time is close to zero* - Whilst the impact on stopping distances and on pollution is not. *In fact there is some evidence that lower, more consistent speeds, may improve traffic flow in built up areas, reducing overall journey times (when adhered to).

With the possible exception of the south circular, I can’t personally think of a road in Southwark where a 30mph limit would make any difference to your overall journey time. The thread btw, was about Peckham Rye, by piermont green, which has very visible speed cameras and a very clear and appropriate 20 speed limit. Driving at 30 round here (which just means accelerating and breaking harder), is absolutely pointless, increases your stopping distance considerably, increases pollution, and makes it more likely you’ll hurt someone else.

As Malumbu says, the comparison between densely populated London and Wales is obviously ridiculous. But worth noting that even in the Welsh government’s initial impact assessment, those figures you quote were based on the average journey being one minute longer. The method for monetising these small delays is under some debate. The large savings from significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths, less so. In central and inner London, moving slightly more quickly towards a line of vehicles / set of lights, makes little to no difference to overall journey times. It is untrue that a cyclist who has caused a death through collision cannot face legal recourse because of the existing legislative framework. And you were explicitly arguing for 20mph limits on those travelling by bicycle. Now you’re arguing against 20mph limits for those travelling by car, van or HGV. …whilst accusing people of being ‘ideologically driven’.

@rockets 20mph has saved lives. It makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey times. So what exactly is the argument against? And why did you have no issue with it when you were arguing for the same rules to apply to people using a pedal bicycle? It wouldn’t be ‘ideological’ would it?

Rockets, who’s argued for 20mph speed limits when people are travelling by bicycle (which would involve a whole new system of registration and licensing and changes to primary legislation), is against those same speed limits for cars? 🤔 Yeh, nothing ideological there. 20mph has saved lives. It makes almost no discernible difference to overall journey times. So what exactly is the argument against?

The South Circular is an edge case. It's possibly the one street where you might make a reasonable case for 30 mph. But for the vast majority of borough roads 20 mph has minimal, if any, impact on overall journey times, and has been shown to save lives, so not sure why anyone would object. And the thread wasn't about the South Circular, but driving alongside Peckham Rye Park, where at 30 you're just moving slightly faster towards the back of the next line of cars or of lights.

I thought we were talking about the speed cameras on Peckham Rye near Piermont Green?

The speed cameras there are really obvious. The speed limit is clear. The limit isn't arbitrary, it's an evidence based intervention that has saved lives. Stopping distance increases by approximately 11 metres when increasing speed from 20 mph to 30 mph, and risk of a pedestrian being killed is approximately five times higher if hit. That road runs alongside a park and driving faster towards the end of a line of stopped traffic achieves absolutely nothing. A 20 mph limit does very little to slow down your overall journey It's a fair cop. I see little point in complaining about getting fined for doing something you know is subject to a fine.

But what's the point of accelerating towards the next line of cars or set of lights? It doesn't actually speed up your overall journey in any material sense. It just makes it more likely you'll hit someone and more likely you'll injure them if you do.

Powerful new long-term TfL research shows 20mph speed limits save lives on London’s roads It is also unlikely that 20mph speed limits make much difference to overall journey times in a built up area like London. If you increase your speed, you're mainly just racing towards the same set of lights you would have been sat at had you proceeded a little slower.

There is the Blue Brick Cafe for vegetarian food too.

I originally meant Kensington Olympia (my bad), but updated that to say West Brompton, which is closer to the hospital. ...although Dulwich Dwellers suggestion may be better (345 from Clapham Junction)

Think it's still going. Saturday, 8 November this year, 17:00 – 20:00

Wow, that looks really serious. I hope no one has been hurt.

It amazes me how little outrage there actually is. The US is very clearly, and very quickly falling into autocracy. And as noted above, there are an alarming number in the UK who appear to support the direction the US is taking.

It doesn't surprise me. This is what press offices do (kindly, one might call it spin). It's why you should take newspaper stories and press releases (from not just the mayor, but anyone) with a pinch of salt and look to good (ideally peer-reviewed, academic) sources. I agree that it's disappointing, but also seems to be fairly standard PR behaviour.

The 200 years figure is nonsense reporting. From what I can tell, it's based on this paragraph in the research: They've taken the highest possible estimate (193 years) based on trends for NO2 between 2010-16 continuing without interruption and being projected out. Needless to say this is sensational / disingenuous reporting by Forbes, not a fault of the research (in which the figure is contextualised properly). Regardless, it’s clear the ULEZ has had a hugely positive impact.

That may be true. It obviously varies according to time of day, location etc. But objective counts regularly put the number at around 16-17%, or 1 in 6. We could fall down a rabbit hole discussing the exact percentage however, it's not really the point. The point is that it's too high and we need to do something about it that is proportionate and actually improves safety. I'm not really interested in rules for rules sake, but I am interested in improving safety, especially for those impacted by others bad behaviour. I think this is why interventions like the Idaho stop rules would help. As well as putting pressure on companies like Lime to review the incentives they create with their charging models. Ultimately though, I do think it needs a degree of perspective. People travelling by bicycle are far, far less likely to seriously injure others. The more people who cycle, rather than drive, the safer our roads get. Reading the multiple discussions across this section and in the right wing media, one might be forgiven for thinking that the opposite is true (or as the article shared, hysterically declares: "cyclists are waging war on pedestrians"), which is misleading and unhelpful.

@tedfudge No one is doubting that cyclists are far more likely to jump red lights than cars (for one thing they have far more opportunity to than a full width vehicle). Not sure about 58% figure though. TFL, as well as the article that started this thread, both suggest it's around 16%. Constantly posting evidence that people on bicycles are sometimes involved in collisions, or that they can break the rules of the road, isn't adding much. Neither fact is disputed. Placing it in context however, describing the relative impact, is obviously important if you're interested in proportionate and appropriate interventions.

You mean the types of tricks used in an article with the headline "How cyclists are waging war on pedestrians", described here: ...or the ones where you have used misleading data, and conjecture, to paint an entirely false picture of both crime and collision rates locally?

The Mayor deserves credit for pushing ahead with ULEZ in the face of some pretty hysterical opposition, including in the right wing press. It took political courage to stick the course and it's had a hugely positive impact. He's also done a lot to improve road safety, again in the face of some strong opposition from similar quarters. Many politicians would have wobbled and perhaps reversed direction. It shows real leadership to do what's right and not just what's easy.

Yes, you're right, South Ken isn't accessible. You could get off at West Brompton which is step free? So Windrush line from Denmark Hill to Clapham Junction, change train (it's on the same platform) and go two stops to West Brompton. From there you can take the 430 bus the short distance to the hospital.